This is not something new. It's been an issue in international legal frameworks since countries had laws.

Here's a decent overview: https://columbialawreview.org/content/international-comity-i...

The critical thing to realize is that countries are not bound by other countries' laws, only by agreements they make with each other (or ones which are militarily forced on them).

Given that this flies in the face of the traditional US approach to extraterritoriality, and the EU is implementing GDPR, I'd be very surprised if this weren't heavily circumscribed in the future.

The idea that the internet should be left to its own devices made sense as long as the internet didn't actually matter, i. e. had no influence on the offline world.

Those were easier times, but they also limited the usefulness of the medium. If it can't affect peoples' lives, it cannot be beneficial for them. Conversely, if it can be beneficial, it can also hurt them.

E-Commerce is the most obvious example: it's incredibly useful to do business online. But it's obvious that such economic activity will invariably lead to scams and frauds.

Having established that real things now happen online, the question becomes what to do about it. "Leaving the internet alone" in that context cedes all power to those with the most technical ability. That's a rather arbitrary distribution of power, and I'm not sure people would enjoy the outcome, long-term.

For better or worse, democracy and governments have long been the tool to decide and enforce the rules of societies. It's not entirely clear why that model should change just because is "..., but online!". And for all the faults of the US' democracy specifically, it's still far more legitimate than the CXOs of Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Comcast.

I fully agree and also think it's not the cloud users that are most affected but their users. As a customer of a bank you have little control where your bank stores your data (although with GDPR they'd at least have to tell you if it goes to AWS). And yet, your data could be accessed by foreign prosecutors without confirmation by a local judge.

That's a great point, and it's often overlooked. To my knowledge, the best way to combat this is to create end-to-end encrypted solutions that only the customer can access. For example, Apple phones can not be cracked even by law enforcement. The corollary is that other anti-privacy practices such as data mining and tracking can no longer be used against the users. Win-win?

Telegram may be a better example than Apple phones given the SB FBI case and previous articles shared here about hacks. As a service, device, implementation of encryption gets more use it also will get more eyes from state actors on how to find cracks in the armor.

There was a lot of understandable disdain for Telegram when it got popular because they roll their own crypto, MTProto. However, it looks to me like Russia's recent pants-on-head move (banning 2M IP addresses because Telegram won't give up their keys) indicates that MTProto, if not a very wise development to begin with, doesn't have any obvious cracks that the FSB could just quietly pry open.

AFAIK telegram has channels and groups which were used in russia for purposes the govt didn't want to encourage. To my understanding, both groups and channels cannot be encrypted, so this ban has less to do with encryption but with the fact that Telegram wasn't willing to handle over the plain text chats they have on their servers.

They certainly are encrypted, they're not end to end encrypted so Telegram has the keys. Supposedly each key is stored across multiple datacenters in different legal jurisdictions so no single government can compel them to hand over the keys, but this seems like a rather questionable legal theory.

> Apple phones can not be cracked even by law enforcement

Not true: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbxxxd/unlock-iph...

It seems like it's somewhat routine to set up relationships with foreign intelligence services for that reason.

Fully agree with your opinion that privacy should be norm and hopefully people will start to take back their privacy. You'd be surprised how often law enforcement uses seemingly innocent data available to them to paint a picture that supports their needs/justification all in name of "justice"

I very much worry about a heavily regulated internet.

The beauty of tech is how quickly things change and move. In a mere 2 months, Ive completed the entire front end of an app, solo.

The moment a programmer deals with government regulations, you require lawyers, not hobbyists.

Lord I hope there are more parties involved in the conversation than "tech companies and law enforcement".

Those 2 parties should play a very small role too...

It is harder to be a troll when anonymity is removed. People, at least some people, will be more hesitant to post stupid things if their stupidity is associated with their real world identity for all to see. It would also be more challenging to be a criminal or fraudster online when anonymity is voided.

Just think how much less toxic Reddit would be if there were no anonymity and employers, parents, and neighbors could see what people are really thinking about.

Also, privacy is not anonymity.

Sure, but it is also harder to be a whistleblower or to speak out against a powerful government or business when they have the power to retaliate against you.

You mean to say, when they can identify you. Most of the time, powerful people have the power to retaliate against anyone.

I agree, but for me, the benefit of anonymity outweighs the detriment of it.

Half a year ago, I saw a scientific study that people are trolling more when they are not anonymous. The opposite of what you say.

Is there any new data?