Getting out of the cloud…
blog.koehntopp.info
blog.koehntopp.info
>President Trump’s Executive Order calls for federal agencies in the U.S. to ensure that their privacy notices make clear that Privacy Act protections extend only to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. Importantly, Article 14 of the Order explicitly states that the federal agencies must do so in a manner that is “consistent with applicable law.” In the context of EU-U.S. data transfers for law enforcement purposes, the Judicial Redress Act constitutes applicable law, and thus President Trump’s Executive Order, as written, should not impact the Judicial Redress Act’s extension of the Privacy Act’s protections to citizens of the EU. As a result, absent further action from the U.S. government, we do not expect this Executive Order to impact the legal viability of the Privacy Shield Framework.
https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2017/01/28/privacy-shield-...
> The spokeswoman has now sent us a statement in which the EC asserts that Privacy Shield “does not rely on the protections under the U.S. Privacy Act”.
> Critics of Privacy Shield –– including the lawyer who brought the original challenge against Safe Harbor — have consistently argued the arrangement contains the same fundamental flaws as its invalidated predecessor, given ongoing U.S. government agency surveillance programs accessing European citizens’ data.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/26/trump-order-strips-privacy...
The US fifth column voluntarily leaving the EU will surely expedite the process.
If you are an average citizen anywhere in Europe, throwing the dice in either the time or spatial dimensions is a losing proposition: there is almost no time nor place of higher prosperity, lower physical danger, better chances regardless of class/gender/race/etc, higher life expectancy, more vibrant cultural life, more freedom to explore your interest/kinks/obsessions etc. And the shift of the US under Trump is a throw of the dice in the best case. In reality, it is unlikely that a new world order build by an orange buffoon could in any way rival the current one, which was build by people who had the foresight and moral compass to invest trillions into a continent, and even the very country that had just plunged the world into the darkest crevice of history.
I'm not saying that all is well, just that we are, historically, closer to the best than the worst, or even to average. But any assertion that the system was fundamentally broken is obviously not supported by the outcomes it produced, and the way to optimise a system running at it's historical best involves carefully planned tuning, not destroying it with a sledgehammer and asking a reality TV character to build a new one.
Exactly. And at the risk of sounding entitled, privileged or whatever, I like it this way. I would like this to stay. The changes happening in US (and similar ones starting to happen in Europe) threaten this.
And sure, it's not fair to everyone all the time. But it's like some people these days think that if they can just blow everything up, things will be better for them, that it'll improve their relative well-being. It won't. Destabilizing things isn't beneficial for anyone.
I'm in Europe and I'm getting seriously worried the US will start the Third World War within coming months...
I'm not saying it's impossible that trump could be offensive enough to cause an attack on the US which then results in offensive US action - but I've seen nothing to indicate he'll go looking to do so as a matter of policy.
Hyperbole is everywhere at the moment and whilst it makes for pithy comment it detracts from realistic concerns about the outcomes of his policy decisions. By giving people easy excuses to ignore "anti trump" comments (because they're a mixture of valid concerns and silliness) you grant him more freedom.
He is probably less likely to actively pursue conflict with Russia than his alternative, and he's reaffirmed support for NATO (which was no doubt part of the package traded for a non critical stance by the UK PM).
But now it turns out that what was broadcasted in the campaign is in fact what the current President means to do, and this is scary. From what I remember from my history lessons, it smells too much of how Hitler started his rule, and I don't recall him saying he wants to invade the rest of Europe either. That only came up after he was entrenched in power and stepped up the internal purges.
Assuming this doesn't happen, there's also a second scenario I fear - the US will say "fuck you Europe" and utterly withdraw, and Russia will get expansionist ideas.
Either way, I don't feel that what's going on leads to a safe and stable life here in Europe. (And that's beside the fact that the same sentiments that led to Trump's victory is also clearly visible in many parts of Europe; with nationalist tendencies on the rise, EU breakup and/or a war in Europe aren't beyond possibility).
Call me paranoid, but I am afraid. Not in a hypothetical way, I actually stress over it and it impares my day-to-day life.
This has been one of Trump's points for quite a while now. The USA will no longer subsidize the security of other states, unless there is some method of repayment.
Maybe I'm naïve, but I thought a stable, prosperous market on the continent dominated by US products makes it worth it for the US.
I'm in the US and most of the product I use were not manufactured here.
Globalism is better for countries sucking on the US's teet but it is bleeding the US dry. The US can't compete against other countries that have no environmental or wage regulations.
Its like every other country feels entitled to the US's resources or something.
Perhaps Europe should form a military of it's own for protection then?
Snarkiness aside, the nerve of people scolding the US like it's a foolish child while living under the umbrella of its "discount" military protection is a little galling.
Post WW2, both the German and Japanese military were greatly limited, or outright abolished.
The numerous bases of the US around the globe in any country and climate imaginable are not only selfless bastions of people in need - they serve very concrete functions, namely protecting trade routes and political stability in systems that are beneficial to the economy of the US.
Just as my 2 cents, Mr. Trump definitely stated several times that he wants to re-thinkthe whole NATO, UN and the international security system in general.
I can easily imagine him making the same bold and unprofessional moves as everywhere else. And if that happens, it will definitely open up some new possibilities for international conflict.
But well, promising is easy, and he is not the first to promise those exact things.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=east http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=west
Thanks a lot for those links.
~60,000 google user accounts(not just email, but all your web browsing data) were handed over to the government in 2016. And this was under the Obama administration.
You can't write an executive order that says you can get access to something you previously needed a warrant for without a warrant.
Well, you can. If the US AG thinks it's illegal, you can fire her. If it's argued in court, you've got a floating SCOTUS appointment ready to make.
(The distinction between "can they do that?" and "can they legally do that?" is normally pedantic but at a time when CBP are reported to be ignoring court orders ( http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf... ), this is becoming increasingly important)
Per "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... : "and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism)."
This might actually help the European market.
There is also Storj, MaidSafe, Filecoin, Swarm, and sort-of-but-not-quite IPFS.
Storj and Sia are the front runners for private data like family photos, computer backups, etc. I don't really consider Storj to be decentralized here though.
Swarm I know less about, but I believe their focus is more on file sharing. IPFS is closer to a replacement for http and BitTorrent (both), great for high-demand files or files that are being explicitly hosted on a web server but not so much private data. I think they plan to upgrade this with Filecoin.
MaidSafe is 10 years old and still in alpha. They have huge ambitions but I think too huge, they don't seem capable of publishing things.
I think I understood the part where the US no longer a good place to store data, and that there are no proper privacy laws protecting foreign citizens' data that is stored on US soil. So basically, if you still want to have a proper privacy policy, GTFO your data to non-US servers ASAP.
Anything else? Something I've gotten wrong?
There was an agreement, "safe harbour", with the US, but Trump has issued an EO that contradicts it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/us-eu-privacy-shield-maybe-yes-m...
If that agreement is terminated, then it's no longer legal to transfer personal data from the EU to the US. This affects rather a lot of companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Defin...
There's a very large and competitive market for dedicated servers and colocation though and depending on your load, it might be worth a look at switching to dedicated or leased infrastructure.
Owning the hardware is the only way to truly control your destiny as far as I'm concerned.
The only relevant competitors to AWS are Google and maybe MS Azure. Both also US companies.
No one else is anywhere near the level of scale and expertise AWS has.
You get the benefits of strong German privacy laws, on top of the EU's data protection directive[1].
I'm not sure how that works in Germany but I would sooner send a too-much-redacted scan and have them refuse and ask to see more of it, than send an actual complete scan of my ID to anyone but the government that issued it.
Not that governments are so good at not accidentally misplacing data. But it reduces the surface, at least.
Unlinking the two companies completely might satisfy what you appear to be angling for, but it would be, in essence, a potential competitor to Amazon at that point.
Microsoft have gone as far with Azure in Germany to sign an agreement where T-Systems own the data and the systems and Microsoft are simply a contractor supplying a service to them.
http://news.microsoft.com/europe/2016/09/21/microsoft-azure-...
You're perfectly free to use E2E encryption on Gmail, and they are even trying to make it easy for you, though that project is evidently not as well staffed as the advertising org.
Anyways, my point was not to suggest a full solution but to say that companies are not incentivized to solve this problem.
Yes it is. Besides just syncing the data there are a huge number of other performance hits.
> of course you don't need to store the attachments etc.
Why not? Do you want to a) drop support for searching through attachments (like pdfs) or b) not encrypt those?
> companies are not incentivized to solve this problem.
There has been huge improvements in the last few years in this space (take Signal as an example). But major email providers are not incentivized because most users don't care, UX and performance suffer, email is inherently an unsafe (even if you put PGP on top [1]) and because they would not be able to make as much ad revenue (worse targeting).
Why? Are you dropping support to search through them?