We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.<p>This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.<p><a href="http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html" rel="nofollow">http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html</a><p><a href="http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought-requires-free-media" rel="nofollow">http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-t...</a><p>You heard a lot of stuff from governments around the world in the last two weeks, but not one statement that consisted of “I regret subjecting my population to these procedures.” The German Chancellor, though triumphantly reelected with not a cloud in her political sky, is in no position to say “I agreed with the Americans to allow 40 million telephone calls a day to be intercepted in Germany; I just want them
to stop listening to my phone!” The President of the United States is considering the possibility of not listening to
thirty-five mobile phones around the world. The other several hundred million people we listen to are stone out of luck.<p>You understand what a charade this is, of course. The leaders of global societies do not conduct their classified business over their personal mobile phones. Our listening there is not gaining us important military intelligence. The President of the United States is publicly considering not listening to conversations that leaders of other countries have with their spouses, their siblings and
their children. But the conversations nine hundred million other people are having with their spouses, their siblings, and their children remain fair game.<p>Nobody is talking about that; you’re not supposed to think about it.<p>Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999</a>
China kicking out Google doesn't seems so crazy now. The American government is a worldwide aggressor that cannot be restrained. All defenses must be put up in an attempt to stop it.<p>As a side benefit China has fostered a large homegrown internet industry which many other countries lack. Services like Baidu and Sina Weibo are more than acceptable. Europe is more than capable of doing the same and hopefully with less censorship.
I seriously doubt that Merkel's intentions are pure on this. For starters, we know that Germany has given some degree of cooperation in NSA spying, including allowing the US to build an army base that will be used by the NSA[1]. Secondly, we know that the BND used the NSA's systems for its own intelligence purposes[2].<p>Something tells me this is as much (if not more) an attempt to put European users' data within reach of European spy agencies
as it is about protecting European users' privacy. I suppose the upside is that it ensures that peoples' data is in the hands of their own governments rather than being in the hands of governments they have no control over.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-accuses-germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-acc...</a><p>[2]<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence-agencies-used-nsa-spying-program-a-912173.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intellige...</a>
Shitshitshitshitshit! I knew that this would be the knee-jerk reaction of politicians. If this happens, we will get borders on the internet. And if there is anything which can wreck the internet, borders are it. Now for the first time I'm really scared about the future of the internet. Let's get involved politically now and educate these people about the foundations of the internet, and try to keep it a neutral piece of infrastructure. Curse the NSA for wrecking net neutrality, and other agencies for waging war here. The internet was international and neutral from the start, don't bring your territorial thinking here!
The substance is more interesting than the headline:
"Above all, we'll talk about European providers that offer security for our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic"<p>i.e. government support of alternatives to the US owned networked services that enable the data leakages, not low level infrastructure improvements. Whether or not such a thing is likely to work, I'd be dubious, but if they show even the slightest hint of going through with it the US will go crazy. Likely to be a lot of happy devs in Berlin.
European governments haven't earned our trust any more than the US government. The adversary may vary, but the network is the same hostile environment and should be treated with the same caution.
What so many people fail to realize is that the NSA will try and likely succeed at penetrating these networks as well. The real difference is that they don't need FISA courts to authorize foreign intelligence operations, only domestic ones.
This is such a great development, and I fully support it. The more decentralization we can make, the more freedom we'll have. As long as they are standards based, not pay-to-play, and, open to everyone.
Well, how does it look when Merkel is talking about the internet.<p>Germany has a project called DE-Mail. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Mail</a><p>It's a kind of E-Mail service to improve Data-Protection and get legally binding electronic communication. So far so good.<p>But how is this done, and what are the impacts.
At first E-Mail got a price tag.
Second, there is no End-To-End-Encryption.
Third, you're legally bound if they say this mail arrived, no matter if you even noticed or read.
4th there are public companies involved, able to read high sensitive data sent by DE-Mail, because there is no End-to-End communication. This companies are also able, but not allowed, to send legally binding mails in your name. How could you prove, you didn't sent?<p>This is the context, when German politicians talk about the internet. They have no clue.
I wonder if when all of this NSA spying was starting out in the government offices in Washington D.C.; did anyone think about the law of unintended consequences? Trying to spy on everyone in the world is a massive project. Placing oneself into <i>everyone's</i> private lives goes beyond simple hubris. It's megalomania.<p>I wonder if even now, those involved, have any idea of the nature of what they've done and what the magnitude of the consequences are shaping up to be.
I hope it's more like "EU" than Europe, because countries like UK seem more than happy to sell the rest of us out. In the end the solution will be to build trustless P2P networks, everywhere, but the only way US and US companies will agree to allowing something like that will be if EU pushes for localized EU networks and stuff like this to make their life too hard otherwise.
This looks rather clueless, I think. As others have mentioned, the problem isn't so much in the interconnects, but more with the services being used. But there isn't going to come a new Facebook or Google out of Berlin - or anywhere else for that matter.<p>What would be helpful would be decentralized services that match the user experience of the existing ones. But that kind of innovation isn't what's going to be discussed here, I'm afraid. On the contrary, such eavesdropping-safe technology would be viewed very conspicuously by the non-tech savy politicians in Europe and other places.
While I welcome the initative, I think this a case of sky hooks and tartan paint.<p>I also find it highly amusing that based on her comments she suggests that the UK is considered to be outside Europe.
Does that even make any sense?<p>Would they force European users to not use GMail? Or force GMail to create a European branch?<p>I don't think governments prescribing what services to use is a good idea...