Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Best Country To Avoid Government Surveillance?

Posted by samzenpus on from the hands-off dept.

simpz writes: Which country is best to choose for hosting Internet services and locating VMs to avoid government surveillance (both NSA and local)? It should be a country with good connectivity to the US and Europe, but have strong legal protections from mass surveillance. People talk about Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (even Spain). Anyone worked through the pros and cons of each of these? I'm not concerned about legitimate (with court order) surveillance, just the un-targeted mass surveillance most governments seem to do. I don't believe this bad behavior should be rewarded or made easy.

13 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    North Korea.

    1. Re:Easy by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Wrong: Somalia. When there is no functioning government there is no chance of government surveillance.

      The question has far to many implicit assumptions. It reeks of libertarian elitism.

      Is no government spying on residents identical to personal freedom? That's why the Somalia example is relevant. The government isn't spying on you, but you are at the mercy (literally) of warlords and violent religions factions. So what do are you really after?

      In the sense of traditional Western values, the current best answer might be Scandinavia or Germany. In those places your private life is really your own. For example there's none of the crap like in the US where right wing religious fanatics want to get into your sex life. As for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", most of the citizens are far better off then the US. They work fewer hours, have more time off, get better health care and retire at a much higher standard of living. They live longer, which is the key component of that "life" part of the quote.

      Of course they have less economic freedom, but they also have much better functioning democracy. Nobody can go out and try an buy elections, which is now the way the US elections are run.

      it's a trade off. But from the way the question was asked, I doubt that you like these answers. You're looking for a libertarian paradise, when what that really gets you is Somalia.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Easy by MyAlternateID · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wrong: Somalia. When there is no functioning government there is no chance of government surveillance.

      The question has far to many implicit assumptions. It reeks of libertarian elitism.

      Is no government spying on residents identical to personal freedom? That's why the Somalia example is relevant. The government isn't spying on you, but you are at the mercy (literally) of warlords and violent religions factions. So what do are you really after?

      In the sense of traditional Western values, the current best answer might be Scandinavia or Germany. In those places your private life is really your own. For example there's none of the crap like in the US where right wing religious fanatics want to get into your sex life. As for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", most of the citizens are far better off then the US. They work fewer hours, have more time off, get better health care and retire at a much higher standard of living. They live longer, which is the key component of that "life" part of the quote.

      Of course they have less economic freedom, but they also have much better functioning democracy. Nobody can go out and try an buy elections, which is now the way the US elections are run.

      it's a trade off. But from the way the question was asked, I doubt that you like these answers. You're looking for a libertarian paradise, when what that really gets you is Somalia.

      I've never seen a serious, credible libertarian advocate pure absolute 100% anarchy, just like I've never seen a serious, credible businessperson advocate 100% unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism. What I have seen is such people making arguments for a step closer to those things, an alteration or rethinking of the current balance or list of priorities. The state not spying on you without a damned good, demonstrable-in-court reason and not otherwise looking for ways to fuck with your life does not mean you must abandon all criminal justice and national defense.

      These "baby with the bathwater" excuses for argumentation really get tiresome. They don't remotely represent what any thinking person actually believes. Thus, they are strawmen.

    3. Re:Easy by Required+Snark · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, actually I never said anything about "100%" anarchy. I described Somalia as a place with "no functioning government". I said nothing to imply that an anarchistic government was the same as a completely failed state (except using it as a rhetorical device).

      I guess I have to spell it out for you. Despite the claim of rationality libertarianism has a very romantic view of the human condition: "If we could just get rid of the damn government then it would all work out great". Just like the romantic view of communism: "If we could just get rid of private property then it would all work out great". Note these are rhetorical simplifications, not formal doctrine. I was not talking literally. I assumed that my audience was able to see that point. A big mistake on my part, given that it's Slashdot.

      By the way, you're refutation is crap. It's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "No real Libertarian..."

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    4. Re:Easy by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn... you beat me to it.

      At least in N.Korea they don't try to hide the fact that this is a corrupt dictatorial government which acts solely in its own best interests.

      Hardly.... To those OUTSIDE North Korea it is obvious that they are a corrupt government run by a despot dictator... But INSIDE North Korea the perception is generally totally different.... The Un's are billed and accepted as the deliverer of the people, the savior of man kind and the eventual ruler of the WORLD at large. Yes they are starving and oppressed but in their world view the rest of the world is in much worse shape, both economically and morally.

      To the western world view this mindset is extremely hard to understand, but one has to remember that to the North Korean, who is feed a steady diet of carefully crafted PR with never an opposing view allowed in, what they believe makes sense. They don't realize how things they are allowed to see are so skewed, or if they do realize it, they are too afraid to speak up because anybody who even hints that they know the truth will be severely punished along with their extended families.

      This should cause all of us pause... Because it shows that otherwise intelligent people are controllable if you have proper control of the media they can see. A fact that was not lost on the framers of our constitution's Bill of Rights and why the 1st amendment is so very important.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  2. The place you speak of ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... doesn't exist. It just doesn't. No matter how many privacy walls a country throws up, a properly motivated rival country WILL find a way over them. Want to avoid surveillance? Learn about end-to-end encryption. Stop storing crap in the cloud. Be mindful of your choices in operating systems and mobile devices. And, even then. realize that a five dollar wrench is ultimately all it will take to defeat you.

  3. Re:Wrong problem by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "but have strong legal protections from mass surveillance"

    Both the US and the EU have strong legal protections from mass surveillance. The problem is those protections get ignored or subverted.

    What US protection?

    The Fourth Amendment only applies to "unreasonable search and seizure." Reasonable search and seizure, or uses of governmental information-gathering capabilities that are not "search and seizure", do not require a warrant. Black's Law Dictionary defines Search and Seizure as "These are the methods used to detect an punish crime that includes searching and taking property and data that can be used by the prosecution of the criminal." The NSA is not gathering data to arrest criminals and charge them in the civilian Court System. To be sure some of the data gets used that way, but if the military finds something out in the course of operations that are not intended to arrest your ass, there is a long history of the Court's saying "ok, Srg. Jennings says this guy had weed, we now grant a warrant to you Mr. DEA man to search this guy."

    That doesn't mean there isn't a Check on the NSA's surveillance power, it just means that anybody trying to use the Courts and the Fourth Amendment to stop this shit is likely to find that particular API call does not work. They can't get to a hearing, because to get a hearing you have to prove you have a right to sue, which is called standing, and the plain language of the law is that the Fourth Amendment does not cover NSA Surveillance, mass or otherwise. Which is extremely frustrating to people who are convinced that the Constitution must ban this shit, because it's evil so of course the Constitution bans it, and of course this will be enforced by the Courts.

    The actual Check on NSA Surveillance power is Congress, which could simply add a line to the budget saying "none of this money shall be used for PRISM," start hearings about the programs, or start impeaching people. Or any number of things that could actually work. But we can't try that. The EFF's lawyers have a legal casebook in their toolbox, but no lobbyists, so clearly the only tool for the job is the legal casebook.

  4. Costa Rica by lkcl · · Score: 1, Interesting

    costa rica is, geographically, a nexus for the undersea fibre cables. translation: the internet connectivity is *fast*. intel has a major centre there. the advantage of costa rica - apart from being absolutely beautiful and one of the most bio-diverse areas on the planet, is that they have NOT signed CAFTA. as a direct result of this they are still a sovereign nation. also, it's *really* hard to do mass-surveillance when most of the country is covered in dense greenery. you can get a tourist visa then, every few months, pay the $30 fine for staying a little bit longer. some foreigners have paid that gosh every few months for shock horror 20 years!

  5. The country that shares your values and allegiance by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am afraid there is no general answer, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Snowden found safe haven in Russia, the country not known for freedom or privacy, because Putin is not interested in protecting western powers. You may well find a totalitarian king who is not interesting in enforcing copyrights. Now imagine your perfect pro-privacy, anti-surveillance country under attack from NSA? Don't you think they would do some surveillance to catch the spooks?

    If you just want to avoid mass surveillance, just locate in any poor country that doesn't have the resources. Syria sounds about right. If you actually want respect for your rights, you have to look for people who share your values.

  6. Re:Simpz, you asked the wrong question ... by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think that the article already lists the viable alternatives. Personally I'd prefer Iceland, especially since it's a small country and most people know each other so it's hard to keep a secret.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  7. Re:Wrong problem by tlambert · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Black's Law Dictionary"

    Sure, and niggers aren't human (Dred Scott) but corporations are (Citizens United).

    I believe you are a moron for your choice of language here, but apart from being a moron, you are also an idiot for blaming the Citizen's United decisions, rather than the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision, which held that the 14th amendment applied equally to corporations.

    Tell California "Hi", and thank them for getting corporations declared people.

  8. Luxembourg. by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Luxembourg! First, nobody is interested in spying on them. They have a Navy of half a ship (shared with Belgium) and also one of the US Awacs planes is flying under their flag, that's about their air force.
    They also have 2 old cannons to fire for state celebrations.
    They have 100% cellphone coverage, 100% DSL coverage and in about 3 years also 100% glass fiber coverage.

    And if Paypal ever blocks your account, you can _walk_ to their office with a big stick and demand explanations.

    Disclaimer: I'm from Luxembourg. :-)

  9. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Parsing words and finding new meanings has been happening since the original wordings were written. Welcome to what the 2nd amendment supporters have been dealing with for forever.

    There's only one SCOTUS judge that goes by original intent- Clarence Thomas.

    Try going back through history and see how many laws and court cases abide by original intent.