-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 André Rebentisch: > The analogy was entering a house without permission because the > locker (as all lockers) is unsafe or the door isn't closed. >
Yes and if you woke up and someone was in your living room, you'd be like "wtf" are you doing in my house!. If someone accessed a gmail sever to spy on you, you'd never know, and there probably wouldn't be a warrant either because requests under the "protection of national security" usually include a gag order. >> Over time people's perceptions of privacy will and have changed. >> This means they are less outraged by proposed draconian laws, >> assuming things continue down the same path as they have so far. > > 25 years ago mass surveillance of telecommunications was still > very common. I can't believe in aggravation. > > DPR IMCO 148 is a quite interesting amendment, carried by the > Internal Market Committee (IMCO) recently > http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2012/0011%28COD%29#am-148-PE-500.411 > > "on condition that no personal data are made accessible to an > indefinite number of people;" > That might be a nice law for the EU, but for data placed on US servers does it apply? I remember reading a while back about conflict between the Patriot Act and EU data privacy laws. http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2162386/europe-s-protection-laws-cause-conflict-warn-legal-experts >> If you put your data on someone else's servers then there is >> always the possibility that they can hand it over, either legally >> or illegally. > > I am not saying that you share these views but it is a pattern: > First persons muse about raising security/privacy (levels), and > when data was not kept secure/private they say, it's public anyway > and we won't respect your data sovereignty. Or the attitude: when > you store your mails with gmail then you *deserve* that a foreign > government dares to read your mails. Analogy: When I lock my door > and you could still get in with a picklock then you'd also enjoy > the right to enter my house because my locker was unsecure. That's also legal in some parts of the world: > Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden > surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search > warrant, a federal judge said yesterday. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2953157/posts http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/ > > For the EU single market our Cloud services have to be under our > jurisdiction or third nations guarantee to refrain from infringing > our data privacy. Data protection laws provide sanctions, design > principles, practices, institutions. Fortunately the European Union > has the gravity to raise global standards. > > See: http://protectmydata.eu/ > > Best, André > and hopefully they do, because there's a number of countries considering global surveillance schemes. One in particular is Australia with their National Security Inquiry. http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/09/28/3599864.htm - -- scarp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRCJoTAAoJEF2gSFkP1LMT/ZcP/R3ZcoyeUoIjYxCOaXRcMRoZ jZl4Uo0PBcPDAVI/7hlTPs9h0aZ2AMvB690IoVE/I4ZIDSs6oKwVPUEFA7E3fLWC m855Ti76URF4ZmPM6RIrxNlp8D58d8tzDy7l/t/mya1ZrMAWK5vXxnRF/Rl0IwXi fQMZYVB29O6H3/qNQKFdvnyduhMOz0BRCMZU33aGs74TSw5KeWTVGQtqsuu7qAxN EDgILpk0O6OetWNhn57dlwEzXZ88/FAUWXuJ++Zf88Xpx46ZhhXB+kv74DJwfUoF mLXgVJqTS/lYtba6iVMBrD0EzIXuafMQ6pzxcb8mcixaDu90PwkadcKDqfHCKxSV htOA8RrwrPkoNqht6yFSRY0UHOmhbG6SXzN/cySsf8J829yTQZOBTlHVi536IiEY IfBlCWMv5UvKk6BoRemEWlZGNv/rbEv1LRUFItvkeVO3b/YZowakA77yF5TT8G/v ZjIUcEQEjX0e65VfNbZL83tNwS4j5DgFEyylTz0lm+tNyNcxU8F8WtOt+YW72m35 JF6bAk4CfqPaYJgW2a46jNNDHdeEaS/GyBdsrB6rPHzOoOdNdO+lwz564fZ5+dgP KPEeq81FRjIaHonm8VqipBEx/MebgIw4zR0yBPDx1bspN/dznGiTj97i5VZ2U09v I6Qo8UUBqgEoBm0Ruq97 =2SVg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
