More Government Overreach, this time Apple is backing Microsoft
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 09/06/2016 10:55:35 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple, Amazon, Google, Energy companies, and Airlines, and others back Microsoft in battle with government overreach.
Link only due to copy right issues:
Apple, Google Back Microsoft Over ‘Sneak-and-Peek’
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Thanks to Swordmaker for the ping!
Thank’s man, I will have a look at it.
Where does a 900 pound gorilla sleep? Anywhere s/he wants to.
Apple, Google Back Microsoft's Fight Against ‘Sneak-and-Peek’
Note, this is about email. Bottom line: if you’re using an email server hosted somewhere other than in your own home, you CAN NOT expect privacy.
It takes an hour to set up a Postfix server. It can run in a virtual instance on a Linux laptop sitting on your desk if you want it to. The email is 100% your property. No one’s going to “take a look” or otherwise scan it for information for government or advertisers. There are dozens of websites that walk you through the process.
Technology can be daunting, but it’s not out of reach for anyone.
Glad to see this in court, I have been complaining about this for years.
You don’t even know you were targeted for a warrant.
True, but there's a problem for the homeowner in rolling their own private mailserver. Their public IP is almost certainly dynamic (DHCP) from their ISP. This means the IP is going to be in every RBL (Real-time Block List) and no legit mailserver is going to accept connections from that home-stationed server.
They may be able to arrange to "smarthost" it to their ISP's mailserver if they're lucky, but that's something that has to be explicitly configured with the ISP (because you're basically asking your ISP to be a relay for whatever you send) and most commercial ISPs do not want people having their own home-stationed servers, mail or otherwise.
> Technology can be daunting, but it’s not out of reach for anyone.
Technology, that's true. Connections to other servers, not necessarily.
DynDNS resolves that issue, or you can configure a cloud-based Linux server with one-way encryption.
DynDNS gives your dynamic IP public DNS records. It does not take your dynamic IP out of the Realtime Block Lists. My corporate mailserver, and all the professional ones I'm familiar with, use those RBLs to drop connections from "mailservers" with dynamic (typically residential) IPs right at the front door, because they're virtually all Windows boxes that have been infected and are spambots.
> ... or you can configure a cloud-based Linux server with one-way encryption.
Sure, you can configure a mailserver in the cloud (I have a couple of them in AWS). But that raises the technology and effort bar, and weakens your claim that "anyone" can have their own private mailserver easily. Now you're talking about folks like you and me who are comfortable being their own system admin.
Then again, IMO, if one is NOT willing to be one's own system admin, one has no business setting up an internet-connected server in the first place. There's enough garbage on the net as it is.
Meh. Pony up for a static IP, IMO. If you want that level of relative anonymity, it’ll cost you something. Doesn’t mean the technology can’t be configured by someone with some gumption, and it’s all free.
And now we agree. :-)
> and it’s all free.
Or nearly so. As you point out, ISPs charge more for a static.
In my experience, spinning up a fresh VM, installing Linux, Postfix, and configuring a proper personal mailserver is about an hour. I have to wonder why Hillary chose to use Windows. That's doing it the hard way... she must have been wedded to Exchange or something.
Warrants have always been secret- when the issuing judge finds good cause to keep them secret.
It’s worked very well for centuries. I don’t see that the interwebs change anything.
Of course, perhaps the article is misleading and the suit is over something else.
I hadn’t heard they used exchange. Seems silly considering the complexity. Postfix uses startssl and is pretty flat. To each their own I suppose.
also, IPv6 should fix the ip addressing issue with nat.
The problem is, searching someone’s electronic closet vs. just a wiretap are different
If they come to your house, you would see evidence of the search regardless of the warrant being issued secretly.
Also, there should be a time limit on the secrecy, at some point you deserve to know you were targeted.
Microsoft’s complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/microsoftcomplaint.pdf
I can’t buy the “on premises” argument. The apt analogy, to me, is: putting something in a warehouse *instead* of keeping it on premise.
I don’t see any constitutional problem.
But it’s obvious the secrecy is greatly abused, maybe in an individual case that abuse could rise to being unconstitutional.
Don’t think that a court can do anything but the law could and should be tightened to limit the secrecy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.