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

You are 100% correct. It’s legal fetishism, which allows legislators to abrogate their responsibilities and keeps the moneyed stakeholders happy.

The notion that my papers inside of my rented apartment have dramatically more protection than my data inside of a rented server is absurd.



I should read up on that cloud act some time. Is it true your government can search any data you store in a rented netspace without telling you?

Edit: or more precise the "Stored Communications Act" - Cloud Act seems to deal with offshore servers in particular.


We have something called the third party doctrine, which stems from Supreme Court cases in the 1960s and 70s.

Basically you have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to any information that you provide to a third party who is not an attorney providing counsel or a doctor. Your bank records for example, do not require a warrant to access under this principle.

All of this put in place by the courts. Stranger still, this sort of thing has become something that “conservative” judges are champions of.


Wonder if there is a business model for attorney privileged data storage.


There was an article on HN recently about how Google does something like that, internally. It claimed employees CC in house lawyers to tag attorney client priviledge on emails they wouldn't want, e.g. antitrust investigators, to obtain too easily. Even if it just delays discovery or adds friction, mission accomplished.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24769847


Isn't it more similar to your privacy in a rented PO box or storage unit?




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

Search: