Why not just keep all your data on your own computer? No need to have a cloud and if it's email your worried about, well, it's assured if the U.S. government wants your conversations they will get it unless you jump through some pretty large hoops.
On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
71–80 of 230 posts
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.
No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners rem…
Hold on....
If a foreigner is protected while in the US, is accountable to the US if he/she breaks US law from abroad, and accountable if he/she breaks US law while visiting the US in the form of visiting a US web-server, (we foreigners are said to have visited US jurisdiction if we use US based services, there for we can be extradited) why then, if a foreigner's data is on US servers or systems, is his/her data and privacy not also protected under US law, if a foreigner is protected while in the US.
If we are said to have visited the US and there for come under US law if we use US services, then surely it must also apply that the data we leave behind is also protected.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#73Google should invent a distributed, encrypted email protocol and make that network an option in GMail for storage and message sending. That would be a great PR move - if there is no central server, and no central message pipe, it's a little hard for anyone to think Google wants to be complicit in spying.
Not counting monetization, the main difficulty with implementing true privacy - from the provider itself - of web services is the necessity to cut the "account recovery" feature.
When the provider can't access your data, if you lose your password, all of your data is gone forever. If you are willing to live with that, alternatives already exist, as others pointed out.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners rem…
It's also pretty hard to argue that prior to 1957, anyone in the USG needed to get a warrant to collect intelligence information from foreign soil.
Right.. Prior to 1957, US citizens did not even have rights outside of the US. From the same article:
So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.
While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2] [1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc…
While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957:
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#76How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…
The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.
I can easily see it in a very literal interpretation of the documents though. For example, all of the amendments refer to "the people". "The people's right shall not be infringed..."
Who is "the people"? Well, the Constitution starts out like so:
We the people of the United States
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.
While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2] [1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc…
What about people in the USA that are not citizens of the USA?
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#78Abit harsh on Google. I mean what are they to do?
Maybe engineer a service that is harder to wiretap? It is not easy, but they have some of the best computer scientists on this planet working for them. If I were them, I would start somewhere around here: http://crypto.stanford.edu/adnostic/adnostic.pdf
> Maybe engineer a service that is harder to wiretap?
You can't solve a legal problem with engineering. We're talking about the same agencies who had the ability to get all of the major phone carriers to install wiretapping services – there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same to anyone else of interest.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#79Google should invent a distributed, encrypted email protocol and make that network an option in GMail for storage and message sending. That would be a great PR move - if there is no central server, and no central message pipe, it's a little hard for anyone to think Google wants to be complicit in spying.
That wouldn't be Gmail in any sense. Why would google be involved in that product -- they dont' provide the server, the delivery, the spam detection (right?) If you dont want to use Gmail for some or all messages, just don't use Gmail.
They could provide all the client software. Hell, they could even make ad targeting work by moving their mail-reading bots to the client and have them select ads from a stack of mothership-provided ads, with no feedback except following the link if you click.
But I agree with you that it's very different from anything they do. Also, too vulnerable to piracy or cloning. Aaand it may not be feasible to run their bots in a weak machine.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#80How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…
Regarding (a) --- I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings? If the US insists on waiving the rights of non-citizens, despite the constitution, th…
> I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings?
You'll get little argument from most 'Mericans for your statement that these rights are human rights. The argument you will get is the rationality of transference. The difference between the OP and any American is citizenship and history.
US citizens of today are beneficiary to a Constitution that was crafted and bled for, over 200 years ago, with nasty war for our independence and claim to self governance. I didn't fight this battle. My father didn't fight this battle. Neither did his father. But one of the dumb-luck results of not only being born in the US to American citizens, are the benefits bestowed upon me by the war that was fought for the benefit of future generations (i.e. ME).
Now... this is going to sound really pointed and "f* y", but there's no other way to say it. Those 200+ year old men and women didn't fight this war for people in other countries, they did it for their own sons, daughters, and many generations that would come.
I agree! Those rights that were fought for should be universal human rights for every single person on the planet. But that's why you have to fight whatever government collects your taxes for those very rights on your own.
Respectfully.