undefined | Better HN

0 pointskergonath4y ago0 comments

> Otherwise how come that would even be legal to run?

Why wouldn’t it be? I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. AFAIK, running a VPN platform isn’t illegal.

> If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice?

I hate this argument. It’s lazy and can be used to accuse anybody in any context, and shut down discussions that we should be having. By that standard we are all accomplices for some crimes.

0 comments

willis9364y ago

>I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default.

Even beyond that, personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment. Just because there was some executive actions and illegal laws made does not mean the 4th amendment suddenly disappears. No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.

unknown_error4y ago

> personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment

Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.

willis9364y ago

I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.

1 more reply

kergonathOP4y ago

> No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.

Indeed. And the fact that this is not recognised as a fundamental human right is a serious limitation of the charter and universal declaration. And yet, it comes up regularly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskergonath4y ago0 comments

> Otherwise how come that would even be legal to run?

Why wouldn’t it be? I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. AFAIK, running a VPN platform isn’t illegal.

> If someone commits a crime and government cannot find evidence, because Apple gives shielding, then isn't that making them hypothetically an accomplice?

I hate this argument. It’s lazy and can be used to accuse anybody in any context, and shut down discussions that we should be having. By that standard we are all accomplices for some crimes.

0 comments

willis9364y ago

>I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default.

unknown_error4y ago

> personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment

Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.

willis9364y ago

1 more reply

kergonathOP4y ago

> No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.

Indeed. And the fact that this is not recognised as a fundamental human right is a serious limitation of the charter and universal declaration. And yet, it comes up regularly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse