are you physically based in the us? because that could be an issue, too, if you were ever compelled to provide information. i’d just lay off for now and just donate to the other instances if i were you. that said, i’m just an asshole on the internet and my opinion is only worth what you see.
you’re talking about FVEY, and four of those eyes are all looking in one direction while Trump alone looks away. yeah, you’re right. there’s nothing about me that i dont’t think the us govt already knows about. but your message almost sounds like i shouldn’t care while the rest of the things happening in the world are all telling me that i should. i question your motivations.
FTFY.
Laws are only worth the paper they’re written on and the willingness of the executive to actually execute them. Here in the US, the latter is now missing, and the former isn’t for sale (yet, give them time to put it on the Russian black market)
Also, it’s evident that no, you aren’t really protected by it. That’s why a lot of countries forbid sending personal information into the US. You have secret courts on the Executive branch that can force you to disclose anything to them and keep that fact secret.
Whoever wants to compel you for information will add financial/mental/physical pressure until you no longer wish to remain silent. That’s true in democratic governments, stories/history tells us it’s worse in autocratic ones.
You have the right to remain silent… the question is whether you can with external pressure.
Correct, it’s a concern everywhere. I’ll still lean towards stable countries as a host as the risk is lower.
It’s a Lemmy instance, not the secret to world peace. Very few individuals on this planet would undergo any applied compliance pressure from a government agency just for others to continue using a self-hosted social media instance. Appealing in court and following the legal process? Sure, if you can get the time off work and can take the financial hit. Facing threats of raids, arrests, deportation, etc? That’s magnitudes tougher.
It wouldn’t be reasonable for us to expect John from down the road to prioritise keeping their Lemmy instance up over whatever is happening locally at the time that impacts them. It’s easier for everyone, including potential hosts in unstable countries, to sign up to instances where the risk is lower.
Actually, having an LLC appears to increase my ability to defend against it
the Act provides a mechanism for a communications provider to challenge the order if disclosing the data would risk violating foreign law. Under the CLOUD Act, the legal protection of an individual’s rights depends on the objection by a provider. There is no direct mechanism for individuals to challenge an order under the CLOUD Act. A court will consider a provider’s challenge of an order for disclosure of data data and review the request under a multi-factor “comity” analysis to assess foreign and other interests at stake. However, U.S. court can require production of that data despite the objection, even where the laws of another nation would be violated.
By running it under an LLC I actually have a lawful mechanism to pull, not fool proof or airtight obviously, but it’s something I wouldn’t have without the LLC
Incorrect. You would have no problem whatsoever if you had no company and just hosted in europe.
Companies under the cloud act only have the ability to disagree if the country in question has an agreement with the us which currently only great britain has.
You would have no problem whatsoever if you had no company and just hosted in europe.
As an individual it would be so much worse, what are you talking about? They’re not going to go “Oh you’re an individual hosting in the EU, guess there’s nothing we can do”
Companies under the cloud act only have the ability to disagree if the country in question has an agreement with the us which currently only great britain has.
That’s only applicable for the other way, e.g. Britain (as an example) requesting data from a US provider. There are 2 parts to the act, part 1 is for the SCA to be amended so that the US can compel US companies to turn over data stored overseas and part 2 authorizes the entering of these agreements with foreign governments so when those governments wants data from a US company for their citizens they can fast track it.
The mechanism is always available if it’s the US wanting the data from a US company with overseas servers
I could still run it on servers outside of the US, and I might if I can find something that beats my current provider
are you physically based in the us? because that could be an issue, too, if you were ever compelled to provide information. i’d just lay off for now and just donate to the other instances if i were you. that said, i’m just an asshole on the internet and my opinion is only worth what you see.
If the us govt really wanted some user info, with all that 5 eyes and CIA, NSA whatnot, they would just find it themselves
you’re talking about FVEY, and four of those eyes are all looking in one direction while Trump alone looks away. yeah, you’re right. there’s nothing about me that i dont’t think the us govt already knows about. but your message almost sounds like i shouldn’t care while the rest of the things happening in the world are all telling me that i should. i question your motivations.
You can’t be compelled to give information. We have the fifth amendment.
FTFY. Laws are only worth the paper they’re written on and the willingness of the executive to actually execute them. Here in the US, the latter is now missing, and the former isn’t for sale (yet, give them time to put it on the Russian black market)
That explicitly do not apply to companies.
Also, it’s evident that no, you aren’t really protected by it. That’s why a lot of countries forbid sending personal information into the US. You have secret courts on the Executive branch that can force you to disclose anything to them and keep that fact secret.
Whoever wants to compel you for information will add financial/mental/physical pressure until you no longer wish to remain silent. That’s true in democratic governments, stories/history tells us it’s worse in autocratic ones.
You have the right to remain silent… the question is whether you can with external pressure.
https://xkcd.com/538/
A classic.
Well, that’s a problem in every country then, that’s not specific to America.
Correct, it’s a concern everywhere. I’ll still lean towards stable countries as a host as the risk is lower.
It’s a Lemmy instance, not the secret to world peace. Very few individuals on this planet would undergo any applied compliance pressure from a government agency just for others to continue using a self-hosted social media instance. Appealing in court and following the legal process? Sure, if you can get the time off work and can take the financial hit. Facing threats of raids, arrests, deportation, etc? That’s magnitudes tougher.
It wouldn’t be reasonable for us to expect John from down the road to prioritise keeping their Lemmy instance up over whatever is happening locally at the time that impacts them. It’s easier for everyone, including potential hosts in unstable countries, to sign up to instances where the risk is lower.
Cloud act says doesnt matter
Actually, having an LLC appears to increase my ability to defend against it
https://epic.org/the-cloud-act/
By running it under an LLC I actually have a lawful mechanism to pull, not fool proof or airtight obviously, but it’s something I wouldn’t have without the LLC
Incorrect. You would have no problem whatsoever if you had no company and just hosted in europe.
Companies under the cloud act only have the ability to disagree if the country in question has an agreement with the us which currently only great britain has.
As an individual it would be so much worse, what are you talking about? They’re not going to go “Oh you’re an individual hosting in the EU, guess there’s nothing we can do”
That’s only applicable for the other way, e.g. Britain (as an example) requesting data from a US provider. There are 2 parts to the act, part 1 is for the SCA to be amended so that the US can compel US companies to turn over data stored overseas and part 2 authorizes the entering of these agreements with foreign governments so when those governments wants data from a US company for their citizens they can fast track it.
The mechanism is always available if it’s the US wanting the data from a US company with overseas servers
It’s all right there in my link