3 ms·

How is that a problem with github rather than STRmix? Would you accuse Bank of America if they refused to open somebody's vault?

Closi 5y ago
Agreed - the headline is misleading. The article states that it would actually be illegal for GitHub to release the data.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > The article states that it would actually be illegal I might be misreading but doesn't it state a much less strong position of "GitHub and California courts are sticking by tech companies’ traditional hardline interpretation of an arcane 1986 privacy law" - they believe it to be illegal but it may not necessarily be the case because, as they continue, "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself".
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    It's impossible for GitHub to infringe on the defendant's rights. The court is infringing on their rights by convicting of a crime when there is a reasonable doubt.
  - Closi 5y ago
    Calling the law "Arcane" doesn't change the fact it's federal law (Arcane is hyperbole anyway). You don't get to not follow laws just because they are a little old. Also you can call it a "hardline interpretation", but that probably means it's following the text. Companies are supposed to take a "traditional" interpretation anyway legally, although typically this is referred to as "precedent"! If we remove the words "Hardline", "Interpretation", "Traditional" and "Arcane" which are all hyperbole, the statement actually would read "GitHub and California courts are sticking by a 1986 privacy law" - which of course they would, they are legally required to. > "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself". This is just saying that arguably by not breaking one law, they were possibly breaking another law - and in this case the courts need to move.
iudqnolq 5y ago
Yes, actually. There's a process that a defendant can go through to convince a judge they should be able to get information from a third party. Tech companies argue there's a special loophole that exempts them.
solarkraft 5y ago
This is exactly the right question. And the answer is yes, if they are legally obliged to do so (i.e. enforcing a court order). But there doesn’t seem to be an easy answer here. It’s not a simple technology or moral issue, it seems to be a somewhat complicated legal dispute, in case GitHub has a legal case to defend their stance (which I can’t judge). That aside I wonder why exactly they’re going after GitHub instead of just going after the company directly, which should also be legally obliged to provide the code, i.e. why go after the bank if you have legal leverage over the guy with the key?

Closi 5y ago

Agreed - the headline is misleading. The article states that it would actually be illegal for GitHub to release the data.

zimpenfish 5y ago
> The article states that it would actually be illegal I might be misreading but doesn't it state a much less strong position of "GitHub and California courts are sticking by tech companies’ traditional hardline interpretation of an arcane 1986 privacy law" - they believe it to be illegal but it may not necessarily be the case because, as they continue, "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself".
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  It's impossible for GitHub to infringe on the defendant's rights. The court is infringing on their rights by convicting of a crime when there is a reasonable doubt.
- Closi 5y ago
  Calling the law "Arcane" doesn't change the fact it's federal law (Arcane is hyperbole anyway). You don't get to not follow laws just because they are a little old. Also you can call it a "hardline interpretation", but that probably means it's following the text. Companies are supposed to take a "traditional" interpretation anyway legally, although typically this is referred to as "precedent"! If we remove the words "Hardline", "Interpretation", "Traditional" and "Arcane" which are all hyperbole, the statement actually would read "GitHub and California courts are sticking by a 1986 privacy law" - which of course they would, they are legally required to. > "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself". This is just saying that arguably by not breaking one law, they were possibly breaking another law - and in this case the courts need to move.

iudqnolq 5y ago

Yes, actually. There's a process that a defendant can go through to convince a judge they should be able to get information from a third party. Tech companies argue there's a special loophole that exempts them.

solarkraft 5y ago

This is exactly the right question. And the answer is yes, if they are legally obliged to do so (i.e. enforcing a court order). But there doesn’t seem to be an easy answer here. It’s not a simple technology or moral issue, it seems to be a somewhat complicated legal dispute, in case GitHub has a legal case to defend their stance (which I can’t judge). That aside I wonder why exactly they’re going after GitHub instead of just going after the company directly, which should also be legally obliged to provide the code, i.e. why go after the bank if you have legal leverage over the guy with the key?