So, here's a question. I'm a small self-hoster, US-based. If the "London police" come calling asking for my data, what repercussions do I face if I just say "No"?
[deleted]
Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
21–30 of 67 posts
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
From https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-ex... "The legislation still: - Includes a weak standard for review that does not rise to the protections of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment. - Fails to require foreign law enforcement to seek individualized and prior judicial review. - Grants real-time access and interception to foreign law enforcement without requiring the heightened war…
I've seen that. However the London police may require a warrant under UK law, nevertheless. And Slack may notify, nevertheless. I think EFF could come up with better examples. At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. I'd think better examples would involve what US LEO can do unwarranted. In that case people may be inclined to exert more pressure on their representatives. The law is bad but…
> At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons.
As a german, I'm so fucking fed up with this attitude. "Leader of the free world" my ass.
Seriously, the US population needs to stop thinking only about what concerns the US population and acknowledge the fact that a lot of US law regarding the internet is actually also affecting the rest of the world. Stop treating non-US people as something which does not need to have at least the same level of protection.
Either fight for the right to have privacy regardless of where a person is coming from or don't fight at all.
Just standing there saying "ah, it's fine, it protects US persons." and then bragging about the US being a fine country and protecting the rest of the world is just... I don't have words for it.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#23> This bill is the CLOUD Act. It was never reviewed or marked up by any committee in either the House or the Senate. It never received a hearing. It was robbed of a stand-alone floor vote because Congressional leadership decided, behind closed doors, to attach this un-vetted, unrelated data bill to the $1.3 trillion government spending bill. Congress has a professional responsibility to listen to the American people’s concerns, to represent their constituents, and to debate the merits and concerns of this proposal amongst themselves, and this week, they failed.
The 4th amendment is gone and it wasn't terrorists that killed it, it was fear and representatives of the people that don't represent people that killed it.
These freedoms were given up on page 2,232 of a budget bill with no debate.
History will not be kind to this time or everyone that lived during this backslide. Freedoms are hard to win, we are giving them up easily.
As an aside, these 'pro-business' representatives just made US cloud products less valuable to foreign companies/countries and US competitors.
When will people realize that surveillance can be abused and it is usually for political or corporate espionage, has nothing to do with making anyone more secure or safe.
Business plans, data and ideas are going to be a top target to theft as they can get to it through a fake or associated threat, have some rogue actor email or send info in, extract all business data and information.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#24So, here's a question. I'm a small self-hoster, US-based. If the "London police" come calling asking for my data, what repercussions do I face if I just say "No"?
[deleted]
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#25This could be an excellent use of the Presidential veto. Whatever your political leanings, omnibus bills are a terrible outcome of the false left right paradigm. Everybody gets to toss in the stuff they "want" to support but know their constituents do not. EFF: You wrote pages about it, but failed to mention the president still needs to sign it. It's a pretty glaring omission...
> EFF: You wrote pages about it, but failed to mention the president still needs to sign it. It's a pretty glaring omission...
Maybe you missed this line from the OP:
> All the bill requires now is the president’s signature.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#26I am certainly no supporter of the CLOUD act but the examples given on OP are not convincing to me. What would prevent Slack from notifying all parties of the request (the Londoner and her friends)? As well I'd expect that there are barriers in UK which would require a warrant to get the data.
Slack doesn't even tell you when your employer is looking at your private chats. Do you think it will tell you when a government's law enforcement arm asks them not to tell you?
https://thenextweb.com/apps/2018/03/22/slacks-new-policy-let...
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen that. However the London police may require a warrant under UK law, nevertheless. And Slack may notify, nevertheless. I think EFF could come up with better examples. At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. I'd think better examples would involve what US LEO can do unwarranted. In that case people may be inclined to exert more pressure on their representatives. The law is bad but…
> At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. As a german, I'm so fucking fed up with this attitude. "Leader of the free world" my ass. Seriously, the US population needs to stop thinking only about what concerns the US population and acknowledge the fact that a lot of US law regarding the internet is actually also affecting the rest of the world. Stop treating non-US people as something whic…
I am from Germany. I have no say in the matter. That's the reason why I would like EFF come up with better examples to make people who have at least some influence (such as calling their representative) engaged. If its not their problem, they won't.
I think this legislation at odds at least with upcoming GDPR if not with existing regulations in some EU members. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#28Well, I guess the erosion of our most basic rights is in fact happening. Ugh, makes me sick to my stomach.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. As a german, I'm so fucking fed up with this attitude. "Leader of the free world" my ass. Seriously, the US population needs to stop thinking only about what concerns the US population and acknowledge the fact that a lot of US law regarding the internet is actually also affecting the rest of the world. Stop treating non-US people as something whic…
I am from Germany. I have no say in the matter. That's the reason why I would like EFF come up with better examples to make people who have at least some influence (such as calling their representative) engaged. If its not their problem, they won't. I think this legislation at odds at least with upcoming GDPR if not with existing regulations in some EU members. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Haha this is wrong time of day to assume everyone is American.
Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes
#30So, here's a question. I'm a small self-hoster, US-based. If the "London police" come calling asking for my data, what repercussions do I face if I just say "No"?
Only the repercussions that the UK government could exact upon you. If you have no assets in the UK and don't plan on going there, there is relatively little they can do to you.
It's important to note that the CLOUD Act does not compel you to respond, it permits you to do so where you were prohibited before under US law.
I am a lawyer, but certainly not yours.