undefined | Better HN

0 points_bin_1y ago0 comments

Denying access to data that could still be specifically subpoenaed isn't destruction of evidence, it's a normal security measure. They still have the warrant to search everything in the office, but not the right to use those computers to access uber's entire worldwide infrastructure.

I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.

0 comments

dh20221y ago

I think this is an example of law lagging technology. A warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of a safe inside a house. Similarly, the law should be updated so that a warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of local computers. Local computers surely have valid certificates that allow the computers to connect to the mothership, right?

dmurray1y ago

Does a search warrant for your house give the police the right to search your car, if they found your car keys in your house? What about your neighbour's or your employer's car - perhaps on the other side of the world - if you happened to have those keys? To compel you not to tell your employer to change the locks, so the seized keys won't work?

These seem like closer real-world analogies for what exactly a warrant to search someone's computer should entitle the police to do.

pjerem1y ago

Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you.

$COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY.

If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.

2 more replies

_bin_OP1y ago

Not necessarily. Depending on how the org's set up, the system may be permissioned to access too much stuff. I think justice systems should lean less on a general warrant - too much of a fishing expedition - and instead focus on subpoenas specifically related to their area of investigation. E.g. if they seize the CEO's computer on accounting or tax concerns, I sincerely doubt they showed a judge probable cause to seize, I don't know, new product designs. As such they should not be able to access them.

sidewndr461y ago

The point you're making is valid, but also exposes a common theme in litigation against big tech. It's pretty common to hear something like "company XYZ used data ABC to train a model about their users and is court ordered to delete it". It's unlikely that anyone in the justice system has even the slightest clue how to ascertain if this actually happened and certainly no way to prove it has been deleted. The court gives the order, the company says they have complied, & everyone pretends to go back to the way things were before hand.

sidewndr461y ago

let me just extrapolate this out a bit for you. I live in the US (yes I visited France once long ago, it was nice). I use Uber. My phone is an Android phone running Uber's app.

Can a French prosecutor use Uber's systems to deliver a malicious payload to my phone to gather evidence? If so, is Uber required to assist them in this task?

Forgeties791y ago

I just have a hard time believing that any of us could get away with that.

_bin_OP1y ago

Wasn't half of the concern with the arrest of Ross Ulbricht figuring when they could get him with his computer unlocked, without time to lock/wipe it? They'd have a pretty hard time proving destruction of evidence if 1. they didn't know for sure evidence was on that specific computer and 2. it was destroyed rather than just that the decryption key was removed from memory.

Regardless, the government violating an individual's rights doesn't mean we should yell at uber, it means we should yell at the government.

chollida11y ago

These two issues are very far apart.

Ross could argue he forgot his password to unlock the data in a single users case.

In the corporate case it would be hard for Uber to argue that the entire company now has no access to any of the subpoenaed data.

Forgeties791y ago

Yeah that doesn’t really shift my opinion lol If I activated a kill switch to wipe my local computers when the FBI entered my house I can’t even imagine the hell I’d reap, let alone that my data would be safe because it’s scattered on servers in other countries.

Also we can claim whatever we want but that doesn’t mean it’ll protect us in court.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dh20221y ago

dmurray1y ago

These seem like closer real-world analogies for what exactly a warrant to search someone's computer should entitle the police to do.

pjerem1y ago

Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you.

$COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY.

If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.

2 more replies

_bin_OP1y ago

sidewndr461y ago

let me just extrapolate this out a bit for you. I live in the US (yes I visited France once long ago, it was nice). I use Uber. My phone is an Android phone running Uber's app.

Can a French prosecutor use Uber's systems to deliver a malicious payload to my phone to gather evidence? If so, is Uber required to assist them in this task?

Forgeties791y ago

I just have a hard time believing that any of us could get away with that.

_bin_OP1y ago

Regardless, the government violating an individual's rights doesn't mean we should yell at uber, it means we should yell at the government.

chollida11y ago

These two issues are very far apart.

Ross could argue he forgot his password to unlock the data in a single users case.

In the corporate case it would be hard for Uber to argue that the entire company now has no access to any of the subpoenaed data.

Forgeties791y ago

Also we can claim whatever we want but that doesn’t mean it’ll protect us in court.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse