Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes • Hacker News Board

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#31

Post by rschulman » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

irrenhaus wrote: post #22

chopin wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

So I fought against the CLOUD Act as an American because I think it does lower privacy protections for many people around the world. With that said, all it does is make the German government meet German standards for obtaining criminal evidence, rather than the US standard. If you don't like the German standards, you should take it up with your government. That's why the law also requires the US government to evaluate the human rights standards of the other government before entering into a relationship under the law.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#32

Post by irrenhaus » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 12:52 PM UTC

chopin wrote: post #27

irrenhaus wrote: post #22

Earlier 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.

Well, I guess I misunderstood you then, sorry for that. My point still stands though, only not meant for you :)

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#33

Post by kodablah » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC

irrenhaus wrote: post #22

chopin wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

Trying to avoid whataboutism here, but I too am fed up with the attitude. However, I see it in several countries/regions (e.g. the US, the EU) that impose their rules on extra-regional persons and/or their companies. Some intentionally, some not. Either way, we should always strive for narrowly scoped legislation and disagree with it when it's not. The unfortunate part is many who lambaste rulings that are made outside their jurisdiction but affect them often praise legislation made inside their jurisdiction that affects others.

It's important for people to keep this in mind when they think something is best for others outside their jurisdiction. This is especially true when these countries/regions use their leverage and say they're doing something only for their citizens knowing it affects the global internet.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#34

Post by clarkmoody » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 1:31 PM UTC

mxuribe wrote: post #28

Well, I guess the erosion of our most basic rights is in fact happening. Ugh, makes me sick to my stomach.

To be fair, the erosion of our basic rights has been happening for a long time.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#35

Post by syshum » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Teeer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Trump probably supports the CLOUD Act.

The Administration has backed the push for it (in part, to resolve an ongoing legal dispute with Microsoft, who also supports it), so it's pretty hard (though given Trump's other rapid reversals, not impossible) to see Trump causing a shutdown by vetoing the omnibus spending bill over it's inclusion.

>>Microsoft, who also supports it

proving once again the Microsoft does not care about the privacy of their users, and their lawsuit fighting this was not them standing up for their users as they claimed but instead was them pushing for a liability shield that would prevent users from using them

This should be the end of CLOUD services... Self Host or no Host should be the motto of the day

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#36

Post by jandrese » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #3

This 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...

If the president vetoes this bill it won't be over the CLOUD act, it will be because it doesn't fund his insane border wall.

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#37

Post by kyrra » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #36

jakeogh wrote: post #3

This 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...

If the president vetoes this bill it won't be over the CLOUD act, it will be because it doesn't fund his insane border wall.

Which he is considering doing right now.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/97716688749379993...

"I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded."

(edit: updated link to Trump's twitter post)

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#38

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #35

dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Administration has backed the push for it (in part, to resolve an ongoing legal dispute with Microsoft, who also supports it), so it's pretty hard (though given Trump's other rapid reversals, not impossible) to see Trump causing a shutdown by vetoing the omnibus spending bill over it's inclusion.

>>Microsoft, who also supports it proving once again the Microsoft does not care about the privacy of their users, and their lawsuit fighting this was not them standing up for their users as they claimed but instead was them pushing for a liability shield that would prevent users from using them This should be the end of CLOUD services... Self Host or no Host should be the motto of the day

[deleted]

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#39

Post by saas_co_de » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

Teeer wrote: post #4

jakeogh wrote: post #3

This 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...

Except Trump probably supports the CLOUD Act.

It was sponsored by sessions so I would guess yes

Re: Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes

#40

Post by AFNobody » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

lwhalen wrote: post #15

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"?

If you had no assets in the UK and you accept you can never enter the UK....

You could get away with saying No. As long as the UK doesn't talk to the US and ask them to turn you over (which likely requires some serious criminal activity rather than curiosity).