What is a good example?
They also switched Skype to using a centralized system for signalling when they acquired it. It's still decentralized at the protocol level, simply Microsoft whitelists their own nodes as supernodes.
Kind of an older article, but illustrates the situation pretty nicely.
Microsoft has also done development work in recent years to enrich the data with more identifiable information and to make the data easier to process for surveillance.
Not only is that poor "proof", how do you propose a public key be used to subvert any user's security?
But people will not be sickened by this. People mostly only react to consequences and will find someone else to blame.
Though yes, Microsoft is a particularly grossly sycophantic player - their strategy clearly is to be the IC’s best friends because it will get them IC contracts and probably help protect/benefit them in many other aspects.
though this isn’t much new I suppose, how many times has nike been caught using child labor? how many waterways has nestle depleted, how many animals have been tortured for cosmetics… how many bison were slaughtered to spite the natives, how many whales for lamp oil…
we seem to always find something or someone to exploit
Do you also want other national agencies to spy on US citizens without "being slowed down by too many procedures"?
No?
Well, if they did not do it before, because of "friendship", then they surely started doing it.
Further increasing the amount of illegal hacking for everyone.
I actually do believe, there should be some restraint with hacking each and everyone because of "national security", because that can applied to everything. There should be a real reason, a actual threat.
They already do, and with less oversight. What makes you think the US not spying on them will change their behavior?
> Further increasing the amount of illegal hacking for everyone.
There is no law that prevents countries from spying on each other, so I don't know what you think is illegal here.
"There is no law that prevents countries from spying on each other, so I don't know what you think is illegal here. "
Depending on your definition of "law", is there a law preventing agencies from going somewhere else and killing and stealing as they see fit?
International law is kind of complicated, but the basic idea is to not interfere with each other to keep the peace.
And activly hacking foreign computers is considered interfering.
How would you consider the act, if a foreign agency would hack the Phone of Biden?
Probably hostile?
Well yes, that was how it was considered in germany, when it became known that the NSA did hack the phone of Merkel. The reason why we are still allies is merely, that russia and china are indeed worse. And that is the reason, why the US is still kind of "the leader of the free world". But keep on doing Guantanamo stuff, hack every friendly nation, say "fuck the EU" and other countries might decide one day, they might as well stick with china then.
Some african and asian states made that decision already.
Well, mostly they do not seem to care that much. Politicians have probably the worst opsec of all people. Mrs. Merkel was a target, but so was President Macron recently:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210720-phones-of-mac...
Yes, the laws of the country they go to.
>>International law is kind of complicated, but the basic idea is to not interfere with each other to keep the peace.
How is spying interfering with each other?
> And activly hacking foreign computers is considered interfering
What about passively collecting the information they send to the US?
> Well yes, that was how it was considered in germany, when it became known that the NSA did hack the phone of Merkel.
Utter nonsense. Merkel isn't that naïve. https://www.politico.eu/article/spying-allies-normal-us-denm...
Hacking into computers on foreign soil, sounds quite interfering to me, or would you be OK with me giving it a try at your computers/network?
"> is there a law preventing agencies from going somewhere else and killing and stealing as they see fit?
Yes, the laws of the country they go to"
Same with hacking. It is not legal, to hack computers here in germany.
And sure, Merkel wasn't surprised, nor was me, or anyone in IT security. But the general population was. They assumed naivly, ally means respecting the other party.
I wouldn't be OK with it, but I wouldn't call it interfering either if you don't actually interfere with my actions after gaining access.
> Same with hacking. It is not legal, to hack computers here in germany
Then try to enforce those laws on other countries, and see how far you get. If the US sent an agent into Germany to kill someone, the killer would be held liable.
> They assumed naivly [sic] [emphasis added], ally means respecting the other party.
Exactly. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/spies-like-us-germany-s...
Would Germany have acted differently had the US not spied on Germany? Of course not.
A lot of people are dead or in jail because of that software, and not just “predators”.
Some gentlemen will find you shortly to provide a more in depth example.
I don't doubt you but a reference would help folks know what to make of this.
This for example
“Companies interested in the contract included Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle”
and
“The deal was considered "gift-wrapped for Amazon" until Oracle (co-chaired by Safra Catz) contested the contract”.
So pretty much every single large cloud provider went after this, though Google did eventually bow out early. Other than winning the second round of the bidding (and not actually going live), is there something Microsoft did specifically that warrants being singled out?
Kind of an older article, but illustrates the situation pretty nicely.
Microsoft has also done development work in recent years to enrich the data with more identifiable information and to make the data easier to process for surveillance.
Companies only grow if they are allowed to otherwise they are legislated out of existence. I imagine that growth is actually encouraged if they are bearing fruit.