Re:CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issue...
by rdl on Friday December 13, 2013 @05:01PM
(#6903156)
I think it falls into three groups for communications providers:
1) Laws like CALEA, which (if applicable) require a provider to develop and expose backdoors to the government in advance of a request
2) Building systems where an operator doesn't have access, but where a court order can compel changes to the system, including ultimately shutting it down.
3) Being able to build a system where operator doesn't have access to data, and upon a request, if no data can be turned over, continues operating. Must turn over any data which you do have.
4) No requirement to cooperate, or something equiv to 4th/5th A protections for the end user being extended to service providers.
I used to think the US was #3. I don't believe #4 exists anywhere, at least outside specific kinds of data (medical, legal). The US is at least #2 now, and might actually be #1 in more and more domains.
1) Laws like CALEA, which (if applicable) require a provider to develop and expose backdoors to the government in advance of a request
2) Building systems where an operator doesn't have access, but where a court order can compel changes to the system, including ultimately shutting it down.
3) Being able to build a system where operator doesn't have access to data, and upon a request, if no data can be turned over, continues operating. Must turn over any data which you do have.
4) No requirement to cooperate, or something equiv to 4th/5th A protections for the end user being extended to service providers.
I used to think the US was #3. I don't believe #4 exists anywhere, at least outside specific kinds of data (medical, legal). The US is at least #2 now, and might actually be #1 in more and more domains.