2 ms·
One approach that may work that is less disruptive is to require a legally mandated warning on all communications that pass through US and UK servers, like "Thi
by malandrew 13y ago
One approach that may work that is less disruptive is to require a legally mandated warning on all communications that pass through US and UK servers, like "This message passed through US and UK servers via company XXX here in the EU. It may be subject to collection by the NSA and CIA. Contact this company to request routing through EU only servers."
Something like this is not unreasonable. After all we are already putting warning labels on things that are a threat to safety and health. What is happening is a threat to personal freedom and political sovereignty.
- personlurking 13y agoThe only issue with that is being able to prove said item didn't go through NSA/CIA, or rather, that said server (no matter where it is) isn't somehow directing traffic in some form to the NSA/CIA. This is basically the issue I see for Americans, too. We can petition for abuses to be stopped but we can't prove our possible success. PRISM may be out of the bag but I'd guess most developed countries digitally spy on their citizens in some form.
- malandrew 13y agoBetter yet, put it on every single piece of communication that isn't encrypted end-to-end. It would get people to learn to encrypt things just to eliminate that warning label.