Yeah, but weren't GCHQ spying on Americans as a US proxy?
Wasn't that the point of the Five Eyes, "I'll bypass your laws for you if you bypass my laws for me".
This year's RSA conference was the busiest on record, with over 40,000 people cramming the halls (and later, bars) of San Francisco, and more than a few of them were raising glasses to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The Snowden effect has had an undeniable effect on the business," Pravin Kothari, CEO of cloud encryption …
I disagree - it's entirely expected.
Can't think of anybody who'd like the idea of providing the "output of their keyboard" to anybody they didn't intend to.
Even amongst those that like the idea of 'surveillance' (to catch those pesky paedophile-terrorists) - I've never noticed anybody campaigning to get their own data captured.
Snowden basically confirmed fears.
Greatest beneficiary of Theresa May's current quest will be the security services getting a massive bump in their income (I'm sure in no way influencing their backing of her..) and the proliferation of consumer-friendly VPN services to overcome the snooping.
Whole world seems to have lost their rational mind over this.
"Greatest beneficiary of Theresa May's current quest..."
I think she's just a sock puppet, like Jacqui Smith. One was a left sock and one a right, but you'd have to look real close to spot any difference between the two.
Another planted bad-actor mouthing words, to be ejected from government rather than a person of substantial thinking.
As to whether she'll get Snoopers Charter, and legalize warrant-less mass surveillance of British people? That depends on how many bad-actors have infiltrated the political system.
GCHQ have been doing this since Jacqui Smiths 'mastering the internet', sharing the data with the NSA, and hiding the details from UK Parliament. So USA has had considerable influence and leverage over British politics for about 6 years. That's one election cycle at least.
I don't think they have control yet. Look at Snoopers Charter, its got two parts, 1) the "re-affirm" part that tries to make the GCHQ domestic surveillance legal while pretending its already legal. And 2) the "anyone in uniform can get any data without any judicial process on anyone for any reason" part.
The second part is so extreme, so loosely worded, that its likely cover for the first part. Next to part 2), part 1) seem like the least insane part.
You don't provide that kind of political game if you already have tight control over Parliament.
From what I read about businesses paying to get their encrypted data back, you should think about what your data is worth to you, because that's exactly what it's worth to the malware guys.
You might also want to think about what it's worth not to have that data posted on pastebin or something similar. Data leaks are like farts: once the data is out there, there is no way to get it back.
People should ask that question. Even in the extremely unlikely event that data from this service is made public, what are the consequences? In some cases, very bad things. In many cases, not much at all. Most of your data is completely uninteresting to the world even if you handed it to them. Right now people protect every IT asset as though it has the launch codes.
Also, as Snowden demonstrated, use all the IT security you like, you are still only as secure as your least happy employee with data access rights. It is amazing that peoples' conclusion from Snowden is that more IT traditional security spending is required... as opposed to 'hmm, most of our security investments are not really protecting us.' Not unexpected though. People would rather throw money at a problem than admit they are not in control.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020