back to article Microsoft's Euro cloud darkens: US FEDS can dig into foreign servers

Microsoft has lost the first round in its fight to stop the US authorities from seizing customer data stored inside its overseas data centers. Following a two-hour hearing before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday, District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that a US warrant ordering Microsoft to …

Page:

  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    Is that a cloud coffin nail I see before me?

    More like a bunch of them I think.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And to think, not long the cloud was all the rage. I would hate to be the admin who convinced their company to move to the cloud within the past few years.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        " I would hate to be the admin who convinced their company to move to the cloud within the past few years"

        When did the admin have that much clout? It's usually an out-of-their-depth CIO who's going along with the CEO, who in turn was taken out for a very nice lunch by a bunch of IT or management consultants, and they told the CEO that the cloud was where it was happening, and if his company didn't move there, then competitors would eat his very nice lunch.

        I'm not sure why directors are so gullible when faced with the sleazebag liars of the consultancy sectors, but all important aspects of corporate decision making seem to involve paying these people ludicrous amounts of money to sell poor quality and undifferentiated corporate, technological or commercial strategies that never address the real issues facing the companies concerned. Eighteen months later, the same consultants are re-employed and paid handsomely to offer some new insight, which in reality is a vast pile of powerpoint slides making irrelevant, selective and out of date comparisons, and has been marginally re-worked (by a handful of well qualified graduates with no real world experience) from a version touted round every competing player in the industry over previous months.

        1. I like noodles

          @Ledswinger

          Bravo!

          You've managed to combine the subject matter with an absolutely top-notch rant that I completely agree with. Top post sir.

        2. John Miles

          Re: I'm not sure why directors are so gullible when faced

          Because then they can tell the world that they have saved x by going with outsourced, the cost is transferred from one set of overheads to another. This makes their company profile look better to the people who invest because it fits better their expected company model on overheads etc. so the share price rises.

          But in reality no one sees the decrease in efficiency in other parts of the company who now can't get IT problems sorted out so put in old style time consuming workarounds, and no one is left to tell the Director they are being ripped off because thought it only costs peanuts per hour - those peanuts add up when it takes weeks when someone who knew the system would fix in minutes

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "It's usually an out-of-their-depth CIO who's going along with the CEO, who in turn was taken out for a very nice lunch by a bunch of IT or management consultants, and they told the CEO that the cloud was where it was happening, and if his company didn't move there, then competitors would eat his very nice lunch."

          I'm sure that helps, but it's usually the vast cost savings that really facilitate moving stuff to cloud based services...Our email and collaboration infrastructure is now effectively free after moving to Office 365 when we consider that a full Office license was included!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "And to think, not long the cloud was all the rage. I would hate to be the admin who convinced their company to move to the cloud within the past few years."

        You realise that you can just encrypt your data if this concerns your company?

    2. solo

      Nail in the cloud?

      No, it's more like they want the world to know. They want you to get over it.

      How else did they make so outcry after so much sleeping, cuddling for so many years.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nail in the cloud?

        What a circus. I think we will discover that nailing clouds is even harder than nailing jelly to a wall.

        Can't wait to see which country becomes the first to provide proper data protection within its own borders while the US shoots itself in both feet. 'murrican companies are not the only ones selling cloud services, they are just the biggest. I wonder how long that will last.

        1. Metrognome

          Re: Nail in the cloud?

          You write: " I wonder how long that will last."

          Long. VERY long. Simply because proper such protections will ultimately mean gunships.

          Connect the dots: Data protection -> IP Piracy -> Money Laundering -> Drug Trafficking/Terrorism -> Frozen off USD denominated financial markets -> Commerce is severely hampered

          So whoever decides on proper data protection will soon find themselves in the pervailing axis of badness of the time.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Nail in the cloud?

            OR........

            Anyone who cares about protecting their data will move it offshore or into their basement, much as corps and various bad guys already do with their money. The smart ones make sure they have good tax lawyers and follow all extant legislation. Right now, data protection is a legal and regulatory nightmare for banks, companies and governments. It is strangling a nascent recovery. The "your data are belong to us" mentality is an opening US salvo in a global trade war for everyone's data. It is the new gold and Amerika wants it all.

            Commerce has not yet been severely hampered, just greatly inconvenienced. Like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, business will always find a way.

            MS is trying to help clear the legal landscape so it can successfully market cloud services in non-US markets. Meanwhile the smart money will stay in smart people's wallets or look for alternatives. I predict more fragmentation and pretty good short-term opportunities for a few brave captains of enterprise and potential misery for many others. I am all for rule-of-law, but it has to be wielded by people who have a clue. And that is what is missing here.

            It doesn't look very good, but if other countries just roll over and take it up the caboose, it won't get any better.

            Letting the US legal system slowly define international data privacy and protection principles is like letting a lumbering, blind, mentally retarded, physically handicapped, heavily armed pedophile guard an orphanage. It ain't gonna work. Extra-territorial laws will just lead to war, oppression, confusion and pain. Check your history books.

            All of us (not just Microsoft) need to fight this shit.

          2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: Nail in the cloud?

            I don't expect to see the EU and China frozen out of USD-denominated markets anytime soon, and they are both Quite Likely (tm) to get at least a little arsey about any attempt by US courts to tell them what laws apply to systems sitting on their soil.

            1. Metrognome

              Re: Nail in the cloud? @Ken Hagan

              Agreed. What I was alluding to is the excuses employed to stop anyone granting proper data protection.

              The EU, having repeatedly bent over to accommodate the yanks already is hardly likely to put up a fight.

              As for China, I think there's a contradiction in terms if China starts defending data privacy (not a native English speaker but something about foxes and henhouses springs to mind).

        2. jonathanb Silver badge

          Re: Nail in the cloud?

          Putting your data on a Microsoft server in Ireland rather than one outside the EU would comply with EU data protection laws, however it now appears that those rules are ineffective and need to be reviewed. But how do you do that? The contract is with Microsoft Operations Ireland Ltd, a company registered in an EU country. Ownership of an Irish company or a company based anywhere else in the EU could change at any time.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nail in the cloud?

          "Can't wait to see which country becomes the first to provide proper data protection within its own borders while the US shoots itself in both feet"

          Switzerland is the country you are looking for.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Nail in the cloud?

            Switzerland is the country you are looking for.

            Yes and no - a few caveats apply. If you just set up a subsidiary there you have effectively gained nothing (sorry, US pretenders, but I know the laws here). In addition, the actual law that applies is the one that is formulated in Switzerland's national languages - that list does NOT include English. Next, there is the practical implementation of law and the connections you need to make that happen properly (you don't do this overnight, trust me), and last but not least, you must not just understand Swiss privacy law, but also how they work and how international requests for assistance work, there are plenty of land mines in that alone.

            You need an in-depth understanding of the full legal picture (and how to screen for "unofficial leverage"), just placing your butt in Switzerland is not enough. Sadly, a number of US companies are doing exactly that, and are thus giving their clients a false sense of security (and that list includes some rather well known names).

            Beware - deceiving customers is a LOT cheaper than doing it right...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And Google's and Apple's

      I don't understand why this is even necessary. International co-operation between law enforcement agencies investigating drugs smuggling is AFAIK totally normally and non-contentious, at least in the Civilised World (tm).

      Why don't the feds simply ask the Irish authorities for their help instead of bludgeoning the US tech industry to smithereens? That would be a lot simpler, quicker and would leave everyone including most users (apart from the individual(s) being investigated) entirely happy that things have been done properly.

      This result will apply to Google and Apple too. If you're anyone anywhere in the world with an Android or iPhone or WinPhone then all your stuff can be asked for by Uncle Sam no matter where you live.

      Seems to me that the consequences are severe:

      1) If you're a company using Office 365, outlook.com, Gmail or Google Apps, or AWS, etc. then all your data can now be accessed by Uncle Sam. Any US agency with a warrant can get access to your stuff. That's not just law enforcement remember, I expect other parts of the US government can issue a warrant too. So if some agency in the US government fancies a peek at, for example, your intellectual property they can simply ask MS, Google, or whoever to hand it over. Continued use of those services is in effect taking a gamble that that won't happen. Is it worth risking an IPR leak just to save a bit of IT admin money?

      2) BOYD suddenly looks like a bad idea for the same reason. Android and Apple kit is all heavily tied into their respective clouds, and who knows what is synced to their servers. Presumably it's the same for Microsoft phones too. The exception is BlackBerries tied to a company's servers using BES, where only the company (and not Blackberry) has the encryption keys. Or at least that's the idea.

      3) This now exposes every business / financial person worldwide to the all encompassing US Wire Fraud Act. Previously to be subject to this your discussion about dodgy deals had to pass through US based servers. Now if you use an iPhone (or whatever) in London to discuss (or even just joke about) a dodgy share deal with a colleague in London then they have both committed a criminal offence under US law. People have already been extradited from Europe to the US and jailed for Wire Fraud offenses; it's now become a whole lot easier.

      In short if you use US owned services or have an iPhone, Android or WinPhone (which will use those services behind your back) you are now subject to US law, even if you have no dealings with or presence in the US. The first time you'll know that they've taken an interest in you is when you transit there and get arrested.

      Providing your own services is the only way to know where your data is and how it's accessed. That's straightforward for companies to arrange, not so for individuals.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And Google's and Apple's

        The point is of course that it isn't really about drugs or terrorism or other things they can easily ask European authorities for and it never was. It's about blanket surveillance of everyone and everything all the time specifically for all the things they cannot get warrants or cooperation for because they aren't legal or moral.

      2. Paul Smith

        Re: And Google's and Apple's

        "Why don't the feds simply ask the Irish authorities for their help instead of bludgeoning the US tech industry to smithereens? That would be a lot simpler, quicker and would leave everyone including most users (apart from the individual(s) being investigated) entirely happy that things have been done properly."

        Because they would be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms. The "Civilised World (tm)" has a concept you might have heard of known as "presumed innocent until proven guilty", the US has a shortened that to "presumed guilty".

        1. Spoonsinger

          Re: "the US has a shortened that to "presumed guilty"

          So French then? (Given their history, it explains alot).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And Google's and Apple's

          "Because they would be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms. The "Civilised World (tm)" has a concept you might have heard of known as "presumed innocent until proven guilty", the US has a shortened that to "presumed guilty".

          That's mostly missing the point. International cooperation in drugs investigations is quite normal, and good cooperation leads to good results. This move by the US is tantamount to saying to other countries "We don't need your cooperation anymore". That's going to sour any existing investigatorial cooperation agreements, so the results on the whole will be worse. That's the last thing everyone needs, especially after all the badies will have moved away from US-associated services.

          Regarding your quoting of "presumed innocent until proven guilty"; crime has to be investigated (we all want that to happen and happen properly, right?), it's just they're setting about investigating this one in a manner that will annoy a lot of people, countries and companies. If this is really just a fishing expedition then the US is going to cause itself a lot of harm with nothing up front to say that it's worth it. If it's definitely more than a fishing trip then it's a big insult to the Irish; it amounts to saying that the US doesn't trust them to help in an important investigation.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And Google's and Apple's

          Given the way the Irish government has rolled over in order to get US corporations based on its territory, and given the notorious level of Irish government corruption, I doubt they would tell the US anything other than to hand over the usual brown paper bag of euros in exchange for what they wanted.

        4. Frankee Llonnygog

          Re: presumed innocent until proven guilty

          It's an interesting idea - law enforcement agencies are only allowed to seek evidence once the criminal has been convicted. However, there would seem to be certain practical problems with that.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: presumed innocent until proven guilty

            It's an interesting idea - law enforcement agencies are only allowed to seek evidence once the criminal has been convicted. However, there would seem to be certain practical problems with that.

            It's a matter of transparency and balance. Law enforcement gets the privilege to ignore certain rights and obligations we have as members of a society for a reason - we WANT them to catch bad guys. However, they are not to use those privileges for anything else, which is what is happening now. Hence the need for much better transparency and control or there will come a reaction and a possibly far harsher clampdown that is good to keep law enforcement functioning. However, until there is evidence that they can be trusted with the powers they ask for, I certainly am not willing to hand them even more.

            1. Hargrove

              Re: presumed innocent until proven guilty

              However, until there is evidence that they can be trusted with the powers they ask for, I certainly am not willing to hand them even more.

              Two comments: The first is that I would amend the italicized bit to read ". . . until there is evidence that they can be trusted with the powers that they HAVE . . .:

              The second is that I take issue with the notion that law enforcement gets to ignore any of the rights and obligations of other members of society at large. In theory, a society accords them certain privileges and powers under a rule of law, so that they can exercise certain responsibilities on its behalf.

              Law enforcement can, and occasionally does, ignore the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people it serves. But when they and we accept it as being appropriate the practical ability to attain any degree of balance and transparency are lost. We, as members of society, have no basis for requesting them. Law enforcement has no incentive reason to supply them.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And Google's and Apple's

        @AC

        In short if you use US owned services or have an iPhone, Android or WinPhone (which will use those services behind your back) you are now subject to US law, even if you have no dealings with or presence in the US. The first time you'll know that they've taken an interest in you is when you transit there and get arrested.

        Dear fellow A/C, there is no "now" - THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE EVEN BEFORE 9/11.

        However, post 9/11, even the last shred of control and transparency was sacrified to the greater good of keeping the war spend going "protecting Americans" and the fact that the vast majority of people on the globe are NOT Americans clearly defines them as fair game.

        You have struck upon the dark secret especially Silicon Valley has been desperate to keep from you: there isn't a single US based entity that is legally in a position to protect your information if the authorities come a-knocking for whatever reason: there is a heady blend of 5 federal laws that allow them to walk in and get that data. Considering EU law, if you are a EU company you should not even /consider/ using a US company (or one with a HQ in the US) because they will cause you to be in breach before you know it. Now think what that means: still feeling clever for moving your company's email to Google (hello, Virgin Media)?

        This is also the source of all these announcements of multimillion dollar investments in those new companies that will "save you from the NSA": camouflage. Because they cannot. And Silicon Valley companies did that all by themselves...

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And Google's and Apple's

        "Presumably it's the same for Microsoft phones too. The exception is BlackBerries tied to a company's servers using BES, where only the company (and not Blackberry) has the encryption keys."

        Nope - Windows Phone encryption - both SSL and Bitlocker are fully under corporate control and don't rely on cloud services from Microsoft.

      5. Toby 2

        Re: And Google's and Apple's

        The Us does currently make tonnes of requests to Ireland for data stored there. However Irelands laws on this conform to EU regulations. This means the US has to submit a full application for each request then wait for responses etc. To follow this new avenue would allow the US administration to simply bypass such regulations and trawl the data en masse, or at least with much less oversight, similar to the access they currently enjoy to their own citizens data.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Cloud has already died

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufy15WWCmkc

      Wouldn't it be nice if the data was in multiple jurisdictions

      1001001.vg.

    5. BubbaGump

      Is that a cloud coffin nail I see before me?

      Amen my friend. I've been arguing for quite a while that the "cloud" would be a privacy nightmare. A convenient one stop shop for the NSA, the DHS, the CIA and the FBI. Also, with the proof of concept recently on Amazon (botnet), the "cloud" is a hacker's wet dream. Here in the US where internet speeds vary dramatically depending on where you are and upload speeds are mostly dismal, accessibility is a real issue. Couple that with the loss of Net Neutrality and the user/business will pay a premium for faster speeds and so will the content provider. ISP's following, Wall Street's dictum, are making a play for absolute control of the internet while monetizing everything they can. Then of course, there is reliability. True mobility is not having to be connected to the internet 24/7 to get the job done or even entertain yourself, a higher end laptop will do just fine.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Presumable the EU 'right to be forgotten' trumps this and we can insist our data is deleted if we are concerned that the US might access it.

  2. Number6

    Law of non-reciprocity

    One already is. Earlier this month the British government passed a law asserting its right to require tech companies to produce emails stored anywhere in the world. This would include emails stored in the U.S. by Americans who have never been to the U.K.

    I look forward to seeing this in operation. Should provide a fair bit of entertainment.

    1. James 139

      Re: Law of non-reciprocity

      Indeed, the US is very much against anything happening to them, whilst at the same time doing exactly the same thing to everyone else.

      And if the US law isnt up to it already, they will rush in something that shields them.

      The "our troops can do no wrong" law, i forget the actual Act name, is a good example of this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Law of non-reciprocity

        Agreed - I would love to see numerous US Citizens prosecuted for war crimes - just like they do for everyone else.

      2. Michael Habel

        Re: Law of non-reciprocity

        The "our troops can do no wrong" law, i forget the actual Act name, is a good example of this.

        Are you perhaps referring to "SoFA"... The "Status of Forces Agreement" Laws?

        1. James 139

          Re: Law of non-reciprocity

          No, wasnt SoFA, thats an agreement between nations.

          It was the ASPA, the American Service Members Protection Act, brought in to protect US troops from the International Criminal Court.

          It even allows the President to use force to free US troops being held by the ICC, regardless of guilt.

  3. jnemesh
    Mushroom

    Doom for US tech companies

    So how many readers here, who are not US citizens, are planning to continue using Microsoft, Google or any other US based company's email or other cloud services now that this ruling says that the US can just grab what it wants from servers on foreign soil?

    I am guessing this will only accelerate the UK's plan to move away from MS products, as well as Germany's!

    If this ruling is upheld, they may as well just follow it up with an order to prohibit any US business overseas, because NO ONE is going to want to have their data subject to US snooping!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doom for US tech companies

      Nah, they'll just bring in a law making it illegal to trade in the US or with US-based organisations if your infrastructure is not open to the US government - on the basis that you must have something to hide.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Doom for US tech companies

        "Nah, they'll just bring in a law making it illegal to trade in the US or with US-based organisations if your infrastructure is not open to the US government - on the basis that you must have something to hide."

        That would be slitting their own throat. The US economy would collapse literally - not figuratively - the next day.

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Doom for US tech companies

          A bit over the top on both sides. The US government won't do that (it would piss off too many Americans) and the US economy would not collapse if all non-US Microsoft/Google/Amazon etc. customers abandoned them (assuming they all could find alternatives that met their requirements).

          And we are, after all, apparently talking about execution of a warrant in a criminal investigation.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            "the US economy would not collapse if all non-US Microsoft/Google/Amazon etc. customers abandoned them (assuming they all could find alternatives that met their requirements)."

            You don't understand what I actually wrote. I said, in essence, that "in the eyes of US.gov and US.courts, anyone who does any business whatsoever in the USA makes themselves subject to US law." That's not something you get to argue, that's proven fact at this point.

            I also said "if the US passed a law that said any company with a US presence must make available all their data for review by the US government at any time the US government says so, their economy would collapse the next day." I stick by that. Because that law would mean that any Russian, Chinese, etc company that did any sort of business in the US or had a US server, or rented a US server, or used a US cloud service etc would suddenly be on the hook to pony up unlimited amounts of data to the US without a warrant - which is what this whole case is about, BTW - and that is something that the rest of the world absolutely wouldn't put up with.

            Functionally, I would instantly become illegal for Chinese, Russian and EU companies to do business in or with the US overnight. That would destroy their economy. And that is the only reason they don't do it.

            "And we are, after all, apparently talking about execution of a warrant in a criminal investigation."

            No, we're talking about the right of police and/or the courts to access that information without a proper international warrant. Merely the demand of a local bench judge. This is a completely unprecedented scenario and could have disastrous consequences for US economic relations, especially in sensitive industries where tensions already exist and industrial espionage is already rampant.

            1. tom dial Silver badge

              Re: Doom for US tech companies

              For the reasons Mr. Pott cites, there will be no US law requiring that a company with a US presence must make its data available to the US government. On the other hand, the recently enacted UK Drip Act appears to go a few steps in that direction without triggering mass flight of businesses from there.

              This case is not about an unrestricted requirement for US businesses to give up data held in foreign data centers on request of nosy government officials, or without a warrant. That would be a matter for the NSA, if anyone. It is, instead, about a warrant issued, in a criminal inquiry, by a federal judge with a passing knowledge, at least, of legal procedures and the fourth amendment. The decision, as the article pointed out, does not appear to set a precedent. The process of obtaining a warrant may present a low bar, as some of the FISA orders indicate, but it still interposes some procedural requirements and judicial review.

          2. Bloakey1

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            <snip>

            "And we are, after all, apparently talking about execution of a warrant in a criminal investigation."

            Why not use rendition and send then to GITMO, sorted innit and no nasty execution.

        2. Guus Leeuw

          Re: Doom for US tech companies

          Trevor, Trevor, Trevor....

          How would that come to happen, then? Are you saying that the not-so-gullible Europeans could possibly make up by themselves for not doing business in the US? Not really...

          Or are you potentially suggesting that the shear markets in China and India are so great for (there) non-local businesses? No, I didn't think so...

          Hmm, let's look at what really matters: money, and monetary policy. Most of the world's financial institutions count / compute / save their money in what is normally construed as US dollars. China may be an exception, however that is just one (albeit very large) country. And then even they report on the basis of US dollars. So doing business with / in a currency that is largely accepted seems to be advantageous.

          And even apart from that stuff: Who would come up with gmail completely on a non-US basis? Not a smithereen of IT equipment anywhere in the middle may be in the US, or else they can legally intercept the communication / information.

          So, the US says: Hey you're using the newly created European Internet? Tough! We don't trade with you. Do you really really think that uhm a lot of companies will jump on the European Internet? Tiny small businesses who couldn't really be bothered with the US, still might jump onto the European Internet, but other than that? You wanna facebook page / twitter account for your tiny European Internet based company? Good Luck!

          If the US really would be afraid of losing business and having their throats cut, why would they fine non-US banks for crimes(?) against international law? Barclays didn't seem to mind paying up, because apparently the benfit of US customers outweighs the fine... UBS, similarly, didn't seem to mind paying up... Neither will BNP Paribas... so, your point, my dear Trevor, will largely be overlooked by the US, because there is absolutely no reason for them to be so paranoid...

          1. BubbaGump

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            Unfortunately, you are most likely correct. The US doesnt' care.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            "Most of the world's financial institutions count / compute / save their money in what is normally construed as US dollars. China may be an exception, however that is just one (albeit very large) country".

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_BRICS_summit

            In other words: Russia, China, India, Brazil... plus South Africa. The thin end of a wedge consisting of all of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doom for US tech companies

          That's why they call it a trade war. Similar government idiocy greatly contributed to a perpetuation of the Great Depression well into the 1930's, eventually leading to WW II. And if you don't believe throat-slitting is already back in vogue, go read some news about the Middle East. As soon as the crazies have taken over and fully locked down the asylum (a highly advanced Work in Progress), we are all doomed.

          Looks like a rather dark replay of another episode in global history, we're only missing a few bogeymen dictators with unlimited power....oh wait....

          If half of the world's 2.7 Bn Internet individual users voted with their keyboards, PFS, end-to-end encryption and secure cloud services, international G-Men and other data crooks would have to go back to following the rules.

          So what is stopping us ? How bad does it have to get?

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            "So what is stopping us?"

            Near terminal laziness, starting with use of webmail, for which decent end to end encryption still is somewhere between nonexistent and seriously deficient.

            "How bad does it have to get?"

            For nearly all people, it will have to appear to be a lot worse than it does now, even in the mild state of moral panic in which we now find ourselves. And those who actually need end to end encryption probably are using it already, which explains the intelligence agencies' interest in communication metadata.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Doom for US tech companies

            "If half of the world's 2.7 Bn Internet individual users voted with their keyboards..."

            Unfortunately it turns out that thermonuclear weapons, napalm and cruise missiles trump keyboard votes.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doom for US tech companies

        "Nah, they'll just bring in a law making it illegal to trade in the US or with US-based organisations if your infrastructure is not open to the US government - on the basis that you must have something to hide."

        They've already done that with Swiss banks.

        Remember the NatWest Three?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like