4 ms·

I think the most straight forward solution for most foreign countries would be to insist that Google, Facebook etc. set up their servers within those countries

I think the most straight forward solution for most foreign countries would be to insist that Google, Facebook etc. set up their servers within those countries and limit the amount of data they can transmit to US. Small countries can't do it alone, but EU for example has enough muscle to make this happen and force all data to be stored within EU countries and be staffed by people who are EU citizens. There are already several Google data centers in in EU. They just need more.

chmars 13y ago
There are already several Google data centers in the EU. And there's also a wide range of surveillance and legal interception in the EU. The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them. And there is of course data exchange too with many close US allies in the EU in particular the UK, but also Germany and countries in Eastern Europe.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them" Except that users can evade government surveillance. Encrypt your email. Use anonymous remailers. Send broadcast messages to Usenet. When you need to manage more than two people, there are things like attribute based encryption that allow you to create access policies that are enforced cryptographically. Etc., etc., etc. The real issue is that people are far too apathetic to accept the momentary inconvenience imposed by such cryptosystems.
  - chmars 13y ago
    I am afraid that users cannot evade government surveillance. Sure users can encrypt their mail and other content but many relevant parts of user communication will remain public. The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated. In addition, encryption and efficient communication bite each other – there is not just momentary inconvenience, there is constant inconvenience. Just an example: The OS X 10.8 version of GPGTools, essential if you want to use GPG not just on the command line, just became available a few weeks ago. Users who wanted to use the current version of OS X and GPGTools, had to revert to a beta version. In a productive IT environment, beta versions are not acceptable.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer

chmars 13y ago

There are already several Google data centers in the EU. And there's also a wide range of surveillance and legal interception in the EU. The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them. And there is of course data exchange too with many close US allies in the EU in particular the UK, but also Germany and countries in Eastern Europe.

betterunix 13y ago
"The question for users is there not whether the can evade surveillance etc. or not but which government they prefer to directly monitor them" Except that users can evade government surveillance. Encrypt your email. Use anonymous remailers. Send broadcast messages to Usenet. When you need to manage more than two people, there are things like attribute based encryption that allow you to create access policies that are enforced cryptographically. Etc., etc., etc. The real issue is that people are far too apathetic to accept the momentary inconvenience imposed by such cryptosystems.
- chmars 13y ago
  I am afraid that users cannot evade government surveillance. Sure users can encrypt their mail and other content but many relevant parts of user communication will remain public. The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated. In addition, encryption and efficient communication bite each other – there is not just momentary inconvenience, there is constant inconvenience. Just an example: The OS X 10.8 version of GPGTools, essential if you want to use GPG not just on the command line, just became available a few weeks ago. Users who wanted to use the current version of OS X and GPGTools, had to revert to a beta version. In a productive IT environment, beta versions are not acceptable.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "The importance of metadata for surveillance cannot be overestimated" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer