Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 509 posts

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#351

Post by soco »

kyboren wrote: post #190
soco wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you folks think just because it's internet we should be able to insult and call for racial action? Maybe you think in real life that should be acceptable too?

I support free speech through any media, including all noncommercial speech not including: - defamation (with extra lenience for speech about public figures) - evidence of child sex abuse - incitement to imminent lawless action likely to cause disorder Even those few exceptions are dangerous to liberty. Certainly anything else is too easily twisted into political censorship. For example, under the guise of fighting "…

Even here on HN insulting other posters gets you banned. Same in many US media. There's quite a discrepancy between what people claim and the reality on the field, why you think? Yes I'm aware I'm shifting focus from Europe to the US, but you know, who should cast the first stone...

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#352

Post by soco »

johnsimer wrote: post #265
soco wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here we are again, spreading lies right? Robert Habeck was NOT arrested, he and his friends were investigated in the broader case of neo-nazi propaganda which they were spreading as well. Unless you consider neo-nazi freedom of speech, of course. The Pinocchio case meant exactly one official letter sent to that guy, lol "arrests". The investigation was dropped and everybody criticized the investigation. Ricarda L…

I did not spread any lies ^ I did not say Robert Habeck was arrested Re the other cases: in a good democracy, insulting politicians should not be a crime and there should be no investigations for someone insulting a politician.

Where is that good democracy? This is not a rhetorical question.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#354

Post by mghackerlady »

embedding-shape wrote: post #243
mghackerlady wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, why would you not want cookie banners? I prefer being able to choose to opt out of them, even if it's annoying

I think the general vibe I get from some Americans is that they're OK with some abuse, as long as you don't tell them about it or do it to your face, and they would rather have some abuse than none but having to make their own choices. Of course, small subsection of people, but plenty of HN commentators make that exact case over and over whenever the discussions about cookie banners come up.

Seems to be the case as well. Theres also a bit of apathy in that its become so normalised people dont even care

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#355

Post by bulbar »

socalgal2 wrote: post #350
bradley13 wrote: post #187

It's not even just data stored on US servers. According to the CLOUD Act, any data stored by a US company, regardless of location, can be demanded by any authority in the US. No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. The attempts to shift to open source or non-US services are inevitably hobbled by US companies lobbying (read: bribing) politicians.

[flagged]

There has always been alternatives within the EU. In addition, law enforcement entities in the US and EU have always been cooperating.

The internet however is not limited to US and EU. Criminals have always been using services all over the globe.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#356

Post by nozzlegear »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #30
Tyrubias wrote: post #12

I can’t imagine how any country would think the US is trustworthy enough to be the place where everyone stores their data. If companies cannot comply with data sovereignty laws then they shouldn’t exist at all. Personally, even as a US citizen, I’m hoping tech companies in Europe and Asia become independent enough to no longer be beholden to US interests. It’s clear that the era where any one country has global hegem…

I'm a US citizen and I hope more of the world decouples because I think a lot of our issues are due to a lack of competition.

> I think a lot of our issues are due to a lack of competition.

I think a lot of our issues are due to a lack of cooperation.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#357

Post by le-mark »

unethical_ban wrote: post #161
orwin wrote: post #44

We are pivoting out of a huge number of US services at my job. I think windows, Google, PaloAltoNetworks and Aws will be the last we leave, but infoblox is out next year (that's part of my job right now), and old Cisco hardware will stop being replaced by new Cisco hardware in 6 months.

Palo is starting to require telemetry that sends realtime data on rulebase and hitcount from every firewall to increase support effectiveness.

You mean sent to palo with no opt out? That’s hard to believe.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#358

Post by krior »

socalgal2 wrote: post #350
bradley13 wrote: post #187

It's not even just data stored on US servers. According to the CLOUD Act, any data stored by a US company, regardless of location, can be demanded by any authority in the US. No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. The attempts to shift to open source or non-US services are inevitably hobbled by US companies lobbying (read: bribing) politicians.

[flagged]

Yeah, because the US can't deal with their criminals my data privacy has to be violateb by a foreign, hostile government.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#359

Post by bulbar »

roysting wrote: post #349
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No sovereign nation should use US companies for data storage or processing. Period. So what is Europe supposed to do just stop pretending to be sovereign?

I am not sure if you meant to say what you said. By many measures Europe is in fact pretending to be sovereign. I think it is what they are attempting to do at the moment, "stop pretending to be sovereign" and actually BE sovereign. At least that seems to be the claimed attempt. If anyone is not sure why I would say that Europe is not sovereign, I will answer that question if you ask, but considering the current stat…

275 US military installations across Europe that are not prepared or equipped to fight a conflict against the nation's military that host them.

Re: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives

#360

Post by nozzlegear »

microtonal wrote: post #143
rustyhancock wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we have our own issues outside of the US. They reality is the average person is between a rock and a hard place.

Major US tech businesses are making money with analytics/ads though, so they would never roll out end-to-end encryption in a serious way. At least outside the US, a lot of E2E-encrypted services are popping up (Proton, Zeitkapsl, etc.). I don't trust the small number of E2E US services at all. E.g., some of the companies that were/are in PRISM seem to have very convenient 'accidental' backdoors. E.g. WhatsApp doing b…

There were four other countries in Five Eyes, and right now the UK and Australia have laws on the books that are ostensibly worse than the Cloud Act in the US if you're a foreign company with data hosted in those countries. That includes me, an American, who uses the Australian email service Fastmail.
Post reply on HN