5 ms·

"If I were a governmental entity..." In that case, you would be a governmental entity which does not care much for the rights of your citizens. Instead, pick a

by Zirro 14y ago

"If I were a governmental entity..." In that case, you would be a governmental entity which does not care much for the rights of your citizens. Instead, pick a service in a country with a transparent, low corruption-government. I suggest the Scandinavian countries.

rahimnathwani 14y ago
The legal jurisdiction and/or technical location of the service might be a country with a transparent government, but how would you know that the service isn't owned or operated by a government entity from some other country?
Xylakant 14y ago
Why can't any interested entity set up a company in the Scandinavian states? So how would that really help?
- PeterisP 14y ago
  In order to be safe from unreasonable government "requests", it is not enough to set up a limited liability company located in a 'safe' country - you need to have everything (including yourself) in 'safe' countries. As a blunt example, if you want to properly run a data-sensitive company and be imune to (for example) USA requests to violate anonymity of your customers, you need to ensure at least the following: (a) the company itself is beyond reach of USA - as in examples of UK, Sweden and others caving in to USA requests for things that would/should be legal in these countries but illegal in USA; (b) you and any personell are beyond reach of USA - again, there are examples such as Kim Dotcom, McKinnon, Assange; (c) the company internet resources are beyond reach of USA - examples such as revoking DNS names of spanish companies for transmitting internet-TV in compliance with spanish laws, or some of Mega's non-US domain names revoked before even starting operations; (d) the company money flow is beyond reach of USA - examples of Visa&Mastercard or Paypal blocking payments to sources such as Wikileaks or, IIRC, distributors of (locally legal) console modchips.
tjoff 14y ago
No government understands IT the slightest, because of that I don't know of a single governmental entity that cares the slightest of the rights of its citizens when it comes to computer and internet stuff. They don't even understand it so how can they be respectful of it? As a Swede, I certainly wouldn't trust the Scandinavian countries for this. It's not uncommon to hear politicians claim that internet anonymity and encryption altogether should be completely abandoned. Also, ISPs typically have numerous laws that forbid eavesdropping, VPNs don't. And seeing as how the government can always ask to get any information they want from any VPN provider (and that the VPN provider is, supposedly, legally obligated to keep records of their customers (in many countries, including Sweden)) using a VPN might be the worst thing you could possibly do, if you want anonymity or integrity. I'm guessing that most VPNs in Sweden straight up Lie about this, when this issue was hot a few years ago you either couldn't get a straight answer or you got one that admitted to record keeping - many (including many of those on torrentfreaks list) just stated that they had to, by law, keep records and that they had to hand them over if asked (with a court order). The law hasn't changed what I know, the PR department of VPN providers probably has though... And even if they don't have any records to share, who is to say they can't, by request, eavesdrop on current traffic. For it to have any real effect I'd choose a VPN that is in another country than the one you are in. Although this will probably not have any real effect either if you attract some serious attention, especially considering that unlike an ISP, a VPN provider could legally betray it's customers without an court order (in exchange for being quiet about it).
- sneak 14y ago
  > No government understands IT the slightest uhh, stuxnet.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    They just listened to their advisors. When it comes to creating laws the media industry is the advisors. No, they don't understand IT.
    - moe 14y ago
ptaipale 14y ago
As a resident of said countries, I'd propose that you should not trust Scandinavian governments either. The officials are not that corrupt but the politicians are politicians. Moreover, in these countries there's a widespread belief that the state can do no wrong, that restricting freedom of speech is okay if done for a good cause, that censoring the net is a good thing for the government to do. Even the rule of law can simply be dismissed (it started with preventing child pornography, of course).
- fulafel 14y ago
  I think the point was that scandinavian countries are less bad than the alternatives. There are restrictions on freedom of speech in just about every country btw.
  - ptaipale 14y ago
    Sure there are. But we could apply Dilbert's management theory to this and split governments to types on axis good/evil (G/E) and on axis competent/incompetent (C/E). The worst thing you can have is an evil competent (EC) government. Therefore I'd say it's more important to have an I government than a G government, because it is easier for a government to go from G to E than it is to go from I to C.
    - fulafel 14y ago
      So which government(s) have a more favourable equation of agenda+capabilities towards net freedom? Taken literally, the most "I" countries would be bad bets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state#2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state#2012 Remember that it was US pressure that drove the recent unpleaseantness in .se and TPB were able to succesfully defend themselves there for many years - and most countries currently willing to stare down threats of US trade sanctions aren't exactly havens of privacy and net freedom. The pro net freedom countries currently correlate with G&C governments, it seems.
      - ptaipale 14y ago
natar 14y ago
„I suggest the Scandinavian countries.“ Read up about The Pirate Bay trial and Julian Assange and you'll be thinking differently.

by Zirro 14y ago

rahimnathwani 14y ago

The legal jurisdiction and/or technical location of the service might be a country with a transparent government, but how would you know that the service isn't owned or operated by a government entity from some other country?

Xylakant 14y ago

Why can't any interested entity set up a company in the Scandinavian states? So how would that really help?

PeterisP 14y ago
In order to be safe from unreasonable government "requests", it is not enough to set up a limited liability company located in a 'safe' country - you need to have everything (including yourself) in 'safe' countries. As a blunt example, if you want to properly run a data-sensitive company and be imune to (for example) USA requests to violate anonymity of your customers, you need to ensure at least the following: (a) the company itself is beyond reach of USA - as in examples of UK, Sweden and others caving in to USA requests for things that would/should be legal in these countries but illegal in USA; (b) you and any personell are beyond reach of USA - again, there are examples such as Kim Dotcom, McKinnon, Assange; (c) the company internet resources are beyond reach of USA - examples such as revoking DNS names of spanish companies for transmitting internet-TV in compliance with spanish laws, or some of Mega's non-US domain names revoked before even starting operations; (d) the company money flow is beyond reach of USA - examples of Visa&Mastercard or Paypal blocking payments to sources such as Wikileaks or, IIRC, distributors of (locally legal) console modchips.

tjoff 14y ago

No government understands IT the slightest, because of that I don't know of a single governmental entity that cares the slightest of the rights of its citizens when it comes to computer and internet stuff. They don't even understand it so how can they be respectful of it? As a Swede, I certainly wouldn't trust the Scandinavian countries for this. It's not uncommon to hear politicians claim that internet anonymity and encryption altogether should be completely abandoned. Also, ISPs typically have numerous laws that forbid eavesdropping, VPNs don't. And seeing as how the government can always ask to get any information they want from any VPN provider (and that the VPN provider is, supposedly, legally obligated to keep records of their customers (in many countries, including Sweden)) using a VPN might be the worst thing you could possibly do, if you want anonymity or integrity. I'm guessing that most VPNs in Sweden straight up Lie about this, when this issue was hot a few years ago you either couldn't get a straight answer or you got one that admitted to record keeping - many (including many of those on torrentfreaks list) just stated that they had to, by law, keep records and that they had to hand them over if asked (with a court order). The law hasn't changed what I know, the PR department of VPN providers probably has though... And even if they don't have any records to share, who is to say they can't, by request, eavesdrop on current traffic. For it to have any real effect I'd choose a VPN that is in another country than the one you are in. Although this will probably not have any real effect either if you attract some serious attention, especially considering that unlike an ISP, a VPN provider could legally betray it's customers without an court order (in exchange for being quiet about it).

sneak 14y ago
> No government understands IT the slightest uhh, stuxnet.
- tjoff 14y ago
  They just listened to their advisors. When it comes to creating laws the media industry is the advisors. No, they don't understand IT.
  - moe 14y ago

ptaipale 14y ago

As a resident of said countries, I'd propose that you should not trust Scandinavian governments either. The officials are not that corrupt but the politicians are politicians. Moreover, in these countries there's a widespread belief that the state can do no wrong, that restricting freedom of speech is okay if done for a good cause, that censoring the net is a good thing for the government to do. Even the rule of law can simply be dismissed (it started with preventing child pornography, of course).

fulafel 14y ago
I think the point was that scandinavian countries are less bad than the alternatives. There are restrictions on freedom of speech in just about every country btw.
- ptaipale 14y ago
  Sure there are. But we could apply Dilbert's management theory to this and split governments to types on axis good/evil (G/E) and on axis competent/incompetent (C/E). The worst thing you can have is an evil competent (EC) government. Therefore I'd say it's more important to have an I government than a G government, because it is easier for a government to go from G to E than it is to go from I to C.
  - fulafel 14y ago
    So which government(s) have a more favourable equation of agenda+capabilities towards net freedom? Taken literally, the most "I" countries would be bad bets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state#2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state#2012 Remember that it was US pressure that drove the recent unpleaseantness in .se and TPB were able to succesfully defend themselves there for many years - and most countries currently willing to stare down threats of US trade sanctions aren't exactly havens of privacy and net freedom. The pro net freedom countries currently correlate with G&C governments, it seems.
    - ptaipale 14y ago

natar 14y ago

„I suggest the Scandinavian countries.“ Read up about The Pirate Bay trial and Julian Assange and you'll be thinking differently.