Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
there should be a stringent process in obtaining authority to do so in the absence of the owner's consent.
I would go further. Not only should the government have a hard time getting access to the data, it should be illegal for companies storing the data to look at it or pass it through. Not only that, it should be almost impossible to give them that right through a contract. Because these things always work the same way: the law says that unless there is a contract, it is not allowed. Then they make a contract that says they are allowed to do it, and users must choose between giving up their right to privacy and not using the service (which is not always a reasonable option).
For example, mail has very strong privacy protections in the Netherlands, and the postal service is not allowed to read it. However, I think email is not considered "mail" for those laws. And even if it was, cloud-based mail services such as gmail and hotmail simply make you give up your rights in a contract. I think that should not be possible, because many users don't reasonably have the choice to say no to that contract.
there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things.
There is a difference, but it's not very large. The reason is that the government is not infallible, so if software is given backdoors for the government, they will be broken by bad guys and they will get access as well. An example in the physical world are the TSA master keys for travel locks. Those are leaked and now everyone can print them or order them on ebay, making the locks as useful as a sticker that says "please don't open".
there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.
Unless they mess up real bad, don't count on any of that working. You have someone to blame, which may feel good, but it doesn't help you at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think that suing Microsoft for selling buggy software would work. Otherwise many people would have done that, and they would be bankrupt.
hacked or otherwise circumvented software
I agree that those are slightly less safe than official versions of closed source software. But both are very unsafe. As far as I can see, open source (while also by no means guaranteed to be safe) is the best bet for people who want control over their own data.
But even with that many things are now moving to the cloud, and then it doesn't really matter anymore. If your client is broken it is still slightly worse, but you can expect the server to be intentionally broken (unless you host it yourself), so your data is accessible to people who really want to see it.
I would go further. Not only should the government have a hard time getting access to the data, it should be illegal for companies storing the data to look at it or pass it through. Not only that, it should be almost impossible to give them that right through a contract. Because these things always work the same way: the law says that unless there is a contract, it is not allowed. Then they make a contract that says they are allowed to do it, and users must choose between giving up their right to privacy and not using the service (which is not always a reasonable option).
For example, mail has very strong privacy protections in the Netherlands, and the postal service is not allowed to read it. However, I think email is not considered "mail" for those laws. And even if it was, cloud-based mail services such as gmail and hotmail simply make you give up your rights in a contract. I think that should not be possible, because many users don't reasonably have the choice to say no to that contract.
there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things.
There is a difference, but it's not very large. The reason is that the government is not infallible, so if software is given backdoors for the government, they will be broken by bad guys and they will get access as well. An example in the physical world are the TSA master keys for travel locks. Those are leaked and now everyone can print them or order them on ebay, making the locks as useful as a sticker that says "please don't open".
there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.
Unless they mess up real bad, don't count on any of that working. You have someone to blame, which may feel good, but it doesn't help you at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think that suing Microsoft for selling buggy software would work. Otherwise many people would have done that, and they would be bankrupt.
hacked or otherwise circumvented software
I agree that those are slightly less safe than official versions of closed source software. But both are very unsafe. As far as I can see, open source (while also by no means guaranteed to be safe) is the best bet for people who want control over their own data.
But even with that many things are now moving to the cloud, and then it doesn't really matter anymore. If your client is broken it is still slightly worse, but you can expect the server to be intentionally broken (unless you host it yourself), so your data is accessible to people who really want to see it.
