5 ms·

A foreign intelligence agency like the NSA actually needs less of a legal framework to spy on a foreign company as opposed to a domestic one. It's sort of the w

A foreign intelligence agency like the NSA actually needs less of a legal framework to spy on a foreign company as opposed to a domestic one. It's sort of the whole point of a foreign intelligence agency, not respecting the laws of other countries.

jwr 13y ago
Well, yes. But let's get back to the point of the original post in this thread. There are two problems: 1) we can't trust the networks that our data travels over and 2) we can't trust US-based companies with our data. The first problem is fairly easily dealt with (encrypt and authenticate), while the second one is much worse. A company based in a country that does not have laws enabling agencies to snoop on and prevent the disclosure of said snooping would automatically be more trustworthy than any US-based company.
- wslh 13y ago
  I do not think (1) is solved with cryptography because you can spy on the traffic flow and the route and timing of the connections give extra information. To overcome this we need extra measures.
- pekk 13y ago
  If we are not being naive, you can't trust China-based or Russia-based companies with your data...
  - gcb0 13y ago
    Or French, or German, or Australian, or... Pretty much everyone?
- criley2 13y ago
  > A company based in a country that does not have laws enabling agencies to snoop on and prevent the disclosure of said snooping would automatically be more trustworthy than any US-based company. The ultimate irony is that by using providers in a country that spies and is unwilling to admit, over a country that spies and is willing to admit, is that you're forgoing the "trustworthy" spying country in favor of the "untrustworthy" spying country. You know the US spies. How much do you really know about the ones that are staying nice and quiet right now? I didn't realize secrecy equated with trustworthiness.
  - phreeza 13y ago
    How about a country which doesn't spend trillions on spying and thys probably doesn't have capacities anywhere close to those of the US, secret or not.
    - criley2 13y ago
      Don't fool yourself. Every tech-averse third world middle eastern country can control and tap into the fiber in their infrastructure. And if they can, anyone can. It's not egregiously expensive or difficult to do.
- rhizome 13y ago
  while the second one is much worse It may be "worse" in a variety of senses, like political tenability, but the solution is simple: bring data given to third parties under the 4th Amendment, which is the entire underpinning of companies being able to give your packets to the government willy-nilly. Well, not willy-nilly, the government pays for the privilege. The problems with passing a privacy law that attaches to data given to third parties, like is done in many countries with higher standards of living than the US, are not the citizens' problems. Political tenability is a problem for politicians, but that is of zero consequence. If the populace wants (for some measurable quantity of want) this to happen, politicians will either make it happen or lose their careers or lose their heads to pikes (as has happened throughout history). However, politicians are counting on people having low self-esteem and taking "no" for an answer. It's not the citizen's duty to be cowed by their laziness and bad hearts, though.
wisty 13y ago
> A foreign intelligence agency like the NSA actually needs less of a legal framework to spy on a foreign company as opposed to a domestic one. It's sort of the whole point of a foreign intelligence agency, not respecting the laws of other countries. That's why the NSA has links to UK and Australian intelligence agencies. They can "share" intelligence (as in, let the other guys spy on their people). I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA didn't have people on sequester to foreign agencies, but still based in the US, doing nothing but spying on US citizens and passing the information to the NSA (plus giving a few tidbits to the foreign agency, to justify the sequester); as a legal loophole.

jwr 13y ago

Well, yes. But let's get back to the point of the original post in this thread. There are two problems: 1) we can't trust the networks that our data travels over and 2) we can't trust US-based companies with our data. The first problem is fairly easily dealt with (encrypt and authenticate), while the second one is much worse. A company based in a country that does not have laws enabling agencies to snoop on and prevent the disclosure of said snooping would automatically be more trustworthy than any US-based company.

wslh 13y ago
I do not think (1) is solved with cryptography because you can spy on the traffic flow and the route and timing of the connections give extra information. To overcome this we need extra measures.
pekk 13y ago
If we are not being naive, you can't trust China-based or Russia-based companies with your data...
- gcb0 13y ago
  Or French, or German, or Australian, or... Pretty much everyone?
criley2 13y ago
> A company based in a country that does not have laws enabling agencies to snoop on and prevent the disclosure of said snooping would automatically be more trustworthy than any US-based company. The ultimate irony is that by using providers in a country that spies and is unwilling to admit, over a country that spies and is willing to admit, is that you're forgoing the "trustworthy" spying country in favor of the "untrustworthy" spying country. You know the US spies. How much do you really know about the ones that are staying nice and quiet right now? I didn't realize secrecy equated with trustworthiness.
- phreeza 13y ago
  How about a country which doesn't spend trillions on spying and thys probably doesn't have capacities anywhere close to those of the US, secret or not.
  - criley2 13y ago
    Don't fool yourself. Every tech-averse third world middle eastern country can control and tap into the fiber in their infrastructure. And if they can, anyone can. It's not egregiously expensive or difficult to do.
rhizome 13y ago
while the second one is much worse It may be "worse" in a variety of senses, like political tenability, but the solution is simple: bring data given to third parties under the 4th Amendment, which is the entire underpinning of companies being able to give your packets to the government willy-nilly. Well, not willy-nilly, the government pays for the privilege. The problems with passing a privacy law that attaches to data given to third parties, like is done in many countries with higher standards of living than the US, are not the citizens' problems. Political tenability is a problem for politicians, but that is of zero consequence. If the populace wants (for some measurable quantity of want) this to happen, politicians will either make it happen or lose their careers or lose their heads to pikes (as has happened throughout history). However, politicians are counting on people having low self-esteem and taking "no" for an answer. It's not the citizen's duty to be cowed by their laziness and bad hearts, though.

wisty 13y ago

> A foreign intelligence agency like the NSA actually needs less of a legal framework to spy on a foreign company as opposed to a domestic one. It's sort of the whole point of a foreign intelligence agency, not respecting the laws of other countries. That's why the NSA has links to UK and Australian intelligence agencies. They can "share" intelligence (as in, let the other guys spy on their people). I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA didn't have people on sequester to foreign agencies, but still based in the US, doing nothing but spying on US citizens and passing the information to the NSA (plus giving a few tidbits to the foreign agency, to justify the sequester); as a legal loophole.