One former White House aide told POLITICO that Alexander has been asking members of Congress for some time to adopt bill language on countermeasures that’s “as ill-defined as possible” — with the goal of giving the Pentagon great flexibility in taking action alongside Internet providers. Telecom companies, the former aide said, also have been asking Alexander for those very legal protections.
Originally posted by Bilk22
I gave you a star and a flag because you are right in what you're saying about privacy, but unfortunately, probably wrong in your conclusion. Yes there would be companies and even countries that pull up roots or disconnect from the US infrastructure, but it's my guess that still wouldn't prevent the access to the data these entities collect and or maintain.
The US intelligence community and military more than likely have the ability to overcome the safeguards. Additionally, unless you disconnect from companies such as Apple, Intel, Microsoft and the like, there are no safeguards.
. The end game could be the 'Balkanisation' of the Internet.
Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by XPLodER
I agree with you. However the American government isn't going to take this threat seriously and I know the American people could care less. Heck we are having trouble just dredging up outrage against the NSA spying on the American people, let alone foreigners. Maybe these countries and companies should reroute around America to teach the government a lesson that some people do take privacy seriously. At this point I am for anything that could potentially change the way the government operates. The American public isn't the answer, so maybe hope for something external to happen like what you alluded to in your OP.
Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by XPLodER
The answer to your question is quite simple.
It's called End to End Encryption. An actual END to END Encryption that is Mandatory (not based on user acceptance, but instead a mandatory part of the supporting protocol.
You really only have to be concerned about the top 3 or so OSI Layers. IP and below (transport, link layer and hardware) need not be encrypted, as they are only used to connect and route data.
TCP and up will need to be encrypted though. I'm sure we could leverage a new protocol stack that uses some form of mandatory TCP encryption, based on a web of trust or something.
Either way - the only way our data will be secure on the global internet is with encryption. True story bro.
Originally posted by Maxatoria
At the moment things like SaaS are still relatively new and are pretty complicated to deploy, adding extra encryption on top while not a great problem always has problems when theres some dodgy piece of gear mucking up the data stream so people turn off the encryption so the raw traffic can be analysed or for performance analysis and generally forget to re-enable it afterwards and since most of the software companies providing this service are based in the USA it just takes one visit from a NSA guy and suddenly theres a patch which allows them to evesdrop into the communication since they have a master decryption key which means for people to trust it they have to be able to vet the source code and thats under lock and key as trade secrets
The other problem is that these companies will have to obey the correct legal environments in their relevant countries which may/may not allow strong encryption.
and even trying not to route the data through certain countries can be problematic especially is someone starts to mess with the BGP and shunting data via an alternative routeedit on 18-6-2013 by Maxatoria because: (no reason given)
Did Obama Just Destroy the U.S. Internet Industry?
News about the National Security Agency's PRISM program and its privileged access to internal user data at 9 U.S. Internet companies has unleashed a torrent of justified anger and hand-wringing. But the worries do not go far enough. Almost everybody is still looking at this through a narrow domestic lens. Our values and goals may be more challenged than you think.
The implications are not just about what happens to the privacy of Americans and to the future of American political due process. There are potentially vast negative global consequences. Giving the U.S. government special rights to data from U.S. companies sets a terrible precedent, and is hugely short-sighted.
The Internet is intrinsically a global business and social landscape. Yet up until now American companies have overwhelmingly dominated it. They have done so with astonishing innovation and technical achievement. Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Skype, Yahoo, and YouTube — all companies said to be participating in PRISM — are the world's most important digital platforms for communications and information. The economic and political benefits both to the U.S. and to the world of this domination are obvious. Not only are they by far the world's most valuable set of businesses for investors. They have created extraordinary value for their users by fostering an openness and landscape for free expression and dialogue that is unprecedented.
How much of this astonishing success are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of domestic security?
The citizens of the world can look up anything on Google and can communicate anything to their friends on YouTube and Facebook, regardless of its political sensitivity. The result has included Arab Spring, the Iranian Green Revolution, the popular protests against President Putin in Russia, and recently the extraordinary outpouring of citizen protest against Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan.
The largest group of people likely to care about the NSA's intrusions are non-American customers of U.S. Internet companies. Facebook alone has more than one billion of them. Google completely dominates search in most of the world, with its market share across Europe significantly exceeding 90%. And its YouTube distributes citizen videos worldwide. It will be hard now to ever again assure users of these services that their behavior or opinions can be protected from the U.S. government. Some reports on the NSA surveillance suggest that the court orders given these companies can be as broad as forcing them to turn over all traffic to and from a specific country.
As the author of The Facebook Effect [www.amazon.com...] I am especially well-acquainted with that company's strategy and achievements. More than two-thirds of Brazil's 90 million Internet users are regular users of Facebook. It is similarly among the most important platforms for Internet communication in Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, and most other countries large and small. Google's Gmail, Microsoft's Hotmail, Skype, Yahoo and Apple's services are also hugely important around the world.
Because Facebook gives users a broadcast tool to send messages to their friends, it is routinely the tool ordinary people use when they are dissatisfied or seek to make a political statement. This is true in almost every country on earth.
It's quite possible that Obama has undermined the effectiveness and attractiveness for political speech and protest of what have been the most potent communications tools for activism in history. Political and commercial opponents of the U.S. in every country as well as governments themselves will likely alert citizens to the potential that U.S. companies could pass their info back to US authorities. This will seriously conflict with these companies' aim to maintain their platforms as neutral global environments. It could dramatically slow their global growth.
While these services have not seemed very American, of course they are. In many countries Facebook is not perceived to be an American service at all, since it operates completely in the local language. Now being American becomes potentially a concrete commercial and political disadvantage. To be an American service is now to be a tool for U.S. surveillance.
Do we really want to impair such powerful tools for spreading dialogue, political discourse, and U.S. values? Is it worthwhile to impair the extraordinary financial and commercial success of these great flagships for the American economy? Does Obama want Facebook et al just to be seen as tools of American power? That is certainly not the way the average user in Bolivia sees it. They see it as a tool of their own personal power, and they don't want governments interfering with that.
The global influence and long-term commercial success of U.S. Internet companies may depend on how Obama handles this from now on. Unfortunately to undo the damage he has caused he may have to completely disavow the program, which seems highly unlikely.
Don't believe there are not alternatives to the U.S. Net collossi. Companies worldwide are already relentlessly working on alternatives. The second largest search service worldwide is China's Baidu, with more than 8% of searches globally at the end of last year according to ComScore. Russia's Yandex is at close to 3%, more than Microsoft's own search product. In social networking, China's Tencent has had a stunning recent success with its WeChat product, which by some counts has over 450 million users worldwide, including many tens of millions outside China. Most major Chinese Internet companies have global ambitions.
It's easy to see why leaders in Washington presume Chinese networking equipment company Huawei must be spying on us through its products. Apparently in their eyes it makes perfect sense to take advantage of any domestic asset to achieve geopolitical aims. Of course, they think, Huawei and the Chinese government would be doing that. We do. Obama and the NSA now seem determined to give Facebook, Google, and the other American Internet companies the same reputation internationally that Huawei has here. Huawei, incidentally, recently decided to forsake the giant U.S. market because of the condemnations of politicians, despite little evidence of actual espionage. This may foreshadow the experience of American companies elsewhere.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has never wavered in his ambition to make Facebook a tool for literally every citizen on the planet. Aside from China, where his service is barred by the government, he has until now been making steady progress. His arguments that governments there and elsewhere ought to allow Facebook just became a lot less persuasive.
(For more from David Kirkpatrick, follow him at Techonomy.com and subscribe to the newsletter there.)
Photo: President Barack Obama talks with Michael Froman, then NSA deputy for international and economic affairs, during a working dinner at the G8 Summit, June 25, 2010.