Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts

Australia Annoys Microsoft

Microsoft is unhappy about a country that does not like government data stored overseas. It is jumping up and down about this policy in Australia. The question that must be asked is - Why is the big data giant so miffed about it? The loss in income for Microsoft cannot be that great. There must be another reason.

Like Google, is Microsoft collecting data to use for its own ends? It is so upset it refuses to launch the Office 365 service in Australia. Microsoft is aggressively lobbying the Coalition government to change the rules and open up the market. It must be after something more than profit.

Everything put into the cloud can be accessed by the cloud's owner. These services already hold data from many countries. If say a major government could get its hands on such data think of the power they would have. It seems only reasonable that countries should consider national security to be more important than reducing costs.
Internet by Ty Buchanan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     Australian Blog                         

Australian Government Accesses Data From Internet Companies

The NSA has said that it targeted non-US citizens in its information grab from large Internet companies. Australian and American government agencies have secured detailed data about Australian citizens. This fact came out in a new report.

In the first half of 2013 546 requests were made on Australians. Facebook provided details on 349 of these. The US demanded information on 20,000 users assumed to be Americans. Access was granted on nearly 16,000 US accounts.

Which government agencies made the demands was not announced by Facebook. Internet companies seem to have been given some sort of filtering power to decide what is released. This is strange considering such companies are not elected non-government agencies. Are they entitled to be above the law?

Requests to Twitter by Australia have risen 600 percent since the second half of 2012. All members of the international data oligopoly were approached. About two thirds of all requests were successful. There is a fine balance here. What happens if police want information that Internet companies will not grant? Are in-camera court cases about to become the norm, where information is deemed to be too sensitive for the public?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     Australian Blog                         
Share Article

Internet Companies Are Not Complying With Police

Despite calls by some countries for Internet companies to had over information on citizens' searches and email, the knowledge superhighway is moving in the other direction. Information stored in the cloud are out of reach of national police forces. Gone are the days when just about everything that a suspect has done is available recorded somewhere at sometime. Data is there but it cannot be accessed.

The ordinary person will not have much sympathy for police trying to "background" a suspect. They see authorities as being too intrusive anyway. For years Australian social security sent out "demand" forms for aged pensioners to provide up-to-date information about what they had in the bank. A court found that social security did not have the legal right to demand honest answers. The forms are still being sent out. Legally they are still suspect. Such is the quagmire authorities are in.

Anyway, back to the case in hand. Police are saying even getting data from Google is a problem. Even obtaining information Between Australians in Australia has barriers. In some cases it takes five year to get information via court processes. In that time period technology has moved on and not everything is stored for posterity.

The National police forces' desire for greater access is like smoke over a factory chimney. It will blow away with the breeze. Companies operating across national borders will never comply because their customers don't want them to play the game. The European Cybercrime Convention treaty is a furphy. Internet companies are watching with no intention of complying.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .