5 ms·

What I'd like to see is all the big internet names - Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on - getting together to say "We will provide our services only over fu

What I'd like to see is all the big internet names - Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on - getting together to say "We will provide our services only over fully secure encryption with strong keys. We will not implement backdoors, weaken our algorithms, or let you put a tap behind the SSL servers in our network. We will pull up our roots and leave your country if you demand them. And if you block your public from using strong encryption, they will have to manage without our services."

tinkerrr 11y ago
You mean the biggest internet names will no longer operate in almost any of the developed world?
- Roodgorf 11y ago
  If these companies simultaneously put their foot down in this way and did not waiver I really doubt the government would go through with doing anything that would risk them leaving. Any one of these examples alone would be a huge loss to the market for, say, the United States. The political backlash would be enormous, and that's not even including the community actually concerned about privacy. That being said, whether such an ultimatum would ever actually happen? Yeeeeeah...
  - wahsd 11y ago
    The governments will simply step up their particular set of sticks and carrots to compel companies to be incentivized to not do those kinds of things. What, did you, the cattle, think you could revolt against your rancher masters with impunity forever? What do you think Google will say and do if the Government suggests giving preferences and lavish benefits to Microsoft or vice versa? The only thing that really can be done is getting politically involved. Politics, elections, transparency, combating corruption, digital activism, etc. are all the only way that this will ever be prevented from metastasizing into something far more devious and nefarious. I hate to say it, but the only solution is suffocating and starving our own governments into submission. We have bred a bred beasts and they are fed with endless and unrestrained taxing power, reality is that we really need to implement what Republicans pay lip service to .... actually cutting taxes. Cut, cut, cut, taxes; limit the tax money to a set amount which then forces the government to have to prioritize, that includes for the military. We have a sleeping demon on our hands with the current surveillance government, which is directly a result of the plundering bonanza of unlimited and unfettered funding for militarism under the guise of security and freedom from boogiemen we create.
    - seanp2k2 11y ago
      That's all well and good, but when both major political parties want lots of taxes, they just want to spend it on "defense" or "social welfare programs", what do you do? It doesn't seem like this will change anytime soon without massive political upheaval.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  More like, if a bill would make both Google and Bing go dark, parliament might reconsider passing it at all.
batou 11y ago
Problem is the companies exist to generate money for shareholders. That is against what the shareholders want because it reduces the money. Ergo, it will never happen. At best we can expect some half baked ambiguous promises about not being evil (Google), excited yapping about something else as a distraction (Microsoft) or deafening silence (Apple) all backed up with thousands of pages of legalese and even more ambiguous international law. So forget it; we have to move our feet. Stop being lazy and relying on all the services. Take a minimal set of services from elsewhere (I just have a domain and an IMAP box hosted by two small companies) and give the finger to them all.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Could the shareholders be convinced that the combination leaving (inevitably) exploitable backdoors and telling all of their customers that they'll roll over on 'em at government's slightest whim result in losing more customers than pulling up stakes?
  - batou 11y ago
    No, because it won't. 95%+ of people are totally ignorant on the matter and would happily walk off a cliff. The shareholders know that. If you look at most corporate mentality, it's not about doing a good job. It's about maximising return to shareholders and if doing a shitty job and getting away with it pays off then that's what will happen. It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission here from a business POV. (and yes this attitude thoroughly disgusts me but it's prevalent and unavoidable)
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    because governments won't take no for an answer. they have the means to effectively put a company out of business. hence shareholders really have no voice in this area. this isn't about profit as some claim, its about the absolute ability of governments to do as they wish. you choice as a corporation is simple, cooperate or get shut down. to fix this requires getting voters to elect politicians who abhor this arrangement.
digikata 11y ago
Bigger than those names, might be companies in the finance industry (the largest economic sector in London, if not the entire UK) which shouldn't wish to a lower levels of encryption available to protect information flows critical to their businesses. The EFF or other activists should be lobbying that industry's leaders to explain what's at risk here. The finance industry has a much stronger sway with the UK gov't than your standard privacy advocates.
- tehmaco 11y ago
  Or there will be an exception for "Critical to the National Interest" traffic, so banking data would be exempt.
madez 11y ago
Google, Microsoft and Facebook are no safe place from snooping by governments, whether they use strong or weak cryptography.

tinkerrr 11y ago

You mean the biggest internet names will no longer operate in almost any of the developed world?

Roodgorf 11y ago
If these companies simultaneously put their foot down in this way and did not waiver I really doubt the government would go through with doing anything that would risk them leaving. Any one of these examples alone would be a huge loss to the market for, say, the United States. The political backlash would be enormous, and that's not even including the community actually concerned about privacy. That being said, whether such an ultimatum would ever actually happen? Yeeeeeah...
- wahsd 11y ago
  The governments will simply step up their particular set of sticks and carrots to compel companies to be incentivized to not do those kinds of things. What, did you, the cattle, think you could revolt against your rancher masters with impunity forever? What do you think Google will say and do if the Government suggests giving preferences and lavish benefits to Microsoft or vice versa? The only thing that really can be done is getting politically involved. Politics, elections, transparency, combating corruption, digital activism, etc. are all the only way that this will ever be prevented from metastasizing into something far more devious and nefarious. I hate to say it, but the only solution is suffocating and starving our own governments into submission. We have bred a bred beasts and they are fed with endless and unrestrained taxing power, reality is that we really need to implement what Republicans pay lip service to .... actually cutting taxes. Cut, cut, cut, taxes; limit the tax money to a set amount which then forces the government to have to prioritize, that includes for the military. We have a sleeping demon on our hands with the current surveillance government, which is directly a result of the plundering bonanza of unlimited and unfettered funding for militarism under the guise of security and freedom from boogiemen we create.
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    That's all well and good, but when both major political parties want lots of taxes, they just want to spend it on "defense" or "social welfare programs", what do you do? It doesn't seem like this will change anytime soon without massive political upheaval.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
More like, if a bill would make both Google and Bing go dark, parliament might reconsider passing it at all.

batou 11y ago

Problem is the companies exist to generate money for shareholders. That is against what the shareholders want because it reduces the money. Ergo, it will never happen. At best we can expect some half baked ambiguous promises about not being evil (Google), excited yapping about something else as a distraction (Microsoft) or deafening silence (Apple) all backed up with thousands of pages of legalese and even more ambiguous international law. So forget it; we have to move our feet. Stop being lazy and relying on all the services. Take a minimal set of services from elsewhere (I just have a domain and an IMAP box hosted by two small companies) and give the finger to them all.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Could the shareholders be convinced that the combination leaving (inevitably) exploitable backdoors and telling all of their customers that they'll roll over on 'em at government's slightest whim result in losing more customers than pulling up stakes?
- batou 11y ago
  No, because it won't. 95%+ of people are totally ignorant on the matter and would happily walk off a cliff. The shareholders know that. If you look at most corporate mentality, it's not about doing a good job. It's about maximising return to shareholders and if doing a shitty job and getting away with it pays off then that's what will happen. It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission here from a business POV. (and yes this attitude thoroughly disgusts me but it's prevalent and unavoidable)
- Shivetya 11y ago
  because governments won't take no for an answer. they have the means to effectively put a company out of business. hence shareholders really have no voice in this area. this isn't about profit as some claim, its about the absolute ability of governments to do as they wish. you choice as a corporation is simple, cooperate or get shut down. to fix this requires getting voters to elect politicians who abhor this arrangement.

digikata 11y ago

Bigger than those names, might be companies in the finance industry (the largest economic sector in London, if not the entire UK) which shouldn't wish to a lower levels of encryption available to protect information flows critical to their businesses. The EFF or other activists should be lobbying that industry's leaders to explain what's at risk here. The finance industry has a much stronger sway with the UK gov't than your standard privacy advocates.

tehmaco 11y ago
Or there will be an exception for "Critical to the National Interest" traffic, so banking data would be exempt.

madez 11y ago

Google, Microsoft and Facebook are no safe place from snooping by governments, whether they use strong or weak cryptography.