4 ms·
Legitimate requests from law enforcement should go through proper channels. Performing a “raid” in an attempt to gain access to data not on site (and potentiall
by stonegray 4y ago
Legitimate requests from law enforcement should go through proper channels. Performing a “raid” in an attempt to gain access to data not on site (and potentially out of scope/jurisdiction) feels somehow improper to me.
A kill switch should be standard operating procedure in the event that armed persons enter secured areas unexpectedly. Ideally, the human factor should be avoided too; this makes a good argument for tamper-sensitive systems, anti-forensics, etc.
- bogantech 4y agoA raid was performed so they could try to get in before Uber destroyed all the evidence, which was proven when they did just that
- stonegray 4y agoMy understanding is they disabled access to data that was stored in the US, and their intent to "ensure due process rights are respected in the event of an extrajudicial raid" seems reasonable to me. Uber's lawyers say that no data was deleted and can still be obtained by law enforcement. If I was pulled over and had my car searched by police, I would not expect them to use my keys to then search my home without due process. If I felt that was a risk, I think changing my locks is entirely reasonable, as it doesn't prevent a legitimate search warrant. I see this as hijacking a companies computers to export confidential data they were not otherwise entitled to from a foreign country.
- bogantech 4y agoThat argument might hold water if they didn't also move all paper documentation off-site when they were tipped off that a raid was going to happen.