US, UK Sign Pact To Share Electronic Evidence in Criminal Cases (cnet.com) 73
The US and UK signed an agreement this week that will allow law enforcement officials in both countries to demand tech companies in the other's country to furnish electronic evidence for use in criminal investigations. The agreement is the first approved under the controversial CLOUD Act passed by Congress last year. From a report: The agreement between the two counties "will dramatically speed up investigations by removing legal barriers to timely and effective collection of electronic evidence," the US Justice Department said in a statement. The pact will allow investigators to gain access to data on serious crimes such as terrorism, child sexual abuse and cybercrime without encountering legal obstacles. "Only by addressing the problem of timely access to electronic evidence of crime committed in one country that is stored in another, can we hope to keep pace with 21st Century threats," US Attorney General William Barr said. The CLOUD Act, which stands for Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, updated the rules for criminal investigators who want to see emails, documents and other communications stored on the internet. It also lets the US enter into agreements to send information from US servers to criminal investigators in other countries with limited case-by-case review of requests.
One step closer... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That totally depends on the sort of "unity". For example, the American states already felt they were a group before the United States was formalized. The countries in Europe have never been and will never be. They want to work together, but not be one supercountry. So the United States union was a bit obvious, the European Union is insane.
Apart from that, the people wanting to unite humanity are usually the people who want to be in control of that union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if we have more in common with the aliens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Forever War" is one of my all-time favorite SF books, bar none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) The Forever War would make a great movie, if done right.
2) Are you familiar with the "Clone" series, by Steven L. Kent? Lots of cool scenes, action, and thought-provoking ideas. I think there's 9 altogether in the series. There are a few story flaws but overall a great deal of fun to read. I'm guessing you'd enjoy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The absolute lack of control and even capability to predict or understand the battles, would be terrifying.
Yep, the soldiers were basically just meat-cargo being delivered by a super-aggressive shipping algorithm.
Re: (Score:1)
And if we have more in common with the aliens?
[This exact content has already been posted. Gee thanks SlashDot]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, we already have a common enemy to fight and can't seem to agree that they are an enemy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That totally depends on the sort of "unity". For example, the American states already felt they were a group before the United States was formalized. The countries in Europe have never been and will never be. They want to work together, but not be one supercountry. So the United States union was a bit obvious, the European Union is insane.
Culturally I agree, in practice... eh. I recently had to apply to go to the US, it's nice that I travel around the EU without that. That I in 19/28 countries can pay with the same currency, neat. All those tiny little frictions and inconveniences they've removed that in practice makes it act much like one borderless country is generally supported. Then you have a few big legal issues that we really diverge on like overall economic policy, immigration, drug policy, defense policy, obscenity and so on. But I'
Re: (Score:2)
The countries in Europe have never been and will never be. They want to work together, but not be one supercountry.
That's simply wrong. One of the stated goals of the EU is to pursue "ever closer union" [wikipedia.org]. There is no guarantee that it will eventually create a united, European super-state but that is certainly the hope of many. Indeed, one of the only silver-linings of the Brexit cloud is it continues to show how many people, even in the UK, are passionately and firmly in favour of this.
Re:One step closer... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not talking about a "United Humanity" here, we're talking about forcing the sharing of electronic data between countries for prosecution purposes. What if a government becomes hostile, and you have this capability to ask for data abroad about dissidents?
I have nothing against Star-Trek-like scenarios, where all humanity is united as a single race, but for now, we're fucking far from there, and it's not by forcing data sharing for prosecution that we will have a united humanity.This can only be divisive.
For example, Julian Assange. Most people think he's a hero (except in the US where half say he's a traitor). THIS guy is uniting humanity against the tyranny of a surveilance society. But "sharing data" between countries will only help prosecute him, and tell other whistleblowers "STFU". You really think this kind of behavior is "Uniting Humanity"? Think again buddy...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a traitor? Absolutely correct. But pro-USA? Not even a little. Which is fine as far as it goes. But serving the purpose the media should? I think that's a rather large stretch.
Wikileaks made editorial decisions as to whether or not to support a specific side in our politics. They seemed to avoid releasing anything which could be read as positive, which would also be in the public interest. They have acted to harm their enemies even when it involved targeting those whom they claim to ideologically suppor
Re: One step closer... (Score:1)
Re:One step closer... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is wrong with the idea of a united humanity?
1. Nowhere to flee if something goes wrong.
2. Nowhere to flee if demagoguery convinces a majority to do asinine or outright evil things.
Imagine a world government today. Now put up gay rights for a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
/s/if/when/
Re: (Score:3)
Unified governments unify all the flaws. In a government with strong local power, if you find the laws of one locality unconscionable, you can move to another one (practical considerations notwithstanding). For example, let's look at gun laws. The Second Ame
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you might have certain localities that end up doing the "wrong thing" for a long time even once public opinion shifts against them, but for the really bad things, people can flee to a place where their rights are respected.
If things get really bad then I wouldn't bet on that being an option, like how they built the Berlin wall. You don't stroll across the border from North to South Korea. Even if they can't/won't prevent you leaving there's no free land left so some country must accept you as a refugee, which in many places basically means being held at a camp near the border until they can send you back. It's been a long time since trafficking was about smuggling freed slaves.
Re: One step closer... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would want to publish under German law?
Live under Communism direct from Communist China?
Have to consider laws from Cuba and North Korea before publishing?
Like some French laws too?
Re: (Score:2)
More like Airstrip One. Is that why Trump wanted to buy Greenland?
Re: (Score:2)
... to a World Government.
That is not inherently bad. A common set of rights, laws, and economic system for all people isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of red tape, taxes, and wars could be eliminated with a single world government.
As long as the system adopted is framed to protect the rights of the world's citizens (like a democracy) and not, say, based on modern day China, or Saudi Arabia, or Mugabe's Zimbabwe, it would be a good thing.
Let there be a single human nation one day, when we're ready.
Re:One step closer... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not inherently bad. A common set of rights, laws, and economic system for all people isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of red tape, taxes, and wars could be eliminated with a single world government.
But *whose* rights, laws, etc? The US's? China's? India's? Iran's? Sharia's? The Vatican's? Shocker, different peoples and cultures are...different. They need different laws, policies, rules, etc. This is why sovereign nations exist.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Pro Tip: individuals the world over are different from their neighbours. It's not as if everyone subjected to the same flavour of tyranny feels equal love for their particular tyrants but wariness of foreign tyrants.
Re: (Score:2)
But *whose* rights, laws, etc? The US's? China's? India's? Iran's? Sharia's? The Vatican's? Shocker, different peoples and cultures are...different. They need different laws, policies, rules, etc.
No. You only need different laws if you want to oppress people. Otherwise, one set will do, and then if people want to impose additional rules on themselves, that's their prerogative.
This is why sovereign nations exist.
No. Sovereign nations exist for primarily military reasons. Everything else just descends naturally from having a military, because might makes right (of way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to claim that if the entire world was ruled by one set of laws, there would be no oppression?
Because that's some serious bullshit right there.
No. Sovereign nations exist for primarily military reasons. Everything else just descends naturally from having a military, because might makes right (of way.)
Not military, but violence in general. Governments exist because otherwise individuals attempt to redress all perceived harms on their own. That starts with bloody anarchy and leads quickly to the rule of strongmen.
Remember, about 20% of primitive humans [ourworldindata.org] died to human-on-human violence. That's in comparison to about 0.1% during 1939-1945, and a fract
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to claim that if the entire world was ruled by one set of laws, there would be no oppression?
Nope. I'm saying that you don't need special laws anywhere unless your goal is to oppress people.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but notice the sudden appearance of the word "special" in there. Almost as if your claim as presented was faulty, and you are now revising it... with a vague and undefined term.
What are "special laws"? How are they different from "normal" laws?
For that matter, what do you define as "oppression"? What groups are prevented from doing things they want by laws but are not "oppressed"?
Re: (Score:2)
What are "special laws"? How are they different from "normal" laws?
Special as in for some people, but not for others.
For that matter, what do you define as "oppression"?
That's lumpier. Making people do things when it's not necessary to protect someone else from them, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love this content keep sharing !!!
Oh Crap! APK is back!
Re: (Score:2)
Your shitty, chemical-laden fabric gave me cancer.
If only we could trust government (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny how they never caught the criminals that lied the US into the Iraq war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how they never caught the criminals that lied the US into the Iraq war.
The US hasn't been in a war (or military action, blah blah) it wasn't lied into since WWII, and we lied to stay out of that one until it was economically advantageous to enter.
Re: (Score:3)
Note about your signature - It's "Chelsea" Manning. If you really want to thank / honor her, maybe don't dead-name her. Please don't think I'm being harsh, because I understand that this is hard to understand for cis-folks: I am one, and even now I am challenged by the idea that you're not supposed to dead-name people even when referring to them in a time when that was a name they were publicly known by - like the Olympian Caitlyn Jenner. But it's challenging, not impossible, and we shouldn't back down from
Re: (Score:3)
Your name is part of your identity. Your identity changes over time. Changing your identity in the present does not change your identity in the past because that identity exists in the memories of people who knew you then. You do not own those memories, as they are part of that person's identity.
If someone is refusing to refer to another by their current name in the present, it's a social faux pas and possibly rude at worst. That is normal social interaction, not a "challenge" to be overcome to fight oppre
Re: (Score:3)
No media, person, court, lawyer, police saw the methods they used in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Fashion Fabrics provide a wide range of quality fabric.
No you don't, quit lying.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an excellent place to get a loan. The workers here are friendly, patient, and make you feel like your family.
Slashdot? Maybe if you need a loan of salt and your family hates you.
Guaranteed one-sededness (Score:2)
> "It also lets the US enter into agreements to send information from US servers to criminal investigators in other countries with limited case-by-case review of requests."
The review being "Is the subject a US citizen who could well be subject to an extradition? Then, no, you don't get the information"
Goodbye rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Now instead of having to come up with plausible reasons to collect data and spy on citizens, government agencies can just collect it from their buddy country and say "Well WE weren't monitoring you...."
Just another step in normalizing the idea of keeping permanent records of everything that every person does. We already have media vilifying people for decade old internet posts. Just think of the good governments could do with that data.
Ahem... (Score:5, Informative)
As long as it no way attempts to use the treaty loophole to bypass the requirement for a warrant or constitutional restrictions. And we definitely want none of this sending all the data we've collected over there so we can request it back without a warrant BS either.
Re: (Score:2)
We spy on them, they spy on us, then we each give each other the information and warrants become meaningless. Welcome to Oceania, it's double-plus good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that this is the next generation of exactly that which is unconstitutional and illegal in the US. The sad thing is that congress in the US has passed laws to allow the same but isn't actually granted that authority by the Constitution short of amending the Constitution. Every day that stands is a day they could be called out for it legally in a shift of power. A treaty on the other hand arguably could legally circumvent some Constitutional restrictions.without an amendment.
Whats the diff
Re: (Score:2)
The role of the NSA and GCHQ is not hidden via parallel construction.
GCHQ and NSA gov workers can be in an open court and show the world the logs.
No need for the NSA to legally circumvent some Constitutional restrictions as its all legal.
GCHQ staff can work in the USA.
NSA staff can work in the UK.
A super USA Freedom Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Gone is the Church report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What a strange time to be alive (Score:2)
The Allies act like the Stasi and the Germans protect their citizens' privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, and the so-called free press let up sleep walk into this.
But which crimes? (Score:2)
Does this include research about corruption or foreign influence of or by politicians?
Just asking for the US populace, who're not sure if this sort of thing is normal or a horrible act of tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Crimes, political comments, precrime, thought crime, the use of their project names in comments...
Perfect for frame jobs and political hatchet works (Score:1)
In British law, libel is not defensible by truth, so where do you think all the evidence will be stored?
Also, no Freedom of Information act, Also "Official Secrets Act".
Lastly, have any of you thought what a Hillary clone will do with this?
Want an end to the Republican party? Keep this up
Talk about an invansion of privacy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm afraid that train left the station a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The two faces of the United Kingdom (Score:2)
Look a few kilometers east from the cliffs of Dover towards mainland Europe - so close yet so far away. Because of that little stretch of water, the UK considers itself oh so different and elevated, and barks like an angry guard dog at anything that comes from Brussels. You want a common currency, cooperation on foreign policies or access to our island? You will do that over our queen's dead body! We reject your evil ideas that "hey, why don't we all work together and try to make things better - even though
Hey, maybe (Score:2)
the brits can help Trump find Hillary's email server and figure out exactly what sort of nefarious activities the Bidens were doing when they visited London in 1991. We must protect American democracy from corrupt politicians and their families! #MAGA!