Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
UPDATE, March 23, 2018: President Donald Trump signed the $1.3 trillion government spending bill—which includes the CLOUD Act—into law Friday morning.
"People deserve the right to a better process." Those are the words of Jim McGovern, representative for Massachusetts and member of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules, when, after 8:00 PM EST on Wednesday, he and his colleagues were handed a 2,232-page bill to review and approve for a floor vote by the next morning.
In the final pages of the bill—meant only to appropriate future government spending—lawmakers snuck in a separate piece of legislation that made no mention of funds, salaries, or budget cuts. Instead, this final, tacked-on piece of legislation will erode privacy protections around the globe.
[...] As we wrote before, the CLOUD Act is a far-reaching, privacy-upending piece of legislation that will:
- Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people's communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
- Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
- Allow the U.S. president to enter "executive agreements" that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
- Allow foreign police to collect someone's data without notifying them about it.
- Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes
See also: As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates
Related Stories
As of today, a data-sharing pact between the US and the UK is in effect, five years after it was first floated. The two sides claim that the Data Access Agreement, which was authorized by the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act in the US, will help law enforcement to combat serious crimes in both countries. The Department of Justice called the initiative the first of its kind, adding that it would enable investigators "to gain better access to vital data" to fight serious crimes in a manner that's "consistent with privacy and civil liberties standards."
Under the agreement, authorities in one country can request data from ISPs in the other country, as long as it's related to preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes including terrorism, transnational organized crime and child exploitation. US officials can't submit data requests targeting people in the UK and vice-versa — presumably the requests can either be used to assist domestic investigations or investigations into foreign nationals. Authorities also need to adhere to certain requirements, limitations and conditions when they access and use data.
[...] The US is looking to forge pacts with other countries under the CLOUD Act. It signed a deal with Australia last December and entered negotiations with Canada earlier this year.
Previously:
Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
U.S. law to Snoop on Citizens' Info Stored Abroad
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:21PM (40 children)
The trajectory is the same regardless of whose in power; it matters not whether the Democrats or Republicans claim control of the levers and buttons—hell, 4-to-8 years ain't enough for any one President to do anything impressive.
The Deep State has been engaged in a century-long effort (started with the introduction of the Federal Reserve) to craft a framework for global authoritarianism.
The biggest wrinkle in that plan is the 2nd Amendment, which is why there has been such an enormous and sustained push to curb the Common Man's ownership of that tool of liberty which is so aptly named: "The Great Equalizer".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Weasley on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:00AM (4 children)
The 2nd Amendment isn't thwarting shit. America has already been conquered by cheap luxuries. Nobody will raise a hand against the government because they're holding cheeseburgers, cell phones, and remote controls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:45AM
Clearly, the degree of Tyranny isn't that bothersome yet.
Let those in power feel they have control; they'll regret their choices should they go too far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:56AM (2 children)
Clearly you don't appreciate the simple pleasures in life. Coffee in the morning and a good cheeseburger for lunch make me feel that I'm living like a king. So it would be better if the populace was angry because they have to eat thin gruel? It would be better if they were smart critical thinkers, which is not at odds with eating cheeseburgers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
The cheeseburgers aren't the oppression. The oppression is that you can't get sriracha [wikipedia.org] to put on the cheeseburgers. Usually it's only ketchup. Sometimes mustard (but just that bland yellow crap, not dijon or brown mustard), but usually just catsup. It's so wrong. There isn't even a standard way to spell ketchup/catsup. Grrr! That's the real oppression!
I'd even be okay with Frank's or Trappey's. But NOOOOO! Only catsup. That's the man keeping us down!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @11:25AM
The lack of HP Sauce has been a thorn in our sides for far too long. It'd seem the Queen is holding it back as part of her grudge for the colonies leaving the empire.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)
People in power in an organization work to give that organization more power, news at 11!
Rather than being a sinister plot, it is more a result of human nature, and the trajectory all governments follow. The United States was created as an experimental attempt to restrain this seemingly unstoppable force...the attempt failed.
No solution has yet been found for the problem that power tends to centralize over time. Worse yet, the population is barely even aware that it is an issue.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:14AM
As usual, well over 95% of the population will just live their lives, consumer, raise their children, regardless of the type of power at the top.
As long as people have something to lose and haven't lost tangible things, they will bitch, moan, and remember that, until the time is ripe because the tank is getting empty. the tallest blade gets the mower.
Also, I really want a formal conspiracy mod (make that +0 or -1, with my vote being that blatant conspiracies are a bad thing for this place, so -1)
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:13AM
>Rather than being a sinister plot
evil forms a system under any condition, this is why I consider meaningless the question "Does satan exist", akin to "can a multicellular meatbag be called a person"
having said that, there is NO FUCKING WAY different governments in different conditions all pick one of the possible courses of action, harmful for their own feuds, without a layer of coordination.
There are no conspiracy theorists, there are conspiracy verifiers. The theorists can only be anti-conspiracy, and all their framework is built on the "never attribute to malice..." sentence that fits a fortune cookie more than a political analyst.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:31AM (30 children)
Where's that '-1 naive' mod when you need it?
Given that the NRA spends large sums every election cycle [opensecrets.org] to limit any gun regulation and is quite successful at it.
If you think your arsenal of guns will stop your state police, let alone federal law enforcement, your state's National Guard, or the US military) from taking you down if they wish to do so, you're delusional.
The second amendment isn't under siege, nor is the evil gub'mint trying to "take away your guns."
Trying to make sure that violent nutjobs find it difficult to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons with huge (30-100 rounds) magazines and bump stocks is perfectly reasonable.
No hunter, target shooter or even a citizen protecting himself and/or his property has a need for such things.
Should we sell such stuff, as well as RPGs, .50 cals, Claymores, C-4, Stingers [wikipedia.org] and the like to anyone who can put cash on the barrel head?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:43AM (10 children)
Uncle Sam also capitulated to the Gooks in Vietnam.
That is, your point doesn't stand. A guerrilla insurgency of common folk will be able to fuck with Uncle Sam's firepower for a LONG time.
On top of that, large swaths of the American military would defect, taking their munitions and training with them in aid of the militias.
So, fuck off with your naysaying.
American governance is based on Checks and Balances.
The 2nd Amendment is one such check and balance: It's not for protecting your family from hooligans, and it's not for shooting deer; rather, the 2nd Amendment is for shooting tyrannical politicians and their families.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:02AM (7 children)
Uh huh. What was I thinking? Of course you're absolutely right. The people are with you. So go ahead and start your insurgency. I'm sure that *millions* will immediately join you against the evil gub'mint.
I'd start with your local town hall. Kill the mayor and the city/town council, then round up and kill their male relatives and then gang rape the females. Let a few of the females go so they can warn others about how powerful and fearsome you are.
Then you can move on to the state capitol and do the same there. By the time that's done, you'll be so popular that the entire nation will rise up and decapitate the beast with many heads! No more government! No mayors or county executives, no town/city councils, state legislatures/governors.
Then you can turn your attention to Washington, DC (you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy), where those cowardly, traitorous scumbags will flee for their lives.
Only then can we have real liberty. Only then can we have the freedom we deserve. Right on! Death to representative government! Death to the Constitution! Death to the politicians! Death to...well, anyone we decide needs to die! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!
And most of all, Death to the most evil of entities, the Homeowners Association! There is a special place in hell for them, after we torture them for months, then disembowel them alive and force them to eat their own guts.
I await your triumphant victory over the evil oppressors who stamp on our faces with the boots of unbridled government power.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:21AM (6 children)
I stopped reading pretty quickly; I hope you had fun writing that drivel.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:39AM (5 children)
What other conclusion could I draw from your statements?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:50AM (4 children)
You should have concluded that the 2nd Amendment is an important principle and an effective means by which to thwart an enormous, global, deep-pocketed drive to crush individual liberty for the benefit of a small group of elite.
Nobody is calling for an insurgency; the mere threat of the possibility of a violent uprising against the the global Authoritarians is quite effective enough, as evidenced by the endless push to disarm the populace—by the endless push to transfer strength from the weak (the individual) to the strong (the State).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:08AM (3 children)
It has its uses. I have no issue with it myself.
There is where you're just embarrassing yourself. Your Glock or AR-15 is no match for a squad of regular army infantrymen. Not that anyone is sending such folks, because no one is trying to take your guns away.
All that normal, reasonable folks are saying is that we should be able to limit the ability of violent crazies to obtain firearms.
Have you considered stand up comedy? I nearly busted a gut reading that.
No one is trying to disarm the populace. Rather, reasonable people want to keep guns out of the hands of folks who are *likely* to commit mass murder.
Any steps taken won't stop all the crazies, but if we can keep folks like the Parkland high school shooter from *legally* obtaining semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines (who needs high-capacity magazines? For what purpose?), we can reduce that threat.
Has the local sheriff's office, police, ATF or other gub'mint agency come by your house to take your guns? Have they come by to inspect them? Has any LEO ever (except in an adversarial situation) even asked if you have/own guns?
I'm betting the answer is "no." So who are these "global authoritarians" who are so aggressively trying to take your weapons? They don't exist, except in your mind.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:14AM (1 child)
Just take the guns away from the Government.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:19AM
I have no issue with forbidding "law enforcement officers" from carrying guns all the time. In fact, I think it would be a very good thing.
It would encourage the police to use force only as the last resort rather than the first, as happens far too often.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:20PM
Don't fool yourself. If you don't think anyone wants to disarm the populace, you've likely never come to Massachusetts.
But it is always nice to be reminded that at least there's enough people in the rest of the country to keep these lunatics from having too much power. Now, if only the SCOTUS would remind them that it's unconstitutional to require licensure to simply OWN a SHOTGUN (not talking transporting, hunting, or anything else other than having one in one's home for protection), we'd almost be doing okay.
There are some safeguards we should probably have to address mass shootings, though I'd rather see the root of that problem addressed than merely tackling the symptoms. In the meantime, there's absolutely such a thing as going too far, and it does get done in some places. For another well known example, see Chicago's old hand gun ban that did finally get overturned by the SCOTUS.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @09:29AM
So when will you execute Trump and his gang? So far I only see you people mowing down school children.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:59PM
FTFY - the finest democracy money can buy.
Say ain't so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:49AM (10 children)
Well, I was following along until the end there... I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines. At least not here in the states.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:14AM (8 children)
A fair point. However, that's just a logical consequence of what AC was saying (and seconded by this AC post [soylentnews.org]):
By that reasoning, it's clear that a shotgun or a rifle won't equalize anything against tanks, jet bombers, cruise missiles and tactical nukes. If what the AC is advocating ("the great equalizer") is truly necessary, free access (well, if you can pay, that is) to such things are critical to ensuring that an oppressive government can be countered and removed.
If those who believe that arming themselves against the day that they need to rise up against their tyrannical oppressors, they will need appropriate arms to do so. And rifles, shotguns and handguns are little use against cruise missiles, howitzers, smart bombs and tactical nukes.
If what you say is true, it's clear that support for gun ownership has nothing to do with guarding against government oppression. If it was, those patriotic, freedom-loving folks would be demanding access to those sorts of things under the second amendment.
If I misunderstood your point, please enlighten me and accept my apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:23AM (7 children)
Uncle Sam's advanced technology is worthless against an ideological guerrilla militia; Uncle Sam just can't seem to win a war.
"See you in Paradise."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:42AM (5 children)
Go ahead and prove me wrong. And when I see your photo in a news report about our glorious new leader who will lead us out of oppression from the evil gub'mint, I'll know I was wrong.
More likely, that same photo will be in a piece about some "nutjob militia" guy being killed or imprisoned, and I'll know I was right.
So go ahead and surprise me. I guess I'll be one of the first "up against the wall' but I'll take that chance.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (4 children)
I didn't bother finishing your comment. You're arguing a fake point.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:14AM (3 children)
What other conclusion could I draw, based on the assertions provided?
Calling my snark a "straw man" and a "fake point" just shows that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.
Why are my sarcastic comments straw men and fake points? What arguments do you have to support those assertions?
Do you have any evidence to support such arguments?
I suspect that I'll get another response devoid of semantic value from you. Or none at all. Which are equivalent anyway.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (2 children)
See here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:30AM (1 child)
A weak argument, easily refuted (which I already did [soylentnews.org]).
See. I can link to previous comments too. I see you learned something new. Maybe we can work on teaching you to tie your shoes next.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:36AM
I can't find a refutation anywhere.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:12AM
In the Middle East, Uncle Sam has spotty intelligence and few people that it can trust. Same with Vietnam and other places. Killing these people is not hard at the outset, but open-ended and impossible objectives related to occupation make losing a war inevitable.
On the Home Front, Uncle Sam is able to effectively infiltrate domestic extremist/militia/political groups with undercover officers and paid informants. The feds are able to exploit the natural weaknesses, inadequacies, and internal divisions of these groups. They have had practice doing this for decades despite these groups being very minor threats. For controlling everyone else, there's bread and circuses.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:05PM
> I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines
darn
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:02PM (4 children)
Great, another person telling shooters what they do and don't need who doesn't shoot or know anything about it.
Lets ban 90% of the guns in the US (semi-auto) and whip out hyperbole about claymores. And god forbid anyone who went for help with anxiety or depression should keep doing their hobby. Better to have them avoid going to the doctor while suffering in silence.
Why does anyone need more than a 500sq ft home, a large truck or a big screen TV. 640k is enough for everyone. Large hard drives facilitate piracy. Calorie limits now, everyone is fat.. if it just saves one life.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:57PM (3 children)
Who was it that said anything even remotely like that? It certainly wasn't me.
The vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their weapons.
What's more, I never suggested that any particular type of weapon be banned, or that anyone should have their firearms confiscated.
I did ask what the use case for high-capacity magazines and devices like bump stocks. Under what circumstances is a bump stock or a 100 round magazine useful, other than to mow down large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
My point WRT to .50 cals and claymores pertains to the ridiculous assertion that having a gun is real protection against a tyrannical government. Given the state of weapons technology, having an AR-15 and/or other similar weapons aren't going to stop even local/state police from taking you down, let alone the US government, should they choose to do so.
I suppose you could run away and live in the woods ala Red Dawn [wikipedia.org] and stay out of government custody with an AR-15, but that doesn't fit the narrative that such weapons can and will keep an out of control government at bay.
If your argument is that the "right to bear arms" (not scare/sarcasm quotes, just being specific) is to make sure that the good citizens of the US can, as a last resort, use those arms to control/remove a tyrannical government, then it makes sense to advocate for access to arms that *could* achieve that goal.
It's pretty clear that guns (handguns and long guns both) aren't anywhere near sufficient to the task. As such, it would make sense to advocate for free access to large caliber guns, rocket-propelled grenades and launchers, stinger missiles, claymores and other ordnance. Given that no one is doing so, it seems that "keeping tyrannical government at bay" isn't the real concern.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:18PM (2 children)
You think any government that uses missiles against it's own citizen could last? The best thing for any rebellion would be for the government to send in the military to bomb them. We can't bomb people in the desert without killing noncombatants, you think it would be easier at home? .gov kills 100k innocent children with a tactical nuke, I'm sure that will look good on the front page of the newspaper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:47PM
Well look at Syria currently ... and in this time of mass surveillance, how many bullets do you think it takes to crush a rebellion? I tell you now, 1.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @05:38PM
> .gov kills 100k innocent children with a tactical nuke, I'm sure that will look good on the front page of the newspaper.
"Terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in #city; martial law declared; Internet services suspended; elections postponed until crisis is over"
You severely underestimate a government's ability to control the narrative, at least for a limited time (measured in years or decades). See China, North Korea, Russia...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)
stopping *actually insane* people from owning *any* gun is perfectly constitutional. unfortunately, you seditious morons want to use oppositional defiance disorder(ODD) and other tactics to infringe on people's rights.
not if you allow them to isolate you and pile up outside your house like waco or ruby ridge, so they can murder your children. besides that? collectively? of course 100 million armed citizens can defeat 1-2 million(assuming it was so cut and dry, which it wouldn't be).
of course they/you are. see above and all the infringements you seek.
irrelevant, slave. "of current military and police use" is what type of arms the people have the inalienable right to. for the purpose of killing enemies of freedom.
yes. there is no "we" with more rights than me. i am the militia. (don't waste everyone's time with your lies about the "well regulated militia" part) i have the rights. "we" are supposed to be protecting those rights, not trying to find excuses to infringe them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:03PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9rfAMDRD_A [youtube.com]
the first video.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday March 27 2018, @07:48PM
You really are a retard aren't ya.
That ain't real money. The NRA's whole budget ain't real money. You want to see real money in politics, look at how much the NEA or Planned Parenthood dump. The fear of the NRA comes from millions of paying members and millions more who closely watch their scorecards who become single issue voters anytime the 2nd Amendment is under threat. And there is nothing sinister about the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the county doing what it was founded to do.
You picked the wrong day for repeating that lie. Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens has an op-ed today calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Stupid senile old fool doesn't realize it would do nothing. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment, it is one of the organizational ideas that America operates on, it predates the Constitution and would exist exactly unchanged without it, as it did before the Bill of Rights was adopted. Infringing those inalienable rights would put a moral duty on every loyal American to resist the attempt by any means up to and including another Revolution.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:25AM
It's authoritarian oligarchs, some aristocratic, some old money, some new, money, all working to consolidate costs and centralize ownership so they can focus more on stabbing each other in the back or rubbing their superiority in each other's faces without having to risk global shifts in power happening that would require their attention and management instead.
As far as the US is concerned, this is what happens when when you don't put the right politicians or lobbyists in a bodybag to set an example of what will happen if they continue doing things against the American People's interest. Voting them out would work too, except they have carefully divided the country into two teams, with just enough flipfloppers to push them in the desired direction for their next round of policy changes, while both fanbases are too distracted to see they are all getting equally played.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 26 2018, @11:24PM (5 children)
The Communists set the Reichstag fire.
A great many brave Russians died when their barracks was blown to bits. Perhaps it was terrorism - I don't clearly recall.
What horrible crime - O won't somebody think of the children? - will convince the public to support Trump when he declares martial law?
While Trump is the military's Commander-in-Chief, every service member is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Most of the military is Republican, but I don't think they are part of Trump's base.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:32PM
Don't you nut cases ever tire of your fanciful what ifs?
"It's time for the revolution because I think Trump will invoke martial law to stay in power and the military will go right along with that."
Jesus, does it ever get old.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:39PM (1 child)
"Most of the military is Republican, but I don't think they are part of Trump's base."
Obviously you don't "think" much, period.
Not only are you paranoid, but you are one stupid childish fool.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. Go suck cock or something, just quit posting your moronic bullshit.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:55PM
See that "Disagree" mod? Use it or not, but stop spewing insults.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tftp on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)
The theory of Van der Lubbe being a lone arsonist is being questioned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @08:21PM
Shocking! Keep in mind these are the same guys that started WWII by staging a false-flag operation [wikipedia.org] claiming that Poland was attacking them.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:16AM (11 children)
Left unsaid is whether cloud providers will play along, whether the SCOTUS will play along, and whether cloud business can survive this at all.
If you live but the cloud then apply your own encryption before you put your data there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:00AM (10 children)
That's what I'm doing right now. I'm going to have to figure out what to do about email, but my backups are already being hosted by a provider that allows me to set my own key.
The problem though tends to be knowing if the software is actually encrypting things as it can be rather hard to know.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:09AM (3 children)
You could encrypt on your own machine using the relevant software and just upload the encrypted blob to the hosting provider, right?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:20AM (2 children)
For the archive yes, but in order to do anything useful with email, it has to be decrypted by somebody at some point. Unfortunately, that some point tends to be before it goes over the wire as there remains no practical means of encrypting emails and few bother. I don't think I even know anybody that has theirs encrypted, which makes it pointless for me to encrypt mine as nobody would be able to read it.
It's a sucky position to be in as the 4th and 5th amendments don't apply the way that they probably should.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:50AM
Yeah I meant the other data, not email.
Theoretically it ought to be possible to do seamless public-private key encryption/decryption of all email with very little work for the user, but only some providers will do this.
What does seem to be popular are encrypted chat apps. These are being used by younger people in place of email, are associated with big IPOs and lots of user growth, can be used seamlessly on smartphones, etc. The security implementation might be opaque or too centralized (to the point of being useless for the paranoid) for your tastes, but at least it would be less work to get someone to use it. Using it on the smartphone could be risky due to insecurities in that system, so you could find one with a desktop app or ability to work with something like Pidgin (I see plugins [pidgin.im] for Telegram and WhatsApp).
You would still run into fragmentation issues and need to convince people to use the app, but that seems to be where we're heading. You want practical and "secure" communications.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday March 27 2018, @07:27PM
Email encryption is possible, and it's fairly easy at this point. Enterprise email does offer these features.
With the appropriate settings, you can prevent unencrypted connections between your mail server and others. Preventing that trick that downgrades secure connections between email servers is also trivial with the right settings.
You can't worry about the other side, but concentrate on yourself. One way governments win, is when fucking everybody is using gmail. Google then dictates the future of email technology, because it doesn't fucking matter what I'm running. If a user cannot email somebody at gmail, then your email is faulty and worthless. Even if technically superior.
All you can do is pay to run your own server. Use a VM provider, use full disk encryption, and security harden it. That way the government has to spend resources to crack thousands, or hundreds of thousands of email servers to get the data, versus a single connection to Google downloading all of the data.
Basically, in the end, the ONLY way to protect ourselves is to have possession of the keys and transmit 100% encrypted data all the time. The government cannot be trusted to act properly, nor can it be trusted to have the security required to protect itself, or our data.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:50AM (5 children)
If you run your own email server like was intended then as far as your archive at rest, you have control. Yes, anything you send someone is open to being hoovered from that someones account, but your stored archive is safe.
And, no, I don't mean 'run email on Linode or other host', I mean "run your email server from your basement, where it is totally under your control".
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:48AM (4 children)
And, no, I don't mean 'run email on Linode or other host', I mean "run your email server from your basement, where it is totally under your control".
No one does that any more. Try it and you'll be blacklisted by all the major email players, so you won't be able to communicate with anyone. The spammers ruined that part of the internet for everyone.
What we really need is email 2.0, which lets people run their own servers again, has encryption baked-in, and somehow prevents spam from being a problem. I don't know offhand how this would work though.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:58AM
If you have the proper certificates from let's encrypt or someone, you can do this just fine.
But it's not necessary as you can encrypt mail just fine without running your own server.
And your mail may sit on several different mail servers along the way. Someone may figure out who you talk to, but not what you talk about.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:26AM
I've been running my own email server on my own hardware for more than 15 years. A couple of times back in the mid 2000's, I got blacklisted for no apparent reason. I used the tools available to me to get off said blacklists with minimal effort.
These days, you don't get blacklisted when you're using SPF/DKIM to validate the email sourced from your server.
I guess that your "email 2.0" is here and it's called SPF [wikipedia.org]/DKIM [wikipedia.org], as we can (not that we ever couldn't) run our own email servers again.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:28PM (1 child)
Hillary sure did. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @08:15PM
Hillary also has slightly more money than me. I can't just throw money at all my problems until they go away.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:32AM
You didn't expect anything else, did you?
It was pretty much set in motion in June of 2016.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by splodus on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:13AM (4 children)
Whilst this remains hidden, it's going to impact privacy (potentially, at least, but hey...)
However I wonder if these clever 'get it in through the backdoor' style changes to what's currently allowed might benefit us all, eventually?
Right now, we kind of assume that 'cloud' storage is not monitored - or rather that most people don't think anyone is looking at files that are stored remotely...
This legislation, though, provides some impetus to have information encrypted before it leaves your own machine. It might lead people to think about the issue? It might create a market for 'apps' that are easy and transparent to use?
Of course, the likes of Google are not going to want your files encrypted - it's important to them that their algorithms can glean information for their advertising stuff! Maybe they will prevent obfuscated files from being uploaded?
On the other hand, if people get itchy about government etc looking at what they have in cloud storage? If they start using apps that make it difficult for third-parties to read their files?
Maybe cloud-storage providers will implement their own encryption - so that they can log metadata for their purposes, but satisfy their customers that no one else will be able to examine content once it's been uploaded?
It could be that the consequence of this legislation is that remote storage ends up more private and secure than it is now?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:37AM (2 children)
and
Is a contradiction in terms.
Privacy and security aren't just privacy and security from *governments*. If private entities have access, then it's not private *or* secure.
The cloud = Someone else's servers. Full stop.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by splodus on Tuesday March 27 2018, @08:05AM (1 child)
Sorry, I didn't make it at all clear what I was getting at.
Google, for instance, relies on customers' content on its services for its advertising algorithm (of course).
Currently, files are not encrypted before being stored on its servers, and if an app were to appear that encrypted the file locally, before being uploaded, my guess is that Google might stop that - because naturally they then lose their source of revenue.
However, if there was a demand by customers to have their files held in an encrypted form, perhaps Google would themselves begin encrypting files, -after- they have logged, say, the name of the file and its format?
So it's a compromise - Google gets data for its business, but customers' files are stored encrypted.
It's not ideal - but why else would Google offer 'free' storage?
And it's a little bit more secure and private, in that anyone gaining access to those files subsequently will be unable to examine them...?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:02PM
No need for an apology. You were pretty clear, as I understood you to mean exactly what you elucidate below.
Yes. That's true. And a better rationale for not letting Google anywhere near my data I've yet to hear.
Absolutely. And if you're willing to hand over your privacy to some corporation, I can't (and wouldn't try to) stop you.
I would point out that there are alternatives that don't include providing your private data, personal preferences and other information to a company that exists to gather and sell such information. Alphabet doesn't have a market cap of ~US$750Billion because google doodles are so pretty.
That compromise is more than I want to give up for disk space.
No. It's not ideal. And it's not free storage either.
If it was private, *no one* would be able to read the data except the data owner.
And its not secure, If Google can read such data, even if it was subsequently encrypted, it is no longer secure. As they may retain a copy of the un-encrypted data and/or retain keys to decrypt that data.
So no, it's not more secure and private either.
Please understand, I'm not trying to attack *you* here. But Google is *not* some sort of uninterested observer, who just takes your info so they can satisfy some nebulous "advertiser", and it really doesn't impact you in any real sense.
The more information you give Google, Facebook, your phone provider, your ISP, etc., etc., etc. helps to create a more and more detailed picture of *you*.
If you don't mind that large corporations create detailed profiles of your private life, your professional life, your purchasing habits, your reading habits, your listening habits, your financial situation, and on and on. Then those same corporations sell each other that data so that they can aggregate clearer and clearer pictures of who *you* are. And what *you* specifically have done and likely will do.
No. You can't avoid it completely, but you can limit how much information is being collected about you.
In some ways, corporations having this data is more insidious than government. But since they are businesses, as long as a government is willing to pay, they will be happy to sell it to them -- although many governments will use their legal power to get it for free. Either way, the result is the same.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday March 28 2018, @08:49PM
Yep, I can never email encrypted 7z attachments in my IEEE email (gmail), it rejects the attachment and says it can't scan for viruses. Bullshit. If I were trying to spread viruses, why would I password encrypt it? So my trusted friends who know the password can get my virus?
Its just as you said.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:56AM (2 children)
Next January, all the new people elected into congress will reverse everything that has happened, like it never did. Of course if nobody gives it that little 'push' in November, we can carry on like the election never happened. The future is ours to make or break. Don't go around blaming the hired help.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:59PM (1 child)
Right, because Democrats respect privacy. Any NSA spying being done was absolutely carried out solely due to George W. Bush's government, and they just secretly did it without telling Obama. Who of course wanted it all shut down. And he definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act. And I'm sure he would have pardoned Snowden, but, you know, Republicans bullied him?
The only Democrat I've seen showing any respect for privacy has been Hillary. And it was her own, which is why she was using her own private email server. Until this country has a viable Pirate Party option, the only real solution for privacy minded individuals is to create it for ourselves. Use encryption where possible, host things yourself, and mitigate web based tracking with the myriad browser extensions available (ad-blockers, NoScript, HTTP referrer spoofers, cookie management, etc), and perhaps a VPN or two.
Of course, helping create or build any local Pirate Party in your area may not be a bad idea either, but it's probably worth remembering that any efforts in this arena are to protect the privacy of the next generation or two or three. If you want privacy now, you have to take it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:08PM
See? You all share the same problem. Where did I mention anything about democrats? You have many choices. You should try using them, or at the very least acknowledge them, before jumping to conclusions and shooting off your mouth. You will get your pirate party option when you have enough signatures on the petition. That is the procedure, so get yer ass in gear!
(Score: 2) by terryk30 on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:47PM
...are those user agreement clauses that say things like "your personal information may be stored on servers outside the country, which is then subject to the laws of that jurisdiction". (Which of course renders all the other assurances of the UA worthless.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:31PM
Rushed US Cloud Act triggers EU backlash [euobserver.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:25PM
pigs helping pigs root around in the cloud
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @08:01PM
This is why I think we need an amendment that says that all bills must appear in their final form for a period of three weeks in order to be passed by simple majority.
If a bill needs a faster track, then the three week period can be bypassed only by an 80% majority.
This would allow people time to read these things before they act of them.