3 ms·

I'm not saying you are wrong. There is most definitely a chance that you are correct. I guess my point is that I think these companies deserve the right of "inn

by coreyja 13y ago

I'm not saying you are wrong. There is most definitely a chance that you are correct. I guess my point is that I think these companies deserve the right of "innocent until proven guilty." And I don't believe enough has been done to prove they are guilty. EDIT: I don't think that "innocent until proven guilty" should only apply to crimes. I think the same concept can and should be used in almost all cases of accusing a party of something.

jarek 13y ago
They aren't being accused of a crime (or at least most of the controversy isn't about things that are normally considered crimes), so I'm not sure if innocent-until-proven should necessarily apply.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty is as much logic as law/ethics. There is nothing Facebook can say or do to prove their honesty, but their dishonesty can be proven, eg, someone could leak data which could plausibly only have come from the sort of backdoor they say doesn't exist. Of course, even if you can't prove anything, it might be prudent to hedge against the possibilities by assuming everything is actually public, but given the sort of things people post publicly (to four thousand of their closest friends and confidants) on Facebook, that might be a pretty low bar.
marshray 13y ago
That's kinda the point: the US Government is threatening to literally put them on trial. The rest of us are watching all the signs for info to help us develop our own strategy in this not-so-theoretical game of prisoner's dilemma.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Put them on trial? OK, I'll do it; source please?
  - marshray 13y ago
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588845-38/justice-dept-weighs-googles-request-to-lift-nsa-gag-order/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588845-38/justice-dept-w... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
  - declan 13y ago
    <marshray> cited a CNET article I wrote this week as a threat to "put them on trial." As the author, I disagree. If FB received a FISA Sec. 702 order for the contents of nycterrorcell@facebook.com's account, and they disclosed that, that would presumably violate a court order and they would find themselves in contempt of court. For good reason: when there is an actual terrorist investigation (remember the terrorist threat is overhyped and you're more likely to get struck by lighting), you don't want to tip off the bad guys. But aside from that very narrow non-disclosure exception, there is no threat to "put them on trial."
    - marshray 13y ago
      And if you refuse or actively obstruct the court order? (I was mainly citing your article to establish the the gag order. First hit for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+gag+nsa https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+gag+nsa )
      - declan 13y ago
        Ah, thanks. Didn't know it was the first hit. If you, the recipient, want to challenge the order as invalid, you're free to do so, and there's an appeal process. I was the first to disclose two weeks ago that Google is fighting two national security orders in two different federal courts (SF and NYC). There have been other similar cases. A facial challenge to FISAA 702 (by Amnesty, not the provider) went all the way to the Supreme Court. You really need to read the applicable laws. My articles link to them. Otherwise it's like talking about the details of mobile app development without knowing how to program.
        13y ago

by coreyja 13y ago

jarek 13y ago

They aren't being accused of a crime (or at least most of the controversy isn't about things that are normally considered crimes), so I'm not sure if innocent-until-proven should necessarily apply.

saalweachter 13y ago
Innocent until proven guilty is as much logic as law/ethics. There is nothing Facebook can say or do to prove their honesty, but their dishonesty can be proven, eg, someone could leak data which could plausibly only have come from the sort of backdoor they say doesn't exist. Of course, even if you can't prove anything, it might be prudent to hedge against the possibilities by assuming everything is actually public, but given the sort of things people post publicly (to four thousand of their closest friends and confidants) on Facebook, that might be a pretty low bar.

marshray 13y ago

That's kinda the point: the US Government is threatening to literally put them on trial. The rest of us are watching all the signs for info to help us develop our own strategy in this not-so-theoretical game of prisoner's dilemma.

mpyne 13y ago
Put them on trial? OK, I'll do it; source please?
- marshray 13y ago
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588845-38/justice-dept-weighs-googles-request-to-lift-nsa-gag-order/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588845-38/justice-dept-w... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
- declan 13y ago
  <marshray> cited a CNET article I wrote this week as a threat to "put them on trial." As the author, I disagree. If FB received a FISA Sec. 702 order for the contents of nycterrorcell@facebook.com's account, and they disclosed that, that would presumably violate a court order and they would find themselves in contempt of court. For good reason: when there is an actual terrorist investigation (remember the terrorist threat is overhyped and you're more likely to get struck by lighting), you don't want to tip off the bad guys. But aside from that very narrow non-disclosure exception, there is no threat to "put them on trial."
  - marshray 13y ago
    And if you refuse or actively obstruct the court order? (I was mainly citing your article to establish the the gag order. First hit for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+gag+nsa https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+gag+nsa )
    - declan 13y ago
      Ah, thanks. Didn't know it was the first hit. If you, the recipient, want to challenge the order as invalid, you're free to do so, and there's an appeal process. I was the first to disclose two weeks ago that Google is fighting two national security orders in two different federal courts (SF and NYC). There have been other similar cases. A facial challenge to FISAA 702 (by Amnesty, not the provider) went all the way to the Supreme Court. You really need to read the applicable laws. My articles link to them. Otherwise it's like talking about the details of mobile app development without knowing how to program.
      - 13y ago