Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,607
39,475



ddp.png



The EFF has announced that both Apple and Dropbox have joined the Digital Due Process (DDP) coalition which is focused on pressing Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
ECPA was passed by Congress in 1986, before the World Wide Web was even invented and when cell phones were still a rarity. Yet to this day, ECPA is the primary law governing how and when law enforcement can access personal information and private communications stored by communications providers like Google, Facebook, your cell phone company or your ISP.
Specifically, the DDP is supporting amendments to ensure the government can't track your cell phone or obtain online content such as emails, photos, documents and backup files without first going to court to get a search warrant.

According to the EFF, the current version of the ECPA is vague on whether these documents and information -- including the tracking of your cell phone -- are presently protected from government intrusion without any form of warrant.

Other coalition members include Amazon, Intel, AT&T, Google and many more.

Article Link: Apple Joins Digital Due Process Coalition
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true. This is all smoke and mirrors to make us feel safe. Ultimately, they get what they want.
 
Last edited:
Noticeably absent from that list: facebook.

My mistake, they are on the website, just not on the blurb.
 
Last edited:
Of course if Google, Apple, and/or Facebook are collecting this information for business purposes - maybe all they're really interested in is forcing the government to pay for it rather than grab it by fiat. Especially given that, with Google and Facebook, monetizing that sort of information is pretty much their entire business plan.
 
Congress.....

Willing to bet that this will somehow be integrated into the Bush Patriot Act or something....since we lost many freedoms when that piece of legislation was passed!
 
Seems dangerous to mess with legislation during a time when congress is clearly in the procrastination and fear of responsibility. If these companies have truly genuine intent to protect data, they must cooperate and enforce the rules themselves. We don't want an unlocked back door policy.
 
Says the company that can decrypt your uploaded files without your permission..
 
It's nice to see corporations advocating for laws that protect the customer.

Now if only we could get cellphone carriers to support a law against cellphone locking and movie labels supporting a repeal of the DMCA. ;)
 
Last edited:
Seems like governments everywhere are pushing to get power to invade our privacy without obtaining a warrant. Good on Apple and the rest of them for standing up to the government (who no doubt want to exercise these powers "for the public good, trust us, and amen").
 
This will just end up as a compromise where the Federales agree to pay these companies for this data rather than getting it for free... throw in a pocket judge or two issuing a token warrant here and there to satisfy the media and it's all good.
 
Hmm, ok switch it from agencies writing a subpoena to writing a warrant. Either way the information gets handed over. :rolleyes:
 
I strongly dislike how google and facebook are integrating into everything in such a manner that they collect all data regarding an individual. (dont get me started on the youtube ads, i wish there was one ungreedy person to make a video channel w/o ads)
 
This reminds me of the guy that was busted for child pornography by the TSA. They mis-used their power to catch a guy for something far beyond the reaches of transportation security.

This kind of thing should, at the least, require as much energy as our personal residences.
 
so, what everybody is not saying but want to ask is... "not more movie streaming the "fun" way?"

OF COURSE YOU ALL PAY FOR YOUR DOWNLOADS!

I was joking! Jeezz!

:rolleyes:
 
And who just re-signed that act?
Thank you.
Carry on.

It still had to go through Congress (which is currently in Republican control) before being re-signed. It's always puzzled me as to why Republicans so strongly support the patriot act when they try to reduce to role of government in everything else.

(fwiw, I'm a registered independent. I hate how the only way for a politician to get elected is for him/her to have either extreme left or extreme right views. IMO the ideal balance would be somewhere in the middle)
 
if you have something to hide don't display it simple lol. Personally I don't care that Google knows my name. In fact the more these companies know the better user experience we will receive. Too many whiner babies out there who thrive off complaining thinking they are so hard done by.
 
I hate how the only way for a politician to get elected is for him/her to have either extreme left or extreme right views. IMO the ideal balance would be somewhere in the middle)

Name a U.S. politician who has "extreme left" views? :rolleyes: By world standards, your "left-leaning" party is centre-right at best. Which is one of the reasons that the U.S. economy is in so much trouble. There needs to be balance between the interests of the elites and the middle class. In the U.S. you have one party (the Republicans) that does nothing but cater to the rich, corporations and religious nutjobs. Then you have another party that is sort of centrist, centre-right. Where is your left? Really, where is it? Who's standing up for the middle class in the U.S., and who's going to get you out of this economic mess? (*Crickets*)
 
if you have something to hide don't display it simple lol. Personally I don't care that Google knows my name. In fact the more these companies know the better user experience we will receive. Too many whiner babies out there who thrive off complaining thinking they are so hard done by.

I believe the "if you have nothing to hide" argument misses the point of protected freedoms and privacies. It's not whether I have something to hide, it's that we are (supposedly) Constitutionally protected from unreasonable search and seizure. At the risk of sounding self-righteous, it is the principal of the thing.

While I am not naive enough to believe that (you should only pardon me) "intelligence agencies" will not continue to act relatively unimpeded, but any degradation of privacy protections only makes it worse. In the name of security the Patriot Act has furthered that loss of protections.

I claim no expertise in this current battle - but if DDP will, at least, codify protections, it allows legal recourse if those privacy limits are breached.

Those scoffing at it's efficacy may be correct - but I'd rather more protections than less.


Edit: Why do i have the feeling that this thread is going to end up in PRSI in 3...2...1...
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.