Do you run on a cloud Down Under, where data's shared and governments plunder... Oz joins US, UK in info search-warrant law Add Australia to the ranks of countries agreeing to honor US search warrants under America's CLOUD Act. The Down Under Five Eyes member on Monday announced it had agreed to the bilateral agreement formally known as the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act, just one week after the US struck a similar alliance with …
I'm no lawyer, but it seems dangerous to accept unfiltered the judicial actions of other countries. Almost a violation of sovereignty. How can subjects fight foreign warrants? Isn't this the whole reason we have extradition treaties, where a local judge rules first on the validity of the request, before the subject is given up to the foreign power? Shouldn't the same apply to data with evidentiary value?
>Almost a violation of sovereignty.
I don't think British people are all that bothered about some foreign court have over-rulling jurisdiction over their own national instituions. Certainly nothing to get all worked up about
And if it meant a trade deal that reduced the 25% duty on Scotch I'm sure they would be happy to roll over
"When police are investigating a terrorist plot or serious crime such as child exploitation, they need to be able to move forward without delay,"
By terrorist plot or serious crime, they mean whistleblowers, the press or anything else that threatens their re-election.
Isn't it data on foreign servers, rather than data on foreigners.
Like the example given, Australia asked Facebook for information on an Australian, just the data is held on the US server (which wouldn't make sense, as Facebook would have local replication, but that's the example given)
Yes, it's data on foreign servers. But the subject of the warrant (Facebook in your example) can't get justice in their local jurisdiction. It seems less of an issue for global orgs, but what if it was a local ISP?
For example, if the same treaty were in place for people, it would have allowed the Australian government to obtain Assange from the UK just by issuing a warrant; there would have been no judicial scrutiny in the U.K (Yes, I'm ignoring the subsequent bail-jump for the purposes of this example).
"which wouldn't make sense, as Facebook would have local replication, but that's the example given"
This is likely to be exactly what they mean - while Facebook cache recently accessed/produced content as close to the user as possible, the majority of content (particularly historical content) is hosted in the US for analytics etc.
If you mean that only recently accessed content would be required for fighting terrorism and child pornography, then maybe they are just convenient examples to trigger fear rather than the actual intention of the laws.
"Freedom through the reduction of ....freedom."
Exactly that. As Orwellian as it gets. And these people use terms like this *on purpose*, fully knowing what they say.
Orwell must be spinning in his grave: He never thought his books would actually be used as tutorial.
Of course there will be no fear of "running afoul of restrictions on disclosure", those restrictions are being removed.
I'm quite sure that this "agreement" is just a tool to simplify things for the US to go on fishing expeditions abroad. I'm also pretty certain that Australia is in for a rude surprise when they ask for data on a US citizen - they won't get it and will instead get a lot of bla bla about how their request is not relevant, badly formulated, not within the proper time frame, etc.
The US is expert on making everyone else kiss their ass, but avoiding doing any ass-kissing themselves.
Listening to the news today I found it hard to believe that the US government are saying that the data sharing is at risk because of the lack of judicial oversight...
Peter Dutton. A man who heads up Australia's 'Home Affairs' department, which is quite powerful as it includes police, immigration and border security sections.
Previously Dutton intervened in his own border security staff decision to deport two British au-pairs from Australia due to a suspicion they were not tourists but actually here to work in Australia. Working on a tourist visa is ILLEGAL in Australia (ok remember that part for later). Dutton *allegedly* received phone calls from two party donors to grant the two au-pairs tourist visa, so they could gain entry to the country. Dutton knew that actually these two au-pairs would go to WORK for the party donors which is ILLEGAL in Australia (remember I told you earlier). So in effect Dutton was complicit in enabling a crime (x2). Our police and jurdiciary have not bothered to do anything about this ILLEGAL behaviour by a government MINISTER.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/peter-dutton-accused-of-double-standards-in-granting-visas-for-the-nannies-of-powerful-friends/news-story/c3b55e53810e18f44e52a037359558c7
Also recently Dutton effectively said the climate activists should be DOXXED and their families (effectively) harrassed,
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/peter-dutton-suggests-cancelling-welfare-of-climate-protesters/11572370
Keep in mind that the right to protest is a fundamental part of any functioning democracy, a concept which Dutton appears to be unaware of despite being a government MINISTER.
Cyberbullying laws in Australia are supposed to prevent this type of harrassment, yet once again, this potentially CRIMINAL behaviour goes unnoticed by authorities. https://www.lawanswers.com.au/blog/cyberbullying-laws-in-australia/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
