5 ms·

Is anyone really surprised? When you agree to use a service, you agree to the service using you--regardless of tos. You become the commodity. There will always

Is anyone really surprised? When you agree to use a service, you agree to the service using you--regardless of tos. You become the commodity. There will always be concessions that need to be made in the name of convenience. It's natural. See power, telephony, medical and other technology for reference--should you need to.

paulsutter 14y ago
The framers of the constitution would be surprised. The fourth amendment prohibits the government from fishing around in our private affairs without probable cause: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- alttab 14y ago
  Agreed. A "is anyone really surprised?" attitude is not compatible with American values. As actors in the technology industry we should do more to protect the civil rights and privacy of our users. Compromising these ideals in my mind is weak behavior especially when used as part of a monetization strategy. Towing the line of your TOS should be iron-glad, especially in the face of government inquiries. Vigilance begets liberty. Liberty must always be defended or someone will easily take it away. Not to say that we haven't already lost a lot of ground, but giving up and saying "thats the way it is" is simply not an option for me as I am an American citizen. For those internationals, give in at your own peril.
  - obituary_latte 14y ago
    "That's the way it is" is indeed unacceptable. What you have to consider, though, is the fact that many (read most) have no concept, no idea that there is another option. On a very base level, when you opt-in to a service of convenience, you are handing over your data--your information. As such, it should not be a surprise--given the current circumstances--when that data is used against you. I am not saying don't fight it--quite the contrary. But I question whether fighting it on this level is more or less productive than fighting the issue at root, whatever that is.
    - alttab 14y ago
      Technology that works to encrypt all data when it goes to the cloud and decrypt it when it comes back would be a big step in the right direction. Simply make it impossible to compromise your privacy without a warranty for the private key. Makes it much easier to tell overreaching governments to politely "go fuck themselves."
      - pyre 14y ago
        Until encryption gets classified as a munition again...
        einhverfr 14y ago
        That boat has sailed. If that happens, we might as well just require banks to hand credit card numbers over to Russian organized crime lords....
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Unfortunately that boat sailed in the 1970's with "California Bankers Association v. Shultz" which upheld the requirement of banks to report large transactions to the federal government in order to engage in surveillance against organized crime. I think that decision more than any other has been responsible for the collapse of protections against surveillance. Indeed in a remarkably prescient dissent, Justice Douglass more or less described where this was leading by describing in accurate detail some of the current anti-drug laws that have been tacked onto the USAPATRIOT Act as it has come up for renewal.... There is hope. The logic of Alito (joined by all liberal justices, except Sotomayor) and Sotomayor (who joined the conservative justices, but also endorsed Alito's logic) in Jones v. United States is quite incompatible with that earlier decision and it provides some hope that lower courts will say "oh there are five votes for tightening things up" and start to do so.
Zigurd 14y ago
Privacy standards are much higher when you rent a house. Why should they be lower when you rent some bits?
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Because "A man's phone is his castle" doesn't have much of a ring to it.... Rights in renting a home are interesting though. In 1982, the Supreme Court decided the one and only 3rd Amendment case to come before it, where a state evicted striking prison guards and placed national guardsmen in their state-owned workforce apartments. The state lost.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Um, nope. The state won on the fact that government bureaucrats are given an immunity if a "reasonable person would not have known" of the law that they were breaking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey for verification.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      Ok, so they lost on qualified immunity on remand, but I suppose if it ever happened again the state would lose.
      - btilly 14y ago
        You suppose wrong. The immunity was because a bureaucrat could not be expected to know about the 3rd amendment. Any future violation would be a decision made by a bureaucrat, the same immunity would apply, and the precedent would say that the state wins. For all intents at this point, the 3rd amendment is null and void.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        That's not what qualified immunity does. Qualified immunity gives immunity to many government actors who violate Constitutional rights unintentionally, because the law is not clear at the time. Getting qualified immunity on remand is basically a one-time victory. If you win on qualified immunity because the rights are not clear, but at the same time hold that there are such rights, then that gives fair notice to government actors and they don't get to do it again. The idea is that you don't want to make the government too cautious because they might get sued if they arguably violate someone's rights so you give them the benefit of the doubt, until the law is clear enough and there is no more doubt. There was a recent case of a woman who was tazed in Seattle for refusing to sign a parking ticket. She lost on QI grounds, but they also held that it was excessive force. That basically establishes that if the police do it again, the next person can successfully sue. That doesn't mean the police are free to taze people for refusing to sign traffic tickets. It just means that the court says "this is your only warning" and lets that case go at that. This is different from absolute immunity, which means for example, you can never sue a prosecutor for unfair prosecution tactics used in the courtroom, and you can never sue a judge for ruling unfairly.

paulsutter 14y ago

The framers of the constitution would be surprised. The fourth amendment prohibits the government from fishing around in our private affairs without probable cause: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

alttab 14y ago
Agreed. A "is anyone really surprised?" attitude is not compatible with American values. As actors in the technology industry we should do more to protect the civil rights and privacy of our users. Compromising these ideals in my mind is weak behavior especially when used as part of a monetization strategy. Towing the line of your TOS should be iron-glad, especially in the face of government inquiries. Vigilance begets liberty. Liberty must always be defended or someone will easily take it away. Not to say that we haven't already lost a lot of ground, but giving up and saying "thats the way it is" is simply not an option for me as I am an American citizen. For those internationals, give in at your own peril.
- obituary_latte 14y ago
  "That's the way it is" is indeed unacceptable. What you have to consider, though, is the fact that many (read most) have no concept, no idea that there is another option. On a very base level, when you opt-in to a service of convenience, you are handing over your data--your information. As such, it should not be a surprise--given the current circumstances--when that data is used against you. I am not saying don't fight it--quite the contrary. But I question whether fighting it on this level is more or less productive than fighting the issue at root, whatever that is.
  - alttab 14y ago
    Technology that works to encrypt all data when it goes to the cloud and decrypt it when it comes back would be a big step in the right direction. Simply make it impossible to compromise your privacy without a warranty for the private key. Makes it much easier to tell overreaching governments to politely "go fuck themselves."
    - pyre 14y ago
      Until encryption gets classified as a munition again...
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        That boat has sailed. If that happens, we might as well just require banks to hand credit card numbers over to Russian organized crime lords....
einhverfr 14y ago
Unfortunately that boat sailed in the 1970's with "California Bankers Association v. Shultz" which upheld the requirement of banks to report large transactions to the federal government in order to engage in surveillance against organized crime. I think that decision more than any other has been responsible for the collapse of protections against surveillance. Indeed in a remarkably prescient dissent, Justice Douglass more or less described where this was leading by describing in accurate detail some of the current anti-drug laws that have been tacked onto the USAPATRIOT Act as it has come up for renewal.... There is hope. The logic of Alito (joined by all liberal justices, except Sotomayor) and Sotomayor (who joined the conservative justices, but also endorsed Alito's logic) in Jones v. United States is quite incompatible with that earlier decision and it provides some hope that lower courts will say "oh there are five votes for tightening things up" and start to do so.

Zigurd 14y ago

Privacy standards are much higher when you rent a house. Why should they be lower when you rent some bits?

einhverfr 14y ago
Because "A man's phone is his castle" doesn't have much of a ring to it.... Rights in renting a home are interesting though. In 1982, the Supreme Court decided the one and only 3rd Amendment case to come before it, where a state evicted striking prison guards and placed national guardsmen in their state-owned workforce apartments. The state lost.
- btilly 14y ago
  Um, nope. The state won on the fact that government bureaucrats are given an immunity if a "reasonable person would not have known" of the law that they were breaking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey for verification.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Ok, so they lost on qualified immunity on remand, but I suppose if it ever happened again the state would lose.
    - btilly 14y ago
      You suppose wrong. The immunity was because a bureaucrat could not be expected to know about the 3rd amendment. Any future violation would be a decision made by a bureaucrat, the same immunity would apply, and the precedent would say that the state wins. For all intents at this point, the 3rd amendment is null and void.
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        That's not what qualified immunity does. Qualified immunity gives immunity to many government actors who violate Constitutional rights unintentionally, because the law is not clear at the time. Getting qualified immunity on remand is basically a one-time victory. If you win on qualified immunity because the rights are not clear, but at the same time hold that there are such rights, then that gives fair notice to government actors and they don't get to do it again. The idea is that you don't want to make the government too cautious because they might get sued if they arguably violate someone's rights so you give them the benefit of the doubt, until the law is clear enough and there is no more doubt. There was a recent case of a woman who was tazed in Seattle for refusing to sign a parking ticket. She lost on QI grounds, but they also held that it was excessive force. That basically establishes that if the police do it again, the next person can successfully sue. That doesn't mean the police are free to taze people for refusing to sign traffic tickets. It just means that the court says "this is your only warning" and lets that case go at that. This is different from absolute immunity, which means for example, you can never sue a prosecutor for unfair prosecution tactics used in the courtroom, and you can never sue a judge for ruling unfairly.