Why I'm boycotting US cloud tech(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Why I'm boycotting US cloud tech
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/
19 comments
I have always ridiculed those big European programs aimed at removing or limit the presence of google from Europeans citizens everyday life, but somehow, even if the European administrations can't manage software programs, their premises were right all along. Some friends were looking for providers outside of the Patriot Act because their customers would not accept US spying on their data, I was telling them I didn't really care, I was wrong. We might have to cut some links across the pound because our "ally" is turning less and less rational and he's massively weaponized, and take a sane route for ourselves (which is a big fight on its own).
So if the theory holds true that things need to get worse before they get better, this could be good news in that it could be the motivating event in the global market for truly private cloud services.
Perhaps some European startup has a solution to our US based privacy problem that we could all migrate to for our cloud services.
Perhaps some European startup has a solution to our US based privacy problem that we could all migrate to for our cloud services.
As much as the US should be blamed for Prism etc., it should not be ignored that very similar programs exist in Europa as well – often in direct cooperation with the US. There might be a privacy advantage in Europe on paper but not much of that remains in daily life and business reality, it is mostly 'cover your ass' in the end.
They don't share everything, for example when they spy on a foreign company in advance for a big RFE, they won't share. But they are most likely to share real threats, because they are being judged on what they share. Then you have the game of powers, like when Europe had to surrender plane passengers personal data. Being foreigner's data, they are perfectly game for every spilling or abuse since only US citizens are a political issue, and there is mostly no way to get the US Government accountable for any international treaty.
Exactly which government can you hold to international treaties ?
Let's take a very obvious and blatant example. The government of Saudi Arabia signed the declaration of human rights, the FIRST article of which guarantees individual freedom of religion. Yet we all know they don't allow that, and they regularly execute ex-muslims for converting to Christianity, for being gay, and for a dozen other things. There's thousands of documented cases.
As if this is not bad enough, the government officials of Saudi Arabia regularly get caught torturing people they plucked off the street, apparently for fun. One of their allies, a UAE official, got caught on tape (or should we say, made a tape of him having his fun, then someone "leaked" it) [1]. This is legal (in sharia the government has the right to kill, torture and ... anyone they want).
I would say this is a far more blatant and dishonest practice than the ones you're alleging to. Yes the US spies, big whoop. They don't publicly behead people for things they signed a treaty they would not consider a crime ... And yet nobody seems to care. Yet one thing seems blatantly obvious : when it comes to human rights, the US ... is not the problem.
The truth is that outside of some of Western Europe and the US, most governments consider international treaties little more than a weapon to be used against their enemies because of the public attention they can garner using them. The most blatant violators, from Saudi Arabia to China, accuse everyone, from the US to Luxembourg, of violating international agreements of torture. Nobody should take this serious, but of course a lot of people do.
So let me know how these international treaties are supposed to work. I would love to hear how you'll get freedom of conviction, religion, politics and sexual orientation respected in the ~2/3rds of our planet that has signed an international treaty not to consider it a crime, yet kill people for it. China, just about every muslim country, Russia, ... (2/3rds, because China, India and Indonesia together form a comfortable 60% of the world, and none of them respects even basic freedom of religion. Only India can be said to give it a half-hearted attempt)
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHgaMqTzWaE
Let's take a very obvious and blatant example. The government of Saudi Arabia signed the declaration of human rights, the FIRST article of which guarantees individual freedom of religion. Yet we all know they don't allow that, and they regularly execute ex-muslims for converting to Christianity, for being gay, and for a dozen other things. There's thousands of documented cases.
As if this is not bad enough, the government officials of Saudi Arabia regularly get caught torturing people they plucked off the street, apparently for fun. One of their allies, a UAE official, got caught on tape (or should we say, made a tape of him having his fun, then someone "leaked" it) [1]. This is legal (in sharia the government has the right to kill, torture and ... anyone they want).
I would say this is a far more blatant and dishonest practice than the ones you're alleging to. Yes the US spies, big whoop. They don't publicly behead people for things they signed a treaty they would not consider a crime ... And yet nobody seems to care. Yet one thing seems blatantly obvious : when it comes to human rights, the US ... is not the problem.
The truth is that outside of some of Western Europe and the US, most governments consider international treaties little more than a weapon to be used against their enemies because of the public attention they can garner using them. The most blatant violators, from Saudi Arabia to China, accuse everyone, from the US to Luxembourg, of violating international agreements of torture. Nobody should take this serious, but of course a lot of people do.
So let me know how these international treaties are supposed to work. I would love to hear how you'll get freedom of conviction, religion, politics and sexual orientation respected in the ~2/3rds of our planet that has signed an international treaty not to consider it a crime, yet kill people for it. China, just about every muslim country, Russia, ... (2/3rds, because China, India and Indonesia together form a comfortable 60% of the world, and none of them respects even basic freedom of religion. Only India can be said to give it a half-hearted attempt)
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHgaMqTzWaE
Europe spies on its citizens in other ways. For example, with CCTV all over Britain. Heaven forbid a company should provide its opt-in users with a marginal service, and spy on them for a little bit of profit.
How does the quote go? "Don't spy. Government hates competition"
EDIT: I should also point out that if yes, google data goes to the US gov't (which I believe in a qualified manner) one could chalk up the european shutdowns of google to basically just be jealous of the US's access to that data.
How does the quote go? "Don't spy. Government hates competition"
EDIT: I should also point out that if yes, google data goes to the US gov't (which I believe in a qualified manner) one could chalk up the european shutdowns of google to basically just be jealous of the US's access to that data.
CCTV is in a public place. No European person would expect that their private Skype calls, GMails and Dropbox files are being stored by the NSA. Clearly the US government knows the logging is unfair as it does not include its own citizens [1]
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
Maybe it will force Google (and others) to at least add OTR and ZRTP to Hangouts (enabled by default), for chats and video, and "one-click" local encryption for Google drive, to make it easy for everyone to use storage encryption (it will probably need to use a plugin).
But even then this will only solve the chatting and storage problem (somewhat), but not the Gmail problem. Even with local encryption available as one-click, it seems very unlikely more than 1% of the users would use it, because they'd need to send the key to their friends, and that's just too cumbersome. And if only so few use it, then it's as good as useless, and Google still can't be fully trusted for e-mails (thanks to the US government).
What I'd like to see Google do now, is become very pro-active about this, and to implement measures like this to "give the privacy control back to the people". Then maybe, just maybe, I'll begin to trust Google again.
But I'm not holding my breath. I doubt it's illegal for them to do all of this, but especially if there's a legal grey area here to make it easy for their customers to encrypt stuff locally, I don't see them bothering to fight for this. The only way they might do it if there's a significant threat to their business, much like SOPA was.
That's why I'm hoping the theory put forward by the author will become reality, and this NSA story will hurt US companies' bottomlines badly, and their international relationships, because only then we'll have true competition in privacy.
It's also probably the only way to convince the government to stop doing it to this extent, because from what I've noticed they listen a lot more to money and lobbying than to citizen outrage.
But even then this will only solve the chatting and storage problem (somewhat), but not the Gmail problem. Even with local encryption available as one-click, it seems very unlikely more than 1% of the users would use it, because they'd need to send the key to their friends, and that's just too cumbersome. And if only so few use it, then it's as good as useless, and Google still can't be fully trusted for e-mails (thanks to the US government).
What I'd like to see Google do now, is become very pro-active about this, and to implement measures like this to "give the privacy control back to the people". Then maybe, just maybe, I'll begin to trust Google again.
But I'm not holding my breath. I doubt it's illegal for them to do all of this, but especially if there's a legal grey area here to make it easy for their customers to encrypt stuff locally, I don't see them bothering to fight for this. The only way they might do it if there's a significant threat to their business, much like SOPA was.
That's why I'm hoping the theory put forward by the author will become reality, and this NSA story will hurt US companies' bottomlines badly, and their international relationships, because only then we'll have true competition in privacy.
It's also probably the only way to convince the government to stop doing it to this extent, because from what I've noticed they listen a lot more to money and lobbying than to citizen outrage.
Google can't offer proper encryption because most of their business model is based on analyzing all the personal data they store. At least it's very unlikely and I wouldn't hold my breath.
Code, not laws.
Most foreign governments are just as bad, just with fewer resources and often with less explicit protections for privacy.
The ultimate solution would be to only use cloud servers which make verifiable technical claims about security and privacy to the level you require; otherwise, boycott the cloud.
I'm personally fine with Twitter as a publishing platform (and essentially treat my dm as "stuff which is too spammy for even an at reply".)
Facebook kind of skirts the line. It is really useful as both a way to get newsfeed updates and a messaging system. In the long run, I'd really need something like OTR to continue using messages.
My email is too private for me to want it on a cloud service without serious technical controls. No one offers this yet, so I self-host.
IM with OTR is ok for privacy, but sucks for traffic analysis still, and there are serious problems with OTR and mobile/multi client, still.
My password manager is too sensitive to live on public servers even with crypto, since I can't audit every single update to the package thoroughly enough. Same goes with "secure notes" (safe combos, etc). A belt and suspenders approach of both using crypto and maintaining access control on the file is about the best I can do so far; something like an HSM in the future.
Cellphones and voice (and presence/location) are the sacrifice I hate the most (along with finance, I guess). If I had a way to get analog one-way pager notifications of incoming messages and a wifi-tunneling tablet, I'd consider ditching cellphone entirely. This would be a moderately big deal to develop, though.
Ultimately anonymous ecash (chaumian blinded tokens or Zerocoin or something else) is the solution to financial privacy (probably not straight Bitcoin, since there will be a jihad against mixes, and without mixes, Bitcoin privacy is horrible.)
Most foreign governments are just as bad, just with fewer resources and often with less explicit protections for privacy.
The ultimate solution would be to only use cloud servers which make verifiable technical claims about security and privacy to the level you require; otherwise, boycott the cloud.
I'm personally fine with Twitter as a publishing platform (and essentially treat my dm as "stuff which is too spammy for even an at reply".)
Facebook kind of skirts the line. It is really useful as both a way to get newsfeed updates and a messaging system. In the long run, I'd really need something like OTR to continue using messages.
My email is too private for me to want it on a cloud service without serious technical controls. No one offers this yet, so I self-host.
IM with OTR is ok for privacy, but sucks for traffic analysis still, and there are serious problems with OTR and mobile/multi client, still.
My password manager is too sensitive to live on public servers even with crypto, since I can't audit every single update to the package thoroughly enough. Same goes with "secure notes" (safe combos, etc). A belt and suspenders approach of both using crypto and maintaining access control on the file is about the best I can do so far; something like an HSM in the future.
Cellphones and voice (and presence/location) are the sacrifice I hate the most (along with finance, I guess). If I had a way to get analog one-way pager notifications of incoming messages and a wifi-tunneling tablet, I'd consider ditching cellphone entirely. This would be a moderately big deal to develop, though.
Ultimately anonymous ecash (chaumian blinded tokens or Zerocoin or something else) is the solution to financial privacy (probably not straight Bitcoin, since there will be a jihad against mixes, and without mixes, Bitcoin privacy is horrible.)
No no no. Firstly this is just an arms race between you and the most sophisticated, well resourced and technically savvy surveillance organisation that has ever existed. Secondly, this strategy might temporarily protect a tiny knowledgable fraction of the population, which is of no real consequence to society in general.
Fortunately the same principles of physics and mathematics apply to both me and Google (and the #3 or #4 most powerful/smart organization, NSA). I trust science a lot more than I trust either every member of every organization to obey the law, or the law to remain both public and supportive of my interests.
don't be so sure. The NSA is probably far, far ahead in mathematics.
Absolutely true in 1970, but probably much less true now (they probably ARE experts in traffic analysis, though, since ~no one but intel agencies cares about that yet). Academia and commerce tend to surpass the government in every OTHER area where they participate, it's just that no one cared pre-70s. I don't think they're using their huge budget efficiently, just like every other government/military program. The bulk of their budget and effort is going to collection, mainly satellites, physical installations, staffing for those, etc.
Judging by what I've seen of USG security, their COMSEC side (defense) is actually comparatively weaker than best practices in most of the high-end civilian world. Their only saving grace is a focus on physical separation and hardware implementations; otherwise they'd be totally pwned, and they seem to be moving "into the cloud" which will lose their their existing advantages.
And, if they had a magic way to factor or whatever, it would be so highly classified (like Enigma break in WW2)that they could never use it on anything which wasn't totally justifiable through other plausible means, and of such incredible value (like "killing OBL" or higher), that I can act as if they can't factor.
Judging by what I've seen of USG security, their COMSEC side (defense) is actually comparatively weaker than best practices in most of the high-end civilian world. Their only saving grace is a focus on physical separation and hardware implementations; otherwise they'd be totally pwned, and they seem to be moving "into the cloud" which will lose their their existing advantages.
And, if they had a magic way to factor or whatever, it would be so highly classified (like Enigma break in WW2)that they could never use it on anything which wasn't totally justifiable through other plausible means, and of such incredible value (like "killing OBL" or higher), that I can act as if they can't factor.
I'm pretty sure the NSA has an active program to recruit high-level strictly theoretical mathematicians specializing in algebra and algebraic analysis (typically at the undergrad level).
Agree that the US's COMSEC is degrading, rapidly. As is the USN's nuke reactor program. Sigh.
Agree that the US's COMSEC is degrading, rapidly. As is the USN's nuke reactor program. Sigh.
They do, although the vast majority of NSA staff are more like computer techs/middle managers/etc. Sadly.
It's also a lot harder, IMO, to convince a top theoretical mathematician to go to NSA vs. remain in public, since there aren't exactly amazing resources NSA can offer (better chalk?), compared to someone who needs access to multi-million or billion dollar resources. In exchange for better chalk (and access to other classified work, sure), you can't publish, so you'll never win a Fields, be respected by your mom, etc. (A guy who really is into nuclear physics could be tempted by DOE, by comparison.)
I think NSA would have a much easier time recruiting "true believers" in US national defense than anything else. i.e. "yes, you're an expert in theoretical math, but rather than doing purely abstract stuff, you can help protect your country from the evil terrorists!". An easier case when the threat was existential nuclear annihilation from a USSR your relatives may have fled in the past, than now where we're going up against mud hut dwellers who can't afford shoes and take over planes with boxcutters.
NSA also does the bullshit "EOE" recruiting, particularly in the high school and undergrad level. Sorry, but most high level math people are not particularly "diverse".
Plus, go to the math department at top universities. Find the US citizen. Find the US citizen who isn't particularly counterculture or does recreational drugs or whatever. Convince him to work for GS/GG wages (maybe $100k, tops?) vs. a tech startup or a hedge fund. With paralyzing bureaucracy, uncertain funding in the next 10-20 years, and stifling work rules.
I would not want to be the NSA's recruiting department.
It's also a lot harder, IMO, to convince a top theoretical mathematician to go to NSA vs. remain in public, since there aren't exactly amazing resources NSA can offer (better chalk?), compared to someone who needs access to multi-million or billion dollar resources. In exchange for better chalk (and access to other classified work, sure), you can't publish, so you'll never win a Fields, be respected by your mom, etc. (A guy who really is into nuclear physics could be tempted by DOE, by comparison.)
I think NSA would have a much easier time recruiting "true believers" in US national defense than anything else. i.e. "yes, you're an expert in theoretical math, but rather than doing purely abstract stuff, you can help protect your country from the evil terrorists!". An easier case when the threat was existential nuclear annihilation from a USSR your relatives may have fled in the past, than now where we're going up against mud hut dwellers who can't afford shoes and take over planes with boxcutters.
NSA also does the bullshit "EOE" recruiting, particularly in the high school and undergrad level. Sorry, but most high level math people are not particularly "diverse".
Plus, go to the math department at top universities. Find the US citizen. Find the US citizen who isn't particularly counterculture or does recreational drugs or whatever. Convince him to work for GS/GG wages (maybe $100k, tops?) vs. a tech startup or a hedge fund. With paralyzing bureaucracy, uncertain funding in the next 10-20 years, and stifling work rules.
I would not want to be the NSA's recruiting department.
good points.
> this is just an arms race
For encryption, that's not really true. If armor were like encryption then one inch of armor would be a billion times more resistant than half an inch.
The strength of encryption can be calculated to be on a cosmic scale infeasible to crack.
For encryption, that's not really true. If armor were like encryption then one inch of armor would be a billion times more resistant than half an inch.
The strength of encryption can be calculated to be on a cosmic scale infeasible to crack.
The theory of it doesn't really matter. How can you share encryption keys securely if all system is traffic is transparent? Ultimately, You might be able to temporarily reduce the attack surface, but you will always be massively mismatched.
The point is, a technical solution is a band aid solution for a technical elite happy to live half outside of "normal" society. The only way to convey similar protections on the rest of the population is through strong legislation.
The point is, a technical solution is a band aid solution for a technical elite happy to live half outside of "normal" society. The only way to convey similar protections on the rest of the population is through strong legislation.
Key exchange can also be secured. Ephemeral keys can make it difficult to sustain an attack on key storage at endpoints.
The everyday use of strong encryption would be a lot more than a "band aid." It would mean securing our right to be secure in our documents against any attack, legal or technical. It would become a right any individual could enforce against all comers.
The everyday use of strong encryption would be a lot more than a "band aid." It would mean securing our right to be secure in our documents against any attack, legal or technical. It would become a right any individual could enforce against all comers.
This is exactly what I mean about an arms race. If an agency is legally entitled to access private keys, for example, through legalised hacking of your home computer via backdoors installed by cooperative corporations, you're back to square one. If the network controllers make the so-called metadata of who talked to who and when, they've got a heck of lot of data to start with. If the control as much computer power and as much of the world expertise on crypography as some people claim, maybe they can break crypto in ways that appear mathematically unlikely now.
Arms race. You cannot win with purely technical means when you fundamentally lack control over the technology.
Arms race. You cannot win with purely technical means when you fundamentally lack control over the technology.
No, really, there is no "arms race." It has a known terminus. If strong encryption were in widespread use, the race would be over. Even metadata analysis would become mostly useless. What's more, the week before PRISM was revealed, there were headlines about how China was all up in our trade and state secrets. Are laws going to protect against that?
You assert that the people "fundamentally lack control over the technology" and that just isn't true. Start with the fact that strong encryption was born in an environment where the adversary is assumed to be a state actor with unlimited resources. There is enough open security technology that surmising that our government or any other has an undiscovered technology with fundamentally different properties is like any super-weapon fantasy: There are no flying saucers at Area 51 and there is no hyperdimensional machine in the basement of Ft. Mead. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.
You assert that the people "fundamentally lack control over the technology" and that just isn't true. Start with the fact that strong encryption was born in an environment where the adversary is assumed to be a state actor with unlimited resources. There is enough open security technology that surmising that our government or any other has an undiscovered technology with fundamentally different properties is like any super-weapon fantasy: There are no flying saucers at Area 51 and there is no hyperdimensional machine in the basement of Ft. Mead. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.
Yes, we all know who will win in an arms race between me and google.
"but the truth of the matter is that the entire Western world owes the very foundation of its modern beliefs to the US Constitution, in my opinion."
What are those 'modern beliefs' then? Modern democracy, philosophy and human rights are not American products, but European, starting with ancient Greece, further expanded during the Renaissance and the reformations after the 2 world wars.
The fact that America is so young allowed them to choose from many of the time's political ideas. Saying what you said is like saying 'all smartphone users owe Samsung for the user experience, because they created the Galaxy S4'.
What are those 'modern beliefs' then? Modern democracy, philosophy and human rights are not American products, but European, starting with ancient Greece, further expanded during the Renaissance and the reformations after the 2 world wars.
The fact that America is so young allowed them to choose from many of the time's political ideas. Saying what you said is like saying 'all smartphone users owe Samsung for the user experience, because they created the Galaxy S4'.
What are those 'modern beliefs' then? Modern democracy, philosophy and human rights are not American products, but European, starting with ancient Greece, further expanded during the Renaissance and the reformations after the 2 world wars.
How Eurocentric of you.
As http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/September/20... points out, the US Constitution took some of its inspiration from the Iroquois. They provided inspiration for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a 2 state legislature, a federal system, the requirement for an annual state of the union address, and so on.
Of course the influences you cite were also hugely important. However the USA introduced important ideas from the native Americans that had not previously been part of the European tradition.
How Eurocentric of you.
As http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/September/20... points out, the US Constitution took some of its inspiration from the Iroquois. They provided inspiration for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a 2 state legislature, a federal system, the requirement for an annual state of the union address, and so on.
Of course the influences you cite were also hugely important. However the USA introduced important ideas from the native Americans that had not previously been part of the European tradition.
I was curious about this Iroquois influence on the form of U.S. government, so I read Wikipedia. It turns out to be a pleasing story of recent invention.[1]
Perhaps we can say that the prominence of the Iroquois confederacy (where, although the tribes themselves had hereditary leadership, the way the tribes were confederated was vaguely democratic[2]), was used as a persuasive anchor in favor of the colonists' confederation - Ben Franklin urging: "It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union … and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies."
Some excerpts:
[2] (from wikipedia) No Iroquois treaty was binding unless it was ratified by 75% of the male voters and 75% of the mothers of the nation.[46] In revising Council laws and customs, a consent of two-thirds of the mothers was required.[46] The need for a double supermajority to make major changes made the Confederacy a de facto consensus government.[47]
[57] http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html
[60] Tooker E (1990). "The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League"
Perhaps we can say that the prominence of the Iroquois confederacy (where, although the tribes themselves had hereditary leadership, the way the tribes were confederated was vaguely democratic[2]), was used as a persuasive anchor in favor of the colonists' confederation - Ben Franklin urging: "It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union … and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies."
Some excerpts:
Rakove writes, "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois" and notes that there are ample European precedents to the democratic institutions of the United States.[57]
Tooker concluded that the documents cited indicate that groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of a confederation, but she thinks there is little evidence to support the idea that 18th century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance.
Tooker concludes, "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers borrowed from the Iroquois." She thinks the myth resulted from exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by the Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[60]
[2] (from wikipedia) No Iroquois treaty was binding unless it was ratified by 75% of the male voters and 75% of the mothers of the nation.[46] In revising Council laws and customs, a consent of two-thirds of the mothers was required.[46] The need for a double supermajority to make major changes made the Confederacy a de facto consensus government.[47]
[57] http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html
[60] Tooker E (1990). "The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League"
Sadly as I've gone back through sources that I learned this from, the case for it is not nearly as strong as I had believed. :-(
Doubly so given that the Corsican constitution predates the US and has many of the same ideas, but clearly with no native influence.
Still, there are parallels, and the case is strong that Benjamin Franklin was personally moved by the Iroquois example.
Doubly so given that the Corsican constitution predates the US and has many of the same ideas, but clearly with no native influence.
Still, there are parallels, and the case is strong that Benjamin Franklin was personally moved by the Iroquois example.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech were already common in at least some European governmental systems and certainly in the philosophy of enlightenment. I am not quite sure what you mean by ‘2 state legislature’, if you refer to two chambers/houses of parliament: Britain had two chambers since at least 1706, and ancient Greece and Rome often also had two chambers. The Holy Roman Empire was a strongly federal state/union with very independent member states. The annual state of the union address can be found in basically every remotely civilised form of government, be it the speech from the throne in monarchies (e.g. the UK) or those in the Roman republic.
I don’t think ideas from native Americans were of particular importance, or, even if they were, substantially newer than those from Europe.
I don’t think ideas from native Americans were of particular importance, or, even if they were, substantially newer than those from Europe.
Historical accounts of both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin make it very clear that both looked to the Iroquois for inspiration and considered them important.
Franklin in particular became inspired by the idea of combining the colonies into a federation after reading about the Iroquois. And did much to raise awareness of their culture, and get involved with them. (Including becoming an envoy to them, and being involved in treaty negotiations.)
The fact that these ideas had plenty of European precedents does not diminish the fact that, historically, it appears that key figures in the US revolution and the later writing of the Constitution actually took inspiration from the Iroquois.
Franklin in particular became inspired by the idea of combining the colonies into a federation after reading about the Iroquois. And did much to raise awareness of their culture, and get involved with them. (Including becoming an envoy to them, and being involved in treaty negotiations.)
The fact that these ideas had plenty of European precedents does not diminish the fact that, historically, it appears that key figures in the US revolution and the later writing of the Constitution actually took inspiration from the Iroquois.
>> However the USA introduced important ideas from the native Americans that had not previously been part of the European tradition.
The last part is the bit that annoyed me. Of course I don’t know how or where the founding fathers got their ideas, but saying that these important cornerstones were non-existent in Europe before is simply wrong.
The last part is the bit that annoyed me. Of course I don’t know how or where the founding fathers got their ideas, but saying that these important cornerstones were non-existent in Europe before is simply wrong.
Freedom of religion and speech were already part of the Roman empire.
That is besides the point really. What I said was in reaction the the quote that America 'created' all those things. While I argue that they were able to pick and choose from existing political systems. So they didn't create, they chose. You can compare this to either building your own framework or picking one that will work for what you are trying to do.
That is besides the point really. What I said was in reaction the the quote that America 'created' all those things. While I argue that they were able to pick and choose from existing political systems. So they didn't create, they chose. You can compare this to either building your own framework or picking one that will work for what you are trying to do.
I want my private files and private communications to be private.
We should all be boycotting centralization of private communications and unencrypted file storage in the cloud as a precautionary measure. In light of NSA/Prism, especially when communicated across national borders, we should insist on end-to-end encryption: GPG/PGP, S/MIME, HTTPS, RSA/DES/etc, i.e. nothing sent in the clear.
For public services like Google+ or Twitter, the information is public anyway. Unless Google, Apple, Microsoft, et al, start implementing back doors on my devices for the NSA I don't think boycotting is the answer. The pressure has to be primarily on the politicians, hold their feet to the fire until FISA/PATRIOT acts are repealed.
We should all be boycotting centralization of private communications and unencrypted file storage in the cloud as a precautionary measure. In light of NSA/Prism, especially when communicated across national borders, we should insist on end-to-end encryption: GPG/PGP, S/MIME, HTTPS, RSA/DES/etc, i.e. nothing sent in the clear.
For public services like Google+ or Twitter, the information is public anyway. Unless Google, Apple, Microsoft, et al, start implementing back doors on my devices for the NSA I don't think boycotting is the answer. The pressure has to be primarily on the politicians, hold their feet to the fire until FISA/PATRIOT acts are repealed.
'Not subject to American law' might not be possible if you want to use today's Internet in a global manner.
US citizens for example get taxed worldwide and banks worldwide have to comply with American law if they want to remain part of the global banking system (and don't want to go out of business). That's possible because the heart of the global banking system is located in the US or at least under American control.
Today's Internet is very similar and American companies are the dominating forces on the Internet anyway. And with regard to surveillance and interception, the US even has many supporting allies worldwide, just think of Echolon …
US citizens for example get taxed worldwide and banks worldwide have to comply with American law if they want to remain part of the global banking system (and don't want to go out of business). That's possible because the heart of the global banking system is located in the US or at least under American control.
Today's Internet is very similar and American companies are the dominating forces on the Internet anyway. And with regard to surveillance and interception, the US even has many supporting allies worldwide, just think of Echolon …
I am an American. But I don't think that the world of business will always revolve around that fact. US domination of the internet is subject to disruption, and laws which require the implementation of state sponsored spyware may place US based companies at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
To put it another way, given a choice Gmail-private will come to be preferred to Gmail-PRISM should the user facing feature sets be comparable. And it is likely to be easier to implement Gmail-private if the company providing it is located outside the US - i.e. is not Google. The same applies to search, maps, and eventually mobile communication.
To put it another way, given a choice Gmail-private will come to be preferred to Gmail-PRISM should the user facing feature sets be comparable. And it is likely to be easier to implement Gmail-private if the company providing it is located outside the US - i.e. is not Google. The same applies to search, maps, and eventually mobile communication.
I like your – very American! – optimism.
An unpleasant fact is that the Internet outside the US is under heavy surveillance too, think of China and the Arabic world but also Europe. From a user perspective, you cannot opt against surveillance, you can mainly choose who can directly intercept your communications. And in this regard and although I don't like to be under any surveillance, the US is usually the lesser evil.
An unpleasant fact is that the Internet outside the US is under heavy surveillance too, think of China and the Arabic world but also Europe. From a user perspective, you cannot opt against surveillance, you can mainly choose who can directly intercept your communications. And in this regard and although I don't like to be under any surveillance, the US is usually the lesser evil.
"the Internet outside the US is under heavy surveillance too, think of China and the Arabic world"
This is where a tragic lack of foresight comes in. In 40 years China will be the world's dominant nation. Do we want to be in that transition setting a good example or a bad example? Do we want to be setting high standards for restraint, privacy, and individual freedom, or do we want to be seen grabbing every privilege and advantage right to the bitter end?
This is where a tragic lack of foresight comes in. In 40 years China will be the world's dominant nation. Do we want to be in that transition setting a good example or a bad example? Do we want to be setting high standards for restraint, privacy, and individual freedom, or do we want to be seen grabbing every privilege and advantage right to the bitter end?
<q>Do we want to be in that transition setting a good example or a bad example?</q>
The way you posit the question... Are you sure they care about any such example?
The way you posit the question... Are you sure they care about any such example?
I have no optimism over the matter. I just believe in change. That your comparison of the US is to China, suggests how ripe the world of online services is for disruption - less oppressive than China is damnation by faint praise.
What's funny is only China was smart enough to keep Sillicon Valley surveillance out of their country. Though it was only because they wanted to control the surveilance themselves.
>What's funny is only China was smart enough to keep Sillicon Valley surveillance out of their country. Though it was only because they wanted to control the surveilance themselves.
I wouldn't call it "only".
That's a very important distinction.
It means that on the internet, they can be a (more) sovereign state -- not depended on third countries for their internet services and life.
I wouldn't call it "only".
That's a very important distinction.
It means that on the internet, they can be a (more) sovereign state -- not depended on third countries for their internet services and life.
Long ago I concluded that
any of my personal data
or business data outside the
locked doors of my own
facilities would be an open, engraved
invitation for lawyers and big
government to get between
me and my data and cause me
no end of time, effort, and money
wasted, so much waste that
the lawyers and big government
could easily ruin both my business
and my life, even if there is
absolutely nothing at all wrong.
Here's the real situation: Lawyers and big government, especially the second, have unlimited time, money, effort, and powers and nothing much else to do but cause trouble, and I just do not have the resources to defend myself against them. To them a false alarm is just another project at the office; to me their false alarm is likely the death of my business and a big torpedo below the water line of my little boat in life.
So, my 'tactic' is just to do nothing wrong, certainly have nothing wrong in my data, try to remain mostly anonymous, stay the heck below their radar, and keep my data inside my own four walls.
I can still be vulnerable to various false alarms. And if my business is at all successful, I may have to become something of a 'public person', that is, not so anonymous, and, then, be on the radar of various people who would like to cause me trouble. There could be news reporters looking to 'manufacture' a scandal for a 'scoop'. There could be politically motivated attackers. And there could be just common shakedown artists who want me to give them something and else trigger some false alarm to have big government cause me trouble. One false alarm could cost me my business, years of time, millions of dollars in legal fees, all for nothing substantive at all.
Just as for anyone, any of my data outside my four walls is just raw meat for lots of people who could do me harm. So, no 'cloud' servers; no 'cloud' file backup; little or nothing on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+; all blog posts anonymous; mostly don't let browsers accept cookies,; etc.
Let lawyers and big government go after easier targets. I remember the old joke that don't have to outrun the angry bear; instead, just have to outrun the poor other guy trying to outrun the angry bear.
Here's the real situation: Lawyers and big government, especially the second, have unlimited time, money, effort, and powers and nothing much else to do but cause trouble, and I just do not have the resources to defend myself against them. To them a false alarm is just another project at the office; to me their false alarm is likely the death of my business and a big torpedo below the water line of my little boat in life.
So, my 'tactic' is just to do nothing wrong, certainly have nothing wrong in my data, try to remain mostly anonymous, stay the heck below their radar, and keep my data inside my own four walls.
I can still be vulnerable to various false alarms. And if my business is at all successful, I may have to become something of a 'public person', that is, not so anonymous, and, then, be on the radar of various people who would like to cause me trouble. There could be news reporters looking to 'manufacture' a scandal for a 'scoop'. There could be politically motivated attackers. And there could be just common shakedown artists who want me to give them something and else trigger some false alarm to have big government cause me trouble. One false alarm could cost me my business, years of time, millions of dollars in legal fees, all for nothing substantive at all.
Just as for anyone, any of my data outside my four walls is just raw meat for lots of people who could do me harm. So, no 'cloud' servers; no 'cloud' file backup; little or nothing on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+; all blog posts anonymous; mostly don't let browsers accept cookies,; etc.
Let lawyers and big government go after easier targets. I remember the old joke that don't have to outrun the angry bear; instead, just have to outrun the poor other guy trying to outrun the angry bear.
This is what I term "Professional Paranoia" and as long as you can be unemotional about it, it can be an exceptionally useful mindset. I have internalized the Moscow Rules[1] and I constantly remind myself of what Bruce Lee said, "Be like water".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_rules
I'm not at much risk (except for
maybe some of my HN posts!)
and am not very safe, but I'm
safer than I would be trying
to be a public figure speaking out.
At times I have heard suggestions that I should start a blog, but then I'd be closer to being a public figure and more at risk.
Again, if my business is successful, then I will be less anonymous and sometimes have to hold my tongue!
At times I have heard suggestions that I should start a blog, but then I'd be closer to being a public figure and more at risk.
Again, if my business is successful, then I will be less anonymous and sometimes have to hold my tongue!
Any email provider out there in a 'safe location' that can compete with GMail?
I'd really like to move the GMail Acc. I use for some of my mail, but every option kinda feels like moving from smoke to smother.
I use Fastmail, owned by Opera Software- out of Australia.
Been with them for a decade, always been extra happy with it.
Been with them for a decade, always been extra happy with it.
Australia should not be considered a 'safe location'. Australia closely cooperates with the US and is even one of the core members of Echolon. And the FastMail server are located in the US anyway …
Good to know- I didn't know. Thanks.
Good to know Fastmail location for me, too. In recent weeks, I was considering Fastmail over Gmail and upon receiving the NSA news, I was more inclined to make the switch.
If you boycot US cloud, you surely will come into contact with it and therefore have your info stored by US tech companies. Ex. I live in Slovakia and I send an email from XYZ email service to someone who uses Gmail, does that not fall into the US cloud spider web?
You've touched the web long before getting to a Google server.
National borders have always been special demarcations and so any crossing, physical or digital, is subject to special examination.
The nature of modern digital communication has blurred the borders somewhat and perhaps more significantly has made it easy to forget when your digital actions are transgressing those borders.
In the physical world we've accepted that there are border control stations on roads, at airports, and ports. Some of the surveillance mechanisms that have been in the press lately are the digital equivalent. Some seem to be much more than that.
It is going to take some serious public debate and some enlightened leadership to reign in our surveillance state and to come to a better public consensus regarding what privacy standards we want to embed in domestic and international law.
National borders have always been special demarcations and so any crossing, physical or digital, is subject to special examination.
The nature of modern digital communication has blurred the borders somewhat and perhaps more significantly has made it easy to forget when your digital actions are transgressing those borders.
In the physical world we've accepted that there are border control stations on roads, at airports, and ports. Some of the surveillance mechanisms that have been in the press lately are the digital equivalent. Some seem to be much more than that.
It is going to take some serious public debate and some enlightened leadership to reign in our surveillance state and to come to a better public consensus regarding what privacy standards we want to embed in domestic and international law.
Yes, but you're money is being spent elsewhere. I guess that's the main idea behind the original post.
If you live outside of the States, aren't you already boycotting US clouds because of the latency? I think I only use Tarsnap for any remotely sensitive data.
Otherwise, I keep it as close to home as possible. It's a pain to use a VPS in America for example. Even with Mosh.
Otherwise, I keep it as close to home as possible. It's a pain to use a VPS in America for example. Even with Mosh.
Here in Denmark, use of Google services is extremely common, even in companies and universities. Lots of people are slowly migrating everything to Google Docs and Gmail, latency notwithstanding. There is some worry that this is de-facto watering down rules around things like privacy of student data, since that data is now ending up on services that don't implement European data-protection rules.
Gmail was disqualified from the bidding to provide a hosted email solution for the university I work at, for that reason, but Google services are nonetheless pretty widely used by individuals, even for official purposes. The contract eventually went to Microsoft's Office 365, which claims to comply with EU data-protection best practices (I believe the servers are also physically hosted in Europe): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/business/office-365-trust-...
I would guess that the promise is not particularly solid if the U.S. government wants to siphon off data from Microsoft, though. In practice I think it does provide some protection, but mostly against commercial use of the data: Microsoft has contractually agreed to certain rules about data-mining and data-sharing that Google hasn't.
Gmail was disqualified from the bidding to provide a hosted email solution for the university I work at, for that reason, but Google services are nonetheless pretty widely used by individuals, even for official purposes. The contract eventually went to Microsoft's Office 365, which claims to comply with EU data-protection best practices (I believe the servers are also physically hosted in Europe): http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/business/office-365-trust-...
I would guess that the promise is not particularly solid if the U.S. government wants to siphon off data from Microsoft, though. In practice I think it does provide some protection, but mostly against commercial use of the data: Microsoft has contractually agreed to certain rules about data-mining and data-sharing that Google hasn't.
By US clouds, it's meant "clouds owned/run by US companies". Most of them have datacenters in Europe.
Heroku and Engineyard is used a lot, also even before EngineYard had european hosting.
Lots of companies use Google Apps in Denmark.
I think the US Cloud is used by lots of europeans.
Lots of companies use Google Apps in Denmark.
I think the US Cloud is used by lots of europeans.
Suddenly, the rush to abandon private forums for "social media" seems, foolhardy doesn't it?
Of course discussion of specialized topics were spread out over a million places, but that was a million places - many of which were spread over different countries - someone would need to look (and get a warrant) to access data.
The down side to homogeneity is that it takes just one infection to bring down the lot.
Of course discussion of specialized topics were spread out over a million places, but that was a million places - many of which were spread over different countries - someone would need to look (and get a warrant) to access data.
The down side to homogeneity is that it takes just one infection to bring down the lot.
You might as well try boycotting US customers as well -- both are phenomenally impossible to accomplish but the end-goal is still the same.
Have actually read it all the way through, or are you just reacting to the title?
Boycotting US customers should be easy. After all, US companies have perfected the art of boycotting non-US customers...
Anyway, boycotting US cloud tech is not that hard, albeit a bit inconvenient in some cases. In many cases putting data within legal reach of the US government is simply illegal, so an entire market has sprung up to offer services that guarantee non US ownership and no data and services within US jurisdiction.
And this is just for the sake of regulatory compliance. In fact, it's probably the #1 selling point for non-US cloud services already. The NSA shitstorm is not exactly going to have a negative impact on that market...
Anyway, boycotting US cloud tech is not that hard, albeit a bit inconvenient in some cases. In many cases putting data within legal reach of the US government is simply illegal, so an entire market has sprung up to offer services that guarantee non US ownership and no data and services within US jurisdiction.
And this is just for the sake of regulatory compliance. In fact, it's probably the #1 selling point for non-US cloud services already. The NSA shitstorm is not exactly going to have a negative impact on that market...
Isn't it already being done? Don't gambling sites have to block US users?
That is the nature of disruption - it starts with imagining something contrary to the conventional wisdom. Anyway, there's no need to boycotte them, just let them live with latency in exchange for privacy. After all, the past dozen years have shown that US customers don't yet place much value on privacy.
Incidentally, the scale for disrupting the US's state sponsored dominance of the internet could readily be implemented at the state sponsored level in another country, and claims and disputes over access to markets made at the WTO level.
Among the BRIC's, Brazil and India are particularly well placed - neither has a massive security apparatus. Mexico by proximity is also positioned to serve the US from "offshore."
Incidentally, the scale for disrupting the US's state sponsored dominance of the internet could readily be implemented at the state sponsored level in another country, and claims and disputes over access to markets made at the WTO level.
Among the BRIC's, Brazil and India are particularly well placed - neither has a massive security apparatus. Mexico by proximity is also positioned to serve the US from "offshore."
> 'Not subject to American law' - the next desirable IT feature
We have seen in the past how the US Government overreaches to take down any website no matter where it's hosted. If you want to be "not subject to American law" you need to build an .onion torsite.
We have seen in the past how the US Government overreaches to take down any website no matter where it's hosted. If you want to be "not subject to American law" you need to build an .onion torsite.
[deleted](3)
You can be assured that the partner nations of the UKUSA not only have access to these NSA programs, but probably also participate. And then what non-shady nations are you left with? Israel? Please.
This isn't just the US folks.
This isn't just the US folks.
And how will the author boycott the NSA's cloud tech?
Since this is probably the 20th PRISM story today, here's a pitch for a new startup:
darkness.io is a incredible startup that is a complete game changer. I founded darkness.io after realizing that there is an untapped 383221 billion dollar opportunity in removal of prism stories from the web.
I can't tell you the details about our platform because we are currently in stealth mode, but we are the only player in removal of prism stories which we will completely disrupt in 3 months. At darkness.io we believe that everyone deserves less prism stories. Our product will bring together prism annoyance, anti-prism and boredom to introduce synergies that will democratize, and revolutionize removal of prism stories.
This idea is so potent yet so deceptively simple that it has the capacity to produce an unlimited amount of profit.
We haven't created our product yet, so we are looking a real javascript samurai to join our team so they can build it for us. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for you to be a part of the next big thing. We have free food, unlimited vacation, generous equity compensation. Also each week we give you a new iSpy just for being amazing.
If know javascript and 'want in', just tweet me and you'll be on our uber game-changing, revolutionary, disruptive team in no time, helping us change the world!
darkness.io is a incredible startup that is a complete game changer. I founded darkness.io after realizing that there is an untapped 383221 billion dollar opportunity in removal of prism stories from the web.
I can't tell you the details about our platform because we are currently in stealth mode, but we are the only player in removal of prism stories which we will completely disrupt in 3 months. At darkness.io we believe that everyone deserves less prism stories. Our product will bring together prism annoyance, anti-prism and boredom to introduce synergies that will democratize, and revolutionize removal of prism stories.
This idea is so potent yet so deceptively simple that it has the capacity to produce an unlimited amount of profit.
We haven't created our product yet, so we are looking a real javascript samurai to join our team so they can build it for us. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for you to be a part of the next big thing. We have free food, unlimited vacation, generous equity compensation. Also each week we give you a new iSpy just for being amazing.
If know javascript and 'want in', just tweet me and you'll be on our uber game-changing, revolutionary, disruptive team in no time, helping us change the world!
The alternative is much simpler. Base the business in Europe or elsewhere outside the US. The US is a big and important market, but there is nothing preventing cloud services on the scale of AWS moving offshore just as manufacturing has and professional services are.
If it introduces latency and "credit card call center" style interface barriers, that doesn't mean it cannot be profitable.
There is a large market which sees itself as receiving no benefit from the American military-industrial complex as it is manifesting itself on the web. The laws which enable PRISM may place US companies at a disadvantage. PRISM affordance is not a feature in most people's minds. Indeed, it is a bug in many.
If it introduces latency and "credit card call center" style interface barriers, that doesn't mean it cannot be profitable.
There is a large market which sees itself as receiving no benefit from the American military-industrial complex as it is manifesting itself on the web. The laws which enable PRISM may place US companies at a disadvantage. PRISM affordance is not a feature in most people's minds. Indeed, it is a bug in many.
Europe yes, UK no. Our government will happily funnel over anything the US asks for, including actual people(1).
I'd go French. Because as Eddie Izzard put it (roughly), "the French are so.... French "
(1)Yes, I am aware of the one single exception. Who I'm not so sure the US Government wanted to really that bothered with. Bad PR and all that.
I'd go French. Because as Eddie Izzard put it (roughly), "the French are so.... French "
(1)Yes, I am aware of the one single exception. Who I'm not so sure the US Government wanted to really that bothered with. Bad PR and all that.
The political will to align the UK's interests with the US is just that - political will. It depends upon a mandate from the people, not the law of gravity. Political constants are lexically scoped within representative forms of democracy.
This is the same absurdity as boycotting airlines because of TSA. Boycott your government.
I don't think it's absurd at all. If the leak is an accurate depiction of reality, then it doesn't matter how culpable I think Google and Facebook are. What matters is that I can't use the services of those companies if I want my data to be private.
Why is it absurd?
And which government?
And which government?
I actually boycott certain airlines. Yes, there are TSA rules but their implementation is very different. American airline staff ('airline', not 'Airlines') seems to operate on a paranoia level that is simply not compatible with the service level I expect from an airline. I want to be treated as a customer and not as a potential terrorist … other airlines flying to the US (and worldwide anyway) manage to do that.
You can boycott traveling to the US, what a lot of people are doing because they don't want a pat-down.