Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the long-arm-of-the-law dept.

Censorship 328

natecochrane writes "A prestigious law firm warns non-U.S. businesses their data is unsafe from costly and invasive raids by American law enforcement even if they host their data in their own countries. The wide interpretation of the USA Patriot Act ensures U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist. The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

legally demand (5, Insightful)

clemdoc (624639) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827403)

Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.

Re:legally demand (4, Insightful)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827415)

Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.

^^This^^

Other governments do not have to bow down to every 'request' and demand of the United States.

Re:legally demand (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827495)

Unfortunately for people in the UK our Conservative/Liberal government are a gang of spineless puppets who do whatever their US masters tell them. As were the previous Labour government.
I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..

Re:legally demand (5, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827641)

No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.

Re:legally demand (2)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827797)

No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.

Doesn't the UK regularly refuse to extradite accused criminals that may be subject to capital punishment in the US and other countries? They refuse US demands when they want to and in this case, it looks like they just don't want to.

Re:legally demand (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827515)

It's funny that U.S. conservatives complain about International law being applied in the U.S. and that those people are against a N.W.O. when it seems like the U.S. is leading the charge on forcing its laws on other countries as it sees fit. All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.

Re:legally demand (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827703)

"Insightful"? Really? The patriot act is about the LEAST CONSERVATIVE piece of legislation ever enacted - just because all our politicians are corrupt money grubbing opinion whores and they claim to be on one side or another does not make them so. Vote Ron Paul for fucks' sake, he's the only politician in the running that doesn't entertain lobbyists - then you will see what comes from an actual conservative.

Re:legally demand (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827917)

Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.

The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.

Re:legally demand (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38828013)

Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.

You had me up to "liberty". Conservatism seems to like the idea of "liberty". They're not so big on "liberal" or "libertine", which are similar sounding, but mean different things.

The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.

Wasn't most of the crap in the Patriot Act dealing with data written by John Kerry, a liberal democrat (who was, admittedly, also an ex-prosecutor who was trying to make other prosecutors' jobs easier)?

Re:legally demand (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827733)

All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.

Of course they don't. They will never hear about this. Why? Because the pundits they watch and listen to will never mention this.

And in the meantime, all they hear is how America is exceptional, we're on top and will always be there, and anyone who criticizes America hates it, yadda yadda yadda.

They also hear distortions and lies about what is being done like The UN Gun Ban Treaty [factcheck.org] that Obama is going to use to take our guns away!

No one seems to bother to check the facts. They watch or listen to some overpaid mouthpeice whose job is to scare the shit out of them so that these spewers of nonsense can get rating to justify their seven figure or more salary.

It's hard though. There is sooo much information being thrown at us, how can a normal person check up on everything? You have to work 8+ hours a day, take care of your chores, exervise (I hope!), eat, connect with friends and family, etc ... and check up on those liars?

The easiest thing to do is turn off the TV and most radio.

The Economist and NPR seem to be the last reliable newssources left on the planet.

Re:legally demand (1)

milkasing (857326) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827947)

The economist jumped the shark a long time back. Their $5 / barrel prediction should have been a warning but I remained an avid reader, until they endorsed GW Bush after it had become clear he had lied about the iraq war (in contrast they had asked Bill Clinton to resign for the Monica affair/lying).
After that I noticed that their conservative slant interfered with their reporting a lot - a lot of their foreign reporting is terrible (Exiled online had detailed takedowns of their Russian reporting). Many of their economic predictions were wrong (still waiting for the implosion of china, which they predicated for more than a decade, their support for austrian economics is not panning out well).
Many of their features are still decent, but by and large stick to the various economics blogs.

Funny? How so? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827769)

Pax Romana's a bitch, but not if you're Rome.

Re:legally demand (1)

jduhls (1666325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827803)

You think it's funny? I think it's deceptive and downright sociopathic. Does anyone screen these politicians? Interview them? Oh...wait..we voted for them.

Re:legally demand (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827953)

I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.

Re:legally demand (1)

jduhls (1666325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827989)

Sorry, I meant the democratic "we". Oh...wait...we're not a democracy. Sonnofa...

Re:legally demand (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827847)

Its funny that the current executive branch is liberal.. yet you are going on about conservatives in a story dealing with the expanding powers of the executive branch.

Battered liberal syndrome?

Re:legally demand (1)

MisterZimbu (302338) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827919)

The current administration is nowhere near "Liberal". It's probably closer to conservative than it is to liberal.

Re:legally demand (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827999)

Oh I get it.. when the anonymous coward ranted about "conservatives" he meant the American liberals instead of the American conservatives...

Gotcha. Battered?

Re:legally demand (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827533)

They are free to ignore the demands, true.

The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.

That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.

Re:legally demand (5, Interesting)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827695)

That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.

Unfortunately, even this is not enough. The non-US company would have to ensure any and all contact with the US is prevented, to ensure that there is not even a crack of a sliver of the door to US jurisdiction.

The way they got a porno director here in the US who operated in California, was to order his product in Georgia and have them ship it there. BAM! Georgia claims jurisdiction and the guy goes to jail.

In fact, one of the wedges used to argue for jurisdiction over megauploads, was that they used PayPal. So, now you can't deal with USD, nor can you particularly even do business with American companies. That cuts out a lot of business, and every multinational company.

The world is getting so small now, that it will be impossible for any company or business person to ever manage to keep out from the from the ever expanding abuse of jurisdiction that the US is applying.

Re:legally demand (4, Insightful)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827757)

They are free to ignore the demands, true.

The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.

That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.

If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.

Sovereignty does have a few perks.

Have to make sure no executive flies too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827933)

Because if they're flying anywhere near US airspace, even going past to South America, for example, the US government will whisk that exec out the plane and arrest them for breaking the US law.

Re:legally demand (3, Insightful)

Magada (741361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827563)

Things tend to happen to governments which ignore such demands. Just ask the Spaniards.

Re:legally demand (3, Informative)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827835)

And the Iraqis (twice!), the Afghans, the Chileans...

I could go on, but why bother?

Re:legally demand (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827599)

So far, it has been the policy of at least European Union, to turn around, unbuckle, and bend over.

You want the lunch choices of our citizens flying towards your country, 3 days in advance? No problem! We'll even pick up the tab. To demand the same from them? Unreasonable

Re:legally demand (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827879)

If the US of A says that your proposed privacy regulations will prevent further growth of the internet, you're probably doing something right.

http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/109321/amerikanen-hekelen-europese-online-privacyregels.html (Dutch)

Re:legally demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827885)

they don't have to, but they bow anyway

Re:legally demand (1)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827969)

The problem is that most of them do and just ask "Would you like some lube with that?"

Re:legally demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827633)

The Berne Convention will disagree with you on that (at least regarding IP).

Re:legally demand (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827661)

Or you can answer .... with bullets.

Re:legally demand (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827717)

Yes, yes, only dirty Brits, I mean communists, sorry wrong era again, reverse-Americanized-Euroized-socialists-Islamo-Fascistic-Chinese-double-agent-super-terrorists-Illegal-Immigrant-Emigrants wouldn't comply.

Perhaps we should conduct a raid to find some evidence we can use to get a warrant to justify the raid to have you detained indefinitely?

Re:legally demand (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827725)

Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.

The country doesn't need to respond to the legal demand. But if you're a business in a country which bends over to the USA, then it's not up to you. Since much of the data gathering and transfer is carried out in secret, those businesses need to be warned so they can encrypt their data and choose where, when and what to put online.

Re:legally demand (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827877)

Oh, the demand will be answered - just not in the way you're thinking of.

Who's going to answer? The businesses that are going to move out of the US and/or away from it before this comes around, so that they can ignore the demand.

Good job USA. We've once again shown why people shouldn't have any desire to do business with us.

They can legally ask (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827405)

and we can legally tell them to go fuck themselves. Shame we don't do it though.

Copyright now? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827413)

The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S.

Except that, AFAIK, the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with Copyright. Or was it amended?

Re:Copyright now? (2)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827433)

That depends, one of the charges against him was money laundering, if said laundering was used to fund terrorism (yes, that is a huge stretch by any imagination...), the Patriot act would apply...

Law enforcement (Federal and Local) have been known to stretch the facts to get what they want though...

Re:Copyright now? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827561)

You man the U.S. sues him for violating their Copyright by illegally sharing money with other people?

Re:Copyright now? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827441)

Since the PATRIOT act allows the government to pretty much get logs of whatever for whatever reason they feel like, they can easily say they are fighting "terrorism" and gain these logs and then see that there was a "crime" committed (or plant evidence) and then charge you with that "crime".

Re:Copyright now? (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827729)

Using what warrant? Standard crimes must be dealt with in the normal fashion.

Re:Copyright now? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827887)

Not much terrorism in Vegas the last hundred years or so. Course, that little fact didn't stop them from using the Patriot Act to prosecute them for corruption. It was easier for them to go that way than it was to use the RICO Act like they should have. Course, I haven't met a cop or a judge yet that wouldn't take the easy way out of any situation...

Re:Copyright now? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827897)

Ack. Prosecute a couple Vegas politicians under the Patriot Act. Not enough coffee, outhought my fingers this morning.

Kim will keep user data safe. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827421)

Kim Jong Un, of course. Place your new datacenters in fabulous downtown Pyongyang!

Legality? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827429)

I wonder how a country can have such power over pretty much every other country in the world. Anyone care to explain?

Re:Legality? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827439)

Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.

Re:Legality? (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827541)

This is complete speculation... but I suspect it has alot to do with money, or rather the requirements and policies the US puts on other countries to trade with the US.
Everyone hates the US blah blah blah, is a sentiment of the populations, however, the governments of those same countries (with the exception of a few like Iran, Venezuela, cuba etc) all want to be in the US governments good graces, and will in many cases give up way to much power to the US to remain in the US's good graces..

Re:Legality? (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827681)

"...however, the governments of those same countries (with the exception of a few like Iran, Venezuela, cuba etc) all want to be in the US governments good graces, and will in many cases give up way to much power to the US to remain in the US's good graces.."

US have nukes. Lots of then.

Re:Legality? (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827871)

so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.

the US is just lost the plot on internationalisation - they might have realised there are places outside the US borders, now they need to understand that those places *aren't* America.

I swear most of America's politicians and lawyers are about as mature as a 6 year old - not yet understanding that the world consists of people other than themselves.

Re:Legality? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827667)

It may have something to do with the world's largest military force, backed by several thousand nuclear warheads.

Re:Legality? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827891)

World largest standing Army, backed by Nukes - no that would be China

Rape Whistle (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827437)

"countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"

They need a nation-sized Rape-aXe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device#Rape-aXe [wikipedia.org]

Re:Rape Whistle (3, Insightful)

nosfucious (157958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827601)

Yes, It's called "having nukes".

The various North Korean and Iranian despots are well aware of this fact.

Re:Rape Whistle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827653)

This is a case where simply saying "No" would actually work. Try it, "No, you may not have the data."

See, very simple. No need for weapons or belligerence.

Re:Rape Whistle (4, Insightful)

Archtech (159117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827849)

This is a case where simply saying "No" would actually work. Try it, "No, you may not have the data."

See, very simple. No need for weapons or belligerence.

Very nice, until you suddenly find that your company's operations in the USA have been closed down, or all your money in US-controlled banks has been frozen. That no one who has ever met you, or any of your family, or anyone with the same initials as you, is allowed to enter the USA or any of its widespread dominions. That no US-based corporation (or corporation that ever hopes to do any business in the USA, or with US-based corporations) will give you the time of day. That all your communications may be tapped, and diligently searched for the slightest excuse to harass or prosecute you for further alleged wrongdoing. That no one will hire you. That other governments hoping for favour from Washington (i.e. all governments except perhaps Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) will presently follow suit. And on, and on, and on.

Oh, and you may unexpectedly find yourself being extradited to Sweden on multiple charges of aggravated rape.

expanding FATCA (2)

lynnae (2439544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827451)

So, bascially they take took FATCA and expanded the idea to get a worldwide power to get data on anyone. nice.

Re:expanding FATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827529)

FATCAT

There....fixed that for you

Yeahhhhhh. Uh huh..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827459)

So, what is the US going to do? Insert a SEAL team via helicopter to take down servers in a foreign country? There is a word for this kind of theorizing. "Stupid". Foreign countries are powerless to resist demands from the US because of a US law? Right.

Amerika (0)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827465)

The US is run by criminals and warmongering thugs who think they control the world.

Re:Amerika (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827587)

LOL.... Yeah, as opposed to the rest of the world.

Post where you live and we'll look up how much "aid" the US sends to your "peaceful benevolent government."

I'll also remind of this post the next time you come whining because you had an earthquake, tsunami, or the country next to you attacks.

That is if I can be bothered to tear myself away from the buffet and climb over the piles of money to get the phone and see what you want.
 

Re:Amerika (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827829)

Germany. Sup poor ass mother fucker.

Powerless, my backside (2)

SoftwarePearls (1591289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827469)

"Largely powerless to resist"... what a load of trash. Just let them try, and see what kind of "powerless resistance" comes back at them. These are fascist laws.. and here in Europe, we've learned a lesson or two on that subject which makes us less inclined to raise our right arm to the furher again.

Re:Powerless, my backside (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827519)

Really now? Europe has tons of really, really, stupid laws (of course they differ depending on the countries), some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide) others criminalize even basic dress (Burqa bans), still others have the net effect of preventing religious freedom (minaret ban in Switzerland), etc.

Yes the US is screwed up but Europe is just as screwed up too in their laws.

Re:Powerless, my backside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827685)

don't forget: above all, European countries criminalize any anti-semitic word that might come out of your mouth. it was the first and the most widely IMPOSED. the ones you mentioned all refer to INSIDE the country, while the article you commented on deals with the US forcing his will on OTHER countries. go back where you came from.

Re:Powerless, my backside (2)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827713)

some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide)

To be fair, laws like that are designed specifically to prevent another rise of the far right.

Re:Powerless, my backside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827837)

How does banning the burqa block the rise of the far right? Sounds to me like a far-right law. Laws banning certain kinds of speech (or other non-harmful behaviors, like dress codes) reveal a fear on the part of the ruling class that they can't win a debate, so they have to resort to force. If you don't want women to wear a burqua, simple enough, convince them. If you don't like what Turkey did to the Armenians, fine, argue about it.

Re:Powerless, my backside (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827971)

How does banning the burqa block the rise of the far right?

it's the same one that bans the use of the swastika, designed to stop the fanatical (not necessarily far-right politically, but far-to-the-right-of-intelligence for sure) groups from subverting the common law for their own nefarious purposes.

The burqa issue is less one of free right to dress like you want, and more to prevent forcing of that dress on people. The French state doesn't really care what you wear, but the groups that promote the burqa do, and have a less than free attitude about it. In the end, the state determined the disadvantage to those women who wanted to wear the burqa was outweighed by the advantage to those who had no choice in the matter.

Re:Powerless, my backside (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827955)

Heaven forbid that we actually you know, base decisions on fact and the marketplace of ideas. Instead we need our supreme overlords to tell us what to think/believe!

Of course there will be some irrational people who don't look at the facts and conclude that the holocaust/genocides never happened. But its a small minority and you are only feeding them by banning debate over it.

It is counterproductive to ban debate over these issues because what will inevitably occur is that there will be a rise in anti-antisemitism and the like because of these bans. Which is more likely to get a following?

A) Using an obscure incorrect mathematical calculation, the furnaces used to burn the Jews could have only killed a 2,000 of them, ignoring all the historical evidence otherwise.

Or:

B) My theory is illegal because the evil Zionist Jewish bankers/new world order are suppressing the truth! Look! They've banned public discussion about it simply to shut us up! Clearly this shows that we know something that they don't! And the facts must be shaky because they don't open up debate!

By banning debate over these topics, not only are you committing an absolutely massive human rights violation but you are also creating the very problem you are trying to stop. Given enough time, lies will fade away, but if you try to suppress ideas they will grow even stronger. After all, every cause needs martyrs...

Re:Powerless, my backside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827873)

Europe has tons of really, really, stupid laws [...] others criminalize even basic dress (Burqa bans),

I'm sorry, I might be really, really stupid but a burqa is a "religious" dress not a "basic" one and I don't know if there's a men with a gun under it. So, for my safety, fuck the burqa off!

Re:Powerless, my backside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38828007)

some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide)

believing something and saying something is not the same thing. you are free to believe what you want, but saying certain things out loud can get you arrested anywhere in the world - yes in the U.S. too.

Re:Powerless, my backside (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827593)

Can't say America hasn't given it the old college try, just ask Julian Assange how it's going. I must say he's putting up a good fight.

Alarmist (1)

nysus (162232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827485)

The US also has the power to launch one thousand nukes and wreak devastation across the globe. Why aren't we writing articles about that?

Re:Alarmist (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827575)

Because the US hasn't nuked anyone in over half a century, and doesn't appear to show any inclination to. They have, however, seized data from New Zealand in the last week or so, and are currently trying to extradite a British citizen for actions that occurred solely within the UK and were already deemed not to constitute a crime under British law.

Re:Alarmist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827671)

these sorts of situations are so ridiculous its not even worth commenting. but makes my blood boil

Re:Alarmist (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827707)

The US does not need to use for real, just need to have the ability to do so.

Re:Alarmist (1)

lexa1979 (2020026) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827623)

isn't it something like 18 000 nukes ? and they're whining because some other country would like to have one or two ? When the cowboy in front of me will let the gun down, I'll drop mine.

Re:Alarmist (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827721)

Because no-one will launch nukes. Even the U.S. pissed their pants when they saw what they had done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The cold-war is over, and so are the last changes for a *real* nuclear conflict around the world. Sure, there are still two or three muppets out there which would throw a nuclear weapon at somebody...but no-one is dumb enough to throw one back just for the sake of it. It's over, get over it, worry about economy instead.

Re:Alarmist (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827973)

If the USA nuked anyone for *almost* any reason, then they would really know what being a globally shunned would be like

Forget agreements, they would be cancelled overnight ...

Nuking a nuclear country is not an option, Nuking a non-nuclear country is counter productive ... that leaves no-one ...

Smells like hyperbole (2)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827487)

So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?

I call bullshit. The only reason they'd be able to acquire such data would be if the host country agreed to let it happen. That would be a problem with the host country's lack of privacy protection for their own citizens, and has little to do with the patriot act itself.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827549)

That would be a problem with the host country's lack of privacy protection for their own citizens, and has little to do with the patriot act itself.

Not to mention that the U.S. would do unimaginable harassment to said country just to make it succumb to their demands.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827605)

Really? How they could harass for example Germany if it refused to bow to such demands? Please keep hyperbole at home. Yes, US laws are overreaching, stupid and borders with control freakism at it's best. Yes, they are trying to push several laws very strongly (*caugh*Intelectual "property"*caugh*). No, they can't get everything unless address country decides to give them.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (1)

hawks5999 (588198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827615)

We'll, if we don't get those emails, we will have to assume the worse and assassinate the scientist, blockade Iran and send drones in to blow up any alleged facilities where he was working.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827637)

Exactly. The belief that the Megaupload case (arrest of those who ran it) somehow proves that USA can ask (and get automatically) whatever they want is just crazy. First, AFAIK the case has nothing to do with Patriot Act, mentioned in the case. Second, a US government by itself can't improse laws on businesses in different countries, unless those governments are run by US citizens (to some extent). All the other rules have to be somehow negotiated (international laws).

They can ask for whatever they want, the other party is free to tell them to ... go away. I'm not saying it's that simple (the are powerful lobyist groups that are pushing the governments to cooperate with US (as for example motion-picture associations in the megaupload case).

One option to prevent this bullying is to move the infrastructure to countries that compete with the US so they probably won't be too keen to cooperate with the US. I mean Russia, China, ... Yes, I'm fully aware there are other risks connected to these countries.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827677)

It looks like the issue is foreign businesses, not foreign governments. If the businesses fought tooth and nail and could convince their government to take a stand, then there is likely going to be some pushback. Now, getting the businesses government to care will take quite some time, and likely some egregious action by the US, or things will just get pushed under the rug. The businesses that refuse will suffer by not being allowed into the US market.

Re:Smells like hyperbole (1)

Archtech (159117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827889)

So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?

Iran is one of maybe four or five nations in the whole world that does not automatically do what Washington tells it to do. That, of course, is why it is at ground zero for the most terrifying display of nuclear sabre-rattling that Washington can muster.

There used to be a few other countries that refused to follow orders from Washington. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... are you seeing a pattern here yet?

Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827503)

Yeah, try to get something from Russia ;)

America, f*** yeah! (5, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827507)

Team America: World Police
Intended as satire. Used instead as guidebook.

AYBABTU (1)

phildobbin (604091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827511)

lets really hurt these arseholes & take down their online Porn empire...

FTFY (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827539)

"US cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"

US can demand anything from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are powerless to resist

Governments are inherently evil (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827591)

The real State of the Union is very weak. The US debt is bigger than ever, the liberties of people are weaker than ever, the government is more powerful in terms of what it can do to individuals (and even citizens of other countries) than ever.

The economy of USA (and Europe) are weak and getting weaker, the inflation is higher and getting higher, the wars are long and getting longer, the corruption - meddling of government in business and as a corollary meddling of business in government is enormous. Iran and India are now trading oil for gold, and in USA people who show the obvious illegitimacy of government power are thrown to jail - political [slashdot.org] prisoners [wikipedia.org] .

Do not forget. [slashdot.org]

Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.

Government is inherently evil, but it must exist to occupy the space where otherwise the evil would exist that didn't have public legitimacy on its side.

The point of government is to exist to occupy space of where the inherent evil lives and to protect the individuals from the inherent evil that occupies that space. Now, whether it is realistic to expect some entity to occupy space of evil and not turn evil itself ... (and my argument goes further, but I am not going there in this discussion), but basically government exists to protect people FROM ITSELF.

It is the government force that we are all vulnerable to. Other individuals and companies - that's a private matter.

Now governments failed people completely, including the court system, the Supreme Court in USA as well, so this just shows how inherent the evil is and how it permeates into whatever entity that is occupying that space.

But the Constitution is law above government, and government broke that law long ago and it continues to brake it every day. Government protecting people from government does not mean that government must protect people from other people.

The theory of government and understanding of government is completely flawed.

The system that exists to supposedly protect people from crime should not be the same and must not be conspiring with the system that exists to occupy the space of evil government power.

Once you mix together the system of government, which is supposed to provide you with freedoms from itself, and you mix it with system that may be set up to provide you with security from other individuals, you end up with a government system that has the tools and the will to destroy your liberties.

The separation of power (legislative, judicial, executive) in government is not done correctly and that's where the fault in current government theory shows itself.

Mixing apples and oranges (3, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827611)

The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."

MegaUpload maintained a large nexus in the US, which is what exposed them to prosecution. We can disagree about the extradition (not particularly in favor of it myself, but it is probably legal under treaty), but if an American citizen set up a business with a nexus in NZ or Germany that severely broke their copyright laws, they would be fair game the moment they set foot on their territory or of a sympathetic state's territory. Let's not conflate these issues. They're bad enough on their own.

Misapplication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38827621)

heh, I thought the act was put into place to address foreign non-uniformed combatants. It'd be funny to see him get off on it's misapplication,... as might set one hell of a precedent in American law.

the USA is good at bullying weak nations (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827651)

lets see the USA charge head first in to China or Russia like they do the weaker little nations, i bet the other two big boys on the block wont lay down to having their sovereignty violated like the rest of the world is forced to tolerate

It all boils down to the war. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827657)

The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point.

To that end, I don't think many people would have a problem with the powers IF they used them expressly for that purpose and no other. Sadly, government being run by people and people being people... the power is abused... frequently. My favorite is the guy that got his ex-wife on a terror/no-fly list so she couldn't fly out of town. There are other examples but few are that petty.

The patriot act needs to be rescinded. It has done most of the work it was put in place to do in the first place. We're pulling our troops back... it's time to retire the act. By all means, let the CIA still go hunting for bad guys. It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration and that point is by some credited as being one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. But the legal authorities granted by the patriot act beyond letting the CIA do it's job should be retired.

As to data not being legally safe in other countries... US law has no effect on foreign countries. They don't have to comply unless they wish to comply. In which case it has more to do with what those countries wish then the US.

Really, if you're afraid for your data... fear the NSA... they don't bother with warrants and never have... not their game. They get the information because they can not because they have a right. I don't especially fear them though... they're always after bigger fish then little ol' me.

Business Opportunity (4, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827705)

It looks like there is a great business opportunity here - set up cloud services and guarantee in writing that (a) no data will be hosted in the USA, it's protectorates, or in extremely US-friendly countries (England, Canada), and (b) you won't turn over data to any US authority under any circumstance.

Re:Business Opportunity (4, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827937)

Two words Julian Assange ...No US server, no connections to US companies, all hosted in US unfriendly countries ...

He tried this, and look what happened ...

Sauve qui peut! (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827759)

Don't blame the US courts, or even the cloud providers. Blame the lazy sods who thought outsourcing security to a single cloud provider sounded like less work than doing it inhouse.

USA is THE bully... (1)

killfixx (148785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827799)

Unfortunately, TFA is right. Look at what we did with Spain. Look at what were pressuring Canada into doing.

"Nice X ya got there, it'd be a shame if Y were to happen to it."

Why blow someone up, then they can't make you money. Duh.

This Service Not Available In Your Country (5, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827853)

Dear American User:

We are very sorry, but your government is behaving like a spoiled child that thinks it can get it's way by screaming and kicking it's feet. While normally we would not be terribly concerned by this childish display, we are annoyed that you, the parents, are not doing anything to bring them under control.

As a result, you will not be permitted to utilize our service until you rein in your spoiled brat government and teach them proper manners, and how to act like a world citizen.

Thank you.

"Name of Service"

safe harbour provisions (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827915)

If that's true and safe harbour arrangements are not exempted it will be illegal for any European company storing data that can be linked to an individual to us a US company to store, hold or process it. Its lucky that India and China don't have the same laws.

Name (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827931)

Just to make it clear, the act is called the "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act". It is an acronym. I know that under the British style guide, acronyms may be writtenas though they were proper nouns, but that is not appropriate here.

Pedantict, but GET THE NAME RIGHT! (3, Insightful)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38827961)

Let's be sure to always write it PATRIOT so people know it's a acronym and hopefully ask questions. Seems like every bill is given a nifty acronym or backronym, usually with the intent of glossing over how horrid these bills are. I could propose a "Cats Underwater Teeth Extraction" bill, and call it the "CUTE" bill and nobody would be the wiser. You wouldn't vote against something "Cute" would you?

Worse is the more common case; the actual bill title seems perversely the opposite of what the bill accomplishes. "Clear Skies Initiative/Act", anyone?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?