Snowden taught us that intelligence agencies don't need a search warrant. They are above the law.I figure having to get an search warrant for a private home is a somewhat higher burden, but I may be naive.
Snowden taught us that intelligence agencies don't need a search warrant. They are above the law.I figure having to get an search warrant for a private home is a somewhat higher burden, but I may be naive.
I figure there's precious little I can do if an intelligence agency really wants my old emails. What I'm worried about are career-oriented district attorneys looking to make a name for themselves by persecuting whatever the pariah du jour is.Snowden taught us that intelligence agencies don't need a search warrant. They are above the law.
And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?What I do is keep the storage at home. ...
There are severe disadvantages to this scheme, though.
1. This holds true until you become a competitor to your hoster. This is not a minor topic, because all the major cloud hosting providers are not just pure IT service providers, but have spread their commercial activities widely over many other markets. Giggle & M$ have been sentenced quite often by the US & EU for putting unfair hurdles onto their competitors.And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?
Yes. Ask a mathematician: -infinity ≃ +infinity. Mathematicians & such scientific folk should be the only ones allowed to use total terms like all, every, always, ever, ... Applied to real world contexts, these are always problematicthink the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil.
Yes, in part, like outlined above. I couldn't think an organisation like WikiLeaks should trust those of whom they could potentionally leak embarrassing information.If you start making decisions about where to place your IT workload based on that world view, you end up deciding that you need to have full control of your assets. I think that this world view is not only paranoid, it is also psychotic, and simply doesn't match the real world. Other people are free to disagree.
Contra. They absolutely have an interest in self-preservation.I think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical.
I think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical. If you start making decisions about where to place your IT workload based on that world view, you end up deciding that you need to have full control of your assets. I think that this world view is not only paranoid, it is also psychotic, and simply doesn't match the real world. Other people are free to disagree.
And who routinely hand over information to governments all over the world, often without any notice to the affected accounts.And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?
This has certainly been my experience. Corporations aren't strictly evil, but they're organized and optimized to make profits. Too bad if people get hurt in the process.There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical.
First: Facebook is not a cloud or hosting company. They don't sell IT services to others. They leaked internal data. I think in their particular case, it wasn't even them, but they were dumb enough to hand internal data to associates (such as Cambridge Analytica) that on second thought are not trustworthy.please comment on the various well known data leaks, e.g. from FreezeBook leaking user data.
Wikileaks is a special case, because their enemy is not regular hackers who steal data for profit, not even law enforcement agencies, but the intelligence agencies of not just one country, but of many. Wikileaks needs just about the best security imaginable; for them, using cloud or hosting companies is clearly not an option. Matter-of-fact, they should probably not use any normal computing infrastructure, since the people involved certainly have their cell phones and laptops bugged.I couldn't think an organisation like WikiLeaks should trust those of whom they could potentionally leak embarrassing information.
Have you read the source code of the Linux software stack, in particular the TCP/IP part, in particular SSL and authentication, line by line? Ha ha, nor have I. Do you trust the people who have read it? Ha ha, nor do I. Open source does not guarantee safety. It just changes the way of thinking about software security. As a matter of record, many super-secure organizations use Linux (and other FOSS software). They trust them roughly as much as they trust IBM AIX and Cisco IOS ... which is not much. FOSS has advantages (the many eyes), and disadvantages (less controlled development process, developers are not background checked). It is not a panacea.where's the open source in the big data center scenarios you outlined above? Why should I trust s/o who in return does not transparently show me his measures to enforce security?
No, in some (many?) cases, secrecy enhances security. Not always, and in some cases secrecy hurts security. And in many cases, secrecy is mistaken for security: security through obscurity typically does not work. Not telling anyone how high exactly my fence is and where it runs is not sufficient; I also need to build a very sturdy and tall fence.Security is mainly a fiction; but without transparency & open source it is impossible.
Yes, but if you read the report, you see that (a) they published the number of requests, and (b) they were able to deny 35% of the requests. So it is also true that they routinely refuse to hand over information.And who routinely hand over information to governments all over the world, often without any notice to the affected accounts.
I put some effort in picking the right ISP for my personal e-mail and web hosting. One where I can be quite certain that they are trustworthy, and will stand behind me as much as possible. As I said above, they spend a few hours of their lawyer's time to protect me once; pretty good for a $10/month customer.I'm glad the ISPs and governments are so enlightened where you live. That is certainly not the case for me.
Lawyers are what they are used to dealing with and they have a legal branch, too.My local government ... the less that's said about that the better. Their only saving grace is that they are just too incompetent to be consistently evil. And usually, if they do something really dumb, I can get them straightened out using lawyers, but that's an expensive game.
You're actually agreeing to what ralphbsz wrote. With all respect - you're jumping in on keywords like a bull on a red flag...Contra. They absolutely have an interest in self-preservation.
This may be true for some (at least @their top), but certainly not for all. Step aside for a moment & carefully review some comments of e.g. Jose. Governments are complex organisations; since they're run by humans, it's clear human misbehaviour results in bad actions of any government. But that doesn't mean the whole government is a criminal organisation per se. Even if I try hard, I can't see that e.g. the employees of e.g. the Dept. of Education of a otherwise out-and-out corrupt government are criminals or commit criminal acts frequently.And this is the point that needs to be understood: there is no difference whatsoever between a government and organized crime.
Sorry, but all this is over-simplified biased crackerbarrel gossip on a much more complex topic ("Stammtisch-Gerede"). Period.They certainly have an interest in self-preservation, just like the mafia has as well. They are not destructive for it's own end, but they will do any- and everything, and break any law, for their own advantage, if only they can get thru with it.
And it is entirely up to you if you want to consider such a scheme as evil and un-ethical. (It usually depends on how much one benefits from the gang one is associated with).
So, if you do things that are in the interest of your government, your data is probably safe at the hoster. But if you prefer to talk e.g. about the murders your government has commited - well, then things might look a bit different.
Please sum up this definitive conclusion. To me it's not at all clear.As this discussion seems to go on although there is a definitive conclusion, [...]
Well, simple as that: if you decide to host a server at a company, you need to trust this company. There's no way around (see what was discussed, hehe).Please sum up this definitive conclusion. To me it's not at all clear.
Why shouldn't I? Are we high-school cliques where one must not agree to the other clique?You're actually agreeing to what ralphbsz wrote.
I don't care if it's "true", only if it's a proper systemic description that suits as a working pragma to predict future happenings.This may be true for some (at least @their top), but certainly not for all. Step aside for a moment & carefully review some comments of e.g. Jose.
I've heard that before, it is a short-term for "you must not say that the emperor is naked".Governments are complex organisations;
I perceive a government as a systemic entity of it's own, with it's own genius loci (aka 'corporate identity') and working principles. Humans will adapt to that. (Nobody ever makes a political career unless they work hard on developing their own corrupt and malevolent abilities.)since they're run by humans, it's clear human misbehaviour results in bad actions of any government.
That is not what I said. I said there is no difference - and in fact nobody yet was able to come up with any.But that doesn't mean the whole government is a criminal organisation per se.
Try harder. I did my experiments: I grabbed one of those "grassroots political activists" who would always argue about the evil capitalist government and the virtues of communism etc.etc. - and I put that guy into a position where he could execute power over others. And he immediately developed to be the perfect fascist.Even if I try hard, I can't see that e.g. the employees of e.g. the Dept. of Education of a otherwise out-and-out corrupt government are criminals or commit criminal acts frequently.
Because I am not the pope.Why do you trust your baker not to sell you poisoned bread?
Well then, why don't we just not provide the key from remote?edit: to get a BIT more into detail, the most promising "solution" would be (of course) disk encryption, but then your way to provide the key from remote is your attack vector.
This is all too true. Often what saves us is that those who are truly evil are also incompetent and stupid. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Reminds of the crack that democracy is the worst form of government ever invented except for all the other forms of government we've tried. There's a hard kernel of truth in that dark humour.My local government ... the less that's said about that the better. Their only saving grace is that they are just too incompetent to be consistently evil. And usually, if they do something really dumb, I can get them straightened out using lawyers, but that's an expensive game.
Of course not, but you prefixed "Contra", followed by an agreement...Why shouldn't I? Are we high-school cliques where one must not agree to the other clique?
Not at all. It's the invitation to consider applying differentiating views whenever a total term appears in one's arguments. Yes, we can not abandon these terms from our language, but in this special case I'm getting suspicious when someone calls all governments "criminal organisations" per se. You may want to think about what several governent do in a positive way. Of course you can then apply "That's to keep their subjects quite", but that's beyond the level where I want to participate in a discussion."it's all very complex" translates to "do not state any truth". This usually goes alongside with "there are many individuals, and you cannot know that this is true for all of them".
Both are typical destructive patterns common in socialist arguing, intending not to further knowledge of a matter, but instead to keep anybody from getting a clear view of the situation.
The purpose of this is that socialist ideology (feudal, national and international factions alike) is essentially totalitarism and demands hegemony on opinion (aka "newspeak").
Yes, agreed.I perceive a government as a systemic entity of it's own, with it's own genius loci (aka 'corporate identity') and working principles. Humans will adapt to that.
Maybe. I don't know each & every politician (not many at all). Some l feel are integer persons, no matter wether they're in "my" political camp or not. E.g. that guy in my signature.(Nobody ever makes a political career unless they work hard on developing their own corrupt and malevolent abilities.)
That's why democracies have tried to establish "checks & balances". Naturally, power needs controlling instances to prevent that. I don't say it works flawlessly, but IMHO there're enough examples where it has proven to be a useful setup.Try harder. I did my experiments: I grabbed one of those "grassroots political activists" who would always argue about the evil capitalist government and the virtues of communism etc.etc. - and I put that guy into a position where he could execute power over others. And he immediately developed to be the perfect fascist.
This works exactly as described in Orwell's "Animal Farm", and you can execute it anytime anywhere.
Ups. Maybe I got something wrong (I had 39.2 fever yesterday evening).Of course not, but you prefixed "Contra", followed by an agreement...
Which I didn't. I said there is no fundamental difference to be found in the working principles, only moral statements of which is "good" and "bad".Not at all. It's the invitation to consider applying differentiating views whenever a total term appears in one's arguments. Yes, we can not abandon these terms from our language, but in this special case I'm getting suspicious when someone calls all governments "criminal organisations" per se.
Not even that - I just had a hard time finding anything positive governments would do. Finally the only thing seemed to be support for free science - but that has been almost abandoned by now.You may want to think about what several governent do in a positive way. Of course you can then apply "That's to keep their subjects quite", but that's beyond the level where I want to participate in a discussion.
Yes, we do training for that.May I kindly ask you to check that this is normal human behaviour: to press all information into one's existant thinking schema / view of how the world is.
Well, I keep it with Dylan Hunt when he stated "I trust Tyr to be Tyr".Maybe. I don't know each & every politician (not many at all). Some l feel are integer persons, no matter wether they're in "my" political camp or not. E.g. that guy in my signature.
Yes, checks&balances is the american term. In Germany, where I went to high-school, we were taught that there are three bodies on which democracy is founded, so that the horrors of the nazi-dicatorship should not be possible to repeat. These are the legislation, the administration and the jurisdiction - which are supposed to be independent from each other.That's why democracies have tried to establish "checks & balances". Naturally, power needs controlling instances to prevent that. I don't say it works flawlessly, but IMHO there're enough examples where it has proven to be a useful setup.
The difference between "is a criminal organisation" & "like a criminal organisation" is quirky & does not provide any substantial difference in this case.Which I didn't. I said there is no fundamental difference to be found in the working principles, only moral statements of which is "good" and "bad".
Build & maintain infrastructure for education, traffic & energy, judicature & law enforcement, healthcare, defence, provision & intervention like fire workers & emergency service. In some countries, add telco to this list. This list is by far not complete, but this has has evolved to be public will over some centuries. Even if I try very very hard & really try to take your position seriously, honestly & open minded, I can easily find numerous examples where this added benefits to my life & of others, and I can not see any criminal act in extinguishing a fire or giving 1st aid to a victim of a traffic accident. I once had to call the police to protect me from my landlord because his sons went into my flat & touched me physically. They told them "ok guys, there're no witnesses, but now we have an eye on this, so behave well" & I had my peace afterwards. I don't say there are no criminal policemen, espc. not in, let's say Texas, nevertheless, you got the point.Not even that - I just had a hard time finding anything positive governments would do. Finally the only thing seemed to be support for free science - but that has been almost abandoned by now.
See above: it has evolved over time that the people want a government. If you do not agree to this, you've got a very big problem & should seek psychological assistence. I do not say this condescending, but I'm serious with this statement.Obviousely this depends on the idea of man that one has: if one thinks people need a government to tell them what is good for them, then obviousely the government does lots of such.
This is complete nonsense. In contrast, all people are different. Of course, we share common properties (but to a varying degree). I do agree to that (in theory) all people are equal before the law. The fact that this does not hold true in practice, does not make your nonsense statement true. Again, I do not mean this in an elitist fashion. No matter, let's say how dumb my plumber is, he shall be payed fair & be treated kindly. And s/he deserves the best FreeBSD s/he can get to run on his/her laptop...But, my idea of man is different: I believe that basically all humans are to be considered equal.
See above. You can derive any nonsense from a false prerequisite. Given that the average IQ is only ~104 (!!!) -- that's fairly low -- I'm pretty sure that the average people do not know what's good for them.And therefore there cannot be anybody else who better knows what's good for you than you yourself do.
And consequentially there is no right for government to treat the people like cattle.
It's your free decision to change your bank, e.g. GLS (Germany) or another cooperative bank. Don't tell me "but they do not offer a free account, while others do". You get what pay for. If it's called free, usually it's not -- you pay with you data & personal information instead of money.With my online bank account, I now have to pay to read my statement, due to data privacy protection (as required by the government). [...]
See above. Please try to take my position & follow my arguments.And this is only one of thousands of examples, where 1) the government considers the citizens as morons, 2) the government creates regulations to protect the citizens from their own morondom, and 3) the citizens are made to pay for that protection.
Yes, please. I'm not the only one who wants to be alarmed & protected from a fire in his/her neighbours flat. It is paranoid to see this as "the government treats me as cattle". And again, have in mind the magic number 104.Next example: people are now forced to install smoke-detectors in their sleeping-room, and pay for these. No matter if they want them or not.
Suggestive discourse tactics (rethorical question) is considered bas style by the receipient.So, I am asking You: do You indeed consider yourself a piece of cattle, too stupid to know by yourself what is good for you, and therefore in the need to be kept by a government, being not a human person, but just some production goods owned by the government?
I appreciate that in principle, you're able to apply differentiating views.So, I think there is no absolute quality of being integer or trustworthy - it is all relative, and any person has certain qualities, and any person's mind will change under certain influences.
News headline of today: former president of France sentenced to 1 + 2 years probation in captivity due to bribery. At least this is one example to show we're not living in Armageddon, and France is not a banana republic where a dictator can command the judges to convict his enemies.But then, this safety-net has been abandoned for quite a while now, and there is no longer a working separation into three independent bodies. The trick here is to abuse science: formally these three bodies continue to exist, but in practice all three of them have to obey to what is "scientifically true".
I agree that this is a very critical & delicate topic. I'd be glad if stronger measures were in place to protect free & independant science.The latter can easily be manipulated, because scientists depend on money from the government.
Agreed, too. The so-called social "sciences" should not be called as such, and they should increase their efforts to seek assistance from statisticians & other mathematicians.Furthermore, lots of so called "social sciences" have been created, and these now demand to produce "truth" that is equally reliable than the findings from hard sciences. Which certainly isn't the case, but can still be used to design governmental decisions.