OVH threatens to leave if latest French surveillance law passes
rudebaguette.com
rudebaguette.com
Find who to call here : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/qui/circonscriptions/?h...
And point them to there : https://sous-surveillance.fr/#/
and there : https://wiki.laquadrature.net/Amender_le_PJL_Renseignement
Talk about it online and IRL, and once the law inevitably pass, install Enigmail and TrueCrypt on your relative's computers.
Do we use it as it is, or use a fork that will be more up-to-date?
Can we actually fork it? Some comments on [1] mention that it's illegal to fork it. Others point to existing forks.
I am just confused about what to do, or even what other people are doing.
What are the thoughts of the HN community regarding TrueCrypt?
[0] http://istruecryptauditedyet.com/
[1] http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/truecrypt-re...
That being said, this article is about data in transit, and TrueCrypt protects data at rest. I'm sure there is a better place to be having this conversation about TrueCrypt.
Now, rather than "here's a way to secure your existing communication path" it's become a game of "become reliant on having a working data connection, our cloud service and google's push service if you want to communicate".
It's not even as though I can choose to stay on an older version to keep the SMS functionality without forcing all of my friends to never upgrade it either (many of whom already have, if only accidentally).
Colour me exceedingly unimpressed -especially as in the 2 years I've been using TextSecure, I and all the friends I've tried to convert have had nothing but issues with the push. This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth and has made me rather angry.
OWS do have a point about SMS metadata leakage though.
I'm very impressed with the apps Whisper Systems have delivered. Please support them to accelerate development for even better encrypted communications!
The bit that jumps out from your link is the fact they now support iOS, and iOS won't let them programatically send/receive SMS. It seems to be a case of "now we support iOS, to keep feature parity, we're stripping out our main feature!" -I insert my own <slowclap /> at this point.
Le Monde had a set of articles about some of this surveillance framework brought to light by the Snowden leaks, but of course the French press didn't talk about it, since the NSA stories were somehow "more relevant to the public".
For all the fingerpointing at the US for the Patriot act and the NSA, France's surveillance state is pretty ominous and there are basically no rules.
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/04/09/squarcini-c...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_%C3%A9coutes_de_l%...
The French law only mentions a weak commission with "consultative" powers.
Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.
Where do I say that? What I am saying is that French intelligence services do not care what the law say, and the government is not interested in having existing laws enforced. As long as there is no independent entity to control their activity, with real power, these laws may as well be printed on toilet paper.
> Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.
That is a fair point, but if law enforcement agencies like Tracfin are already using this data anyway, it means we are not protected with the current laws.
That's a distinctly US concept. In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. It is them up to the lawyers and judges to argue that the way this evidence was collected makes it inadmissible in this situation on a case by case basis.
So as long as an argument can be made that the illegality of the method used to collect the evidence didn't affect the reliability of the evidence then it can be used.
That is not the case in Portugal and, since our laws are mostly inspired by French laws, I'd imagine that is not the case in France. Illegally obtained evidence, or evidence where there is a relevant probability that the chain of custody was compromised, is not admissible in court.
That is an argument to make surveillance legal. If the illegal surveillance is indeed useful in court proceedings to prosecute other illegal actions, then it makes sense to make the surveillance legal so that the true criminals can be brought to justice. The legal principles of appropriate measures should still apply - surveillance should not be used to prove jaywalking but rather be used to combat more serious crimes.
Appropriate use of surveillance should be legal. The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. Such as recording amoral behaviour of political dissidents or political opposition and later releasing it to the press to gain politically. Gathering evidence of homosexuality of a priest or union leader could be another example, and use this surveillance to stop the union leader from becoming a problem for the political power.
Also, surveillance used today can be used by a future power for nefarious purposes. Imagine that Hitler would have been able to access 10 years of video recordings of synagogues, which may have been originally recorded for the purpose of protecting the synagogues from attacks. The recordings can be used for something else entirely in the future.
Surveillance in general is a very powerful weapon and should be treated like all powerful weapons - with respect and very carefully.
That is not the only problem. If illegal surveillance can be used as evidence, you have the tool of selective prosecution. Totalitarian states were known for using and abusing selective prosecution.
As France is in the middle of a multi year process of replacing the copper network with optical fiber, it means that France is on the path for a 50 years additional delay before the digital world changes its society right when France was catching up.
Lastly the practical difference is that this law may push the country to the far right extremist nationalist and racist party Front National at the next elections, which would inherit of those tools and have everything to turn France in a totalitarian state.
On a side note, this law has spawned a reboot France movement which aims at leveraging the Internet and crowndfunding to get change the whole political system to an actual democracy based on the internet: http://rebootlafrance.fr
I am under the impression that the law is about legalizing what the state is already doing. Did I miss something? As France is in the middle of a multi year process of replacing the copper network with optical fiber, it means that France is on the path for a 50 years additional delay before the digital world changes its society right when France was catching up.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
> Lastly the practical difference is that this law may push the country to the far right extremist nationalist and racist party Front National at the next elections, which would inherit of those tools and have everything to turn France in a totalitarian state.
Don't they already have that?
> On a side note, this law has spawned a reboot France movement which aims at leveraging the Internet and crowndfunding to get change the whole political system to an actual democracy based on the internet: http://rebootlafrance.fr
They certainly have good intentions, but they sound like a small band of young geeks with little knowledge of politics and no funding. I am not convinced the issue will be solved by yet one more tiny political party. >
I don't see it gaining much traction and I think it will go the way the French Pirate Party with its very high turnover rate and its legendary infighting.
France has a very problematic justice system and giving them more authority is very unwise.
I have quite a different perception, that judges do their job of not mixing law and politics pretty well, whereas politics try very hard and unashamedly to neutralize judges as counter-powers.
Could you expand on what makes you think that French judges are highly politicized?
It looks like is a very common argumentation for politicians. Another one is: "You don't have to care if you don't have anything to hide".
I think both paths are extremely and deeply wrong. We can't put in prison the whole Afghanistan's population because just thousands of individuals embraced terrorism, in the same way we cannot track an entire nation just because 8-9 people are planning a terrorist attack.
There are way healthier to do it.
I never quite understood this argument. We have something to hide, that's the whole point. I don't want somebody to look at my phone messages. I don't want to share with the government every sily joke that I may say at home.
Should I work on secret businesses, I certainly wouldn't want any random agent to read about what I'm working on. We all have something to hide, the whole argument is bogus ...
France is known to be very interested in mass surveillance, but what scares me most, it's that the European Union seems completely ignoring the topic, leaving countries to deal with this topic. I am lucky to live in Europe, but outside the EU, so we don't have to deal with these strange regulations, but I am concerned about the impact that this law can have in a short-mid future with all other countries. I really don't want to see UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc... follow the France's example, starting to roll-out laws in the name of security and terrorism fight.
This must be stopped at a higher level (EU), because also other countries are extremely interested on this topic.
So, I don't have doubts about the fact that EU has the right and the power to do something.
"So, I don't have doubts about the fact that EU has the right and the power to do something."
Based on what knowledge or qualifications? Have you studied the structure and history of the EU? For example, can you say (without looking it up) what the difference is between a regulation and a directive, and what the difference is between the European Council and the Council of Europe? Because if not, frankly, you're not qualified to have a valid opinion on this.
The fact that they realize that it's better business to be anti-surveillance is even more reason to celebrate.
You can't trust a company.
I can understand a hosting provider not wanting to host for just anyone (or at least charging a premium for unknown customers), but do people actually send scans of their passports? Seems like asking for identity theft to me.
https://www.ovh.com/fr/news/articles/a1743.le-gouvernement-v...
By the way, my bet is that France lawmakers don't even know that OVH exists (unless they do some lobbying) and don't know it's the third largest in the world. Now that they know they'll be counting votes gained against votes lost for every option (and money too). Then they'll decide what to do.
That's the only real-life achievement of Charlie Hedbo's 2015 attack. This attack allowed the French surveillance state to expand. Oh yes, additionally turned the lives of millions of Muslims throughout Europe a hell overnight.
The big issue here isn't about NSA style monitoring of "the Internet", it's about black boxes that would be required to be installed in their network to do whatever monitoring they wanted.
I think this is a tiger vs. paperbag issue, personally. The fact is, if companies are serious, they'll start setting up their own encrypted links, actively, and fighting back. Then it won't be an issue where, locality-wise, you set up the servers.
Combine that with ample free space for server farms in the form of closed army bases inside mountains and old factories and you have a nice home for a bunch of servers even on a large scale.
But we won't know for sure until this years' elections how the political environment changes wrt to internet spying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agree...
https://www.google.com/search?q=protesty+na+ulicach+acta&biw...
Keep in mind that the memories of communist censorship are still quite vivid, and so the electorate is quite sensitive about any kind of surveillance.
Is there any organization that works on an regularly updated list of states and their current surveillance situation?
if not, should this exist?
E.g. awesome-bigbrother
It sucks for the french economy but many startups or businesses like OVH don't need to stay in France anymore. Because who can believe in the future of this country with these assholes in power?
But the point is that wherever the party falls is irrelevant, political parties have been mostly puppets pushing corporatist agendas for quite a while.
Frankly I shouldn't even talk about french politics anymore, things are a bit desperate,it's a race to the bottom.But I guess it's happening everywhere. Or it has always been like this and it's just more obvious today, I don't know.
So generally speaking, you either vote for Holande/Sarkozy or you're gonna face the same kind of treatment. And from what I've seen so far, LePen apart, you don't have any other politician is likely to go a head to head with Merkel.
This seems so unrealistic on so many levels. And, technical issues/risks aside, I don't know any reasons that would be worth keeping your servers on the french territory, if this law is voted. At best, this is hurting businesses. At worst, well, this is just a back door with root access, nothing to worry about.