3 ms·

> We should have extremely strong privacy laws preventing this, somehow blocking over-broad court orders Quick question. Should your percieved "right to privac

> We should have extremely strong privacy laws preventing this, somehow blocking over-broad court orders Quick question. Should your percieved "right to privacy" supersede all other laws? To extrapolate into the real world. Should it be impossible for the police to measure the speed of your vehicle to protect your privacy? Should cameras in stores be unable to record you stealing for fear of violating your privacy?

gridspy 1y ago
Your two examples don't map to the concern about data privacy. Speed cameras only operate on public roads. The camera in the store is operated by the store owner. In both cases one of the parties involved in the transaction (driving, purchasing) is involved in enforcement. It is clear in both cases that these measures protect everyone and they have clear limits also. Better examples would be police searching your home all the time, whenever they want (This maps to device encryption). Or store owners surveilling competing stores / forcing people to wear cameras 24/7 "to improve the customer experience" (This maps to what Facebook / Google try to do, or what internet wire tapping does).
- delusional 1y ago
  > searching your home all the time, whenever they want What? How does OpenAI map to your home at all? This is pure nonsense. You seem to have entirely dismissed the comparison to driving a little too out of hand. The internet is, like the roads, public infrastructure. You can't claim that encryption makes all traffic on the public infrastructure as private as staying home. You sound like one of those "free man of the land" guys: "I'm not driving your honor, I was traveling."
  - gridspy 1y ago
    Okay, so lets move back to a driving metaphor, since you seem to prefer that. If you drive in the US, the contents of your car are somewhat protected by law. It's not trivial for authorities to obtain the right to search your car, though I understand it's common for some to flout the rules and search anyway. But there are not gates on the highway which scan all cars and subject the contents of all the cars along with details of the drivers to government scrutiny. Not just the number plates, everything in and about the car. However, it is the goal of several agencies to perform this level of searching to all data transmitted. Why do you claim that people have less right to privacy when transmitting data in the virtual vs the physical world?
    - delusional 1y ago
      It's hard to me to find heads or tails in your argument. The argument you're sketching out, of an authority (the nebulous government, the mysterious agencies) totally surveilling your car, is completely and totally disconnected from the discussion at hand. This is a case about two private entities that that are trying to resolve their dispute in a court of law. There's no government agency involved. Whatever you believe about the scary agencies has no bearing on the outcome of this suit.
andyferris 1y ago
I think there's an idea akin to Europe's "right to be forgotten" here. We can all observe the world in the moment. Police can obtain warrants to wiretap (or the digitial equivalent) suspects in real-time. That's fine! The objection is that we are ending up with laws and rulings that require a recording of history of everyone by everyone - just so the police can have the convenience of trawling through data everyone reasonably felt was private and shouldn't exist except transiently? Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage? Our digital laws are so out-of-touch with the police powers voters actually consented to - that mail (physical post) and phone calls shall not be in intercepted except under probable cause (of a particular suspect performing a specific crime) and a judge's consent. Just carry that concept forward. On a technical level, I feel a "perfect forward secrecy" technique should be sufficient for implementers. A warrant should have a causal (and pinpoint) effect on what is collected by providers. Of course we can also subpoena information that everyone reasonably expected was recorded (i.e. not transient and private). This matches the "physical reality" of yesteryear - the police can't execute a warrant for an unrecoreded person-to-person conversation that happened two weeks ago; you need to kindly ask one of the conversents (who have their own rights to privacy / silence, are forgetful, and can always "plead the 5th").
- dotancohen 1y ago
  > Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage? They do. Not upfront, but they pay very nicely for inconveniencing businesses when demanding the data. Unfortunately, that often creates incentive for the business to error on the side of sharing too much with the authorities, even when proper procedure (warrants) have not been followed. It's the only way to retroactively get payed for all that storage and for the code to retrieve that data.
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    Do you have any sources for this? Never heard of the justice system compensating a company for providing data.
conradev 1y ago
There are better extrapolations into the real world: Cellphone location data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States Thermal imaging a home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Biometric unlocking: https://cdt.org/insights/circuit-court-split-lays-the-groundwork-for-scotus-case-on-biometric-cell-phone-unlocking/ https://cdt.org/insights/circuit-court-split-lays-the-ground... In these cases, privacy, or rather, the constitution, does supersede all other laws.
- sdenton4 1y ago
  Didn't the Supremes decide there was no constitutional right to privacy as a side effect of overturning Roe? (Or, at least, throw it into full Calvin Ball mode...) https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2023-summer/unprecedented-precedent-and-original-originalism/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/public...
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    Not really. The reason the overturning of Roe was widely considered to be inevitable, even by jurists who were pro-choice, is that the theory of privacy used in that case was fundamentally incompatible with a broad range of regulatory powers most people think the Constitution grants the Federal government. The reasoning behind Roe was generally regarded as tenuous even by the justices that supported it. Overturning it was required to defend the government’s Constitutional authority for agencies like the FDA, which was undermined by inconsistencies introduced by Roe v Wade. Eventually those judicial inconsistencies come home to roost. tl;dr: Roe being overturned had little to do with privacy and more to do with protecting specific regulatory powers from being unconstitutional using the same reasoning introduced in Roe v Wade. Removing such decisions from Federal purview was an elegant solution to the problem, with the practical effect of deferring all such decisions to voters at the State level.
    - Lerc 1y ago
lmm 1y ago
No right or law supersedes all other laws, and obviously no-one is asking for that. But nor should a court just be able to order anything they want without regard to who else is affected.

gridspy 1y ago

Your two examples don't map to the concern about data privacy. Speed cameras only operate on public roads. The camera in the store is operated by the store owner. In both cases one of the parties involved in the transaction (driving, purchasing) is involved in enforcement. It is clear in both cases that these measures protect everyone and they have clear limits also. Better examples would be police searching your home all the time, whenever they want (This maps to device encryption). Or store owners surveilling competing stores / forcing people to wear cameras 24/7 "to improve the customer experience" (This maps to what Facebook / Google try to do, or what internet wire tapping does).

delusional 1y ago
> searching your home all the time, whenever they want What? How does OpenAI map to your home at all? This is pure nonsense. You seem to have entirely dismissed the comparison to driving a little too out of hand. The internet is, like the roads, public infrastructure. You can't claim that encryption makes all traffic on the public infrastructure as private as staying home. You sound like one of those "free man of the land" guys: "I'm not driving your honor, I was traveling."
- gridspy 1y ago
  Okay, so lets move back to a driving metaphor, since you seem to prefer that. If you drive in the US, the contents of your car are somewhat protected by law. It's not trivial for authorities to obtain the right to search your car, though I understand it's common for some to flout the rules and search anyway. But there are not gates on the highway which scan all cars and subject the contents of all the cars along with details of the drivers to government scrutiny. Not just the number plates, everything in and about the car. However, it is the goal of several agencies to perform this level of searching to all data transmitted. Why do you claim that people have less right to privacy when transmitting data in the virtual vs the physical world?
  - delusional 1y ago
    It's hard to me to find heads or tails in your argument. The argument you're sketching out, of an authority (the nebulous government, the mysterious agencies) totally surveilling your car, is completely and totally disconnected from the discussion at hand. This is a case about two private entities that that are trying to resolve their dispute in a court of law. There's no government agency involved. Whatever you believe about the scary agencies has no bearing on the outcome of this suit.

andyferris 1y ago

I think there's an idea akin to Europe's "right to be forgotten" here. We can all observe the world in the moment. Police can obtain warrants to wiretap (or the digitial equivalent) suspects in real-time. That's fine! The objection is that we are ending up with laws and rulings that require a recording of history of everyone by everyone - just so the police can have the convenience of trawling through data everyone reasonably felt was private and shouldn't exist except transiently? Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage? Our digital laws are so out-of-touch with the police powers voters actually consented to - that mail (physical post) and phone calls shall not be in intercepted except under probable cause (of a particular suspect performing a specific crime) and a judge's consent. Just carry that concept forward. On a technical level, I feel a "perfect forward secrecy" technique should be sufficient for implementers. A warrant should have a causal (and pinpoint) effect on what is collected by providers. Of course we can also subpoena information that everyone reasonably expected was recorded (i.e. not transient and private). This matches the "physical reality" of yesteryear - the police can't execute a warrant for an unrecoreded person-to-person conversation that happened two weeks ago; you need to kindly ask one of the conversents (who have their own rights to privacy / silence, are forgetful, and can always "plead the 5th").

dotancohen 1y ago
> Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage? They do. Not upfront, but they pay very nicely for inconveniencing businesses when demanding the data. Unfortunately, that often creates incentive for the business to error on the side of sharing too much with the authorities, even when proper procedure (warrants) have not been followed. It's the only way to retroactively get payed for all that storage and for the code to retrieve that data.
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  Do you have any sources for this? Never heard of the justice system compensating a company for providing data.

conradev 1y ago

There are better extrapolations into the real world: Cellphone location data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States Thermal imaging a home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Biometric unlocking: https://cdt.org/insights/circuit-court-split-lays-the-groundwork-for-scotus-case-on-biometric-cell-phone-unlocking/ https://cdt.org/insights/circuit-court-split-lays-the-ground... In these cases, privacy, or rather, the constitution, does supersede all other laws.

sdenton4 1y ago
Didn't the Supremes decide there was no constitutional right to privacy as a side effect of overturning Roe? (Or, at least, throw it into full Calvin Ball mode...) https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2023-summer/unprecedented-precedent-and-original-originalism/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/public...
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Not really. The reason the overturning of Roe was widely considered to be inevitable, even by jurists who were pro-choice, is that the theory of privacy used in that case was fundamentally incompatible with a broad range of regulatory powers most people think the Constitution grants the Federal government. The reasoning behind Roe was generally regarded as tenuous even by the justices that supported it. Overturning it was required to defend the government’s Constitutional authority for agencies like the FDA, which was undermined by inconsistencies introduced by Roe v Wade. Eventually those judicial inconsistencies come home to roost. tl;dr: Roe being overturned had little to do with privacy and more to do with protecting specific regulatory powers from being unconstitutional using the same reasoning introduced in Roe v Wade. Removing such decisions from Federal purview was an elegant solution to the problem, with the practical effect of deferring all such decisions to voters at the State level.
  - Lerc 1y ago

lmm 1y ago

No right or law supersedes all other laws, and obviously no-one is asking for that. But nor should a court just be able to order anything they want without regard to who else is affected.