News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence. Parent comment

Re:Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence by nickpsecurity on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @07:17PM (#12640425)
Yeah, that's what I said. It seems so many of these leakers or government examples would almost perfectly illustrate the point of activists if they just didn't do something incredibly illegal, naive, or debatable on top of the solid contributions. Then, we have to wonder why whatever happened to them really happened. Would the connection still be there if they just did the one or two good things? Can't prove it to skeptics.

I always encourage those in the future resisting police states to make sure whatever they do is beyond doubt A Good Thing. Even Constitutionalists on pro-surveillance side should pause to reconsider their views. They won't if they think person got canned for being a traitor or running financial schemes. (sighs)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence by zzzcpan on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @07:30PM (#12640499)
> I always encourage those in the future resisting police states to make sure whatever they do is beyond doubt A Good Thing

But A Good Thing would easily be destroyed by simply fabricating a case against the enemy, wouldn't it? Like rape, child porn, the usual.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence by nickpsecurity on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @08:28PM (#12640765)
It's possible. So far, they're just using what's already there.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Yahoo scanned customer emails for US intelligence by NotSammyHagar on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @11:44PM (#12641413)
Right, they didn't make up this case. Everyone who has worked in a publicaly traded company knows you can't trade until a few days after the earnings release. It's double so for the CEO! How could he have not known that? I am sympathetic to the possibility that the govt my go after someone that didn't work with them, but he committed a separate illegal act, selling that stock. They didn't go after Martha Stewart for talking about the cia.
[ Parent | on HN ]