A proposed “sovereign internet” law currently working its way through Russia’s government.

Russia wants to cut itself off from the global internet. Here’s what that really means.

The plan is going to be tricky to pull off, both technically and politically, but the Kremlin has set its sights on self-sufficiency.
By Charlotte Jee
Mar 21 2019
<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613138/russia-wants-to-cut-itself-off-from-the-global-internet-heres-what-that-really-means/>

In the next two weeks, Russia is planning to attempt something no other country has tried before. It’s going to test whether it can disconnect from the rest of the world electronically while keeping the internet running for its citizens. This means it will have to reroute all its data internally, rather than relying on servers abroad.

The test is key to a proposed “sovereign internet” law currently working its way through Russia’s government. It looks likely to be eventually voted through and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin, though it has stalled in parliament for now.

Pulling an iron curtain down over the internet is a simple idea, but don’t be fooled: it’s a fiendishly difficult technical challenge to get right. It is also going to be very expensive. The project’s initial cost has been set at $38 million by Russia’s financial watchdog, but it’s likely to require far more funding than that. One of the authors of the plan has said it’ll be more like $304 million, Bloomberg reports, but even that figure, industry experts say, won’t be enough to get the system up and running, let alone maintain it.

Not only that, but it has already proved deeply unpopular with the general public. An estimated 15,000 people took to the streets in Moscow earlier this month to protest the law, one of the biggest demonstrations in years.

Operation disconnect

So how will Russia actually disconnect itself from the global internet? “It is unclear what the ‘disconnect test’ might entail,” says Andrew Sullivan, president and CEO of the Internet Society. All we know is that if it passes, the new law will require the nation’s internet service providers (ISPs) to use only exchange points inside the country that are approved by Russia’s telecoms regulator, Roskomnadzor.

Operating hours Mon-Thu 8:30-17:30 Fri 8:30-16:15

+7 (495) 987-68-00

These exchange points are where internet service providers connect with each other. It’s where their cabling meets at physical locations to exchange traffic. These locations are overseen by organizations known as internet exchange providers (IXPs). Russia’s largest IXP is in Moscow, connecting cities in Russia’s east but also Riga in neighboring Latvia.

MSK-IX, as this exchange point is known, is one of the world’s largest. It connects over 500 different ISPs and handles over 140 gigabits of throughput during peak hours on weekdays. There are six other internet exchange points in Russia, spanning most of its 11 time zones. Many ISPs also use exchanges that are physically located in neighboring countries or that are owned by foreign companies. These would now be off limits. Once this stage is completed, it would provide Russia with a literal, physical “on/off switch” to decide whether its internet is shielded from the outside world or kept open.

What’s in a name?

As well as rerouting its ISPs, Russia will also have to unplug from the global domain name system (DNS) so traffic cannot be rerouted through any exchange points that are not inside Russia.

The DNS is basically a phone book for the internet: when you type, for example, “google.com” into your browser, your computer uses the DNS to translate this domain name into an IP address, which identifies the correct server on the internet to send the request. If one server won’t respond to a request, another will step in. Traffic behaves rather like water—it will seek any gap it can to flow through.

“The creators of the DNS wanted to create a system able to work even when bits of it stopped working, regardless of whether the decision to break parts of it was deliberate or accidental,” says Brad Karp, a computer scientist at University College London. This in-built resilience in the underlying structure of the internet will make Russia’s plan even harder to carry out.

The actual mechanics of the DNS are operated by a wide variety of organizations, but a majority of the “root servers,” which are its foundational layer, are run by groups in the US. Russia sees this as a strategic weakness and wants to create its own alternative, setting up an entire new network of its own root servers.

“An alternate DNS can be used to create an alternate reality for the majority of Russian internet users,” says Ameet Naik, an expert on internet monitoring for the software company ThousandEyes. “Whoever controls this directory controls the internet.” Thus, if Russia can create its own DNS, it will have at least a semblance of control over the internet within its borders.

This won’t be easy, says Sullivan. It will involve configuring tens of thousands of systems, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to identify all the different access points citizens use to get online (their laptops, smartphones, iPads, and so on). Some of them will be using servers abroad, such as Google’s Public DNS, which Russia simply won’t be able to replicate—so the connection will fail when a Russian user tries to access them.

[snip]

Could someone really destroy the whole Internet?  YES

The Internet is more than just a technology. It is a domain similar to the domains of land, air, sea and space, but with its own distinct challenges.

WHO CONTROLS THE INTERNET?

The whole internet is controlled by seven actual, physical keys. – The key issue with internet governance is always trust, which is ridiculous.

WHO MANAGES THE INTERNET’S ADDRESS BOOK?
BY VINT CERF Vint Cerf summarizes the transition of ICANN.

THE NET IS A WORLD OF ENDS. The Internet is a “network of networks” of computers. It was born on Oct. 29, 1969, when a UCLA student programmer sent a message from his computer to one at Stanford.

K12Playground.com- GOVERNANCE

K12PlayGround.com
FIND YOUR K12 SCHOOL AND SUBMIT /EDIT YOUR K12 SCHOOL INFORMATION
FOLLOW  http://twitter.com K12PlayGround.com

► “When they substitute their knowledge for ours, we grow angry because they have robbed us of our agency.”

@weeklystandard @smarick Trends in governing have eroded the beliefs, norms and processes by which we learn to be accommodating citizens in a pluralistic, deliberative democracy. By manufacturing rights that limit democratic decision-making, centralizing power in Washington far from citizens’…

►  January 2019 “Within period of 72 hours, Nixon was inaugurated for second term, LBJ died, Roe v. Wade was decided, Vietnam War settlement was announced–all 46 years ago this month. ~ @BeschlossDC

Ajit Pai Refuses to Brief Congress About Why Bounty Hunters Can Buy Cell Phone Location Data

Ex-RNC Chair Puts Trump-Supporting Senators On Notice: ‘It’s All Collusion’

► Former Trump Tax Attorney Ed Burke’s Office Raided by Feds
It was reported in 2016 that Ald. Ed Burke’s firm helped Donald Trump trim $11.7M off his property taxes
https://news.wttw.com/2016/05/03/ald-burkes-law-firm-helps-trump-trim-117m-property-taxes

Here’s What I’m Telling US Congress about Data Breaches

► “Your regular reminder that Equifax still exists. Everyone who was running the company when 148 million Americans’ data was stolen is still rich, and now their former lawyer is running the office at the Federal Trade Commission that’s supposed to investigate them.”

►  Montgomery County PA Announces Purchase of New Voting Machines

Songwriters Score Win Over Streaming Services With Pay Hike

National Music Publishers’ Association
The Copyright Royalty Board ruled that songwriters will get at least a 15.1% share of streaming revenues over the next five years, from a previous 10.5%. The CRB’s decision will require streaming services to pay 15.1 percent of revenue to songwriters and publishers, up from 10.5 percent. The court also issued a ruling regarding a late fee, which will force digital music services to pay songwriters faster, or be subject to a significant penalty.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Pandora and Spotify compelled to pay more for the use of music.
Pryor Cashman who represented NMPA and NSAI in the litigation that resulted in the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) being ruled to increase royalty payments to songwriters and music publishers from music streaming companies.
This was a hearing pitting songwriters and music publishers against five technology companies, including three of the largest companies in the world (Apple, Amazon and Google), which sought to reduce the already low rate of royalties that they pay to songwriters for the use of their music on their streaming services.

Federal Judge Asks Spotify: ‘How Many Songs Have You Infringed, Anyway?’

#Loophole that allows @jeffBezos #Amazon get away with NO #TAXES

Jeff Bezos 2018 Richest billionaire on the list

Jeff Bezos  – Amazon –  $112 billion doesn’t pay taxes

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/03/06/jeff-bezos-unseats-bill-gates-forbes-2018-richest-billionaires-list/398877002/

and he uses Philanthropy for more tax write offs.

Davos 2019: Historian Rutger Bregman berates billionaires at World Economic Forum over tax avoidance

Trump tax cuts to surge debt past 90% of GDP by 2024, says IMF report

Why This ‘Patriotic’ Millionaire Wants to Raise Taxes on the Rich | NowThis

BUSINESS, BANKS, POLITICIANS HAVE BUILT A 170 BILLION DOLLAR TAX HAVEN

Historian Rutger Bregman
Industry had to “stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes”, he said, and cited the high tax regime of 1950s America as an example to disprove arguments by business people at Davos such as Michael Dell that economies with high personal taxation could not succeed. “That’s it,” he says. “Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit in my opinion.”
Winnie Byanyima, an Oxfam executive director, took up the fight and said high employment was not a good thing in itself because many people found themselves in exploitative work. She cited the example of poultry workers in the US who had to wear nappies (diapers) because they were not allowed toilet breaks.
“That’s not a dignified job,” she said. “those are the jobs we’ve been told about, that globalisation is bringing jobs. The quality of the jobs matter. In many countries workers no longer have a voice.
Addressing Goldman, she said: “You’re counting the wrong things. You’re not counting dignity of people. You’re counting exploited people.”
Billions of dollars were leaked by tax avoidance every year which should instead be going to alleviate poverty in the developing world, she added.
#Davos
#WorldEconomicForum
#RutgerBregman

“The vast majority of Americans for years and years now … including Fox News viewers and including Republicans are in favor of higher taxes on the rich — higher inheritance taxes, higher top marginal tax rates, higher wealth taxes — it’s all really mainstream,” Bregman said. “But no one’s saying that at Davos just as no one’s saying that on Fox News. And the explanation for that’s quite simple, it’s that most of the people in Davos, as well as most of the people on this channel, have been bought by the billionaire class. You’re not meant to say these things.”

1993  politician paid policy initiative to constrain CEO pay was actually a loophole to not pay taxes.

1993, Bill Clinton and congressional Democrats tried to stop the growing pay inequality of Reagan-era America — Section 162(m) of the US Tax Code.

Revenue that is paid out to employees as salaries and benefits is not profits, and thus doesn’t get taxed. But section 162(m) created an exception to that rule — any salary of over $1 million paid to top executives would not be deductible for tax purposes.

This was supposed to stop  outrageous 1% executive compensation packages.

Except there was an exception to the exception

compensation that took the form of stock options or stock grants would still be deductible and

the loophole incentivize companies to use a lot of stock-based compensation for their executives.

WHAT STOCK BYBACK ACTUALLY MEANS

A company like AMAZON could give stock-based compensation by taking money out of Jeff Bezos’ bank account and  using it to buy back shares on the open market and pay his executives with shares but no… that would involve using his real money.

Any company,  just churns out shares of their  stock anytime it wants to, kind of like an ICO of some cryptocurrency. This costs Amazon shareholders (or holders of andy crypto) where creating new shares  devalues the existing ones, but it doesn’t really cost the company anything at all.

What a game!

This policy loop hole allowed AMAZON to get away with NO  corporate income tax in 2018 despite the huge surge in profits.

AMAZON got away without paying any tax by giving executives stock-based compensation packages  and the

Securities and Exchange Commission form 10(k) shows it recorded about $1 billion in deductions for stock-based compensation

eliminating what would otherwise have been a non-zero tax liability.

and

  1. research and development tax credit
  2. Trump tax bill included a temporary provision allowing companies to take a 100 percent tax deduction for investment in equipment.
  3. 2018 is the fact that companies can deduct the cost of stock-based compensation from their taxable earnings even though it doesn’t actually cost companies any money to hand out shares of their own stock to employees. The more your share price rises, the bigger the deduction for handing out shares.

see

HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the distributed, permanent web

IPFS, I’m strongly hoping, becomes that new protocol.

HTTP is obsolete. It’s time for the distributed, permanent web
By kyledrake
Sep 8 2015
<https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNhFJjGcMPqpuYfxL62VVB9528NXqDNMFXiqN5bgFYiZ1/its-time-for-the-permanent-web.html>
Early this year, the Internet Archive put out a call for a distributed web. We heard them loud and clear.
Today I’m making an announcement that begins our long journey to the future of the web. A web that is faster, more secure, more robust, and more permanent.
Neocities has collaborated with Protocol Labs to become the first major site to implement IPFS in production. Starting today, all Neocities web sites are available for viewing, archiving, and hosting by any IPFS node in the world. When another IPFS node chooses to host a site from Neocities, that version of the site will continue to be available, even if Neocities shuts down or stops hosting it. The more IPFS nodes seed Neocities sites, the more available (and redundant) Neocities sites become. And the less centrally dependent the sites are on us to continue existing.
What is IPFS? From their README:
IPFS is a distributed file system that seeks to connect all computing devices with the same system of files. In some ways, this is similar to the original aims of the Web, but IPFS is actually more similar to a single bittorrent swarm exchanging git objects. IPFS could become a new major subsystem of the internet. If built right, it could complement or replace HTTP. It could complement or replace even more. It sounds crazy. It is crazy.
IPFS is still in the alpha stages of development, so we’re calling this an experiment for now. It hasn’t replaced our existing site storage (yet). Like with any complex new technology, there’s a lot of improvements to make. But IPFS isn’t vaporware, it works right now. You can try it out on your own computer, and already can use it to help us serve and persist Neocities sites.
The message I want to send couldn’t possibly be more audacious: I strongly believe IPFS is the replacement to HTTP (and many other things), and now’s the time to start trying it out. Replacing HTTP sounds crazy. It is crazy! But HTTP is broken, and the craziest thing we could possibly do is continue to use it forever. We need to apply state-of-the-art computer science to the distribution problem, and design a better protocol for the web.
Part 1: What’s wrong with HTTP?
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) has unified the entire world into a single global information protocol, standardizing how we distribute and present information to eachother.
It is inconceivable for me to even think about what life would be like without it. HTTP dropped the cost of publishing content to almost nothing, an innovation that took a sledgehammer to the top-down economic, political, and cultural control over distribution of information (music, ideas, video, news, games, everything). As a result of liquifying information and making it the publication of it more egalitarian and accessible, HTTP has made almost everything about our culture better.
I love HTTP, and I always will. It truly stands among the greatest and most important inventions of all time.
But while HTTP has achieved many things, it’s usefulness as a foundation for the distribution and persistence of the sum of human knowledge isn’t just showing some cracks, it’s crumbling to pieces right in front of us. The way HTTP distributes content is fundamentally flawed, and no amount of performance tuneups or forcing broken CA SSL or whatever are going to fix that. HTTP/2 is a welcome improvement, but it’s a conservative update to a technology that’s beginning to show its age. To have a better future for the web, we need more than a spiced up version of HTTP, we need a new foundation. And per the governance model of cyberspace, that means we need a new protocol. IPFS, I’m strongly hoping, becomes that new protocol.
[snip]

5G the Free WiFi Killer

From: Dave Burstein dslprime.com
Date: Monday, August 24, 2015
Subject: “5G the Free WiFi Killer” EE Times

The Intel/Verizon/Ericsson model of future wireless has everything controlled by a (carrier-managed) gateway. This report from the Intel Developers’ Forum suggests troubling consequences.
The EE Times article below may be making some assumptions I don’t share, but the underlying point is on target. The author fears a carrier gateway will impede WiFi and more. To be proven.
50-70% of wireless traffic now goes over WiFi, a figure that will increase as faster WiFi routers become common and more home gateways are configured to share unused bandwidth.
That’s an existential threat to phone companies depending on revenue from expanding data usage. They are fighting back in industry fora, including defining LTE-U/LAA as “LTE spectrum owners only” and seeking to dedicate 40 MHz of current WiFi spectrum to the 4 telcos.
Anyone who believes in a “multi-stakeholder” “open” Internet should be worried. In particular, the carriers are bringing this to industry only organizations especially 3GPP (the LTE standard setter), EU 5G groups, the Flex5GWare project and Horizon2020.
We badly need to get a consumer voice in these groups. I’ve raised the issue to Larry Strickling (U.S. Gov) and Kathy Brown (ISOC). vocal supporters of “multi-stakeholder.” The decisions being made in these groups will have more impact on consumers than the limited scope of the ITU/ICANN debate. I’m only one voice and I hope more speak up on the importance of the public interest.

5G the Free WiFi Killer

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1327482&

Integrating comm comes at a price
8/21/2015 09:50 AM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.—5G may be not much more than a moniker for what comes after 4G, but Intel clarified its vision recently at a keynote during the Intel Developer Forum 2015 (IDF, San Francisco, Aug.18-20). “Seamless” is the goal and it comes at a price.
The top-line is that Intel hopes to apply all its expertise in computing, networking and wireless communications to make a seamless 5G solution that incorporates distributed intelligence at all levels–from the smartphone to the router to the basestation aggregator to cloudlets, clouds and our fastest supercomputers.
The bottom line is that cellular, WiFi, centimeter- and millimeter wavelength bands must be seamlessly integrated from the user’s point-of-view, according to Aicha Evans, vice president of platform engineering group and general manager of the communications and devices group at Intel.
“5G is not about faster, but about integrating all types of connectivity,” Evans told her keynote attendees at IDF. “The building blocks of 5G are already here today.”
To the carriers this integration will come at a price, since 5G-for-all presents the opportunity to kill free WiFi and instead charge users for every data packet they send or receive, no matter which of the integrated communications technologies is used. At Evans’ keynote she gathered together carriers, service providers and strategists to outline what it is that they expect from 5G, including Alex Choi, chief technical officer (CTO) of SK Telecom (Asia), Bin Shen, Verizon’s vice president of strategy (U.S.) and Paul McNamara, vice president of Ericsson’s corporate strategy group (Europe).

However, before the panel painted the world-changing picture of extraordinary speeds and ultra-low latency–at a price–Intel’s Sandra Rivera, vice president of the data center group and general manager of the Internet of Things (IoT) described the benefits of 5G to the users.

“Intelligence will begin with at the base station,” Rivera asserted to the crowd at IDF. <snip>

Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)

US Dept of Commerce seeks comments on proposed export changes

The Wassenaar Arrangement (full name: The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies) is a multilateral export control regime (MECR) with 41 participating states including many former COMECON (Warsaw Pact) countries.
An FRN issued on 5/20/2015

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/05/20/2015-11642/wassenaar-arrangement-2013-plenary-agreements-implementation-intrusion-and-surveillance-items

describes a proposal by Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for a license requirement for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of systems, equipment or components specially designed for the generation, operation or delivery of, or communication with, intrusion software; software specially designed or modified for the development or production of such systems, equipment or components; software specially designed for the generation, operation or delivery of, or communication with, intrusion software; technology required for the development of intrusion software; Internet Protocol (IP) network communications surveillance systems or equipment and test, inspection, production equipment, specially designed components therefor, and development and production software and technology therefor.
The FRN notes that BIS is seeking information about the effect of this rule and would appreciate the submission of comments, and especially answers to the following questions:
1. How many additional license applications would your company be required to submit per year under the requirements of this proposed rule? If any, of those applications:
a. How many additional applications would be for products that are currently eligible for license exceptions?
b. How many additional applications would be for products that currently are classified EAR99?
2. How many deemed export, reexport or transfer (in-country) license applications would your company be required to submit per year under the requirements of this rule?
3. Would the rule have negative effects on your legitimate vulnerability research, audits, testing or screening and your company’s ability to protect your own or your client’s networks? If so, explain how.
4. How long would it take you to answer the questions in proposed paragraph (z) to Supplement No. 2 to part 748? Is this information you already have for your products?
* The ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule includes information about how to submit comments.

Calling Security experts / technologists opposing purported info sharing bills that actually waive privacy laws and enable more surveillance.

Hello,
As you may know, there are three cybersecurity information sharing bills pending before Congress right now. These bills would weaken privacy laws and enable surveillance at a time when we need stronger privacy protections. These are surveillance bills, not security bills.
Every one of the bills is an end run around privacy laws in the name of improving security information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bills define “cyber threat indicators” in a confusing manner that could include server logs, the contents of emails, damage estimates, and more. This kind of private data is not what is generally needed to secure systems. Nevertheless, the bills say that private entities will be immune from liability for sharing this information  with DHS (and other parts of government) “notwithstanding” any privacy laws.
Surveillance reform advocates are trying to stop these bills. There is a lot of support in Congress and from the White House. So, to succeed, we need your help and we need it now. We expect the bills to come to a vote mid-April.
As a security expert, would you be willing to sign a letter helping to educate Congress about what kind of information experts actually share to further cybersecurity and secure systems from future attack? By helping Congress understand what information is useful in security, we can stop a bill that would needlessly waive privacy.
Please let me know if you can sign on by no later than 8pm ET Sunday, April 12. Email to jennifer at law.stanford.edu your name, title and affiliation. We plan to use your titles and affiliations for information purposes only, not to indicate that your employer is also signing the letter. For example, my signature would be Jennifer Stisa Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet and Society* and the asterick text would say “*Titles and affiliations are for information purposes only.” If you want to sign but don’t want to include your title or affiliation, or don’t have one, please indicate so, and we will respect your wishes.
My plan is to circulate the letter to the sponsors of the bills and to the rest of Congress on Monday, April 13.
Please feel free to email me or set up a call with me if you have any questions about the bills or the letter.
Once again, I can be reached at jennifer at law.stanford.edu
Finally, please do forward this request to anyone you think might be knowledgeable about security information sharing, and interested in sighing the letter.
For more information on these laws, you can read here:
Jennifer Granick—The Right Way to Share Information and Improve Cybersecurity: http://justsecurity.org/21498/share-information-improve-cybersecurity/
OTI—VERSION 2.0 OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S CYBER INFORMATION SHARING ACT IS CYBER-SURVEILLANCE, NOT CYBERSECURITY:http://www.newamerica.org/oti/version-20-of-the-senate-intelligence-committees-cyber-information-sharing-act-is-cyber-surveillance-not-cybersecurity/
CDT—Analysis of Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014: https://cdt.org/insight/analysis-of-feinstein-chambliss-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-of-2014/
Thank you for your time, attention, and assistance in this important matter.
Jennifer Granick

e-mail privacy laws: You want privacy? Too Bad! Now Politicians get it!

It took a shakedown, it took a threat, take their privacy away and “now” they see the light! Doesn’t matter what is happening to us the 99% until the 1% are effected by it. And Microsoft was happy to let the 99% twist in the wind until politicians put pressure on Microsoft to hand over the “files”. Only after that do we the 99% get any privacy that we all deserved in the first place from the bad actors above!
Checking email from the beach, Washington?
“Checking email from the beach, Washington?” Microsoft says in the ad, which refers vacationers to a website it set up about the case. “Then you may be just as concerned as most Americans about who has access to your emails saved in the cloud.”
Starting Wednesday, the software giant is running full-page ads in the newspapers of a number of popular beach spots frequented by Washingtonians to make the case for why the company should not have to turn over emails stored on a foreign server. The ads are running in weekly newspapers in Rehoboth Beach, Del., Martha’s Vineyard and North Carolina’s Outer Banks.
The company noted that 83 percent of people in a recent poll it commissioned thought that the same protections should apply to information stored digitally as on paper.
“Microsoft believes you own your emails no matter where they are stored,” it said. “That’s why we’ve gone to court to ask the government to follow long-established, internationally agreed upon processes to obtain emails rather than forcing technology companies to turn them over.”
A federal judge recently ruled against the software company, though Microsoft has pledged to appeal.
Other major tech firms including Apple, Verizon and AT&T have signed on in support of Microsoft, as has the digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The ad comes in response to a federal judgement in which Microsoft was ordered to share the private email data of users with investigators as part of a criminal case.
Microsoft has been pushing for new privacy rules ever since a federal judge this summer ordered the company to turn over a customer’s e-mails from an overseas server to U.S. law enforcement. Microsoft and several privacy advocates argued that doing so would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the U.S. government to order firms to give up content regardless of where the data are stored.
Your government  has an interest in gaining access to communications stored overseas without having to rely solely on cooperation from foreign law enforcement. Currently your email is treated as a company’s business records – Imagine That! My email is MINE!
Microsoft is squaring off against the Justice Department in a case that could have drastic ramifications for the protections on people’s data. Not to mention their bottom line. If microsoft can’t protect your privacy then what business around the world is going to want to do business with microsoft software <THINK CHINA>
legal protections for emails and documents stored in data centers abroad, turning the issue into a landmark battle over digital privacy is only about their 1% bottom line.
Who is going to want to do business with Microsoft products?
Microsoft challenged the warrant, claiming that the U.S. government does not have any authority to go after information stored in Ireland, without permission from the local government. Instead, Microsoft argues that the U.S. needs to go through a treaty process that allows it to get evidence from foreign countries.
Repairing the public’s trust? I don’t think so!!
After more than a year of disclosures from our hero  Edward Snowden caused many to be wary of American tech products, and learning about the conflicting laws between different nations this is about microsoft losing market share as well. The European Union, for instance, which has taken a much stronger approach to privacy, might take issue with a company that shuttled data stored abroad back to the U.S. government.
Judge Loretta Preska agreed with the government that the question came down to who controls the data, not where it is stored. Preska also ruled that personal emails are considered a “business record” under the law.
Someone better take Loretta to school it’s 2014.
1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act outlines rules for protecting digital information under the constitutional right to privacy, but does not provide a clear legal framework for dealing with the data stored on servers outside of U.S. territory, since the concept of multinational data centers.

EFF, ACLU Demolish "It’s Just Metadata" Claim in NSA Spying Appeal

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Contact:
Andrew Crocker
Legal Fellow
Electronic Frontier Foundation
andrew@eff.org
+1 415 436-9333 x139

EFF, ACLU Demolish “It’s Just Metadata” Claim in NSA Spying Appeal

Americans Deserve Full Protection of the Fourth Amendment
for their Telephone Records, Groups Argue

Washington, DC – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today filed
an amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, a high-profile lawsuit
that challenges mass surveillance, arguing that Americans’
telephone metadata deserves the highest protection of the
Fourth Amendment.
Larry Klayman, conservative activist and founder of
Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, was among the first
plaintiffs to sue the National Security Agency (NSA) over
the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon customers
that was detailed in documents released by Edward Snowden.
In December 2013, Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary
ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, and
the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the new amicus brief in Klayman v. Obama, the EFF and
ACLU lawyers repudiate arguments by U.S. officials that the
records are “just metadata” and therefore not as sensitive
as the contents of phone calls. Using research and new
case law, the civil liberties groups argue that metadata
(such as who individuals called, when they called, and how
long they spoke) can be even more revealing than
conversations when collected en masse.
“Metadata isn’t trivial,” EFF Legal Fellow Andrew Crocker
says. “Collected on a massive scale over a broad time
period, metadata can reveal your political and religious
affiliations, your friends and relationships, even whether
you have a health condition or own guns. This is exactly
the kind of warrantless search the Fourth Amendment was
intended to prevent.”
The brief explains that changes in technology, as well as
the government’s move from targeted to mass surveillance,
mean that the holding of the 1979 Supreme Court case Smith
v. Maryland that the government relies on (often called the
“third-party doctrine”) does not apply. Instead, EFF and
the ACLU point to a series of recent key
decisions–including the Supreme Court decisions in United
States v. Jones in 2012 and Riley v. California in 2014–in
which judges ruled in favor of requiring a warrant for
electronic search and seizure.
“Dragnet surveillance is and has always has been illegal in
the United States,” says ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo.
“Our country’s founders rebelled against overbroad searches
and seizures, and they would be aghast to see the liberties
they fought hard to enshrine into our Constitution
sacrificed in the name of security. As even the president
himself has recognized, we can keep the nation safe without
surrendering our privacy.”
EFF and the ACLU have each litigated numerous First and
Fourth Amendment lawsuits related to NSA surveillance and
together represent Idaho nurse Anna Smith in a similar case
currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
called Smith v. Obama. The ACLU is a plaintiff in a case
currently pending before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals, ACLU v. Clapper, to be heard on Sept. 2. EFF has
two cases–Jewel v. NSA and First Unitarian Church of Los
Angeles v. NSA–before the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of California.
For the amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-and-aclu-amicus-brief-klayman
For this release:
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-just-metadata-claim-nsa-spying-appeal
 

MUST HEAR Al Gore: Snowden not a traitor

Gore also reportedly chided the NSA’s operations, many of which began after he left office, as a “threat to the heart of democracy.”
[… BUT What he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the United States Constitution that were WAY MORE SERIOUS THAN THE CRIMES HE COMMITTED…]