3 ms·

The framers of the constitution would be surprised. The fourth amendment prohibits the government from fishing around in our private affairs without probable ca

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.

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.