Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

[jaclaz]

On the other hand (after the post above re: tech companies resisting secrecy):

Search warrants extend to emails stored overseas, US judge rules in Microsoft case

Email providers have to turn over a user's emails and other data to U.S. law enforcement when issued a search warrant, even if the data is stored overseas, a U.S. judge ruled Friday.

Microsoft must hand over a user's emails stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland, ruled magistrate judge James Francis of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.

In December, Francis authorized the search and seizure of the contents of all emails, records and other information regarding the identification of one of Microsoft's webmail users.

While Microsoft's Global Criminal Compliance (GCC) team turned over so-called non-content information stored on U.S. servers, such as the user's name and country as well as address book information, it refused to hand over the contents of the emails because they were stored on a server in another country. For this reason the company sought to quash the search warrant, arguing that U.S. courts are not authorized to issue warrants for extraterritorial search and seizure of emails.

Judge Francis, however, disagreed and denied Microsoft's motion to quash the verdict.

If the long arm of the law can reach into other countries, then efforts by U.S. tech companies to grow their cloud services could be seriously impaired. (Hmm, maybe not such a bad thing...)

--JorgeA

Wait a minute.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

If someone submitted to the US Law is suspected of having committed a crime (and/or the crime took place on US territory) AND a Search Warrant is actually signed by a Judge, there is nothing "bad" about it, and it is not very different from the current, "normal" ways international justice agreements and treaties work, at least between countries like the US and Eire.

The whole point about privacy was not denying access to e-mails in case of being suspected of a crime and along the lines of a search warrant from a Court, it was about three letter agencies free access to ALL e-mails of ALL people (not suspected of any crime) AND WITHOUT a Search Warrant issued by a Court of Justice (or actually existing but secretly issued by a secret tribunal of some kind).

jaclaz

[TELVM]

More info about the "subscription Windows" model:

Microsoft's Windows as a Service comes in to focus with new job posting

Comment by Obi-Wan Kenobi (may The Force be with him):

If that's the case, I better get used to sudo commands, because I'll be D***ED if I'll ever do that! Windows is not a magazine, nor should any operating system be treated as one IMO.

Other:

Kind of like paying protection money to the Mob.

First the failed windows 8.x and now rumors of a subscription model (again).

Microsoft seems to be dead-set on running their customers off by treating them like yesterdays trash.

How to increase Apple, and Google sales in one easy step.

[JorgeA]

Wait a minute.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

If someone submitted to the US Law is suspected of having committed a crime (and/or the crime took place on US territory) AND a Search Warrant is actually signed by a Judge, there is nothing "bad" about it, and it is not very different from the current, "normal" ways international justice agreements and treaties work, at least between countries like the US and Eire.

The whole point about privacy was not denying access to e-mails in case of being suspected of a crime and along the lines of a search warrant from a Court, it was about three letter agencies free access to ALL e-mails of ALL people (not suspected of any crime) AND WITHOUT a Search Warrant issued by a Court of Justice (or actually existing but secretly issued by a secret tribunal of some kind).

jaclaz

Good points all, and I agree largely.

But...

...bear in mind that this is not actually like a situation where one country requests the cooperation of another country in a criminal investigation. It is one country demanding that property that's being held under the jurisdiction of another country, be turned over to it without consulting or asking permission of that other country.

This principle could easily end up very, very badly, don't you think?

--JorgeA

Edited May 3, 2014 by JorgeA

[JorgeA]

More info about the "subscription Windows" model:

Microsoft's Windows as a Service comes in to focus with new job posting

Comment by Obi-Wan Kenobi (may The Force be with him):

If that's the case, I better get used to sudo commands, because I'll be D***ED if I'll ever do that! Windows is not a magazine, nor should any operating system be treated as one IMO.

Other:

Kind of like paying protection money to the Mob.

First the failed windows 8.x and now rumors of a subscription model (again).

Microsoft seems to be dead-set on running their customers off by treating them like yesterdays trash.

How to increase Apple, and Google sales in one easy step.

Pretty harsh things being said in the comments section!

And well deserved.

--JorgeA

[nitroshift]

@JorgeA

I'm running Comodo Dragon without any add-ons.

nitroshift

[JorgeA]

Friday's Wall Street Journal carried an informative piece on the "cat-and-mouse" game between critics and government in Turkey:

Turkey's Erdogan: One of the World's Most Determined Internet Censors

Too much good stuff to quote here, but some of the best parts are in the second half of the article.

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

Good points all, and I agree largely.

But...

...bear in mind that this is not actually like a situation where one country requests the cooperation of another country in a criminal investigation. It is one country demanding that property that's being held under the jurisdiction of another country, be turned over to it without consulting or asking permission of that other country.

This principle could easily end up very, very badly, don't you think?

--JorgeA

Not really.

The actual Judge's decision, if you read it:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1149373-in-re-matter-of-warrant.html

the decision clears the nature of such a warrant as "hybrid", giving it the relevance of a subpoena:

In particular, the SCA authorizes the Government to procure a

warrant requiring a provider of electronic communication service to

disclose e-mail content in the provider’s electronic storage.

Although section 2703(a) uses the term “warrant” and refers to the

use of warrant procedures, the resulting order is not a

conventional warrant; rather, the order is a hybrid: part search

warrant and part subpoena. It is obtained like a search warrant

when an application is made to a neutral magistrate who issues the

order only upon a showing of probable cause. On the other hand, it

is executed like a subpoena in that it is served on the ISP in

possession of the information and does not involve government

agents entering the premises of the ISP to search its servers and

seize the e-mail account in question.

This unique structure supports the Government’s view that the

SCA does not implicate principles of extraterritoriality.It has

long been the law that a subpoena requires the recipient to produce

information in its possession, custody, or control regardless of

the location of that information.

It makes (to me) a lot of sense.

jaclaz

Edited May 3, 2014 by jaclaz

[JorgeA]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the judge has interepreted the law correctly. If and as more countries adopt this principle, then critics under an authoritarian government that is not brazenly repressive but still maintains a "rule of law" veneer, will have to make sure that the incriminating documents about the prime minister get stored in an overseas server owned by a foreign company with no local physical presence: after a court ruling such as this one, an overseas server owned by a local company won't suffice any more.

 

Just one more door shut against the possibility of opposition to tyranny. Make it harder to expose government wrongdoing, and easier to lawfully suppress the critics without actually having to bash heads. Next door to shut will be to prohibit storing your stuff with foreign tech companies, uner the same "law and order", "we need access" type of logic.

 

For all I know about international law, that may already be an accepted legal principle worldwide and this particular die is already weighted against critics everywhere.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

@JorgeA

 

I'm running Comodo Dragon without any add-ons.

 

nitroshift

 

Cool, thanks!

 

I checked out their web page but didn't find many specifics there. You said that you run it without any add-ons. Does Comodo Dragon have built-in features that tell you whether a site from (say) a Google search result is known to harbor malware?

 

I assume that, independently of this, you run AV software to protect against attacks that do strike as you're surfing the Web.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Dedoimedo reproduced a Mozilla daily tracking chart of user sentiment about Firefox 29. As of this writing, percentages seem to be running on the order of 85% against, 15% for.

 

 

He also reports that downloads of the FF add-on to bring back the previous UI have skyrocketed. If more such alternatives crop up, maybe we can open a "bring back the classic FF interface" thread... 

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Mozilla folks will be more responsive, as responsive, or even less responsive than the Microsoft folks were in view of the public reaction to their brilliant changes.

 

Just remember, mor*ns, if I wanted to use Chrome, I would.

.

P.S. To the world out there, I demand a fundraising project to start a new browser that will give us what Firefox was in version 3.5 or so. Not as a technology, but as an ideal. A browser made for sane people.

 

As a member of the techerati, surely Igor must know about Pale Moon and the other FF derivatives out there?

 

--JorgeA

 

EDIT: improved wording

Edited May 4, 2014 by JorgeA

[TELVM]

Turkey's Erdogan: One of the World's Most Determined Internet Censors

 

... "We blocked YouTube to protect our national security," Mr. Erdogan said bluntly ...

 

^ I'd be physiologically unable to say something like that without unscrewing myself in laugh. Guess I'm no politician.

 

 

There's a noticeable influx of refugees in the PM forum. Also some funny posts in the line of "please don't duplicate this Firefox idiocy!"

 

 

The last paragraph in Dedoimedo's Firefox 29 sucks! is too homeric to not being quoted here:

 

For now, Mozilla, thank you for f***ing up the Internet. You surrendered all your good mantra to corporate vampires. You left us with Microsoft and Google. You can take all of your social network, touch, mobile, and all the other bul***** you can come up with, and stuff it deep up your pseudo-philanthropic arses. I once loved you so much, and now I sincerely hate you. You destroyed my browser. You destroyed the fun of using Firefox, you made it into an imitation of all I despise. I truly wish you fail, I wish you crash and burn. On a day like this, I wish the Internet had never been invented. There's nothing worse than a Jedi turning to the dark side, and this is exactly what you did. You f***ed us over money, you greedy morons. Enjoy your profits. Yippee, ki-yay, bitches.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Tripredacus
re-applied swear filter

[jaclaz]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the judge has interepreted the law correctly. If and as more countries adopt this principle, then critics under an authoritarian government that is not brazenly repressive but still maintains a "rule of law" veneer, will have to make sure that the incriminating documents about the prime minister get stored in an overseas server owned by a foreign company with no local physical presence: after a court ruling such as this one, an overseas server owned by a local company won't suffice any more.

 

Just one more door shut against the possibility of opposition to tyranny. Make it harder to expose government wrongdoing, and easier to lawfully suppress the critics without actually having to bash heads. Next door to shut will be to prohibit storing your stuff with foreign tech companies, uner the same "law and order", "we need access" type of logic.

 

For all I know about international law, that may already be an accepted legal principle worldwide and this particular die is already weighted against critics everywhere.

 

--JorgeA

I am not an expert on internation Law, let alone about authoritarian Governements, but here seemingly the point is more revolving about an extension of the Fourth Amendment and the need for "probable cause" ascertained by a Judge to emit the search warrant, see pages 11-12 of the Judge decision.

 

Of course, it is entirely possible that the decisions of the Judge that emitted the original warrant were flawed, that he/she was "tricked" by false informations provided by the LE officers or that he/she was bribed or blackmailed, or pushed by the Government into releasing an otherwise illegal or simply unjustified warrant, but if we start thinking this, then there is no actual point of discussion, "All your bases are belong to them" .

 

To recap.

1. Three letters US Governemnt agencies (and also the more letters secret ones ), three letters British corresponding ones, and most probably a whole lot of any number letters Governement agencies from all countries have seemingly the technical abilities to enter the global flow of internet communications (including e-mails) and process them the way they see fit, without having any legal authority to do so, and without being authorized by a Court (or by being secretly authorized by a secret court ) and possibly they also have some kind of access to the actual servers of the service companies (possibly with the complicity of the actual service companies) where these data is stored, no matter the actual locations of these servers.

 

This is preoccupying.

 

2. A single case where a  Judge of a (non-secret) Court determined that there were enough "probable cause" to emit a warrant to collect a single user data and another Judge (also of a non-secret Court) ruled that the particular warrant is valid and has to be interpreted actually as a (legal) subpoena, thus enforcing the warrant execution.

 

This is (to me) normal, and also fair (according to common sense).

 

In any case, even if you disagree with the above opinion, it would make a lot of sense to attribute to each a level of priority proportionated on the probabilities of each case to lead to generalized prejudice of freedom.

 

If you prefer, there is IMHO no need to make a mountain out of a molehill, at least not until you have to go past (in this order) the Rocky Mountains, the Alps and the whole Himalayan chain.

 

jaclaz

[JorgeA]

In any case, even if you disagree with the above opinion, it would make a lot of sense to attribute to each a level of priority proportionated on the probabilities of each case to lead to generalized prejudice of freedom.

 

If you prefer, there is IMHO no need to make a mountain out of a molehill, at least not until you have to go past (in this order) the Rocky Mountains, the Alps and the whole Himalayan chain.

 

On that we definitely agree. To use another metaphor, there are bigger fish to fry. 

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

There's a noticeable influx of refugees in the PM forum. Also some funny posts in the line of "please don't duplicate this Firefox idiocy!"

 

 

The last paragraph in Dedoimedo's Firefox 29 sucks! is too homeric to not being quoted here:

 

 

Check out, too, the comments on the FF feedback page. Here's a small selection: 

 

I have just downgraded to FF28. I couldn't believe that you decided that it's OK to fuck up all user's customizations and add-ons and to force users to Microsoft and Google UI. Are you joking ?

.

Prior to your new update, when I opened my bookmark menu and right clicked on a bookmark, it would open a menu which allowed me to "open in a new tab", "open in a new screen", etc. Since the update, when I open my bookmark drop down menu and right click on a bookmark, the menu screen appears but all the choices are grayed out and cannot be selected. So, to open a bookmark in a new tab I first need to open a new tab and then click on the bookmark to gete to the bookmarked site. I don't know...

.

Firefox 29 is crap. In the past, I was really disappointed that every time an update happened, my customization of the toolbars would be undone. But now they have totally screwed up the interface. tabsontop=false does not work anymore. I want them on the bottom. I am not drinking the "modern user interface" koolaid. Too much waste of space, too much eye candy, and too manhy places where they have decided what I want to do.

.

I definitely do NOT like not having the ability to place my toolbars and address bar where I like them.I always had my menu bar visible with my address bar and search bar on the same line. Firefox doesn't let me do that now. Bad Mozilla, BAD!

.

I miss the old orange bookmarks button in the upper left corner. When I first launched this version of Firefox, my honest first impression was "what the .... I didn't click Chrome!" Give me my bookmarks button back, and let me do it in a way that I don't have to burn this much header space on blank window header weirdness. Form follows function, and you've lost some of the latter with this. The bookmarks toolbar doesn't appear to actually show me any bookmarks[...]

.

Yet another touch UI for a desktop? Really?

 

 

And finally, here's an articulate supporter of the new Firefox:

 

sdkl lp['om bvg ,x ,x6dmc bjmm8d u k mk, cck

 

 

--JorgeA

Edited May 4, 2014 by JorgeA

[Flasche]

Check out, too, the comments on the FF feedback page. Here's a small selection: 

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

And finally, here's an articulate supporter of the new Firefox:

 

 

 

--JorgeA

 

It seems to be a common trait with companies these days, and knowing the previous results of the other companies, the chance of revival is very low