Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

He probably complied because he knew that 1) he could tell whoever was targeted of this happening and 2) whatever data they seized would be worthless?



Most privacy advocates I've seen don't like child pornographers either, they just don't subscribe to the idea that people's privacy should be infringed (even if that means it's easier for child pornographers to communicate).

So I don't see why he would do 1). Perhaps 2), but then you would think the same would apply here, unless the NSL/court order is demanding a wiretap to be installed for the future.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: