SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The natural reaction of many citizens, companies and governments is to try to get their data out of the United States and out of the hands of American companies. The idea is a seductive one, even for Americans. Offshoring money has been a popular strategy for tax avoidance. Why not offshore data to a foreign company?
This offshoring of data to avoid surveillance is not just an idle notion. As a privacy lawyer with experience in the intelligence community and the Obama White House, technology companies have asked me how they might pursue such a strategy. It turns out that shifting user data abroad or into the hands of foreign companies is a very poor way to combat American surveillance.
The Justice Department may put a lot of pressure on Swiss banks, but it doesn’t hack into offshore accounts to recover ill-gotten gains. By contrast, intelligence agencies are not known for scrupulously observing the laws of foreign countries in which they operate, even when (as in the United States) they are subject to a system of domestic legal oversight.
NSA directors have stated quite openly their desire to collect everything American law permits. However, what the law allows the NSA to do varies starkly depending on where data is collected. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the rules that apply to data collected from a switch, wire, or server in the United States are stricter than the safeguards that apply to data collected overseas.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 05 2015, @10:28PM
Yes, I know that cryptography and the application of it are two different things, but in this case... I'd rely more cryptography than on whatever legal piece somebody would put in front of me (be it whatever constitution or universal bill of rights or not)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday January 05 2015, @11:43PM
One isn't much good without the other.
After all, if they can put a gun to your head, the cryptography isn't worth much.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday January 06 2015, @12:26AM
Security is always a tradeoff between the value of the "secured" item and the cost of the attacker to obtain it (therefore, no security is perfect)
Personally, I'd rather prefer NSA to go after 1000 people** outside US with that gun you mention than having my info within US (where they only need a NSL): it will cost them more. Without too much effort for me, even assessing if me or which others are persons of interest will come with quite a high cost for them.
** e.g. I believe mega.co.nz have more than 1000 users
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06 2015, @03:06PM
This is a common view among technocrats. IMHO it is a self defeating view. Regardless of what you build, the fear of the unknown held by your inferiors will make you a target. A measured approach to integrating some old views into the new is important, not because it improves the result of your work, but because it takes a few of the bulls-eyes off your back.
The law, being largely deprecated in terms of linguistic logic, (the full extent of the study of logic required for a law degree is Socratic method) still governs us. Presuming that you can engineer your way above the law is folly. When elasticity in the legal system runs out, the intellectuals get sent to the block. It happens every time.
If you look at the way Hollywood portrays computer technicians it is pretty clear that there is broad support for fomenting fear of us already. Presumably they remember the McCarthy days and have decided they would prefer computer technicians be the "commies" during this iteration of irrational fundamentalism. However you look at it, the impetus is on us to change the law, before the law finds itself taking an unhealthy interest in changing us.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 06 2015, @08:04PM
But, unlike NSA, I'm not going against the law -at least not until a new law comes in and makes encryption illegal and this is a law I wouldn't want to promote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0