Euro politicians are hyping the terror threat to steal your privacy

European politicians are using a bogus terror threat to coerce their populations, says Open-Xchange founder Rafael Laguna. It’s a year since we caught up with the always-quotable CEO, and he hasn’t mellowed. “Privacy Shield is a band aid on a wound that won’t heal,” he said. "It's just a Band Aid on a wound - the wound is …

[Pascal Monett]

Public opinion will swing

The whole problem with this issue is that, as I have already said, the politicians will always cater to public whim, and if the public is unaware, the politician will drum up the interest - but only if he is paid for it (by lobbying, of course).

The issue with security in general, and encryption in particular, is that the public is completely apathetic at this point in time, and the lobbyists are working hard to keep it that way - meaning that politicians have no incentive to step up to the plate.

It is going to take a series of hardships directly impacting masses of people for "the masses" to wake up and demand a change in sufficient numbers to override the current lobby efforts of companies for whom security is a direct hit to their current slurp policy.

[Alister]

“Privacy is a basic right in European law. It is not in US law. In the US, companies cannot access their customers email addresses. In fact, we find that idea appalling, that you could access your customers' emails. It’s like walking into your bedroom.”

I don't understand the above quote, at all. It seems to be suggesting that Europe has privacy laws, but in the US where there are no privacy laws, customers' email addresses are private, but in Europe they aren't?

[BillG]

Privacy

Privacy is a basic right in European law. It is not in US law.

Incorrect. Roe v. Wade established that the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy for all U.S. citizens.

[just_me]

Re: Privacy

Umm Roe v Wade is right to abortion, not right to privacy - but it used the affirmed right to privacy as part of its argument. Right to privacy under 14th amendment was affirmed in Griswold v Connecticut - 381 US 479, in 1965.

-- was looking for icon 'tip'n a top hat as they head to the door... settled on nutty prof.

[BillG]

Re: Privacy

Umm Roe v Wade is right to abortion, not right to privacy

@ just_me, your first statement is incorrect, and so is your second statement. Abortion is not a right. A legal Right is what is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Other laws are based on those rights. So Roe v. Wade established that the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy for all U.S. citizens. It also established that since the U.S. had never ruled on abortion before, it went back to British law pre-1776 (yes, Supreme Court decisions still sometimes go back to British rule of the Colonies) and that Britain had legalized abortions, with certain restrictions(quickenings, etc).

Based on the 14th Amendment and British law, the decision is that abortion is legal according to Federal law (but only in the first two trimesters, but I digress).

You should read the Roe v. Wade decision, it is a very easy read.

[just_me]

Re: Privacy

Doesn't look like you read the full decision and referring documents. looks like you looked at wiki for it. Did you bother to look at Griswold v Connecticut? Decisions often refer to previous decisions, building upon history. So here are some dates for you Griswold v Connecticut - 1965, Roe v Wade - 1973. There is also Eisenstadt v Baird 1972, Lawrence v Texas - 2003.

In Griswold v Connecticut, look at the writings of William O. Douglas.

[Raumkraut]

Privacy is a basic right in European law. It is not in US law. In the US, companies cannot access their customers email addresses. ...

I don't understand the above quote, at all. ...

If you replace the second "US" with "EU" it makes sense, so I assume it's a typo on someone's part.

[JustSomeBloke]

Genius

If only the cops and spies were as smart as Rafe Laguna.

"Just follow the bad guys"

Now that he reveals the answer, it sounds SO obvious.

Genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa Andrew, you spelt "British politicians" wrong.

But don't worry, I've got you covered.

[Matt Bryant]

Blinkered, self-serving denial.

It sounds like Mr Rafe Laguna simply doesn't want to hear anything that might interfere with his business plans. He probably sat with his hands over his eyes throughout the Bataclan attack coverage, muttering; "My need to sell products outweighs your right not to get killed!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blinkered, self-serving denial.

How is it living with so much fear? Does it motivate you? There are many things that may well kill you but assuming you live in the west a big bad muslim rates right up there with lightning as far as risk goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blinkered, self-serving denial.

Which bit of targeted surveillance do you need help with?

Of course he's singing for his own choir, but the fact remains that the US has got a few problems re. privacy, and Europe has fewer in that respect. No, not none - some parts of EU anti-terror legislation are also more about pandering to burocrats to bypass their own red tape instead of fixing the actual problem.

Let's not allow the terrorists to turn back the clock on Human Rights, shall we? Of course law enforcement can get the powers it needs, but not without implementing the matching transparency and accountability. With power comes responsibility, and currently they're almost frantically trying to avoid the latter. If you want to see how that works, have a look at why Black Lives Matter came to be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blinkered, self-serving denial.

Matt! You're out again! And you've not been taking your dried frog pills....

[Chrissy]

Re: Blinkered, self-serving denial.

Ahhh, Mattie, Mattie, Mattie, ... how I've missed you..... Chicken Little made flesh.

[asdf]

wow really?

Isn't that headline about 15 years too late? Sure is for us Yanks and our wonderful politicians anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no hype involved

They are being realistic instead of being naïve and complacent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is no hype involved

> instead of being naïve and complacent.

Is security theater at the airport being proactive then? Aren't you glad that minimum wage mouth breather TSA guy is there to strip search granny in her wheel chair (never mind the Inspector General being able to smuggle automatic weapons and grenades through no problem the week before)? I know the massive new overhead of the Dept. of Homeland security sure makes me sleep better at night.

[fidodogbreath]

NSA/GCHQ suggested edits

Politicians are using a bogus terror threat to manipulate the sheeple protect their power keep us all safe.

[Fungus Bob]

"The fundamental problem, Laguna suggests, is that Americans can’t understand European privacy concerns."

We Americans *do* understand European privacy concerns as they are ours too. Unfortunately, we are saddled with corporate and government asshats that want to run roughshod over us.

[bazza]

Well then, make it an electoral issue.

And if that doesn't work, then you're stuck with it. The US constitution means that most of the time no one can force something to happen, meaning it's easy for anyone to prevent something. And for some organisations (big corporate), nothing happening is a victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, doesn't a lot of his argument assume that critical infrastructure is actually connected to the Internet? AFAIK, most of the UK's isn't.

[Oengus]

Focus was too narrow

Euro Globally politicians are hyping the terror threat to steal your privacy

FTFY

This isn't just a Euro issue. It is Global. Politicians see it as a way of "securing" THEIR future. They don't give a rats ar## about security of their constituents they just want the power over them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Focus was too narrow

The power is nice in a fleeting sort of way. What's the real driver is all those corporate spots reserved/created for them in their post-political life.