6 ms·

> Doesn't the US have access to all the data of non US citizens whose data is stored in the US without any oversight? Er, no...? I'm not sure where you get th

> Doesn't the US have access to all the data of non US citizens whose data is stored in the US without any oversight? Er, no...? I'm not sure where you get that idea. Access requires a warrant, and companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant. See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case, where Apple refused to create an iOS build that would bypass iCloud security.

nottorp 2y ago
I asked if your Android backup is encrypted. Implies I'm talking about unencrypted data. > See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case I am not in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the US. So as far as i know all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant unless it's encrypted with a key that's not available with the storage. > companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant Again, not what I was talking about. I'm merely pointing out that your data is not necessarily encrypted, and that the "rest of the world" was already unprotected vs at least one state. The UK joining in would just add another.
- skydhash 2y ago
  People always overestimate how much companies will defy their government for you, legally or otherwise.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  This is why Apple, and more recently Google, create systems where they don't have access to your unencrypted data on their servers. > Google Maps is changing the way it handles your location data. Instead of backing up your data to the cloud, Google will soon store it locally on your device. https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delete-location-history-timeline https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet... You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no. The UK wants to make this workaround illegal on an international basis.
  - pmontra 2y ago
    > You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no. But you can be forced to record and store that data even if you don't want to.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      Which is why Apple takes the stance that the users device shouldn't be sending data to the mothership at all, if it isn't absolutely necessary. Compare Apple Maps and Google Maps. Google initially hoovered up all your location data and kept it forever. They learned from Waze that one use case for location data was keeping your map data updated. Apple figured out how to accomplish the goal of keeping map data updated without storing private user data that could be subject to a subpoena. > “We specifically don’t collect data, even from point A to point B,” notes Cue. “We collect data — when we do it — in an anonymous fashion, in subsections of the whole, so we couldn’t even say that there is a person that went from point A to point B. The segments that he is referring to are sliced out of any given person’s navigation session. Neither the beginning or the end of any trip is ever transmitted to Apple. Rotating identifiers, not personal information, are assigned to any data sent to Apple... Apple is working very hard here to not know anything about its users. https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-from-the-ground-up/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-f...
      - acka 2y ago
        Google or Apple could be forced by authorities to perform correlation on the map tiles being requested by users under investigation. Not as accurate as GPS coordinates but probably useful nonetheless. One more reason to prefer offline maps for those who value privacy.
        GeekyBear 2y ago
        Given that you can browse map data for any location, not just where you happen to be, I'm betting that triangulation data from your carrier would be more accurate.
- spankalee 2y ago
  > all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant No, law enforcement needs a warrant to legally access any data. This is why Prism was illegal, and why companies like Google are pushing back against overly broad geofence search warrants.
  - alt227 2y ago
    > This is why Prism was illegal Yet it still existed, and was used for surveillance by 3 letter agencies. Why do you think this is any different?
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      No idea why the two of you are using past tense. PRISM is still very much alive and well.
  - fdb345 2y ago
    All Encrochat evidence was illegal in at least three different ways. UK Law enforcement didn't care. They just lied.
    - multjoy 2y ago
      No it wasn't. The Dutch cracked and wiretapped it. It has been held not to be intercept evidence per RIPA so capable of being used in evidence. Most went guilty because they caught red-handed in the most egregious criminality you've seen. Encro was designed to enable and protect criminal communications. It had no redeeming public value.
      - fdb345 2y ago
        [flagged]

nottorp 2y ago

I asked if your Android backup is encrypted. Implies I'm talking about unencrypted data. > See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case I am not in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the US. So as far as i know all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant unless it's encrypted with a key that's not available with the storage. > companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant Again, not what I was talking about. I'm merely pointing out that your data is not necessarily encrypted, and that the "rest of the world" was already unprotected vs at least one state. The UK joining in would just add another.

skydhash 2y ago
People always overestimate how much companies will defy their government for you, legally or otherwise.
GeekyBear 2y ago
This is why Apple, and more recently Google, create systems where they don't have access to your unencrypted data on their servers. > Google Maps is changing the way it handles your location data. Instead of backing up your data to the cloud, Google will soon store it locally on your device. https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delete-location-history-timeline https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet... You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no. The UK wants to make this workaround illegal on an international basis.
- pmontra 2y ago
  > You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no. But you can be forced to record and store that data even if you don't want to.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    Which is why Apple takes the stance that the users device shouldn't be sending data to the mothership at all, if it isn't absolutely necessary. Compare Apple Maps and Google Maps. Google initially hoovered up all your location data and kept it forever. They learned from Waze that one use case for location data was keeping your map data updated. Apple figured out how to accomplish the goal of keeping map data updated without storing private user data that could be subject to a subpoena. > “We specifically don’t collect data, even from point A to point B,” notes Cue. “We collect data — when we do it — in an anonymous fashion, in subsections of the whole, so we couldn’t even say that there is a person that went from point A to point B. The segments that he is referring to are sliced out of any given person’s navigation session. Neither the beginning or the end of any trip is ever transmitted to Apple. Rotating identifiers, not personal information, are assigned to any data sent to Apple... Apple is working very hard here to not know anything about its users. https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-from-the-ground-up/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-f...
    - acka 2y ago
      Google or Apple could be forced by authorities to perform correlation on the map tiles being requested by users under investigation. Not as accurate as GPS coordinates but probably useful nonetheless. One more reason to prefer offline maps for those who value privacy.
      - GeekyBear 2y ago
        Given that you can browse map data for any location, not just where you happen to be, I'm betting that triangulation data from your carrier would be more accurate.
spankalee 2y ago
> all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant No, law enforcement needs a warrant to legally access any data. This is why Prism was illegal, and why companies like Google are pushing back against overly broad geofence search warrants.
- alt227 2y ago
  > This is why Prism was illegal Yet it still existed, and was used for surveillance by 3 letter agencies. Why do you think this is any different?
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    No idea why the two of you are using past tense. PRISM is still very much alive and well.
- fdb345 2y ago
  All Encrochat evidence was illegal in at least three different ways. UK Law enforcement didn't care. They just lied.
  - multjoy 2y ago
    No it wasn't. The Dutch cracked and wiretapped it. It has been held not to be intercept evidence per RIPA so capable of being used in evidence. Most went guilty because they caught red-handed in the most egregious criminality you've seen. Encro was designed to enable and protect criminal communications. It had no redeeming public value.
    - fdb345 2y ago
      [flagged]