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!

EU Citizens Warned Not To Use US Cloud Services Over Spying Fears

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the oh-don't-you-worry dept.

Cloud 138

Diamonddavej writes "Leading privacy expert Caspar Bowden warned European citizens not to use cloud services hosted in the U.S. over spying fears. Bowden, former privacy adviser to Microsoft Europe, explained at a panel discussion hosted at the recent Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference in Brussels, that a section in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act 2008 (FISAAA) permits U.S. intelligence agencies to access data owned by non-U.S. citizens on cloud storage hosed by U.S. companies, if their activity is deemed to affect U.S. foreign policy. Bowden claimed the Act allows for purely political spying of activists, protesters and political groups. Bowden also pointed out that amendments to the EU's data protection regulation proposal introduce specific loopholes that permit FISAAA surveillance. The president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves (at a separate panel discussion) commented, 'If it is a U.S. company it's the FBI's jurisdiction and if you are not a U.S. citizen then they come and look at whatever you have if it is stored on a U.S. company server.' The European Data Protection Supervisor declined to comment but an insider indicated that the authority is looking into the matter."

cancel ×

138 comments

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

Nothing to say yankey doodel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756383)

BooYa!Q

Re:Nothing to say yankey doodel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756759)

Great, they let the cat out of the bag. How are we ever going to get China to us them now?!

Security on the clouds (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757109)

No matter where that cloud is stationed, putting stuffs that are sensitive in nature is never a good idea.

lol (1)

fazey (2806709) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756389)

ah, the good ol' patriot act.

Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756395)

Got news for him, even if you ARE a US citizen they look at whatever you have stored.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756875)

So what ? If the US citizen are incapable to prevent that, its their own problem as long as it doesnt affect me.

Re:Really? (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757515)

Oh yeah, its not like every multinational corporation on the planet based in the U.S. isn't marching right up every global citizen's junk, with the U.S, Government running defense... nah, that's not happening. Go back to sleep, everything's just fine.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757583)

Really, there are multinationals that are still based in the U.S.? I thought they'd all moved to the Cayman's, Bermuda, the Hebrides or Belgium. The way I heard it, the only thing left in the states are distribution & service centers, necessary operational units that only generate expenses not revenue.

Re:Really? (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757999)

Being a multinational means you get to say, "We're based in [place that's to our advantage in this instance]."

And it can be a different place next time you say it.

Re:Really? (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758205)

Got news for him, even if you ARE a US citizen they look at whatever you have stored.

Where is evidence?

Re:Really? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758519)

That's what they are looking for.

Oh Noze! (3, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756405)

Run for your life, the Cloud is falling, the Cloud is falling!

Re:Oh Noze! (0)

BSAtHome (455370) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756641)

No no, that is called /rain/...

Watch out for the tornado that follows.

Re:Oh Noze! (0)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757533)

Or fog... Can you see what they're doing? Nah, I can see what they're doing, can you see what they're doing?

Re:Oh Noze! (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756677)

Haha indeed. The emperor's new clothes are showing their colours.

You pretentious jerks! (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756427)

Several EU member states have been cooperating with us to spy on their citizens since WWII. You're connected to a global network that provides instantanious monitoring of millions of communications in realtime; We peer our data with you. Our GPS satellites and cell phone technology can pinpoint where most of your citizens are at any given point in time and you thanked us for providing that technology under the guise of preventing terrorism, homeland security, tracking down neo nazis, or dozens of other groups.

And now, after decades of cooperation, you're being warned not to use... our cloud services. That's like this (holds up cell phone)... Not that impressive compared to that (points to a 100 story tall, 20 block wide, datacenter labelled 'EVERYTHING. EVER.') Seriously now, where are your brains? This is just a stunt to try and get your own domestic cloud services launched, I'm sure of it. So which one was it? Comeon, fess up.

Re:You pretentious jerks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756903)

This is just a stunt to try and get your own domestic cloud services launched, I'm sure of it.

I rather think this is a stunt to get us to use domestic services. After all, EU governments have a hard time spying on us if we host our stuff in the US. I doubt the US government has any interest in me.

Re:You pretentious jerks! (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757323)

I doubt the US government has any interest in me.

Yes, but how do they know that you are as pure as the driven snow and hardly a threat before they look?

Re:You pretentious jerks! (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757629)

I'm sorry but nobody asks for power they don't at some time in the future intend to use. Even the power to drop nukes has been used to strategic ends for the last 70 years. So, I have no idea as to the consequences associated with governments being able to tell what you had for dinner by the smell of the gas you pass, but from my experience, it can't be good, and my imagination is picturing wildly dystopian possibilities as personal privacy and civil rights are being mulched into the sod.

My deepest and most unhappy concern is that governments around the world are laying down the legal and operational infrastructure required to provide complete transparency into the lives of people so that corporations can can watch us all with complete impunity and autonomy. If I were the gambling kind, I might think that this entire process is a ruse to make herding the sheep easier, and give the IP providers a final means to put and keep their thumb on us.

So much for our warehouse of Estonian secrets (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756429)

Oh well back to easvsdropping on countries with actual economies.

Captcha: Sincere

Hey Toomas, got any naked pictures of your wife? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756451)

Wanna see some?

-Hu Jintao

Anyone ever read the constitution? (5, Insightful)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756529)

The Bill of Rights is peculiar in that it does not say "no citizen", but it says "no person."

Can someone explain how nearly 250 years of common law has managed to change the definition of a "person" to include US companies, but not foreign citizens utilizing services within the US?

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (4, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756635)

Hence the saying that the Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756721)

Corruption.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756725)

Well, it has more to do with the fact that despite the MANY MANY attempts by Americans to say differently over the years, no part of the American Constitution (nor any law subject thereto) applies to ANYONE who is neither a Citizen, nor a Resident, nor an inhabitant of the United States or it's protectorates (i.e. Costa Rica etc).

At which point the distinction in one of it's clauses (i.e. "person" vs "citizen") is a moot one anyway...

If such an individual conducts business within the US, he or she may do so contrarily to the law, but even still, subject to an order of extradition which must be approved by the individual's home country, the law does not apply to the individual.

-AC

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756815)

Not really. You yourself admit that laws apply to several categories of people who are not citizens ("residents" and "inhabitants" of the US or its protectorates).

What does the constitution itself say on the subject? Well, there's the 14th Amendment: "No state shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What matters is not who you are, but where you are.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756991)

Well, it has more to do with the fact that despite the MANY MANY attempts by Americans to say differently over the years, no part of the American Constitution (nor any law subject thereto) applies to ANYONE who is neither a Citizen, nor a Resident, nor an inhabitant of the United States or it's protectorates (i.e. Costa Rica etc)

Why you're absolutely right! Not only that, the US consitution doesn't apply to ANYONE who is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the US or it's protectorates either!

The US constitution is an exhaustive enumeration of the powers of the US GOVERNMENT. It only applies to the government and lists what it can do.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757111)

Hmm.... perhaps you missed or overlooked the part where I said:

nor any law subject thereto

That somewhat inoccuous phrase expands the application of my statement to every/any law passed by the Congressional branch, every/any rule decreed by the Executive Branch, and every/any ruling issued by the Judicial branch. As all of these things gain their powers via the American Constitution.

So are you honestly contending that none of THOSE things pertain to the Citizens, Residents and inhabitants of the US? Because there are a lot of people in American prisons who would like to hear the basis for that position!

-AC

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756727)

Do you want the real answer or some spiffy rhetorical bullshit? Save that, I'll give you the real answer. My apologies in advance too, since I'm guessing you already know what follows and are simply asking the rhetorical question. This is really for those that are still sleeping.

The real answer is that the people currently sitting in offices don't give a rats ass about their own Constitution. Don't look at what they say, look at what they do! The Patriot act has not been diminished, it's been extended. Hidden clauses in executive orders remove things from view, and public support. Lets not kid each other, that is a symptom of a much larger problem and not the problem.

Socrates warned that citizens must guard against people in political offices that demand increasing amounts of power. He was the first, but definitely not the last. That quest for power can quickly turn any form of Government into a tyranny.

Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all. Even to the point where they refuse to admit it happens. We know it happens based on events and court cases, not because it's admitted.

This is by the same people in office that will tell you to your face that they want to be open and honest. Does the term "pathological liar" not bother you?

So if the Government ignores the Constitution and Bill of Rights when dealing with it's own citizens do you really expect them to honor the words with non-citizens? The constitution is the foundation for every other aspect of our Government.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756883)

It was a bit rhetorical, but thank you for your reply :) What you point out is very much the "Ideals versus Institutions" gap pointed out by Samuel Huntington.

To add a little more rhetoric, let's italicize the oath of office in the US:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Oh the times, Oh the Morals.... --Cicero

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (2)

BeerCat (685972) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757033)

And therein lies the problem with the Oath of Office:

John Q Public: Go after than person. Their actions clearly show that they are an enemy of the US constitution!
US Politico: Um, no. They're your enemy, not mine. In fact, I rather like them (because they keep me in power) Have a nice day y'all

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757727)

The problem is the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. A well educated third grader can interpret the spirit of the oath of office.

But a President today can simply puts a Scalia onto the bench of the Supreme Court, who will gladly interpret the Constitution in a way that sounds more like Mein Kampf. We are drowning in lawyers, making noises like Bill Clinton's "...that depends what "IS" is..". Duplicitous self serving scumbags who will print the Bill of Rights on rolls that are squeezably soft, while kissing babies and glad handing corporate giants holding fat checks. We've been bought and sold by little men.

Doom and Gloom would be letting this lie. Nonsense, would be ignoring the vital need to take back what is our God given liberty in the face of our culture being destroyed one word at a time. It is the government that must stand transparent, naked before the people, and not the other way.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757923)

'God' given liberty? your imaginary friend in the sky didnt give me liberty, People who bleed for and died for it did. They might be able to make me a slave but in my mind I will alllways be free and waiting for my chance to be so again.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758227)

Now many will say "doom and gloom nonsense", and those people are simply ignorant. They have no idea how much snooping the NSA currently does on them, nor how much that will expand this summer when the new super computer complex opens (which has been designed for exactly the purpose of snooping and reporting on citizens). They have no idea how much of that data is requested and granted currently (in secrecy) to other government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, DOJ, ATF, etc.. Nobody in the public does, because our government refuses to provide any information at all.

Therefore, by your own statements, you don't know either. But that doesn't stop you from presenting your opinion about it as if it were fact.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756769)

I can't find "no person" in the Bill of Rights referring to searches, just the fifth when it comes to indictments by grand juries.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757195)

Read it again, and don't be so narrow minded. It's really not that long of a read from start to finish. In fact it may be enlightening.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756791)

Because no foreign citizen has any ability to change US law. They cannot vote. But they can, however, be droned, extradited, and bombed into oblivion.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757761)

That's okay, recent changes in the law now make it possible to do anything we do to foreign nationals to be done to our own citizens. What could be fairer?

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759023)

That's okay, recent changes in the law now make it possible to do anything we do to foreign nationals to be done to our own citizens. What could be fairer?

And they wonder why people with STEM degrees are no longer interested in immigrating. (And why, even after having jumped through 3-6 years of hoops to get a green card, skilled immigrants elect to remain on their green cards rather than file for citizenship.)

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757101)

The Bill of Rights is peculiar in that it does not say "no citizen", but it says "no person."

Ah, but are foreign nationals actually people?

The answer isn't obvious when you consider that slaves weren't full people as per the original document.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757243)

Lucky for me as a US citizen, whether at home or abroad, I just tag all my content and my emails with my US social security number and my date of birth.

For phone calls, it does get a little bit trickier, I just say my social security number, my full name, and my date of birth out loud as clearly as I can to every person that I talk to on the telephone. This signals to the NSA that they should just hit the stop recording button, so that they don't accidentally record/transcribe/index my conversation with that person on their Echelon clouds (or that at least if I'm speaking to a foreigner, that they make the effort to filter out my voice from the recording leaving only the voice of the foreigner on there).

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (2)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757809)

And when done traveling abroad you return home how? By ruby slipper?

The NSA has a massive listening post in England. Guess what? They've been listening to U.S Domestic calls for most of 20 years. You can tag all your correspondences with "Don't shoot, I'm one of you!" too. Good luck with that.

Re:Anyone ever read the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759161)

Money and greed, my friend

US hosed our servers (3, Funny)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756535)

"hosed by U.S. companies"

UK Govt using zendesk?? (5, Interesting)

lkcl (517947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756561)

a friend of mine made a freedom of information request recently, and was surprised to find that his question was responded to using zendesk. so he looked up the IP address and, on discovering that the IP address was in the U.S., made some pointed enquiries as to why his confidential details, as well as UK Government matters, were being stored in a jurisdiction outside of the sovereignty of the UK.

the best one though was learning that UK MPs have been issued with ippads. which is great. confidential UK business can be snooped on by not just the U.S. govt but by a U.S. Corporation, and UK MPs can be "advertised at", and sold commercial music and entertainment services that they have absolutely no business letting in to Parliament.

all good fun, eh?

Re:UK Govt using zendesk?? (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758099)

I wouldn't sweat it. Your government has a history of leaving laptops with millions of records of personal information sitting around. Basically, everyone who wants your information probably already has it.

Practical impact? (1, Insightful)

trampel (464001) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756567)

Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not? When signing up for service, all Google asks for is the location, not the country of citizenship.

Even if John Doe accesses his email from a non-US ISP, he might well be a citizen traveling abroad.

Re:Practical impact? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756837)

Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not?

Just send him an email and ask him what he knows about Lincoln, Abraham. If he thinks it's a crossover SUV you know you've got a Fox News watching American.

Re:Practical impact? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757027)

Just send him an email and ask him what he knows about Lincoln, Abraham.

I saw that movie about him! He was a pretty kick-ass vampire hunter!

Re:Practical impact? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757069)

Taking Google's service as an example, how is the FBI to know whether john.doe@gmail.com is a U.S. citizen or not?

Why would they care? Hidden in here is the assumption that US citizens would be exempt from being spied upon and they won't be

If the bullshit "6-months-old email is fair game" rule won't fly, then the fact that Google has servers outside of US might. I think anything stored outside of US would be merrily considered outside of US jurisdiction and thus not subject to protection of law.

Re:Practical impact? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757973)

Google has your name and many other personal information. It probably also has your country of citizenship somewhere.

Re:Practical impact? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758315)

For the most part, citizenship is not an issue. The FBI needs the same sorts of warrants to investigate a person in the USA whether or not that person is a citizen.

Also, I find the notion that the FBI, NSA or CIA would take a deep and personal interest in the data of each and every person in the world wildly fanciful. As if they have millions analysts sifting through the mountains of data that the world produces every day...

Of course they don't do that. They don't have the capacity to look at more than a tiny fraction of the world's data and they never will.

But they want you to think that they have and maintain and are building capacity that will allow them to see and analyze every computer transaction in the world, break into any system any time they want and rummage through your data to their heart's content. (Like the government computer geeks do on TV shows.) Because if you think that, you will be discouraged from trying to commit a crime or try to conceal information from the United States. So the dupes on here who obsess about US government spying are really only furthering the government's agenda.

But they also want you to think you have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong. That's not quite true either. You can damn well get crossways with them without even trying and end up in a big mess.

Poisoning the cloud (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756593)

Microsoft has been harping on about this before [zdnet.com] . They previously said they themselves couldn't promise to keep their users' data private to the degree required by EU law.

As I see it, what they're doing is trying to poison the whole idea of cloud services, because in poisoning their own market they also poison Google's. And while to Microsoft, 'cloud services' are an expensive and annoying distraction, to Google it's central to their entire business strategy.

Is this really news to anyone? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756667)

I mean, everyone outside the US has known since the mid-2000's that the American Gov't has absolutely ZERO compunction about spying on ANYTHING within it's borders.

Even "secretly" wire-tapping it's own citizens.

In Canada we have distinct and fairly robust privacy legislation, and I'm constantly warning businesses to avoid storing anything in the cloud that could potentially contain affected info (customer data primarily, but also patient data in doctor's offices and other medical professionals). Simply uploading ANY of that data to the cloud COULD put you in violation of the law since you can no-longer provide ANY ASSURANCE WHATSOEVER that it hasn't been viewed or shared with unauthorized parties.

Furthermore, I personally just assume, straight-up, that ANYTHING that Facebook, Google, Amazon or Microsoft host is de rigueur scanned, indexed and cataloged.

This also applies to anything done in Chrome, or Android (vis a vis Google) or if you've installed any of Google's personal-search tools. It just doesn't make sense NOT to assume that the worst thing you can imagine happening in these cases either is-already, or will-eventually-be, happening.

I single-out Google and it's many tools at the moment because hoarding information about you (and then selling it) IS the basis of their business model. The more information they can harvest about you personally, the more valuable their product is. Therefore, the greater their incentive is/will-be to accrue and store as much information as they possibly can about every single thing you do, place you go, thing you think... If they're not doing it already, the past history of American Corporocratic greed compels me to believe that they will eventually...

Still, it's hard to believe that any of this would be considered "new" news in 2013.

-AC

Re:Is this really news to anyone? (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756921)

In Canada we have distinct and fairly robust privacy legislation,

Ever hear about hushmail? Canada didn't have their back..

Re:Is this really news to anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757153)

I hadn't heard about it, but in reading some background, it appears that they were served with a warrant, which AFAIK would make a disclosure legal under PIPEDA (disclosure: IANAL).

Nevertheless, the case doesn't seem relevant to my basic warning: if you are a Canadian company, subject to PIPEDA, and you store information in the cloud, you could inadvertantly find yourself in violation of the tenets of the act and subject to its penalties.

-AC

Re:Is this really news to anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759385)

I mean, everyone outside the US has known since the mid-2000's that the American Gov't has absolutely ZERO compunction about spying on ANYTHING within it's borders.

... and bombing anything outside of its borders.

Internet tradition (5, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756689)

The US is driving business away with a weighted stick.

People hold beliefs about other countries and people for a very long time; in many cases, long after the belief has had any meaning. For example, "the French surrendered", "Germans are Nazis", "Chinese products are crappy", "Japanese cars are like finely-tuned watches", and so on. Think of any nation and it comes with a satchel of beliefs held about its people.

The US is getting an odius reputation for business and tourism. The overall message we send is: "don't come to the US for anything". Businesses are leaving the US in droves, preferring to operate in more friendly areas.

When the US is known worldwide as "business unfriendly", it'll be nigh impossible to turn that around even if the situation changes.

This is what our government is doing for us. It's effect on productivity (and employment) is obvious.

(As a personal anecdote, I recently registered a .net domain, and the registrar (in France) had me click through a strongly worded message stating that the US could demand all sorts of privileges from the domain. Essentially, they stated that they could not guarantee my privacy or the safety of my data when registering a .net domain.)

Re:Internet tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42756983)

Essentially, they stated that they could not guarantee my privacy or the safety of my data when registering a .net domain.)

Wow, I never realised that a domain name could extend rights over an IP address. Because if I read you message correctly a .net domain would give the US government rights over a server hosted outside of the US. Do you have any links to further information about how this works?

Re:Internet tradition (2)

suutar (1860506) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757053)

wild ass guess: It's .net, so it's handled by DNS servers the US can control, so they can get the domain to map to a monitoring proxy that forwards connections back to the real server but logs it all. And depending how the certificates are set up, perform man-in-the-middle decryption.

Verisign is a US company (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757233)

I just now searched my browser history & couldn't find the message. (I'd love a Memex [wikipedia.org] plugin for Firefox.)

My registrar gets .net domains through Verisign, which is a US company, and I believe that's the issue. They had a nice diagram showing ICANN -> Verisign -> (My Registrar) which shows the problem.

I believe the text also read something like "these agreements bind you to Verisign and ICANN", then went on to explain how Verisign is a US company, how the government could step in and do nasty things, you have agreed to this situation, &c. The note mentioned ".net" and ".com" domains.

Re:Verisign is a US company (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757355)

Does your registrar get a higher margin on .fr domains?

I'm not saying the US jursidiction thing isn't an issue, just that it seems your registrar is really exaggerating the risks and maybe they have another reason for that.

Re:Verisign is a US company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757507)

The worries are real for people operating with domain names registered in the US. Not only can your domain name be taken away from you, but it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

Re:Verisign is a US company (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757801)

Not only can your domain name be taken away from you

True. But super rare.

it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

False.

Re:Verisign is a US company (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758255)

it grants the US certain jurisdictional rights over you as it can be considered that you are doing business in the US because you own said domain.

False.

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.

Re:Verisign is a US company (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758335)

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but if the US Government says otherwise, you're--as we say back in the old country--up shit creek without a paddle.

How's about you paint my face blue with a citation?

Re:Internet tradition (1)

malbosher (795323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757023)

Government is a process therefore your quote, "This is what our government is doing," is meaningless. the question should be, who is in control of the process of government. The answer will be business, specifically large international corporations.

Re:Internet tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757719)

Government is no longer a process but a separate entity above citizens.
This has been a fact since before anyone on this site or anyone they know have lived. (even if you somehow know the oldest people alive)

Government is no longer the tool of the people, people are the tool of the government.
Councils, for the most part, are usually pretty much the same, they are run by the people for the people to help gather resources to produce useful things for the community that no single person could do alone. (more-or-less)
But the stage up from that just went to complete hell and back. It never survived the journey intact.
The people who went towards government saw an opportunity to become great, above and beyond those normals, like kings.
Nobles and Peasantry still exist, it just has a different naming system now. Same shit, different skin.
If you aren't rich or powerful, in their eyes you are disposable.

Re:Internet tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757113)

Yeah, I'm sure Europeans will flock to the U.S when it becomes the Right-wing and/or Libertarian paradise which you are implying is superior. The only parts of U.S. businesses which are leaving the country are their tax responsibilities and any jobs which aren't nailed, glued, and chained down. I'm assuming of course that you are talking about The Corporations though. Small businesses in the U.S. are being crushed by them and their bought and paid for Congress. The small businesses should flee the U.S., but can't afford it.

Horse Shit... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757639)

Any business leaving the U.S. is doing so strictly for the minimization of costs associated with labor & taxes. You don't see them relocating to wealthy European countries. Ireland gave huge subsidies to attract telecom CS centers and Intel chip fabs, and the boom last not even 10 years.

If you think they're moving operations to Phillipines, Malaysia, Mexico, China or India for friendship then you're smoking crack and mistaking the $'s for little green men.

Re:Horse Shit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758269)

Being "business (un)friendly" has nothing to do with warm and fuzzies. Stop being a dink.

Re:Internet tradition (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758329)

LOL. If your thing is "you better shape up or you're going to get a reputation as a sort of global Bond villain", you're really going to need some fresher material. That is a dead horse trope. Europeans have been despising and looking down on Americans for centuries. Back in the 80s, which is as far as my memory goes, Europeans had continent-wide demonstrations against the American warmongers who insisted on keeping the Red Army out. Even then, this was nothing new. So, drop the false pretense that America is "becoming" bad, according to the Euroview that's been the case for a long, long time.

"The French couldn't hate us any more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
-- Will Rogers, 1932

Re:Internet tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758453)

Just because we don't believe foreigners deserve rights doesn't mean that they shouldn't spend their vacations enjoying our beautiful national parks and famous landscapes! Carjackings aren't all that common, and the vast majority of tourists *won't* be shipped overseas to be tortured indefinitely with absolutely no hope of legal recourse.

Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud (5, Insightful)

sehlat (180760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756821)

Think about it a moment. The Hollywood ... er ... US Government seized all servers and data on a flimsy warrant and trumped-up charges, including the accusation that Megaupload had retained data on its servers even after takedown notice(s). It has since emerged that the government specifically requested that they leave those files up for "investigation." One guy trusted his business data and property to the service and he's *still* fighting to get it back, despite the fact that it was un-shared and 100% his own legal property.

Cloud services effectively died that day. Why trust any service when a third party can cut you off at any time from your own property without let or recourse?

Re:Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud (3, Informative)

StormReaver (59959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758377)

Cloud services effectively died that day.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Sadly, Stupid breeds way faster than Smart, so "cloud" subscriptions keep growing.

Re:Megaupload Case *Already* Poisoned the Cloud (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758789)

You can still use cloud services as backup. Simply encrypt what you upload.

Our company uses Google Docs and Drive extensively, and just use the Syncdocs plugin to secure the data.

Count on Europe (3, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756847)

Methinks you can count on Europe to eventually get this right.

Twitter getting sued and losing to France's Jew student union over obnoxious hashtags is just the high profile round two of the same joust they had with Yahoo over nazi artifacts getting auctioned over a decade ago. They won last time; they'll win this time. And US companies will comply to French law on this matter just like last time. I suspect that the pitiful €1k/day fine is going to quickly balloon to obscene amounts of money until the courts get a reaction from Twitter.

In Germany, users are suing Facebook over the right to get deleted, and while they were the first, in typical German grassroots achievements, they no longer are the only ones. This is simply going to win, and they're just getting started. Sure enough, the Irish subsidiary is dragging its feet to comply. Presumably to Zuck's despair -- here's a continent with over 600M people willing not only in fighting for the right to be deleted but also in actually enforcing it. In the end, sane views will prevail, and the US laws will get kicked back across the Atlantic where they belong -- for US citizens to debate further, hopefully with new, more enlightened insights.

The same could arguably be told of countries like China, Egypt or Iran: ironically, US firms are made to comply with local law over there, plain and simple, much faster then they are to EU laws. But the EU is hopefully similar enough to the US that the latters' citizens will not shrug that the former are merely uneducated barbarians when their laws are sent back for review.

Re:Count on Europe (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757005)

Methinks you can count on Europe to eventually get this right.

I totally agree and am envious of the privacy policies Europe has enforced or called BS on.

I live in the U.S. and won't use a cloud (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42756993)

If you've been reading Privacy Policies for awhile
you've noticed them becoming more intrusive.

To me posting to a cloud is the same as to a newsgroup,
public domain, no matter what's said.

Here is a European Parliment Report (4, Informative)

Diamonddavej (851495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757041)

Here is a report for the European Parliament (Pdf) about cyber crime and privacy of Cloud services, co-written by Caspar Bowden, it discusses the ramifications of FISAAA. The salient section is "3.4. The inter-state/states/companies relation" on page 34.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79050 [europa.eu]

Furthermore, proposed changes to the EU's data protection regulations will facilitate FISAAA. Specifically, if a Security Companies' audit of a Cloud Service uncovers U.S. spying, they will be obligated not to inform an affected EU company. I wonder what pressure the U.S. is applying to get this passed...

US lobbying waters down EU data protection reform [techweekeurope.co.uk]

"For example, IMCO voted to allow easier profiling of users by companies, and lessen the importance of reporting personal data breaches as soon as they occur. At the same time, most proposals to strengthen regulation were rejected.

Facebook fees (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757983)

Remember Skype the other day? when was the last time you heard FBI complain it couldn't get Skype intercepts because of its P2P nature? Now they're *using* Skype intercepts in prosecutions! So our private calls are also intercepted now. I think the routing comes from an MS server and they simply route it through an intercept.

In the latest financials, I see Facebook has substantial 'fees' income, separate from advertising. At first I thought it was for the charges they make for contacting your friends list, but that doesn't explain it, the fees go back before the introduced that charge.

I think they sell NSA access. I think a substantial portion of that fee is to give NSA access to all the private profile information, all the non public graph data.

I find it difficult to imagine a situation where Facebook has secret info, Facebook wants money, NSA has money, NSA wants info, there's no law stopping them getting it, even on US citizens, (cloud stuff greater than 6 months on USA citizens is not considered private, even if its private email, cloud stuff on non US citizens is fair game). Hence Facebook must be selling data to NSA by Occam's razor.

Obvious question (2)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757235)

Are there alternatives? Dropbox is US, Google Drive is US, I would assume Skydrive is US... What else will they use?

Re:Obvious question (2)

GPierce (123599) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757361)

Until the drone blows hs server farm away, Kim Dotcom's Mega might actually be secure. At least that's the plan. And it will all be good until we find that Kim Dotcom is a CIA agent. (There is no such thing as being too paranoid.)

Re:Obvious question (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758195)

I actually wouldn't trust him farther than I can throw him.

You might want to look up some sources on the connection between Schmitz and a lawyer (more like the copyright equivalent of an ambulance chaser) called Gravenreuth (most sources on the topic are only in German).
Back in the BBS days Kim Schmitz more than happily weaseled his way into various groups and when he got bored he simply sold out the data and contacts to said lawyer (one whose "good" conduct over the years eventually led to him being convicted of fraud and killing himself before he had to begin his prison sentence).

Re:Obvious question (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759107)

Also his convictions for embezzlement during the dot.com era.
The man is a megalomaniac, snitch, pushover, fraudster and frankly bad news. At least he has been consistent over the last twenty years.

There is a reason why he left Germany. He has built up so much bad reputation in tech and business circles he wouldn't even get a burger flipping job let alone run a business with him at the helm.
That man is a toad.

Re:Obvious question (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757525)

Jottacloud, qCloud, all the Scandinavian countries have super tight privacy laws, and except for sweden they don't really give into U.S. pressure..

Re:Obvious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757627)

errr, i meant greenqloud, qcloud isn't a real thing. I should register one of these days I come here every day now..

Re:Obvious question (2)

fincan (989293) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758235)

Wuala, www.wuala.com. And as a US company, Spideroak, www.spideroak.com

translation (4, Interesting)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757605)

If you look at, for example, the data protection laws here in Germany, the German government can get at my data even more easily than the FBI can get at data in the US. What I'm asking myself is: assuming that any government can look at data within its borders anyway, what's the best place to store my data? Good attributes for such a place are: I'm not living there, I don't want to travel there, and they aren't really on good terms with my government.

I think what the EU representatives are really saying in so many words is: "don't store your data in the US, where European governments have a harder time getting at it, store it in Europe where we can get at it easily (but you can trust us!)".

Re:translation (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758097)

Might as well store your information in China. ;)

Re:translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758187)

If only Iran would take advantage of the opportunity to store the world's data, they wouldn't need oil exports.

Re:translation (2)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759001)

You think that's a joke, but why not? What is the Chinese government going to do to you? Have you extradited for storing anti-Marxist propaganda? Fine you for copyright violations?

Re:translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758787)

I think Iceland has a pretty good reputation for privacy.

duh .... (2)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758131)

as a US Citizen I don't use them.

news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758297)

What's new here? I remember that most EU states agreed to handover data about its citizens to USA anyway, so we're fckuedup anyway.

US Citizens are safe..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758675)

How would the gov differentiate between US citizens' and non-US citizens' data? I'm a US citizen living in Germany. Am I and others like me safe? Why does the US gov have such contempt for the rights of non-US citizens anyway?

How is this news? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758745)

How oh how is this in 2013, news? The Patriot Act (Enacted into US law just slightly post 9/11/2001), allows the US government to access any data from any source held by a US company, whether that companies operations are within the United States, or located in a foreign country (any other country). The act also requires the company to provide all information requested by the US government, and requires the company *NOT* to disclose to any party their actions on behalf of the US Government. So it's not just data stored on US servers, the servers can belong to people in other countries, with the server physically located not in the United States. It basically makes all US companies with access to data spies for the US government under US law. There are fines, penalties (including prison) for companies disclosing that the US Government is snooping for information, and likewise for non-compliance. That members of the EU are just discovering this now is quite surprising.

Is it really that hard for him.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758835)

to warn all people about US cloud services and not just EU people?

or did he make a balls of the write-up?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>