Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
How Frictionless Sharing Could Undermine Your Legal Right to Privacy (theatlantic.com)
21 points by newman314 on March 11, 2012 | hide | past | favorite | 10 comments



Given the fact that former CEO of Google Inc. and current CEO of Facebook have loudly and repeatedly conveyed that one does not have reasonable expectation of privacy when using their systems; and given the fact that EULA of your little digital helper effectively renders the device property of the vendor; per last month's SCOTUS relevant judgment it would appear that we no longer enjoy legal protection against unreasonable searches and seizures using the said services and devices.


I think the article got Alito's position in Jones wrong. Alito was deeply worried about the rise of a surveillance state in areas where the 4th Amendment doesn't apply today. The thing si that a warrant is not required today in these areas anyway due to other doctrines. Statutes may impose such but that's not a Constitutional consideration.

Warrants are not required right now. Alito was seeking to tighten these up.


a plant from the drm lobby


Just another one of the victories of the "Information wants to be free" movement!


I think you're conflating two things. I'm a proponent of abolishing copyright and other so-called intellectual property. I do believe that information, once made public, should be unrestricted.

This is orthogonal to the notion that private communications should stay private. What this article is really about is the definition of public vs private, and has very little to do with intellectual property issues.


So your ideal legal system does not recognize ownership of information, just whether it is "public" or "private", and has legal protection for private information? I'm just curious how the no-IP theory goes. One thing that concerned me was protection for works in progress, where people need to send, say, manuscripts for a novel back and forth, or tracks for a CD.


We could have ownership of a sort without copyright. Copyright lets you tell other people what they can do with a copy of a work after it's released. I think the only right the law should protect is the right to release a work or not.


So if I get my hands on a copy of a work that's not released, and start handing out copies, what happens to me?


I dunno. Civil suit? Do I have to have all the answers? I just think that the system we have now is both broken and unethical.


No, I'm just curious. I find the idea of abolishing intellectual property both hard to understand and fascinating, so I want to see how other people see it working.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: