6 ms·

TL,DR: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend again

by oo7jeep 13y ago

TL,DR: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."

conductor 13y ago
If this is happening in the USA with its famous constitution, then well, I think the end of this statement can be easily converted just to _any_country_.
- rustynails 13y ago
  Many other countries follow suit. Almost certainly, Australia and the UK will see this as a precedent.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  The same can be happening in any country, but we know for a fact it is happening in the USA. Uncertainty is better than a certain, unfavourable outcome. I'm keeping my US cloud services, but I have no illusions: they're being logged by the NSA.
- dictum 13y ago
  A country cannot be on the United States' good side without bending to its will. Also, the governments of other countries would love to have a peek on whatever intel the NSA has regarding their enemies. So, if the US wants your data, they have great diplomatic resources to compel a country to hand it (read: CIA). I'm speculating as I don't know if there is a precedent of the US requesting data from another country using secret warrants, but as long as they have a warrant and the country does not have an overtly adversarial relationship with the US, it's a target. Based on their tradition of bank secrecy, Switzerland may be an exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.
  - pyre 13y ago
    The US doesn't need a 'secret warrant' to ask for information from another country. They don't really need a warrant at all. They just ask for it. IIRC, even the NSA isn't legally bound to avoid spying on American citizens when they are out of the country.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      To avoid it, no. But if they do uncover evidence on American citizens it could not be used in a trial and must be filtered out (although, see 'parallel construction').
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  What makes the American Constitution exceptional is not its content but the fact that it was written in the late 18th century. In the intervening two centuries, several other industrialized liberal democracies have adopted constitutions that are broader and more inclusive than the Bill of Rights.
  - solistice 13y ago
    But clutter isn't what makes a legal document effective. I'd rather have a concise definition of what is a right and what not than pages upon pages of dancing around that issue.
    - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
      The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little over 2,200 words and is clear and concise. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).
      - solistice 13y ago
        So there aren't any people trying to latch onto every nook in order to subvert the original message? That's...intresting. I'm mostly familar with the American Bill of Rights and the German Grundgesetz, which is much longer and contains more rights, albeit not always more solid definitions. I've been in discussions before, where I'd defend one right, and was contered with another, equally valid right that was somehow conflicting with the other. In that way, the Grundgesetz trips over itself, and it's hard to argue for a given interpretation (so are these rights equal, or is this right of a lower denomination than the other, and how far can you compromise this right so this right can be put into effect, and if everyone has a Recht auf Arbeit (Right to have work), aren't we infringing on that?). Obviously, I'd rather have a terse, but in itself noncontradicting bill of rights than a long list of irreconcilable demands. But they're both not neccesairily optimal.
  - 13y ago
- Buzaga 13y ago
  That is absurd. Do you think every country, and every country folk, would let the government pass a bulldozer all over their rights like this? This is just projecting. In other words, that shit wouldn't fly everywhere, for sure. This all emanates from the 9/11 and Patriot Act and Secret Laws with no oversight, that's your problem specifically, of course every government must be wanting it's own surveillance supermachine too, but it doesn't mean every single one of them is willing(or have means) to pass every possible barrier to do it. Other countries have their own constituitions too and people guarding it, and different political systems, and different relation of the people with their government. Brasilians, for example, are not patriotic(as you are), we like the localization and our folk but absolutely everyone despises the government, the governants are completely cowering with the demonstration, pulling their repression apparatus out and on... It's absurd and it's also a derrotist statement, this lavabit guy is a hero and the more people go against this rotten government, more clear it becomes the damage is shared by everyone AND the country itself.
  - dictum 13y ago
    >Do you think every country, and every country folk, would let the government pass a bulldozer all over their rights like this? If your government is not willing to pass a bulldozer over its rights, the US are more than willing to bulldoze your government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...
  - emiliobumachar 13y ago
    I wholehearteadly agree with your larger point, but as a Brazilian I think Brazil is not a good example in this regard. People here despise the government because of corruption of the "stealing" kind, and inefficiency. Despite our recent experiment with dictatorship ended in the 80's, We have a long road to travel in terms of awareness about the dangers of tirany. The government takes the fingerprints of every citizen when we go make our I.D. Cards, for example. No one makes a fuss. Official propaganda is standard practise (how else would one call the government-bought advertisements to raise awareness about its deeds?) Recenty the folks who organize electios are all over the TV with their campaign to take everyone's prints (see "inneficiency") in order to "make our elections even more secure". Though the last president's plans for "social control of the media" were soundly rebutted, it's telling that he even thought he could try. I'm an optimist regarding the next decades, but it's a long road indeed.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Swiss banking (famously) had this niche biz model, but its future seems unteneable in the digital era. Silicon Valley has been complicit behind the scenes. Both overtly with technical hw/sw, and also more subtly (ie, "personalization" from which you can't opt out).

by oo7jeep 13y ago

conductor 13y ago

If this is happening in the USA with its famous constitution, then well, I think the end of this statement can be easily converted just to _any_country_.

rustynails 13y ago
Many other countries follow suit. Almost certainly, Australia and the UK will see this as a precedent.
emiliobumachar 13y ago
The same can be happening in any country, but we know for a fact it is happening in the USA. Uncertainty is better than a certain, unfavourable outcome. I'm keeping my US cloud services, but I have no illusions: they're being logged by the NSA.
dictum 13y ago
A country cannot be on the United States' good side without bending to its will. Also, the governments of other countries would love to have a peek on whatever intel the NSA has regarding their enemies. So, if the US wants your data, they have great diplomatic resources to compel a country to hand it (read: CIA). I'm speculating as I don't know if there is a precedent of the US requesting data from another country using secret warrants, but as long as they have a warrant and the country does not have an overtly adversarial relationship with the US, it's a target. Based on their tradition of bank secrecy, Switzerland may be an exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.
- pyre 13y ago
  The US doesn't need a 'secret warrant' to ask for information from another country. They don't really need a warrant at all. They just ask for it. IIRC, even the NSA isn't legally bound to avoid spying on American citizens when they are out of the country.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    To avoid it, no. But if they do uncover evidence on American citizens it could not be used in a trial and must be filtered out (although, see 'parallel construction').
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
What makes the American Constitution exceptional is not its content but the fact that it was written in the late 18th century. In the intervening two centuries, several other industrialized liberal democracies have adopted constitutions that are broader and more inclusive than the Bill of Rights.
- solistice 13y ago
  But clutter isn't what makes a legal document effective. I'd rather have a concise definition of what is a right and what not than pages upon pages of dancing around that issue.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little over 2,200 words and is clear and concise. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).
    - solistice 13y ago
      So there aren't any people trying to latch onto every nook in order to subvert the original message? That's...intresting. I'm mostly familar with the American Bill of Rights and the German Grundgesetz, which is much longer and contains more rights, albeit not always more solid definitions. I've been in discussions before, where I'd defend one right, and was contered with another, equally valid right that was somehow conflicting with the other. In that way, the Grundgesetz trips over itself, and it's hard to argue for a given interpretation (so are these rights equal, or is this right of a lower denomination than the other, and how far can you compromise this right so this right can be put into effect, and if everyone has a Recht auf Arbeit (Right to have work), aren't we infringing on that?). Obviously, I'd rather have a terse, but in itself noncontradicting bill of rights than a long list of irreconcilable demands. But they're both not neccesairily optimal.
- 13y ago
Buzaga 13y ago
That is absurd. Do you think every country, and every country folk, would let the government pass a bulldozer all over their rights like this? This is just projecting. In other words, that shit wouldn't fly everywhere, for sure. This all emanates from the 9/11 and Patriot Act and Secret Laws with no oversight, that's your problem specifically, of course every government must be wanting it's own surveillance supermachine too, but it doesn't mean every single one of them is willing(or have means) to pass every possible barrier to do it. Other countries have their own constituitions too and people guarding it, and different political systems, and different relation of the people with their government. Brasilians, for example, are not patriotic(as you are), we like the localization and our folk but absolutely everyone despises the government, the governants are completely cowering with the demonstration, pulling their repression apparatus out and on... It's absurd and it's also a derrotist statement, this lavabit guy is a hero and the more people go against this rotten government, more clear it becomes the damage is shared by everyone AND the country itself.
- dictum 13y ago
  >Do you think every country, and every country folk, would let the government pass a bulldozer all over their rights like this? If your government is not willing to pass a bulldozer over its rights, the US are more than willing to bulldoze your government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  I wholehearteadly agree with your larger point, but as a Brazilian I think Brazil is not a good example in this regard. People here despise the government because of corruption of the "stealing" kind, and inefficiency. Despite our recent experiment with dictatorship ended in the 80's, We have a long road to travel in terms of awareness about the dangers of tirany. The government takes the fingerprints of every citizen when we go make our I.D. Cards, for example. No one makes a fuss. Official propaganda is standard practise (how else would one call the government-bought advertisements to raise awareness about its deeds?) Recenty the folks who organize electios are all over the TV with their campaign to take everyone's prints (see "inneficiency") in order to "make our elections even more secure". Though the last president's plans for "social control of the media" were soundly rebutted, it's telling that he even thought he could try. I'm an optimist regarding the next decades, but it's a long road indeed.
001sky 13y ago
Swiss banking (famously) had this niche biz model, but its future seems unteneable in the digital era. Silicon Valley has been complicit behind the scenes. Both overtly with technical hw/sw, and also more subtly (ie, "personalization" from which you can't opt out).