Hacker News Reader

Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

From https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-ex...

"The legislation still:

- Includes a weak standard for review that does not rise to the protections of the warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment.

- Fails to require foreign law enforcement to seek individualized and prior judicial review.

- Grants real-time access and interception to foreign law enforcement without requiring the heightened warrant standards that U.S. police have to adhere to under the Wiretap Act.

- Fails to place adequate limits on the category and severity of crimes for this type of agreement.

- Fails to require notice on any level – to the person targeted, to the country where the person resides, and to the country where the data is stored."

View on HN

I've seen that. However the London police may require a warrant under UK law, nevertheless. And Slack may notify, nevertheless.

I think EFF could come up with better examples. At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons. I'd think better examples would involve what US LEO can do unwarranted. In that case people may be inclined to exert more pressure on their representatives.

The law is bad but I think it could be painted in worse light.

> At least, most of these examples are not threatening for US persons.

As a german, I'm so fucking fed up with this attitude. "Leader of the free world" my ass.

Seriously, the US population needs to stop thinking only about what concerns the US population and acknowledge the fact that a lot of US law regarding the internet is actually also affecting the rest of the world. Stop treating non-US people as something which does not need to have at least the same level of protection.

Either fight for the right to have privacy regardless of where a person is coming from or don't fight at all.

Just standing there saying "ah, it's fine, it protects US persons." and then bragging about the US being a fine country and protecting the rest of the world is just... I don't have words for it.

I am from Germany. I have no say in the matter. That's the reason why I would like EFF come up with better examples to make people who have at least some influence (such as calling their representative) engaged. If its not their problem, they won't.

I think this legislation at odds at least with upcoming GDPR if not with existing regulations in some EU members. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Haha this is wrong time of day to assume everyone is American.

Well, I guess I misunderstood you then, sorry for that. My point still stands though, only not meant for you :)

So I fought against the CLOUD Act as an American because I think it does lower privacy protections for many people around the world. With that said, all it does is make the German government meet German standards for obtaining criminal evidence, rather than the US standard. If you don't like the German standards, you should take it up with your government. That's why the law also requires the US government to evaluate the human rights standards of the other government before entering into a relationship under the law.

Trying to avoid whataboutism here, but I too am fed up with the attitude. However, I see it in several countries/regions (e.g. the US, the EU) that impose their rules on extra-regional persons and/or their companies. Some intentionally, some not. Either way, we should always strive for narrowly scoped legislation and disagree with it when it's not. The unfortunate part is many who lambaste rulings that are made outside their jurisdiction but affect them often praise legislation made inside their jurisdiction that affects others.

It's important for people to keep this in mind when they think something is best for others outside their jurisdiction. This is especially true when these countries/regions use their leverage and say they're doing something only for their citizens knowing it affects the global internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com