Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wiretapping sounds so innocent. Of course, all US comms must be available for lawful wiretaps in fight against crime.

No, what we're dealing with here is a dragnet cast upon the comms of users around the world, who aren't protected by US Constitution and thus can be tapped at will by US agencies and even private corporations without any warrants or oversight.

For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

Also, if a US agency wanted to put on a no-fly list some people who casually converse about what morons those TSA people are or how all US administrations support the Israeli regime that commits war crimes against Palestinians, now it's very easy to do.



For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

Is that any different from using, say, Gmail or Google Apps? Not saying that Google is looking at that data but this is a problem with essentially every web-based communication tool. People shouldn't have an expectation of privacy or security just because it's a company they know/like or it's a popular tool.


It's a risky situation, if you ask me. Consider the data that tools collect on us:

- location and contact history (cell phones)

- message history and address book (email, social network)

- interests/activities (calendars, event tools, feed subscriptions)

- browsing history

As an engineer, think about the evil fun you could have with that data. You could really mess somebody up if you didn't like them.


While technology makes this easier, it isn't new. You could hire a PI to follow the CEO of a competitor. You could break in and bug their offices.

None of this is legal, and if discovered there would be a legal case to answer.


I've long thought that Google's ability to track searches from Microsoft IP addresses was one of the reasons for the development of Bing - i.e. Bing's value is, in part, that it plugs an information leak and siphons other leaks into Microsoft's data mine.


For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.

What? No they're not.


It does sound outlandish but... what specifically is stopping them?


Do you seriously think trade secrets aren't enforceable outside US borders? That there's no such thing as a transnational tort claim? Do you also think that because the "Constitution doesn't protect" stuff that Microsoft can randomly steal from people? Can they murder people too?

You knew this was a batshit claim when you saw someone trying to map the Constitution to Microsoft in the first place, since the Constitution doesn't regulate private businesses at all.

Come on. We're smarter than this.


Come on. Pseudonaïvité.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

(To your first question: ask Robert Metcalfe (3com), Charles H. Ferguson etc. To your second question: drones. -- Welcome to the real world)

But true, this has little to do with skype.


What does ECHELON and military drones have to do with civil liability?

The root comment in this thread suggests that Microsoft might be centralizing Skype so that it can scrape trade secrets out of phone calls. That sentiment is based on a preposterous misapprehension about how international law works.


We were talking about kites (if you know what I mean), and off-the book killings.

There isn't really anything that is called "international law", as such. There are agreements between nations, and those agreements are what they are.


The sheeple love to feel important and free, no amount of argument and reason would make them see the reality ;)


How would they get caught stealing trade secrets through Skype? Whistleblowers? Have there been any instance of a transnational tort claim in tech?

I really wonder how much espionage is going on. Does MS have a mole at Google, and vice versa?


(I'm pretty sure you are directing all of your "you"s mostly to others in the thread so I will ignore the impatient and condescending tone)

You aren't very specific though. I'm not familiar with transnational tort claim and I doubt it as popular to others here in HN either. Is it as solid as you seem to make it? Google has little (easily accessible material) on it. It doesn't sound like something that is illegal by itself; only that they could be sued by those startups if/when they find out (and decide to saddle up for an international case against a huge company... yeah that probably isn't very likely).


Good luck finding a lawyer who has the skills to perform an international tort offense who charges less than six figures for it. Only a company like Microsoft has the cash to pull that off.


Federal law.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: