

No warrant, no problem: How the government can still get your digital data - denzil_correa
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the-government-can-still-get-your-digital-data/

======
inetsee
I think that one of the most important arguments for using encryption
everywhere that you reasonably can (emails, files stored online, etc) is that
the government can no longer look at your stuff without your knowing about it.
The authorities can still ask a court to order you to give up your encryption
keys, but at least you will know that you are being investigated, and will
have the opportunity to ask a court to tell the authorities "No".

------
vy8vWJlco
Missing from the list: cross-border "information sharing."

If your data lives in "the cloud" (and possibly another country), a mutual
exchange of information on each nations' person of interest need not violate
any local laws. I don't have any statistics at hand for this one, but hey, if
it works for torture why not data?

~~~
yesbabyyes
Yeah, in fact ECHELON grew out of the UKUSA Agreement [1]. Pretty clever,
actually; if we can't spy on our citizens, and you can't spy on yours, let's
switch!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement>

------
acabal
Perhaps the most worrying thing regarding email monitoring is that not only is
it likely that the NSA is simply intercepting and archiving for later a lot of
email traffic, but also that even if you "delete" an email from a host like
Google or Yahoo, it's probably not actually "deleted". Even if it is 100%
fully deleted, you probably still have a copy of at least a fragment of the
email thread in your sent mail folder--and the recipients kept multiple copies
too.

Just like the digital cat is out of the bag for media companies trying to stop
their movies and music from being copied by everyone under the sun, so are our
email communications able to be copied, archived, and distributed with almost
shocking ease.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
Which is why (IMHO) privacy must trump non-personal information monopolies:
because we simply can't have both. The right to pursue a living is meaningless
without the right to live.

The all-or-nothing nature of communication, as you note, is palpable and it is
pressing us to preserve those monopolies and give up our rights to privacy and
physical safety in order to go on doing business as usual. However well-
intentioned, copyright and other "disembodied" (state-owned, or corporate-
owned, etc) idea-monopolies have become arguments against privacy and basic
physical rights...

So, what will it be: today's copyright (or national security, and so on), or
tomorrow's freedom-of-thought? Do you prefer group-rights or individual
rights? If groups, the information flows too fast to permit independent
though. If you prefer individuality, the speed of communication is obviating
the need for groups and corporations and proxy-voting and governments that
like to do things for us.

There's still a way to go mind you, but I bet this is what a fetus feels like
when it's cells are multiplying and eventually one mind emerges (or things
don't cooperate, and one doesn't), all while the autonomic systems emerge
enslaved to their rhythms, all the way down to the cells that are just trying
to take the bus back to the lungs for a little fresh air on their breaks...

Wait, what was I saying? Oh yeah, so who's ready for the hive-mind?

------
TheCondor
How about a law that requires notification from the company if your data is
given to anybody for any reason? I'd include potential security breaches in
this.

This stuff isn't one-way, there have been corporations which have volunteered
information and just handed it over when asked. As I understand these laws,
they cover when the Feds can force the release of information and they presume
that the companies all don't want to release it. I think that is generally
true, especially for your larger companies, but not always a truth.

The user should be notified of all releases of information to any party unless
a FISA type warrant is presented.

------
darkarmani
This is clearly a case of boiling a frog. This is pretty shocking, but these
services are so convenient and most of us having been abused by law
enforcement that it doesn't seem like a big deal. Perception is reality, so
it's really hard to see enough people getting angry about this to change it.

The fact that google stores emails for so long should make one pause and think
about encryption.

I wonder if storing your drafts in your inbox, would make them harder to be
found? Or do they grab everything and then later determine what is
inadmissible? Maybe gmail needs to let you upload an asymmetrical encryption
key that they store all emails with after they do their spam filtering and
targeting marketing? You could only read your email with the corresponding
private key.

------
b6
William Binney has been saying that the FBI has access to the NSA databases
created from the data it collects from telecom companies.

------
sukuriant
The only thing on this list I'm surprised about is that recent emails are more
protected than old ones. I don't really understand the difference there

