5 ms·

The ties to government are a red herring. Hacking into people’s private phones and computer systems is generally immoral and illegal. It generally continues to

The ties to government are a red herring. Hacking into people’s private phones and computer systems is generally immoral and illegal. It generally continues to be immoral and illegal when governments do it. Except it also becomes more outrageous, because governments are supposed to protect us from this sort of thing.

franga2000 3y ago
I don't see why the government doing it would make it more outrageous. If democratically elected leaders pass a law outlining when and how the cops should be able to access private devices, a judge looks over a specific case and signs a warrant, the cops use a hacking tool to catch a terrorist and the evidence is presented in court, this seems like the most excusable use of hacking tools that I can think of. The government is given power over people in order to protect us from other people and this is one tool to do it. They have cops with guns and soldiers with tanks, they can break in, search and seize, they can lock people in prison. All of these things are tools and it's they way they're used that decides what's immoral or outrageous. The bigger problem here is that a private company has these tools and can use and sell then with no oversight.
- goodluckchuck 3y ago
  It does if we grant the two the same assumptions. If we assume that serious, unjustified harm would occur by failing to act, and they are in a reasonable position to act… then I’d say a private company is equally justified in doing the same thing. However, you’re assuming the government is justified merely because it’s the government.
  - nverno 3y ago
    Maybe it depends on the country, but private companies cant generally get warrants to infringe on people's rights afaik. If justified is interpreted as 'legally justified', then it would make sense that only government agents could be justified to act in this manner. Of course, government agents are known to operate outside the law as well.
    - goodluckchuck 3y ago
      I wouldn’t assume that private companies and individuals cannot get warrants. However, they look very different. The major distinction is that when a private party requests an injunction allowing them to e.g. trespass on their neighbor’s land, the court will require notice and a hearing for the defendant. So, if a chemical plant needs to do earth works on a neighbor’s land to prevent a collapse, etc. the judiciary may well issue an order requiring the neighbor to let the company enter. Frankly, notice and hearing should probably be required for some criminal warrants too. I can think of a few indictments and arrest warrants that have recently been issued where there is a genuine question as to probable cause and the alleged illegality of the conduct. It’s not fair for people who are not a flight risk to be arrested (and often imprisoned) with no opportunity to defend themselves.
      - nverno 3y ago
        yea, the justice system is quite the misnomer way too often
  - internetter 3y ago
    Do you think private companies should be allowed to, say, arrest people?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Private companies aren't, but in certain circumstances private citizens working for those companies are. In the US (except perhaps Georgia?) if a crazy guy comes into your workplace waving a knife around, you're allowed to disarm him and pin him down on the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_Stat...
    - goodluckchuck 3y ago
      Depending on the circumstances, absolutely. Assuming that serious unjustified injury or death would occur if they failed to act, there should be some legal window in which they’re allowed to prevent the harm. Private companies (and individuals) should not be required to stand by helplessly while people are hurt. Indeed, legally, private individuals and companies are allowed to act in emergencies. For example, I generally should not break into my neighbor’s home. However, I am legally allowed (and morally obligated) to forcibly enter their residence if their house is on fire, or they’re being attacked by a burglar, etc. and I am able to prevent some of the harm. Of course, if we assume we’re talking about situations where the government needs a warrant, the legality becomes more complicated. At what point does something become an emergency? I would say it’s not an emergency if there is time to inform the government and to let the government prevent the injury. If we assume the government is unwilling or unable to act, then the window for action should expand by some measure.
      - comprev 3y ago
        You mean something like citizen's arrest? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
        goodluckchuck 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 3y ago
Devil's advocate: we have a reasonable expectation that governments using due process to obtain warrants for criminal investigations have a right to break and enter into digital property or wiretap to catch and prosecute malefactors. How far do you really expect any tech outfit to vet the legitimacy of the warrants issued?
- acdha 3y ago
  How about the legitimacy of the government? Most of the abuses are governments which have a long history of abusing their power and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that entire countries should not be trusted with sales.
  - lr4444lr 3y ago
    Legitimacy based on what? Recongition by the UN? Lots of governments even predating the UN have been long accused of rights abuses. How many people affected, and proven so by what basis constitutes infractions beyond moral right to be trusted by NSO. I'm asking people to really grapple with this.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Imagine if, say, there was a law saying they could only sell to countries scoring 85 or better: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores My point being that there’s precedent for restrictions - we don’t sell nukes to anyone, and the companies which make advanced weapons systems have to get things like ITAR approvals. What would be especially powerful would be revocation: if a country is found abusing their access to this tool, they are blocked from purchases of any sort for a decade. Unfortunately, given Israel’s current politics it’s extremely unlikely that anything would happen since there’s no way to write a policy which would continue to allow their own usage.
yard2010 3y ago
Also, it is not "backed" by the government, more like under regulated in a convenient way. It's a gray area.

franga2000 3y ago

I don't see why the government doing it would make it more outrageous. If democratically elected leaders pass a law outlining when and how the cops should be able to access private devices, a judge looks over a specific case and signs a warrant, the cops use a hacking tool to catch a terrorist and the evidence is presented in court, this seems like the most excusable use of hacking tools that I can think of. The government is given power over people in order to protect us from other people and this is one tool to do it. They have cops with guns and soldiers with tanks, they can break in, search and seize, they can lock people in prison. All of these things are tools and it's they way they're used that decides what's immoral or outrageous. The bigger problem here is that a private company has these tools and can use and sell then with no oversight.

goodluckchuck 3y ago
It does if we grant the two the same assumptions. If we assume that serious, unjustified harm would occur by failing to act, and they are in a reasonable position to act… then I’d say a private company is equally justified in doing the same thing. However, you’re assuming the government is justified merely because it’s the government.
- nverno 3y ago
  Maybe it depends on the country, but private companies cant generally get warrants to infringe on people's rights afaik. If justified is interpreted as 'legally justified', then it would make sense that only government agents could be justified to act in this manner. Of course, government agents are known to operate outside the law as well.
  - goodluckchuck 3y ago
    I wouldn’t assume that private companies and individuals cannot get warrants. However, they look very different. The major distinction is that when a private party requests an injunction allowing them to e.g. trespass on their neighbor’s land, the court will require notice and a hearing for the defendant. So, if a chemical plant needs to do earth works on a neighbor’s land to prevent a collapse, etc. the judiciary may well issue an order requiring the neighbor to let the company enter. Frankly, notice and hearing should probably be required for some criminal warrants too. I can think of a few indictments and arrest warrants that have recently been issued where there is a genuine question as to probable cause and the alleged illegality of the conduct. It’s not fair for people who are not a flight risk to be arrested (and often imprisoned) with no opportunity to defend themselves.
    - nverno 3y ago
      yea, the justice system is quite the misnomer way too often
- internetter 3y ago
  Do you think private companies should be allowed to, say, arrest people?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Private companies aren't, but in certain circumstances private citizens working for those companies are. In the US (except perhaps Georgia?) if a crazy guy comes into your workplace waving a knife around, you're allowed to disarm him and pin him down on the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_Stat...
  - goodluckchuck 3y ago
    Depending on the circumstances, absolutely. Assuming that serious unjustified injury or death would occur if they failed to act, there should be some legal window in which they’re allowed to prevent the harm. Private companies (and individuals) should not be required to stand by helplessly while people are hurt. Indeed, legally, private individuals and companies are allowed to act in emergencies. For example, I generally should not break into my neighbor’s home. However, I am legally allowed (and morally obligated) to forcibly enter their residence if their house is on fire, or they’re being attacked by a burglar, etc. and I am able to prevent some of the harm. Of course, if we assume we’re talking about situations where the government needs a warrant, the legality becomes more complicated. At what point does something become an emergency? I would say it’s not an emergency if there is time to inform the government and to let the government prevent the injury. If we assume the government is unwilling or unable to act, then the window for action should expand by some measure.
    - comprev 3y ago
      You mean something like citizen's arrest? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
      - goodluckchuck 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 3y ago

Devil's advocate: we have a reasonable expectation that governments using due process to obtain warrants for criminal investigations have a right to break and enter into digital property or wiretap to catch and prosecute malefactors. How far do you really expect any tech outfit to vet the legitimacy of the warrants issued?

acdha 3y ago
How about the legitimacy of the government? Most of the abuses are governments which have a long history of abusing their power and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that entire countries should not be trusted with sales.
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  Legitimacy based on what? Recongition by the UN? Lots of governments even predating the UN have been long accused of rights abuses. How many people affected, and proven so by what basis constitutes infractions beyond moral right to be trusted by NSO. I'm asking people to really grapple with this.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Imagine if, say, there was a law saying they could only sell to countries scoring 85 or better: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores My point being that there’s precedent for restrictions - we don’t sell nukes to anyone, and the companies which make advanced weapons systems have to get things like ITAR approvals. What would be especially powerful would be revocation: if a country is found abusing their access to this tool, they are blocked from purchases of any sort for a decade. Unfortunately, given Israel’s current politics it’s extremely unlikely that anything would happen since there’s no way to write a policy which would continue to allow their own usage.

yard2010 3y ago

Also, it is not "backed" by the government, more like under regulated in a convenient way. It's a gray area.