Slashdot Mirror


EU Citizens Warned Not To Use US Cloud Services Over Spying Fears

Diamonddavej writes "Leading privacy expert Caspar Bowden warned European citizens not to use cloud services hosted in the U.S. over spying fears. Bowden, former privacy adviser to Microsoft Europe, explained at a panel discussion hosted at the recent Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference in Brussels, that a section in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act 2008 (FISAAA) permits U.S. intelligence agencies to access data owned by non-U.S. citizens on cloud storage hosed by U.S. companies, if their activity is deemed to affect U.S. foreign policy. Bowden claimed the Act allows for purely political spying of activists, protesters and political groups. Bowden also pointed out that amendments to the EU's data protection regulation proposal introduce specific loopholes that permit FISAAA surveillance. The president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves (at a separate panel discussion) commented, 'If it is a U.S. company it's the FBI's jurisdiction and if you are not a U.S. citizen then they come and look at whatever you have if it is stored on a U.S. company server.' The European Data Protection Supervisor declined to comment but an insider indicated that the authority is looking into the matter."

138 comments

  1. lol by fazey · · Score: 0

    ah, the good ol' patriot act.

  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Got news for him, even if you ARE a US citizen they look at whatever you have stored.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what ? If the US citizen are incapable to prevent that, its their own problem as long as it doesnt affect me.

    2. Re:Really? by Genda · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, its not like every multinational corporation on the planet based in the U.S. isn't marching right up every global citizen's junk, with the U.S, Government running defense... nah, that's not happening. Go back to sleep, everything's just fine.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, there are multinationals that are still based in the U.S.? I thought they'd all moved to the Cayman's, Bermuda, the Hebrides or Belgium. The way I heard it, the only thing left in the states are distribution & service centers, necessary operational units that only generate expenses not revenue.

    4. Re:Really? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Being a multinational means you get to say, "We're based in [place that's to our advantage in this instance]."

      And it can be a different place next time you say it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 0

      Got news for him, even if you ARE a US citizen they look at whatever you have stored.

      Where is evidence?

    6. Re:Really? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      That's what they are looking for.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Got news for him, even if you ARE a US citizen they look at whatever you have stored."

      Where is evidence?

      Under the PATRIOT act, they can't show that to you.

      The fact remains, they've been increasingly looking at people's things, bypassing judicial oversight, and generally running rough shod over parts of the Constitution with "Free Speech Zones", warrantless wiretaps and the ability to do "border stops" 100 miles from the border.

      Seriously, have you not even been paying attention? This shit's been all over the news.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's going to sound like I've been living under a rock, but I've got to ask this. One HUNDRED miles?!?!? Seriously?

      I live in the mysterious midwest, far from any of those scary border towns (like New York City, or ALL of florida), and have been remarkably nonplussed about the whole randomly-pulling-over-illegal-aliens act or whatever it was that the inbred hillbillies and old folk of Arizona passed.

        Your comment makes me think that perhaps I SHOULD have been plussed. VERY plussed.

        Poop. The google confirms. I am officially as plussed as I know how to be. Perhaps I should google 'plussed'.

        Nope. Useless. See. This is all Googles fault! I knew it!

    9. Re:Really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, where is there any evidence that the US government routinely or even occasionally rummages through the files of Americans without probable cause and a warrant? I see a lot of people posting assertions that the government does this all the time to everybody but have yet to see any evidence of widespread prying into the files of Americans.

    10. Re:Really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Try Google maps and zoom in on either the US-Mexico border or the US-Canada border just about anywhere and you will see how easy it would be to walk across the border and meet a car or truck.

  3. Oh Noze! by flyneye · · Score: 3, Funny

    Run for your life, the Cloud is falling, the Cloud is falling!

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:Oh Noze! by BSAtHome · · Score: 0

      No no, that is called /rain/...

      Watch out for the tornado that follows.

    2. Re:Oh Noze! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Haha indeed. The emperor's new clothes are showing their colours.

    3. Re:Oh Noze! by Genda · · Score: 0

      Or fog... Can you see what they're doing? Nah, I can see what they're doing, can you see what they're doing?

    4. Re:Oh Noze! by sargon666777 · · Score: 1

      Haha indeed. The emperor's new clothes are showing their colours.

      Huh.. a multicolored emperor.. well that's new...

      --
      Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
    5. Re:Oh Noze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pink, and brown. Just don't mention which bits are which color

  4. You pretentious jerks! by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Troll

    Several EU member states have been cooperating with us to spy on their citizens since WWII. You're connected to a global network that provides instantanious monitoring of millions of communications in realtime; We peer our data with you. Our GPS satellites and cell phone technology can pinpoint where most of your citizens are at any given point in time and you thanked us for providing that technology under the guise of preventing terrorism, homeland security, tracking down neo nazis, or dozens of other groups.

    And now, after decades of cooperation, you're being warned not to use... our cloud services. That's like this (holds up cell phone)... Not that impressive compared to that (points to a 100 story tall, 20 block wide, datacenter labelled 'EVERYTHING. EVER.') Seriously now, where are your brains? This is just a stunt to try and get your own domestic cloud services launched, I'm sure of it. So which one was it? Comeon, fess up.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:You pretentious jerks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a stunt to try and get your own domestic cloud services launched, I'm sure of it.

      I rather think this is a stunt to get us to use domestic services. After all, EU governments have a hard time spying on us if we host our stuff in the US. I doubt the US government has any interest in me.

    2. Re:You pretentious jerks! by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      I doubt the US government has any interest in me.

      Yes, but how do they know that you are as pure as the driven snow and hardly a threat before they look?

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:You pretentious jerks! by Genda · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but nobody asks for power they don't at some time in the future intend to use. Even the power to drop nukes has been used to strategic ends for the last 70 years. So, I have no idea as to the consequences associated with governments being able to tell what you had for dinner by the smell of the gas you pass, but from my experience, it can't be good, and my imagination is picturing wildly dystopian possibilities as personal privacy and civil rights are being mulched into the sod.

      My deepest and most unhappy concern is that governments around the world are laying down the legal and operational infrastructure required to provide complete transparency into the lives of people so that corporations can can watch us all with complete impunity and autonomy. If I were the gambling kind, I might think that this entire process is a ruse to make herding the sheep easier, and give the IP providers a final means to put and keep their thumb on us.

  5. So much for our warehouse of Estonian secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Oh well back to easvsdropping on countries with actual economies.

    Captcha: Sincere

  6. Hey Toomas, got any naked pictures of your wife? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wanna see some?

    -Hu Jintao

  7. Anyone ever read the constitution? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Bill of Rights is peculiar in that it does not say "no citizen", but it says "no person."

    Can someone explain how nearly 250 years of common law has managed to change the definition of a "person" to include US companies, but not foreign citizens utilizing services within the US?

    1. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hence the saying that the Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    2. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it has more to do with the fact that despite the MANY MANY attempts by Americans to say differently over the years, no part of the American Constitution (nor any law subject thereto) applies to ANYONE who is neither a Citizen, nor a Resident, nor an inhabitant of the United States or it's protectorates (i.e. Costa Rica etc).

      At which point the distinction in one of it's clauses (i.e. "person" vs "citizen") is a moot one anyway...

      If such an individual conducts business within the US, he or she may do so contrarily to the law, but even still, subject to an order of extradition which must be approved by the individual's home country, the law does not apply to the individual.

      -AC

    3. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you want the real answer or some spiffy rhetorical bullshit? Save that, I'll give you the real answer. My apologies in advance too, since I'm guessing you already know what follows and are simply asking the rhetorical question. This is really for those that are still sleeping.

      The real answer is that the people currently sitting in offices don't give a rats ass about their own Constitution. Don't look at what they say, look at what they do! The Patriot act has not been diminished, it's been extended. Hidden clauses in executive orders remove things from view, and public support. Lets not kid each other, that is a symptom of a much larger problem and not the problem.

      Socrates warned that citizens must guard against people in political offices that demand increasing amounts of power. He was the first, but definitely not the last. That quest for power can quickly turn any form of Government into a tyranny.

      Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all. Even to the point where they refuse to admit it happens. We know it happens based on events and court cases, not because it's admitted.

      This is by the same people in office that will tell you to your face that they want to be open and honest. Does the term "pathological liar" not bother you?

      So if the Government ignores the Constitution and Bill of Rights when dealing with it's own citizens do you really expect them to honor the words with non-citizens? The constitution is the foundation for every other aspect of our Government.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find "no person" in the Bill of Rights referring to searches, just the fifth when it comes to indictments by grand juries.

    5. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no foreign citizen has any ability to change US law. They cannot vote. But they can, however, be droned, extradited, and bombed into oblivion.

    6. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. You yourself admit that laws apply to several categories of people who are not citizens ("residents" and "inhabitants" of the US or its protectorates).

      What does the constitution itself say on the subject? Well, there's the 14th Amendment: "No state shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      What matters is not who you are, but where you are.

    7. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

      It was a bit rhetorical, but thank you for your reply :) What you point out is very much the "Ideals versus Institutions" gap pointed out by Samuel Huntington.

      To add a little more rhetoric, let's italicize the oath of office in the US:

      I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

      Oh the times, Oh the Morals.... --Cicero

    8. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it has more to do with the fact that despite the MANY MANY attempts by Americans to say differently over the years, no part of the American Constitution (nor any law subject thereto) applies to ANYONE who is neither a Citizen, nor a Resident, nor an inhabitant of the United States or it's protectorates (i.e. Costa Rica etc)

      Why you're absolutely right! Not only that, the US consitution doesn't apply to ANYONE who is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the US or it's protectorates either!

      The US constitution is an exhaustive enumeration of the powers of the US GOVERNMENT. It only applies to the government and lists what it can do.

    9. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by BeerCat · · Score: 2

      And therein lies the problem with the Oath of Office:

      John Q Public: Go after than person. Their actions clearly show that they are an enemy of the US constitution!
      US Politico: Um, no. They're your enemy, not mine. In fact, I rather like them (because they keep me in power) Have a nice day y'all

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    10. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Bill of Rights is peculiar in that it does not say "no citizen", but it says "no person."

      Ah, but are foreign nationals actually people?

      The answer isn't obvious when you consider that slaves weren't full people as per the original document.

    11. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.... perhaps you missed or overlooked the part where I said:

      nor any law subject thereto

      That somewhat inoccuous phrase expands the application of my statement to every/any law passed by the Congressional branch, every/any rule decreed by the Executive Branch, and every/any ruling issued by the Judicial branch. As all of these things gain their powers via the American Constitution.

      So are you honestly contending that none of THOSE things pertain to the Citizens, Residents and inhabitants of the US? Because there are a lot of people in American prisons who would like to hear the basis for that position!

      -AC

    12. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Read it again, and don't be so narrow minded. It's really not that long of a read from start to finish. In fact it may be enlightening.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Lucky for me as a US citizen, whether at home or abroad, I just tag all my content and my emails with my US social security number and my date of birth.

      For phone calls, it does get a little bit trickier, I just say my social security number, my full name, and my date of birth out loud as clearly as I can to every person that I talk to on the telephone. This signals to the NSA that they should just hit the stop recording button, so that they don't accidentally record/transcribe/index my conversation with that person on their Echelon clouds (or that at least if I'm speaking to a foreigner, that they make the effort to filter out my voice from the recording leaving only the voice of the foreigner on there).

    14. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. A well educated third grader can interpret the spirit of the oath of office.

      But a President today can simply puts a Scalia onto the bench of the Supreme Court, who will gladly interpret the Constitution in a way that sounds more like Mein Kampf. We are drowning in lawyers, making noises like Bill Clinton's "...that depends what "IS" is..". Duplicitous self serving scumbags who will print the Bill of Rights on rolls that are squeezably soft, while kissing babies and glad handing corporate giants holding fat checks. We've been bought and sold by little men.

      Doom and Gloom would be letting this lie. Nonsense, would be ignoring the vital need to take back what is our God given liberty in the face of our culture being destroyed one word at a time. It is the government that must stand transparent, naked before the people, and not the other way.

    15. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's okay, recent changes in the law now make it possible to do anything we do to foreign nationals to be done to our own citizens. What could be fairer?

    16. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Genda · · Score: 2

      And when done traveling abroad you return home how? By ruby slipper?

      The NSA has a massive listening post in England. Guess what? They've been listening to U.S Domestic calls for most of 20 years. You can tag all your correspondences with "Don't shoot, I'm one of you!" too. Good luck with that.

    17. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'God' given liberty? your imaginary friend in the sky didnt give me liberty, People who bleed for and died for it did. They might be able to make me a slave but in my mind I will alllways be free and waiting for my chance to be so again.

    18. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 0

      Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all.

      Therefore, by your own statements, you don't know either. But that doesn't stop you from presenting your opinion about it as if it were fact.

    19. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's okay, recent changes in the law now make it possible to do anything we do to foreign nationals to be done to our own citizens. What could be fairer?

      And they wonder why people with STEM degrees are no longer interested in immigrating. (And why, even after having jumped through 3-6 years of hoops to get a green card, skilled immigrants elect to remain on their green cards rather than file for citizenship.)

    20. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money and greed, my friend

    21. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Askmum · · Score: 1

      Well, it has more to do with the fact that despite the MANY MANY attempts by Americans to say differently over the years, no part of the American Constitution (nor any law subject thereto) applies to ANYONE who is neither a Citizen, nor a Resident, nor an inhabitant of the United States or it's protectorates (i.e. Costa Rica etc).

      At which point the distinction in one of it's clauses (i.e. "person" vs "citizen") is a moot one anyway...

      If such an individual conducts business within the US, he or she may do so contrarily to the law, but even still, subject to an order of extradition which must be approved by the individual's home country, the law does not apply to the individual.

      -AC

      Very convenient. Is this why Guantanamo Bay is no problem in the US?

    22. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Notably, psychology of slaves, which is studied quite significantly, suggests that they are in fact slaves in their minds and most end up playing a very-slave like role in their lives even if freed. This was observed in US after they were freed in the states where there were many slaves.

    23. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by sargon666777 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.... perhaps you missed or overlooked the part where I said:

      nor any law subject thereto

      That somewhat inoccuous phrase expands the application of my statement to every/any law passed by the Congressional branch, every/any rule decreed by the Executive Branch, and every/any ruling issued by the Judicial branch. As all of these things gain their powers via the American Constitution.

      So are you honestly contending that none of THOSE things pertain to the Citizens, Residents and inhabitants of the US? Because there are a lot of people in American prisons who would like to hear the basis for that position!

      -AC

      I think the finer point here is if we had followed the constitution in the first place there would be no rule decreed by the executive branch.. the powers would have remained as originally structured which was a constitution to define the relationship of the state and federal powers (the states were intended to have more power), and a Bill of Rights to define the rights that are untouchable by those entities.

      --
      Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
    24. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bill of rights is not a law or series of laws. else we would never have had slavery. its a shame they didn't make the bill of rights a law.

    25. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain how nearly 250 years of common law has managed to change the definition of a "person" to include US companies, but not foreign citizens utilizing services within the US?

      Terrorism, copyright, and child porn. Those are the magic 3 that will allow them to pretty much bypass everything.

      But don't worry, those 3 can circumvent the rights of citizens as well.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    26. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The real answer is that the people currently sitting in offices don't give a rats ass about their own Constitution.

      This means that the public does not give a rats ass. If they would, they would change it.
      Politicians have not changed. They have been the same for thousands of years.
      And I understand why they do not give out any information. Because nobody does anything if they don't. What incentive do you provide for them to do what you want? Voting for the other one who also does not do it?

      Not only does the government ignore its citizens. Its citizens ignore the government and that is scary..

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    27. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      This means that the public does not give a rats ass. If they would, they would change it.

      Partial truth. You seem to be ignoring the power of propaganda and the ability of the Government to control the reality people see and hear. Don't take my word for that statement, go read Plato's Republic. We have known the power and ability for at least 2,600 years. I say "at least" because I doubt Socrates was the first to say "Ah Ha!". He was however the first to be published showing its use against citizens.

      You also neglect the difficulty in changing society once people in power gain a foot hold.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    28. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Genda · · Score: 1

      Forgive the phrase... would you be happier with "Inalienable Rights", the point is that you are born with them, and no government or corporation can take them away unless you have "WILLFULLY" entered into contract. Deceits and dishonest transactions inflicted on the population do not merit consent, and its time for all free minded people to throw off the shackles of oppression and demand that our governments comply with their legal obligations or get out of our way.

    29. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Totally off topic, but cool game in your sig.

    30. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I put it in the public domain, so share and enjoy.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    31. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      Your question is bad, but I can answer it.

      During the period in which the U.S. debated becoming a European style empire, the Supreme Court fabricated (I think in the insular cases) doctrines that said outside of U.S. States and certain other classes of territory, the Constitution does not apply, or at least that's the version taught to schoolchildren (and probably the one politicians promote).

      It would have been better logic to say "in times of war in places thereof the Constitution is suspended" or something like that, i.e. "when you're fighting in some warzone outside the States, the Constitution doesn't apply in full", but they didn't: they gave the greenlight ("we won't judge against you") to the Federal government to act however it wants outside of U.S. jurisdictions of certain kinds, meaning those outside of any are just screwed (those within the special territories are "privileged" to be governed by the UCMJ, though for many places of the world that would still be quite an improvement).

      Besides that, corporations have always been "personae", which you'll find in any basic law text (book, historical doc...): the reason? Simple. Without the status of "persona" (not plural), a corporation can't be taken to court. The left here has been increasingly showing a combination of willful ignorance as well as arrogance: just "making shit up" as a roommate (and gov employee, and lawyer-in-training, and social liberal...) likes to put it. Obama et. al. know that "corporations are [personae]", because "persona/personae" is actually a technical, legal fiction in the first place (actually second, it's a technical term that goes back into ancient history, and it is also a theological category): the "tricky" part is that it is a category that in colloquial as well as legal usage can't be separated from "human being", which Roe v. Wade pretended could be done--also why libs are gnashing teeth and so nervous about the status and security of the right promulgated in that decision, because it is on shaky, no, unsustainable grounds: that is why legal circles are trying to re-found it on the grounds that the Constitution now forbids "involuntary servitude", except that statue can't be construed to have ever intended, nor the words' scope to include, such a matter (but it would not be surprising if a large group of intelligentsia/intellectuals/elites/D.C.ites started to do so anyway).

      Aside from that technical information (which matters in law), the foreign citizens haven't been denied "personhood", they've simply, arbitrarily, been declared to be suspect, or put another way, the Constitution as written has been denied: it's a frequent recurring (and often long-lasting) feature of American politics, government, especially juris"prudence". I would say "get used to it", but that assumes cynism or encourages apathy, and frankly assumes that you give a damn about the actual law vs. your own pet peeves of "rights" that may or may not be so, that you "wanna": not meant to be an insult, but it's tiring to hear of rights and so-called rights bandied about by people while they try to deny rights to others: "rights for me, not for you". What's often missing is that things claimed as rights but are not, become fictious rights created and upheld by given coalition hegemony that lasts for quite some time, which by nature (as rights) create duties in others (which infringe upon or abolish fundamental rights), but mention that, and they start attacking you as a lunatic: "one of those natural rights idiots, hahahaha", because if they can succeed in re-grounding our law on everything British, rather than keeping the foundations on the principles promulgated by the founders (which included natural rights theory), we really do become subjects of the government rather than its masters.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    32. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      I would like to attack this popular myth right here: the answer is obvious, for two reasons. One is based on the fact that this argument is fallacious and is brainwashing, side-stepping providing a relevant consideration that nullifies the assertion "slaves weren't full people as per the original document". The other is very simple, and would apply even if that assertion ("slaves weren't full people") were true.

      (1) The Constitution does neither say nor imply that slaves are not people, but that for the purposes of the census they would be enumerated as 3/5ths a person per...person ("...three fifths of all other Persons.").

      I would just like to point-out how IDIOTIC the left in this country is on this issue, for ignoring this, and also self-serving: they do this to tarnish that document and...try to argue they should not be bound by it (while out of the other side of their mouths claiming they have legitimate authority to govern because of it, though usually twisting it in the process).

      (2) If only slaves "were not people", then would it not mean that those who are foreign nationals and not salves, be covered as people? This is moot because the Constitution actually declares them persons! (see (1)), it just enumerates them for counting purposes different for purposes of determining other governing functions because...wait for it...they didn't want the slave States to have more influence (numbers which would lead to more representation/control by them) just because of the slaves: THEY WANTED TO DIMINISH THAT ELEMENT, which also SHOWS either HOW FRICKIN' DISHONEST OR ELSE IGNORANT "THE LEFT" (probably both in terms of their "leaders"/philosophers-behind-the-scenes-pulling-the-strings vs. the followers) IS.

      Please also note: I don't consider the Republicans, on the whole, desirable, honest, worthwhile, supportable, or any good either. I just hate gangrenous myths that pretend to point-out injustices and undermine some "evil bad traditional pre-60's thing" that supposedly is responsible for injustices, and twisted and warped and used to empower conscience-less pathological megalomaniacs who pretend to give a damn about what's right rather than their tribe (as long as they're leading it), which allowed to continue in popular imagination spread and continue to serve the function of those powerful dicks rather than put them in their place, limit their power, and say "**** off" effectively.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    33. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

      My question was rhetorical, but thanks for taking the time to answer rhetorical questions that you categorize as "bad."

      Your response is filled with "weasel words" --e.g. "libs" "the left ... ignorance as well as arrogance" and shows a clear right wing "tea party"-esque bias. I wish you could communicate in a more respectful way. Note that I am not a "lib" (which is a derogatory term), nor would I resort to name calling of any group.

      To respond to your points: While legal fiction has long existed in the common law system as an essential component, corporate personhood as implemented in the United States is quite peculiar. In it, officers of a corporation are often and typically shielded from criminal prosecution. Their legal status as persons (persona ficta) allows them to sue, and be sued for torts and other civil matters, but they are generally not held under criminal prosecution, with exceptions for the most severe cases such as Madoff and Enron. Again, a feature of our peculiar common law system.

      Your final point seems like a combination of two things: Samuel Huntington's "IvI" Gap -- Ideals versus institutions -- and the difference between "de facto" and "de jure." My point, in question form, was that 250 years of common law has changed our country's constitution to the point where foreign citizens are no longer even considered persons, and are considered outside of U.S. court jurisdiction. That is an absurdity that deserves recognition.

    34. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1
      Your analysis of the "Three-Fifths" compromise is lacking in historical context. At the Constitutional convention, counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was the result of a debate between the north and the south. The South, wanting more representation in the house of representatives, wanted to count it slaves as people. However, since they had no other rights, the North suggested they also count their chickens, hens and pigs for representation, since those were chattel (property) as well.

      The only reason it was included in the final document is because it was expected that both the slave trade (which was abolished) and slavery itself would soon be abolished in the United States and this become a non-issue and just a temporary placeholder to get a Constitution to replace the poor institutions of the Articles of Confederation.

      Anything based on a false premise is false. Your understanding is in poor historical context -- no one believed in the rights and personhood of slaves, just in counting them for their own myopic political advantage. It was not a matter of philosophy.

      Additionally, I would appreciate it if you stopped attacking any group of people, whether it be "the left" or anyone else, with scornful, trollish phrases written in all caps. You clearly have a good vocabulary and some intelligence, but your responses are personally directed at entire classes of people and mean-spirited. That doesn't make anyone want to read or believe your points, it just tunes people out who don't already agree with you. Rhetoric 101.

    35. Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? by infinitelink · · Score: 1
      The rhetorical question: in the current political environment it seemed like just another shot about the "corporations as people" thing, but re-reading it, I get that I could have misconstrued you point: I think it quite easy in this environment. I find it funnier that "three fifths of all other Persons" is so vague as to include clearly include the personhood of non-citizens, and the fourteenth amendment is even clearer that they are. When you say

      250 years of common law has changed our country's constitution to the point where foreign citizens are no longer even considered persons, and are considered outside of U.S. court jurisdiction

      I need to point-out, that 250 years hasn't "changed out country's constitution", it has simply built-up a morass-ive range of mounts of caselaw and willful misinterpretations, instances and principles on how to willfully ignore/disregard it, and proposed under thin guise of supposed "constitutionality" things that are "legal" but not "the law". They haven't changed out Constitution on this point one bit: just pretended that they are not violating it or going against it while they are. Quite clearly, the Constitution classes these people (then and now and between) as "people". If you want to really agitate and start throwing a wrench into the lawyers', judges', and politicians' BS, stop talking like them, and when they say some ruling has made/declared/determined something "Constitutional" that isn't, reply "rhetoric: the judiciary can 'say what law is', not 'make shit up'" (
      Another post intended to be forthcoming...

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  8. US hosed our servers by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Funny

    "hosed by U.S. companies"

  9. UK Govt using zendesk?? by lkcl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a friend of mine made a freedom of information request recently, and was surprised to find that his question was responded to using zendesk. so he looked up the IP address and, on discovering that the IP address was in the U.S., made some pointed enquiries as to why his confidential details, as well as UK Government matters, were being stored in a jurisdiction outside of the sovereignty of the UK.

    the best one though was learning that UK MPs have been issued with ippads. which is great. confidential UK business can be snooped on by not just the U.S. govt but by a U.S. Corporation, and UK MPs can be "advertised at", and sold commercial music and entertainment services that they have absolutely no business letting in to Parliament.

    all good fun, eh?

    1. Re:UK Govt using zendesk?? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't sweat it. Your government has a history of leaving laptops with millions of records of personal information sitting around. Basically, everyone who wants your information probably already has it.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  10. Practical impact? by trampel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not? When signing up for service, all Google asks for is the location, not the country of citizenship.

    Even if John Doe accesses his email from a non-US ISP, he might well be a citizen traveling abroad.

    1. Re:Practical impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not?

      Just send him an email and ask him what he knows about Lincoln, Abraham. If he thinks it's a crossover SUV you know you've got a Fox News watching American.

    2. Re:Practical impact? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Just send him an email and ask him what he knows about Lincoln, Abraham.

      I saw that movie about him! He was a pretty kick-ass vampire hunter!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Practical impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not?

      Why would they care? Hidden in here is the assumption that US citizens would be exempt from being spied upon and they won't be

      If the bullshit "6-months-old email is fair game" rule won't fly, then the fact that Google has servers outside of US might. I think anything stored outside of US would be merrily considered outside of US jurisdiction and thus not subject to protection of law.

    4. Re:Practical impact? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Google has your name and many other personal information. It probably also has your country of citizenship somewhere.

    5. Re:Practical impact? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      For the most part, citizenship is not an issue. The FBI needs the same sorts of warrants to investigate a person in the USA whether or not that person is a citizen.

      Also, I find the notion that the FBI, NSA or CIA would take a deep and personal interest in the data of each and every person in the world wildly fanciful. As if they have millions analysts sifting through the mountains of data that the world produces every day...

      Of course they don't do that. They don't have the capacity to look at more than a tiny fraction of the world's data and they never will.

      But they want you to think that they have and maintain and are building capacity that will allow them to see and analyze every computer transaction in the world, break into any system any time they want and rummage through your data to their heart's content. (Like the government computer geeks do on TV shows.) Because if you think that, you will be discouraged from trying to commit a crime or try to conceal information from the United States. So the dupes on here who obsess about US government spying are really only furthering the government's agenda.

      But they also want you to think you have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong. That's not quite true either. You can damn well get crossways with them without even trying and end up in a big mess.

    6. Re:Practical impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as he tries to influence the Holy Foreign Policy, he belongs to either of the two categories: 1) foreign national trying to influence the foreign policy, 2) U.S. citizen trying to influence foreign policy. FISAAA takes care of the first case, FBI anti-terr..activist activities and lists takes care of the second case. John is covered.

  11. Poisoning the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft has been harping on about this before. They previously said they themselves couldn't promise to keep their users' data private to the degree required by EU law.

    As I see it, what they're doing is trying to poison the whole idea of cloud services, because in poisoning their own market they also poison Google's. And while to Microsoft, 'cloud services' are an expensive and annoying distraction, to Google it's central to their entire business strategy.

    1. Re:Poisoning the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they're just being honest. This problem with the cloud were obvious from day 1 and is one of a small set of showstopper reasons why it's foolish to use cloud services for anything but the most trivial purposes.

      They aren't trying to poison the cloud. The cloud was born poisonous.

  12. Is this really news to anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, everyone outside the US has known since the mid-2000's that the American Gov't has absolutely ZERO compunction about spying on ANYTHING within it's borders.

    Even "secretly" wire-tapping it's own citizens.

    In Canada we have distinct and fairly robust privacy legislation, and I'm constantly warning businesses to avoid storing anything in the cloud that could potentially contain affected info (customer data primarily, but also patient data in doctor's offices and other medical professionals). Simply uploading ANY of that data to the cloud COULD put you in violation of the law since you can no-longer provide ANY ASSURANCE WHATSOEVER that it hasn't been viewed or shared with unauthorized parties.

    Furthermore, I personally just assume, straight-up, that ANYTHING that Facebook, Google, Amazon or Microsoft host is de rigueur scanned, indexed and cataloged.

    This also applies to anything done in Chrome, or Android (vis a vis Google) or if you've installed any of Google's personal-search tools. It just doesn't make sense NOT to assume that the worst thing you can imagine happening in these cases either is-already, or will-eventually-be, happening.

    I single-out Google and it's many tools at the moment because hoarding information about you (and then selling it) IS the basis of their business model. The more information they can harvest about you personally, the more valuable their product is. Therefore, the greater their incentive is/will-be to accrue and store as much information as they possibly can about every single thing you do, place you go, thing you think... If they're not doing it already, the past history of American Corporocratic greed compels me to believe that they will eventually...

    Still, it's hard to believe that any of this would be considered "new" news in 2013.

    -AC

    1. Re:Is this really news to anyone? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

      In Canada we have distinct and fairly robust privacy legislation,

      Ever hear about hushmail? Canada didn't have their back..

    2. Re:Is this really news to anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hadn't heard about it, but in reading some background, it appears that they were served with a warrant, which AFAIK would make a disclosure legal under PIPEDA (disclosure: IANAL).

      Nevertheless, the case doesn't seem relevant to my basic warning: if you are a Canadian company, subject to PIPEDA, and you store information in the cloud, you could inadvertantly find yourself in violation of the tenets of the act and subject to its penalties.

      -AC

    3. Re:Is this really news to anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, everyone outside the US has known since the mid-2000's that the American Gov't has absolutely ZERO compunction about spying on ANYTHING within it's borders.

      ... and bombing anything outside of its borders.

    4. Re:Is this really news to anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada we have distinct and fairly robust privacy legislation,

      Ever hear about hushmail? Canada didn't have their back..

      ...well this is awkward!

  13. Internet tradition by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US is driving business away with a weighted stick.

    People hold beliefs about other countries and people for a very long time; in many cases, long after the belief has had any meaning. For example, "the French surrendered", "Germans are Nazis", "Chinese products are crappy", "Japanese cars are like finely-tuned watches", and so on. Think of any nation and it comes with a satchel of beliefs held about its people.

    The US is getting an odius reputation for business and tourism. The overall message we send is: "don't come to the US for anything". Businesses are leaving the US in droves, preferring to operate in more friendly areas.

    When the US is known worldwide as "business unfriendly", it'll be nigh impossible to turn that around even if the situation changes.

    This is what our government is doing for us. It's effect on productivity (and employment) is obvious.

    (As a personal anecdote, I recently registered a .net domain, and the registrar (in France) had me click through a strongly worded message stating that the US could demand all sorts of privileges from the domain. Essentially, they stated that they could not guarantee my privacy or the safety of my data when registering a .net domain.)

    1. Re:Internet tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially, they stated that they could not guarantee my privacy or the safety of my data when registering a .net domain.)

      Wow, I never realised that a domain name could extend rights over an IP address. Because if I read you message correctly a .net domain would give the US government rights over a server hosted outside of the US. Do you have any links to further information about how this works?

    2. Re:Internet tradition by malbosher · · Score: 1

      Government is a process therefore your quote, "This is what our government is doing," is meaningless. the question should be, who is in control of the process of government. The answer will be business, specifically large international corporations.

    3. Re:Internet tradition by suutar · · Score: 2

      wild ass guess: It's .net, so it's handled by DNS servers the US can control, so they can get the domain to map to a monitoring proxy that forwards connections back to the real server but logs it all. And depending how the certificates are set up, perform man-in-the-middle decryption.

    4. Re:Internet tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure Europeans will flock to the U.S when it becomes the Right-wing and/or Libertarian paradise which you are implying is superior. The only parts of U.S. businesses which are leaving the country are their tax responsibilities and any jobs which aren't nailed, glued, and chained down. I'm assuming of course that you are talking about The Corporations though. Small businesses in the U.S. are being crushed by them and their bought and paid for Congress. The small businesses should flee the U.S., but can't afford it.

    5. Re:Internet tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government is no longer a process but a separate entity above citizens.
      This has been a fact since before anyone on this site or anyone they know have lived. (even if you somehow know the oldest people alive)

      Government is no longer the tool of the people, people are the tool of the government.
      Councils, for the most part, are usually pretty much the same, they are run by the people for the people to help gather resources to produce useful things for the community that no single person could do alone. (more-or-less)
      But the stage up from that just went to complete hell and back. It never survived the journey intact.
      The people who went towards government saw an opportunity to become great, above and beyond those normals, like kings.
      Nobles and Peasantry still exist, it just has a different naming system now. Same shit, different skin.
      If you aren't rich or powerful, in their eyes you are disposable.

    6. Re:Internet tradition by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      LOL. If your thing is "you better shape up or you're going to get a reputation as a sort of global Bond villain", you're really going to need some fresher material. That is a dead horse trope. Europeans have been despising and looking down on Americans for centuries. Back in the 80s, which is as far as my memory goes, Europeans had continent-wide demonstrations against the American warmongers who insisted on keeping the Red Army out. Even then, this was nothing new. So, drop the false pretense that America is "becoming" bad, according to the Euroview that's been the case for a long, long time.

      "The French couldn't hate us any more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
      -- Will Rogers, 1932

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Internet tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because we don't believe foreigners deserve rights doesn't mean that they shouldn't spend their vacations enjoying our beautiful national parks and famous landscapes! Carjackings aren't all that common, and the vast majority of tourists *won't* be shipped overseas to be tortured indefinitely with absolutely no hope of legal recourse.

    8. Re:Internet tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why take the risk? We've had nationals being jailed for years in USA for driving the wrong way in US. We've had nationals rejected at the US border because of Facebook postings.

      Only US can change this and again become "brave". What is troubling is that the whole "land of the free & brave"-thing has always been a myth. US have always been about exploitation. It just begins to suck when the same karma turns on itself.

      US CAN reinvent itself though, but not while being led by psychopaths.

      Captcha: recall

  14. Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud by sehlat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think about it a moment. The Hollywood ... er ... US Government seized all servers and data on a flimsy warrant and trumped-up charges, including the accusation that Megaupload had retained data on its servers even after takedown notice(s). It has since emerged that the government specifically requested that they leave those files up for "investigation." One guy trusted his business data and property to the service and he's *still* fighting to get it back, despite the fact that it was un-shared and 100% his own legal property.

    Cloud services effectively died that day. Why trust any service when a third party can cut you off at any time from your own property without let or recourse?

    1. Re:Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cloud services effectively died that day.

      I wish you were right, but you're not. Sadly, Stupid breeds way faster than Smart, so "cloud" subscriptions keep growing.

    2. Re:Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can still use cloud services as backup. Simply encrypt what you upload.

      Our company uses Google Docs and Drive extensively, and just use the Syncdocs plugin to secure the data.

    3. Re:Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption is not a panacea. What encryption gets you is the ability to keep a secret for a short period of time. If you are putting backups in the cloud, they are vulnerable to snooping regardless of whether they're encrypted. Encryption gives you two things in that use case: it delays the ability for the data to be snooped, and it makes it less likely that the data will be snooped casually.

  15. Count on Europe by Kergan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Methinks you can count on Europe to eventually get this right.

    Twitter getting sued and losing to France's Jew student union over obnoxious hashtags is just the high profile round two of the same joust they had with Yahoo over nazi artifacts getting auctioned over a decade ago. They won last time; they'll win this time. And US companies will comply to French law on this matter just like last time. I suspect that the pitiful €1k/day fine is going to quickly balloon to obscene amounts of money until the courts get a reaction from Twitter.

    In Germany, users are suing Facebook over the right to get deleted, and while they were the first, in typical German grassroots achievements, they no longer are the only ones. This is simply going to win, and they're just getting started. Sure enough, the Irish subsidiary is dragging its feet to comply. Presumably to Zuck's despair -- here's a continent with over 600M people willing not only in fighting for the right to be deleted but also in actually enforcing it. In the end, sane views will prevail, and the US laws will get kicked back across the Atlantic where they belong -- for US citizens to debate further, hopefully with new, more enlightened insights.

    The same could arguably be told of countries like China, Egypt or Iran: ironically, US firms are made to comply with local law over there, plain and simple, much faster then they are to EU laws. But the EU is hopefully similar enough to the US that the latters' citizens will not shrug that the former are merely uneducated barbarians when their laws are sent back for review.

    1. Re:Count on Europe by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Methinks you can count on Europe to eventually get this right.

      I totally agree and am envious of the privacy policies Europe has enforced or called BS on.

  16. I live in the U.S. and won't use a cloud by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    If you've been reading Privacy Policies for awhile
    you've noticed them becoming more intrusive.

    To me posting to a cloud is the same as to a newsgroup,
    public domain, no matter what's said.

  17. Here is a European Parliment Report by Diamonddavej · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a report for the European Parliament (Pdf) about cyber crime and privacy of Cloud services, co-written by Caspar Bowden, it discusses the ramifications of FISAAA. The salient section is "3.4. The inter-state/states/companies relation" on page 34.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79050

    Furthermore, proposed changes to the EU's data protection regulations will facilitate FISAAA. Specifically, if a Security Companies' audit of a Cloud Service uncovers U.S. spying, they will be obligated not to inform an affected EU company. I wonder what pressure the U.S. is applying to get this passed...

    US lobbying waters down EU data protection reform

    "For example, IMCO voted to allow easier profiling of users by companies, and lessen the importance of reporting personal data breaches as soon as they occur. At the same time, most proposals to strengthen regulation were rejected.

  18. Security on the clouds by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No matter where that cloud is stationed, putting stuffs that are sensitive in nature is never a good idea.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Security on the clouds by smitsays · · Score: 1

      Yes , I really appreciate about your thinking. Liquidations Center

  19. Verisign is a US company by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I just now searched my browser history & couldn't find the message. (I'd love a Memex plugin for Firefox.)

    My registrar gets .net domains through Verisign, which is a US company, and I believe that's the issue. They had a nice diagram showing ICANN -> Verisign -> (My Registrar) which shows the problem.

    I believe the text also read something like "these agreements bind you to Verisign and ICANN", then went on to explain how Verisign is a US company, how the government could step in and do nasty things, you have agreed to this situation, &c. The note mentioned ".net" and ".com" domains.

    1. Re:Verisign is a US company by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Does your registrar get a higher margin on .fr domains?

      I'm not saying the US jursidiction thing isn't an issue, just that it seems your registrar is really exaggerating the risks and maybe they have another reason for that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Verisign is a US company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worries are real for people operating with domain names registered in the US. Not only can your domain name be taken away from you, but it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

    3. Re:Verisign is a US company by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      Not only can your domain name be taken away from you

      True. But super rare.

      it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

      False.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Verisign is a US company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

      False.

      You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.

    5. Re:Verisign is a US company by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.

      How's about you paint my face blue with a citation?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Verisign is a US company by xaxa · · Score: 2

      http://m.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2083906/claims-com-net-websites-jurisdiction

      (Posting from phone, I might folllow up. Properly later.)

    7. Re:Verisign is a US company by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You are going to have to follow up because that does not prove what the AC has been claiming. All it says is that the "jurisdiction" is enough to take down the website aka confiscate the domain name by having verisign hand it over. That part is not under dispute - they've done that a whole bunch of times, but they haven't even tried to do anything more than that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Verisign is a US company by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Just see it from the positive side: if the French government goes against you for whatever reason, they won't be able to pull your .net domain. Every coin has two faces.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  20. Obvious question by theRunicBard · · Score: 2

    Are there alternatives? Dropbox is US, Google Drive is US, I would assume Skydrive is US... What else will they use?

    1. Re:Obvious question by jbeaupre · · Score: 2
      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Obvious question by GPierce · · Score: 2

      Until the drone blows hs server farm away, Kim Dotcom's Mega might actually be secure. At least that's the plan. And it will all be good until we find that Kim Dotcom is a CIA agent. (There is no such thing as being too paranoid.)

      --

      When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    3. Re:Obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jottacloud, qCloud, all the Scandinavian countries have super tight privacy laws, and except for sweden they don't really give into U.S. pressure..

    4. Re:Obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr, i meant greenqloud, qcloud isn't a real thing. I should register one of these days I come here every day now..

    5. Re:Obvious question by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      I actually wouldn't trust him farther than I can throw him.

      You might want to look up some sources on the connection between Schmitz and a lawyer (more like the copyright equivalent of an ambulance chaser) called Gravenreuth (most sources on the topic are only in German).
      Back in the BBS days Kim Schmitz more than happily weaseled his way into various groups and when he got bored he simply sold out the data and contacts to said lawyer (one whose "good" conduct over the years eventually led to him being convicted of fraud and killing himself before he had to begin his prison sentence).

    6. Re:Obvious question by fincan · · Score: 2

      Wuala, www.wuala.com. And as a US company, Spideroak, www.spideroak.com

    7. Re:Obvious question by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Also his convictions for embezzlement during the dot.com era.
      The man is a megalomaniac, snitch, pushover, fraudster and frankly bad news. At least he has been consistent over the last twenty years.

      There is a reason why he left Germany. He has built up so much bad reputation in tech and business circles he wouldn't even get a burger flipping job let alone run a business with him at the helm.
      That man is a toad.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    8. Re:Obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpiderOak (http://www.spideroak.com) mention that they encrypt everything in the local client before its uploaded to their servers so they cannot see inside any file.

    9. Re:Obvious question by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Just use client-side encryption and you're good to go. Probably shouldn't trust them with your unencrypted data even if you are a US citizen.

    10. Re:Obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their own private cloud.

  21. translation by terec · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you look at, for example, the data protection laws here in Germany, the German government can get at my data even more easily than the FBI can get at data in the US. What I'm asking myself is: assuming that any government can look at data within its borders anyway, what's the best place to store my data? Good attributes for such a place are: I'm not living there, I don't want to travel there, and they aren't really on good terms with my government.

    I think what the EU representatives are really saying in so many words is: "don't store your data in the US, where European governments have a harder time getting at it, store it in Europe where we can get at it easily (but you can trust us!)".

    1. Re:translation by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Might as well store your information in China. ;)

    2. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Iran would take advantage of the opportunity to store the world's data, they wouldn't need oil exports.

    3. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Iceland has a pretty good reputation for privacy.

    4. Re:translation by terec · · Score: 2

      You think that's a joke, but why not? What is the Chinese government going to do to you? Have you extradited for storing anti-Marxist propaganda? Fine you for copyright violations?

    5. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea comes to mind ... if only they had electricity there ...

    6. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Store it on a server that is accessible only via a Tor hidden service. Only you will know where it is. If somebody wants to find it, they have to search for every computer it could feasibly be on.

    7. Re:translation by cpghost · · Score: 1

      If you can tunnel your data through the Great Firewall, why not? What's wrong with a Chinese or Ukrainian cloud provider, compared with an US or EU cloud provider? They may even be less expensive and, if you're lucky, managed just as professionally.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  22. Horse Shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any business leaving the U.S. is doing so strictly for the minimization of costs associated with labor & taxes. You don't see them relocating to wealthy European countries. Ireland gave huge subsidies to attract telecom CS centers and Intel chip fabs, and the boom last not even 10 years.

    If you think they're moving operations to Phillipines, Malaysia, Mexico, China or India for friendship then you're smoking crack and mistaking the $'s for little green men.

    1. Re:Horse Shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being "business (un)friendly" has nothing to do with warm and fuzzies. Stop being a dink.

  23. Facebook fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember Skype the other day? when was the last time you heard FBI complain it couldn't get Skype intercepts because of its P2P nature? Now they're *using* Skype intercepts in prosecutions! So our private calls are also intercepted now. I think the routing comes from an MS server and they simply route it through an intercept.

    In the latest financials, I see Facebook has substantial 'fees' income, separate from advertising. At first I thought it was for the charges they make for contacting your friends list, but that doesn't explain it, the fees go back before the introduced that charge.

    I think they sell NSA access. I think a substantial portion of that fee is to give NSA access to all the private profile information, all the non public graph data.

    I find it difficult to imagine a situation where Facebook has secret info, Facebook wants money, NSA has money, NSA wants info, there's no law stopping them getting it, even on US citizens, (cloud stuff greater than 6 months on USA citizens is not considered private, even if its private email, cloud stuff on non US citizens is fair game). Hence Facebook must be selling data to NSA by Occam's razor.

  24. duh .... by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    as a US Citizen I don't use them.

  25. news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's new here? I remember that most EU states agreed to handover data about its citizens to USA anyway, so we're fckuedup anyway.

  26. US Citizens are safe..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How would the gov differentiate between US citizens' and non-US citizens' data? I'm a US citizen living in Germany. Am I and others like me safe? Why does the US gov have such contempt for the rights of non-US citizens anyway?

  27. How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How oh how is this in 2013, news? The Patriot Act (Enacted into US law just slightly post 9/11/2001), allows the US government to access any data from any source held by a US company, whether that companies operations are within the United States, or located in a foreign country (any other country). The act also requires the company to provide all information requested by the US government, and requires the company *NOT* to disclose to any party their actions on behalf of the US Government. So it's not just data stored on US servers, the servers can belong to people in other countries, with the server physically located not in the United States. It basically makes all US companies with access to data spies for the US government under US law. There are fines, penalties (including prison) for companies disclosing that the US Government is snooping for information, and likewise for non-compliance. That members of the EU are just discovering this now is quite surprising.

  28. Is it really that hard for him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to warn all people about US cloud services and not just EU people?

    or did he make a balls of the write-up?

  29. Not Europe's Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but that's not a problem for European citizens...

  30. Poisoning the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter the intent, the issue is still valid.

  31. There is a HUGE difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The german governement can require your data in germany but with a warrant. they CANNOT snoop permanentely over all the data , index it, and use it for whatever purpose. Whereas it is true there is a data rentention, there is no *looking* at that data without warrant.

    The US move mentionned above is *different*. They can legally snoop your data in real time, take everything they want, and even use it agaisnt you for their own political/economic advantage.

    If you are really thinking both are identical, then you can't beb helped.