I've never bought the argument that MLAT was too slow. It might mean some work and a bit more process, but if lessons from the Chilcot report mean anything, it's that international agreement and some due diligence and accountability is sensible in the medium/long term.
This is highly important for American companies. The backlash will be, safe harbor or not, companies and individuals will refuse to host their data with American companies, even outside of the USA. Mrk
Interesting article about this issue here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/preliminary-thoughts-cross-border-data-requests
Hits the Supreme Court today or tomorrow. https://www.usnews.com/news/top-new...me-court-weighs-microsoft-overseas-data-fight
It looks like EU has similar ideas about accessing data on servers abroad: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...seas-data-in-challenge-to-tech-giants.401097/
SCOTUSblog: United States v. Microsoft Corp. Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails
...and no one questions the outrageous practice of applying new laws retrospectively. It's almost comical. May as well scrap the entire proceedure of law and just say, the 1% can do whatever they want. They have it all sewn up regardless.
Yes. Well. As I've been saying. It's not prudent to be indiscreet. Just because you're not doing anything that's illegal. Currently, anyway. Or because you're protected by some technicality. Or some third party's position. Or whatever. Stuff happens.
Yes but when you feel you need to be discreet about what you say and do because in future that may be made illegal retrospectively is that not a form of intimidation?
Sure. But then, I've been using whatever drugs I like, for decades. I'm intimidated, and so I'm careful.
DoJ Demands Supreme Court to Consider Microsoft’s Irish Data Case Win “Moot” After CLOUD Act https://wccftech.com/doj-microsoft-irish-data-moot-cloud-act/
Sure, sure. I wonder when China will start demanding access to stuff in the US about the Dalai Lama, and other so-called "criminals".
This is bad. About the only solution I see for "normal" folks using email is something along the lines of Protonmail (this is not a plug for PM). Users would have a password protected GPG key to access their email account and the account would be unlocked locally on their computer after entering the credentials. If the model was followed in truth the email database could only be opened by knowing the password to unlock the key. Would the "normal" user designate their password as 123, or something real? One thing I don't like about Proton's approach is that I don't get to generate my own full keyset -LOCALLY, and then upload that as my key. This always leaves the nagging question of a backdoor'd key, like what PGP does for their corporate clients. They have an Admin key and a user key. There is no positive way to know Proton doesn't have an Admin key, that you will never be aware of. Not saying they do, by why not allow a user to locally generate the pair and upload it? Call me paranoid but it does create doubts. Perhaps that would be a way of gaining more paid users. The uploading of a locally generated key could be a paid only feature. I would pay for two of my free accounts in exchange for removing that nagging doubt from my head.
Sucks. Sounds more like now M$ can simply say the law says we have to turn stuff over. Back to my Proton approach a few posts up in this thread. Next, they'll say its illegal for a company to use the "Proton" approach, but hopefully there will be jurisdictions that can't be touched on that policy.
