91–100 of 223 posts
What I can't see happening is the other Five Eyes partners or their governments changing. The UK political classes in the main appear bullishly, unrepentant, aggressive towards descent and hawkishly pursuing dissidents including newspaper editors.
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
A human product that lets its product owner tip the scales and control its future? Puke. Double puke.
The sooner this privacy debate ends for them the better. I'd rather the debate continue and we develop better technology and opinions around ownership of our own actions and lives so we harden ourselves from parasitism, instead of cheering when one of our parasites takes out another.
Hmm, only seeing a "default parallels" page: http://i.imgur.com/bUzBKn0.png (midnight PST)
:Reform Government Surveillance
:Global Government Surveillance Reform
The undersigned companies believe that it is time for the world’s governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their information.
While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety and security, we strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be reformed.
Consistent with established global norms of free expression and privacy and with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight, we hereby call on governments to endorse the following principles and enact reforms that would put these principles into action.
:The Principles
:1 Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information
Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications.
:2 Oversight and Accountability
Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry.
:3 Transparency About Government Demands
Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also promptly disclose this data publicly.
:4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information
The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.
:5 Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments
In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.
:Voices For Reform
“AOL is committed to preserving the privacy of our customers’ information, while respecting the right of governments to request information on specific users for lawful purposes. AOL is proud to unite with other leading Internet companies to advocate on behalf of our consumers.” —Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO, AOL
“Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook
“The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information. This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” —Larry Page, CEO, Google
“These principles embody LinkedIn’s fundamental commitment to transparency and ensuring appropriate government practices that are respectful of our members’ expectations.” —Erika Rottenberg, General Counsel, LinkedIn [when LinkedIn criticizes your privacy policy you know something's wrong]
“People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft
“Twitter is committed to defending and protecting the voice of our users. Unchecked, undisclosed government surveillance inhibits the free flow of information and restricts their voice. The principles we advance today would reform the current system to appropriately balance the needs of security and privacy while safeguarding the essential human right of free expression.” —Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
“Protecting the privacy of our users is incredibly important to Yahoo. Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world. Today we join our colleagues in the tech industry calling on the United States Congress to change surveillance laws in order to ensure transparency and accountability for government actions.” —Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo
:An open letter to Washington
Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress,
We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change.
For our part, we are focused on keeping user’s data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.
We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com
Sincerely,
AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ? Use Linux systems. And so on. The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot opt out .
You have very little choice to avoid Google Analytics (or one of a handful of other major analytics companies). Almost every site on the internet uses it. None of them reveal in an obvious way if they do, or give you any choice (or they just pop up a generic "we use cookies, if you continue using this site you agree"). Or beyond that, there's all the sharing buttons, Google Web Fonts, hosted JavaScript libraries, and…
> If you want to, just like avoiding government surveillance, your best bet is to just disconnect from the net entirely.
You can't disconnect from government surveillance, in case you did not get my point earlier. They track your phone calls even if you don't use the net. They have cameras in streets, airports, they can track your spending via credit cards, they can check where you are by locating your mobile phone position, but no company alone can do the exact same thing. The balance of power is clearly in favor of the government for surveillance, and the massive budget of the NSA is a simple proof that they are not kidding.
Really, they bought the domain 5 days ago from GoDaddy?!
> whois reformgovernmentsurveillance.com Really, they bought the domain 5 days ago from GoDaddy?!
Regardless of your opinion on the leaks, this marks something really interesting in the course of history. Communications is one of the few services that governments co-opt indirectly. Lockheed Martin knows it's building war jets. But here, the signatories didn't set out to build government surveillance engines, it was required of them after it became clear how useful they could be. Their response could set the tone…
Verizon and AT&T are a government regulated duopoly, and they love the protection racket that keeps competition out. They're one step away from being state enterprises.
Those closest to being utilities are the last entities that will want to push back against the government (eg Level3). They're the most dependent on government mood swings. These types of companies often require government permission for every action they take in terms of expanding their business.