Hacker News Reader

Comment by izacus | Hacker News Reader

Because this "kill switch" might as well be something your iPhone has.

You can lock it remotely at a moments notice as well and it'll remain encrypted against law enforcement attempts to unlock it.

Should you be held accountable for owning such a device?

MDM managed Windows, macOS laptops are such devices as well.

See how easy is it to reframe a feature in a nefarious way?

View on HN

Should there maybe be a difference between a huge incorporated company operating for profits (no matter what the consequences are) VS a private individual just wanting to go on with their day?

So one has a right to privacy and the other doesn't? Are companies not allowed to secure their data?

They have the right to privacy when they are following the law. On the other hand, if police enforcement have a legal warrant to read internal documents about how you run your business, to prevent employees from being exploited, they absolute should get access to it.

I understand having a process in place to be able to hide data from criminals stealing your data, that's not a problem. The problem becomes when companies start to hide data from legal requests, which is what Uber is in the hot for here.

If they have a warrant they can ask the company to decrypt it.

Surely you're not advocating that every company should have to turn over all of its information without a warrant

People have rights because they are humans. Companies aren’t, and as such don’t inherently deserve any rights. They are granted some rights where it’s beneficial to the society, or because of corruption (often legalized as lobbying).

The company couldn't care less about privacy. As it is not human it has no feelings. Rather it is people – real live humans – who called for said "kill switch". It is they who seek privacy, not the company.

People have rights because they are citizens*.

Maybe in US; civilized countries obey Human Rights, not “citizen rights”.

you should be, if using it when being raided by the police.

Not necessarily. The police don't automatically have access to everything when they kick down a door. The warrant needs to state explicitly what they're after.

If the data specified by the warrant is suddenly and intentionally encrypted then they still have to provide that data or argue the obstruction angle in front of a judge. Just because a company is incorporated doesn't mean they lose all rights.

Is it even possible that the police has a warrant against a company like Uber that doesn't include data found in the very office they are raiding?

If it's not stated that they are raiding the office to grab data, what could the raid even be for?

Yes, warrants are often specific. You can comply with a warrant with encrypted data

So warrant say "Uber should hand over data about transfers in/out from the companies bank account" and Uber can then hand them over a password protected CSV and say "You didn't ask for data you could read" and the police should just be like "Hah, you got us! We'll come back with another one!"?

no, you are missing my point. Im saying uber can encrypt all their data, decrypt what is asked for, and hand it over what was specifically asked for.

They don't have to hand over their entire database, and as a customer, I wouldn't want them to.

They don't have to let them grab whatever the want and root around in data not covered in the warrant.

> See how easy is it to reframe a feature in a nefarious way?

Turns out, there are laws and the above would be 100% illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com