4 ms·

I think this this article grossly misunderstands the basic problem. It's not about the government being able to reach out for the data of an individual suspects

I think this this article grossly misunderstands the basic problem. It's not about the government being able to reach out for the data of an individual suspects criminal. It's about the government grabbing ALL data from EVERYONE. No email service stands above the law. They have to provide data about about suspect criminals if there is a search warrant. This will even work internationally with the mentioned treaties and the suspect will not be notified about the search. Lavabit would have complied with such a request as well. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean blanket surveillance of everyone, without any due process, court orders, or search warrants. And frankly, European data protection laws are supposed to prevent such blanket surveillance while the American government clearly does not.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
That's right, and as a consequence of failing to note this important difference, the article also misses the point about US v Europe email security. A US person has some (limited) protection against blanket surveillance by US agencies whereas a European person is considered fair game for them. Where your email is more secure depends entirely on where you live and what threat you're trying to protect against. As a Chinese political activist I would feel safest with Google. As someone with friends and family in the Middle East I would try to route my email around the US if at all possible.
skrause 13y ago
The article is also wrong about the gag orders in Germany. The provider can not tell you that they handed over your data while you are personally under investigation. If it turns out that you are actually innocent the police is required by law to inform you that they have requested some data about you. That they often "forget" to do so is a different story.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  I don't know German law, but I'd imagine it's similar to Portuguese law (which is itself French-inspired): a court case can be secret in the investigation phase, always under mandate by a judge, with explicitly limited secrecy duration. When the investigation phase ends, all those investigated must be notified, even when they are deemed not interesting in the case. Some secrecy is needed to avoid evidence going down the toilet. This model strikes a decent balance, I think.
  - skrause 13y ago
    In short the situation in many European countries is "the ISP doesn't need to inform you that they handed over your data for an investigation, it's the police's job to do so".
    - sergiosgc 13y ago
      The police can't request data. Only public attorneys, and even then, only under direct surveillance by a judge. When the first phase of the investigation ends, the ISP may inform the customer. Public attorneys must inform the investigated individual.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago

That's right, and as a consequence of failing to note this important difference, the article also misses the point about US v Europe email security. A US person has some (limited) protection against blanket surveillance by US agencies whereas a European person is considered fair game for them. Where your email is more secure depends entirely on where you live and what threat you're trying to protect against. As a Chinese political activist I would feel safest with Google. As someone with friends and family in the Middle East I would try to route my email around the US if at all possible.

skrause 13y ago

The article is also wrong about the gag orders in Germany. The provider can not tell you that they handed over your data while you are personally under investigation. If it turns out that you are actually innocent the police is required by law to inform you that they have requested some data about you. That they often "forget" to do so is a different story.

sergiosgc 13y ago
I don't know German law, but I'd imagine it's similar to Portuguese law (which is itself French-inspired): a court case can be secret in the investigation phase, always under mandate by a judge, with explicitly limited secrecy duration. When the investigation phase ends, all those investigated must be notified, even when they are deemed not interesting in the case. Some secrecy is needed to avoid evidence going down the toilet. This model strikes a decent balance, I think.
- skrause 13y ago
  In short the situation in many European countries is "the ISP doesn't need to inform you that they handed over your data for an investigation, it's the police's job to do so".
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    The police can't request data. Only public attorneys, and even then, only under direct surveillance by a judge. When the first phase of the investigation ends, the ISP may inform the customer. Public attorneys must inform the investigated individual.