declan

107 ms·

931.
by declan 13y ago
You're presenting this as if it's settled law, but it's not. This is an area of active litigation. Here's an article I wrote about a federal judge in Vermont, for instance, saying that compelled disclosure of passphrases protecting encrypte
932.
by declan 13y ago
Except that (from memory) Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo treat it as the law of the land for all U.S. users. And based on the DOJ's twin appearances before congressional committees in the last few months, they're not arguing.
933.
by declan 13y ago
Actually this thread was not about routine employer-employee searches, but Harvard College and faculty email searches. Harvard is as far as I can tell unique in providing its faculty -- thanks to a very able computer science professor the
934.
by declan 13y ago
Sure, if we're talking about employers, the rules are different. But most of the discussion in this thread has been about non-employer email providers. The line is actually drawn pretty reasonably in that case, if you spend some time thinki
935.
by declan 13y ago
This is another area where your intuition might say A but in reality the law is !A. Under federal law an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situat
936.
by declan 13y ago
Re: the Wiretap Act, you're quite right. But fortunately the Fourth Amendment does: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025650-281.html
937.
by declan 13y ago
You misinterpreted the CNSNews.com article. You used the term voluntary but the incidents referred to in it are involuntary demands. That is, they represent legal process, such as a search warrant, a (d) order or grand jury subpoena for
938.
by declan 13y ago
Institutions have the ability to adopt more privacy protective policies, effectively relinquishing rights that they would otherwise have by virtue of owning the system.
939.
by declan 13y ago
Not after the 6th Circuit's decision in Warshak, at least for major email providers. Non-email stored data such as Dropbox or Google Drive files, on the other hand...
940.
by declan 13y ago
Random slur. Google fought a DOJ subpoena for search terms in court (while Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft did not), which I wrote about here: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-What-does-the-Google-subpoena-mean/... It also nationalized Warshak by requi
941.
by declan 13y ago
Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothing definitely wrong in saying bubble sort is the most efficient sorting algorithm
942.
by declan 13y ago
Quite right. What's interesting is that the Canadian homeownership rate is similar to that of the U.S., last I checked, even despite the different tax treatments.
943.
by declan 13y ago
I own a single-family house on the San Francisco peninsula which I bought three years ago (and spent the summer of 2010 remodeling it and the summer of 2011 landscaping it). What others have said elsewhere in this thread is true: owning a h
944.
by declan 13y ago
I would look at the syllabus that a sophomore-level computer science class would use, which when I took it was called something like Data Structures and Program Design. Take a look at the books taught at places with good CS departments (lik
945.
Why DOJ didn't need a 'super search warrant' to snoop on Fox News' e-mail(news.cnet.com)
3 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
946.
by declan 13y ago
Thanks for posting this. It's a good perspective to have in these discussions, which can otherwise veer too far in the direction of legal nuance.
947.
by declan 13y ago
Google would choose to lose "all that ad revenue" if they could replace it with sufficient, and probably more lucrative, non-ad revenue through paying customers.
948.
by declan 13y ago
It would have been a search warrant from the FBI, not a subpoena. The FBI was notified about the Broadwell "harassment" in mid-2012, and by then Google had nationalized Warshak and was requiring a search warrant for the contents of email co
949.
by declan 13y ago
This is well said. The thing is, though, that it was the non-Java version of Hushmail that was exploited by the Feds. The fact that it could be exploited shouldn't cast the end-to-end secure version in a negative light. So who at Google is
950.
by declan 13y ago
Yep, there is no public or secret law that would require Microsoft to backdoor Bitlocker. What's worth remembering, though, is that such a proposal came reasonably close to becoming federal law in the 1990s. It was backed by the FBI and was
951.
by declan 13y ago
The parent post says companies "believe they have to respond to subpoenas or face public obstruction or co-conspiracy charges." This is simply not true. Google fought a DOJ subpoena for search terms in court (while Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft
952.
by declan 13y ago
This is incorrect. The DOJ filed a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution, against Apple. The Feds are unlikely, IMHO, to win the case. Here's something that Greg Sandoval and I wrote at the time the lawsuit was announced, and I think it
953.
by declan 13y ago
There's selection bias: some engineers may choose to move to the SF bay area in part because of the perceived views on social policy. One example of this is SF's Castro district especially a few decades ago. Speaking as someone who lives on
954.
by declan 13y ago
And under George W. Bush the Republican party created the Department of Homeland Security, the purpose of which is arguably to "gobble up more of the economy to spend through the federal government." And engaged in new excesses of deficit s
955.
by declan 13y ago
Also remember that there was a very pro-George W. Bush sentiment in Silicon Valley in 2000, but eight years of the pro-war, pro-deficit spending Bush administration was enough to turn things around in 2008. From 2008: http://news.cnet.com/
956.
by declan 13y ago
Good analysis. It's also interesting to plot those categories against professions. In my experience, engineers and programmers tend to be the most libertarian (for a reasonable non-Objectivist definition of libertarian). It's the marketing
957.
by declan 13y ago
It would be interesting to see a comparison of Bing search and ads privacy vs. Google's in the same areas. My hunch is that Microsoft would not come out ahead.
958.
Winklevoss twins on Bitcoin: Time to work with the Feds(news.cnet.com)
1 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
959.
by declan 13y ago
Google has done just that: 1. When DOJ sent Google a subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court, while Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL did not: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-What-does-the-Google-subpoena-mean/... 2. Google is lobbying to ch
960.
by declan 13y ago
Sometimes it's the technologists who are the most resistant to technological change. I sometimes get annoyed when Google displays results other than the 10 blue links, and tries to correct my searches when I'm searching for info on APIs, bu

More ›