71–80 of 125 posts
"In Norway, privacy stands firm like the mighty mountains of Jotunheimen.". Let's not flatter ourselves too much: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datalagringsdirektivet (in Norwegian, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre... ), or the less detailed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
As a Norwegian, let me just say: Yeah, right. 1. The Norwegian security services have a long history of violating Norwegian law (and when, for example, extensive illegal politically motivated surveillance of mostly left wing politicians was uncovered in the 90's they then had the gall to place an MP and member of the committee investigating them under surveillance while he was working on the report about their illega…
Is there a jurisdiction on the planet where data is safe from domestic wiretapping [1] (i.e. international espionage not withstanding)? Serious question. 1. Clarification: I mean warrantless wiretapping.
I think that in the long run, the U.S. is still a good place to keep data.
U.S. citizens have an instinctual distrust of government that Europeans often mock, but in this case I think is an advantage.
In addition the U.S. has some of the strongest protections for freedom of expression in the world, which means that everyone can learn and argue openly about intel programs and other sub-topic of freedom vs. security.
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
Better not use an encryption with ties to the US government then ;)
Encrypt all you like. It boils down to this: Will a government make you prove a negative, and if you don't, will it lock you up? If you have encrypted files, there must have been or still be a key to decrypt it. You will be asked for the key. You will either given them the key, say no, or say you don't have it. The first two are no good, so all you have is the denial that you have the key. If government cant find the…
There's a 4th option: give them a key that decrypts innocuous material.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might be slight hyperbole but can you link to some cases/incidents for support? Cheers.
It's not actually that common, but there have been at least 3 people prosecuted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/ripa_iii_figures/
"Of the 15 individuals served, 11 did not comply with the notices. Of the 11, seven were charged and two convicted."
Whilst they may have been incarcerated since the report, at the least it would seem that there is some evidence based procedure to determine "guilt" in terms of whether you are able to produce the key or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me though, no linux support :(
I run linux into Dropbox. It's tedious having to manually select/enter files without the dragging the others get. There's language Dropbox API modules that automate this too.
In that regard Owncloud[1] looks like a better option, but that again lacks mobile clients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the source code: https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html This is the license: Unless specified otherwise in individual files, the contents of this package is covered by the following copyright, license, and disclaimer: Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Colin Percival All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, without modification, is permitted for the sole purpose of using…
My reading of that is that you aren't allowed to redistribute any modifications or use it for anything other than accessing the tarsnap service. So not really open source software in any sense that I understand. [NB My comments is not intended as a criticism of tarsnap or Colin's licensing policy - he wrote it so, in my book, he can license it any way he wants.]
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the source code: https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html This is the license: Unless specified otherwise in individual files, the contents of this package is covered by the following copyright, license, and disclaimer: Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Colin Percival All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, without modification, is permitted for the sole purpose of using…
My reading of that is that you aren't allowed to redistribute any modifications or use it for anything other than accessing the tarsnap service. So not really open source software in any sense that I understand. [NB My comments is not intended as a criticism of tarsnap or Colin's licensing policy - he wrote it so, in my book, he can license it any way he wants.]
(emphasis mine) This sounds like there are no restrictions on distributing modified source / binaries.