This is utterly ridiculous, possibly even subversive, given two things:
(a) The number of intentional leaks in Microsoft products (esp new Window's) that might be inspired by NSA surveillance
(b) The leaks showing German BND and Five Eyes cooperate very closely on SIGINT with BND letting them use selectors that no patriot of German government or industry should've tolerated.
Many articles, esp Der Spiegel, also indicate that German intelligence is lap-dogging so hard in an attempt to join Five Eyes club. Additionally, remember that the TAREX teams in ECI leaks were focusing on Germany, South Korea, and China. Yeah, not all the terrorism they talk about on TV: one opponent and two seeming partners. What do all three have in common? They're among the biggest economies competing with American (and Five Eyes') business interests. Makes sense among scheming intelligence agencies to use assets against them to get privileged few tight with Washington a competitive advantage and do counter-intelligence against their agencies doing the same.
So, Microsoft are either a bunch of idiots that have no awareness of Snowden leaks or reporting on the situation with NSA and Germany. Or they knew that while subverting their European offering to give NSA every chance to hit the customers' data as a favor to them to avoid pressure and keep lucrative contracts. I'm betting on the latter to be safe and continuing a boycott of Microsoft tech where possible.
If Microsoft would just keep the data there, that would be a good thing. But I suspect it will transfer the data from Deutsche Telekom back to US servers, where the US government will be able to request it anyway. I'm hoping Microsoft won't do that, though.
It seems to be more of a tactic to get out of the current law case against them: US vs. Microsoft where the US wants access to european servers from Microsoft to get the messages from a european to a european which discuss a drug crime.
> But T-Systems will act as a “trustee” of the facilities, with Microsoft insisting its employees will have no access to the data held at the facilities without the German company’s permission.
If Microsoft were actually interested in privacy, they'd design their products in such a way that Microsoft would have no technical ability to get to users' data without the end user's permission. A true zero knowledge data center whereby Microsoft does not have the technical ability to restore users' data is the only viable solution.
The real solution is high assurance systems: those designed in a rigorous way with an argument that they'll remain secure against any known classes of attack. That's every layer of the stack and sideways as my proprietary framework [1] used to show. Here's an example [2] of what that's like applied to Tor. Ottela's Tinfoil Chat is only one I know that applies high assurance at the design level to eliminate risk of High Strength Attackers. He took a lot of feedback from us on Schneier's blog and applied it well.
Client-side encryption using C libraries on Linux or whatever is just asking to be hacked. Best will be secure hardware, drivers, kernel, and trusted components. See CHERI processor [4], EROS documentation [5] (esp "Principle-driven...") and Mikro-SINA VPN [6] for examples of The Right Thing in security-critical development. Need more like that.
This is a bid to place Microsoft above reproach. They get to play the "we did everything in our power to protect privacy" card, while still remaining fully compliant with government back-door policies. Now the media runs with this, and eventually the mindless masses are lulled back to sleep while their rights and freedoms continue to be eroded.
There are a lot of tech companies that can argue that they are doing everything within their power to protect privacy from government actors (e.g. Apple, Yahoo, but not, say, Verizon[1]). It just so happens that "everything within their power" might be extremely little, if they are required to maintain their existing structure and comply with the letter of the law.
At some point our options really become: relying on tech providers without presence in "unsafe" jurisdictions (if there are any), relying on tech providers willing to disobey the law (and ideally capable of convincing us they disobey them in our favor. Via: open-source, audits, etc) or pursuing reform of those laws.
Which gets you what against the NSA, BND, and mass collection? Nothing by itself. Solving these problems is a tad more difficult than merely using Linux. ;)
"A step away" = still there. You're just being contrarian.
"Not so." Prove it. Linux still shows your communications on plaintext online by default. They have zero days in popular apps and kernel for Linux. They have attacks below firmware if you get clever with OS security. So, no, using Linux by itself doesn't change anything for bulk collection as proven by the Snowden leaks. It can be an improvement over Windows for targeted collection but will still be hit in default state. And most people hearing "Use Linux" aren't qualified to get it anywhere near bulletproof. So, they'll be easy targets.
Using any standard, mainstream system when nation-states are after you equals much higher chance of getting your box owned. It's just economics: they focus on attacks w/ highest ROI. Windows, Mac, and Linux kernels are highest ROI for desktop. People on an Amiga are probably less likely to get hacked by automated system despite inferior security just because of its obscurity and attackers' focus. It's why my old trick of BSD or UNIX on non-popular ISA's (eg Alpha) stopped so many attacks despite their apparent sophistication.
GNU and links like those consistently miss the point when the discussion is about security. OSS or FOSS don't matter as much as review by qualified, trusted party with trustworthy distribution. As explained here:
Might explained why a few closed source products achieved high assurance security (B3/A1/EAL6/EAL7) that survived years of NSA pentesting while FOSS... see Snowden leaks. You can get those freedoms with proprietary models via contracts, esp with non-profits. Most just are about money though. Likewise, FOSS communities rarely deliver high-quality, maintained software and never deliver highly assured software.
So all this philosophical crap serves nobody if we're talking about making software trustworthy. For that, we need capable people building it while utilizing every security-enhancing method we know, trustworthy people reviewing it whether closed or open, ability to know you possess what was reviewed in that configuration, and continual maintenance esp of bugfixes. That's the baseline we need to push whether FOSS or a proprietary version of open-source.
I love Ubuntu and haven't touched Windows in 2+ years, but I don't delude myself into believing that Ubuntu being Debian-based affords me protection against mass surveillance.
I guess it depends on the method of surveillance. If your data is being collected by any 3rd party then you might as well assume that any vague yet menacing government agency can access it since it's just a subpoena away. So all the tracking and analytics that MS/Apple/Google/Damn near every tech company put on their services is really the problem.
The only method of securing your data is to make sure it never leaves your computer without your consent and using Linux is one of many possible things you can do to ensure that. Sure, if you're running Skype, Chrome, Steam, etc. on your Linux laptop then the benefit is pretty marginal but still technically better than if it was on Windows.
I'm really surprised by the number of negative comments. Data hosted in Germany won't be accessible to Microsoft US nor the US government. So that's one problem solved.
If the German government can access that data so what? Do you really expect to escape from that? Keep your data in house if you care about privacy that much. Most of German companies offering services to German customers now can say "your data is stored in your country" thanks to Microsoft.
Then if the European government can snoop in, what do you expect MS to do? That's a problem that the German gov needs to address, a government elected by people.
And again, no one is forcing you to be "in the cloud".
Say what you want, "country clouds" are a step forward and a value some people are willing to pay for.
> Data hosted in Germany won't be accessible to Microsoft US nor the US government.
How do we know? Is Microsoft planning to release the source code?
> If the German government can access that data so what? Do you really expect to escape from that?
Yes.
I agree with your general point that this is a step forward, but I am also wary that people will perceive this as solving the massive problems we have with securing ourselves from pervasive surveillance.
Keep in mind this is basically just a promise from Microsoft that they'll keep your data in your country, so it's only as good as Microsoft's willingness and ability to keep that promise. If you trust it it's a step forward, but Microsoft is far from being worthy of that trust, so it's a very small step forward, so small it's barely worth talking about.
Encryption does not address the security problems of "cloud" services if your threat model includes eg BND. Traffic/metadata analysis is plenty to find out what you're doing and who you're doing with. Secondly if you distrust the "cloud" service provider, end-to-end encryption for IM/storage is moot if you are still using service provider's client software for X.
(This for one microsoft-applicable meaning of "cloud". It baffles me why tech people have so eagerly adopted such an ill-defined marketing term)
Wrt client side encryption, how would you expect MS to run ML/SQL/DocDb/Office on their German servers without reading the data? MS offers some of those products on premise, so that's client side in my view. ie you can run Office, SQL, Service Bus, Skype, Active Directory on your own machines, actually MS still makes most of its income selling software.
If there are companies not offering that flexibility those are Google, think Gmail/Docs/Hangout, and Amazon.
This is actually not a bad model at all for this. It leaves all parties (except the US government, which ostensibly has no authority to block it) with everything they wanted.
The US government is still undoubtedly going to get the data no matter who stores it, but they're going to have to risk pissing off the German government to get it.
> The US government is still undoubtedly going to get the data no matter who stores it, but they're going to have to risk pissing off the German government to get it.
Ahahaha. Our government is knee-deep in the dungheap. The GCHQ spies on Americans to avoid US protections, the GCHQ spies on every European country and the BND is also in the mix.
All that our "government" did was a couple harsh words towards the US, faking a "no spy deal", and behind the records a "continue with spying" to the BND and MAD.
Telekom. Telekom also has backplanes to the BND.
So either we have NSA -> BND or BND -> NSA and even if they don't share anything we will still deal with one of them.
Are we going to pretend that the US is the only country that ever forces companies to hand over data or tries to acquire that data through more nefarious means? If you are worried about this sort of thing, it seems strange to put your full trust in another provider regardless of whether they are based in the US, Germany, or any other country. Aren't you better off just keeping the data away from the provider in the first place (either through encryption or simply using your own software/hardware).
If the guvernament doing this is local, we've got options to fight it. But the US government has made it clear that us foreigners don't count, that the US constitution doesn't apply to us, that the whole point of the NSA is to spy on us, and we can't vote in the US and we have no representatives to call there, etc. The US is also in the awkward position of being the steward of the Internet. So you know, you can thank the US government instead of pretending that the rest of the world is just as bad, as if that would make it OK. And if you are an US citizen be glad that your taxes are well spent.
On the other hand, if I was doing something my own government doesn't like but the US doesn't mind too much, I would rather the US government have access to it than my own (assuming the US do not then hand over data to my government).
How would you know if your own government minds about something that the "US doesn't mind too much"? Except for obviously illegal activities, how in the world could you tell? And why do you think that the US won't simply tell on you? After all, they are under no legal obligation to protect your interests and sharing the things they find can be used for bargaining.
There's also another reason for why I prefer a local government to the US. My country does not have spy agencies with a 50 billion USD yearly budget. The NSA can get in places where my government cannot simply because of resources available. Oh, and most of us are software developers and the NSA is probably engaged in industrial espionage, so you know, if you're an European company, that would be something to think about.
If your data falls under something that government agencies will actively bargain over, you're probably screwed already.
Maybe from the point of view of a European software developer the greatest concern is industrial espionage, I don't know. But let's say you are someone exposing the corruption in the local police force. Would you rather host your anonymous website in your country -- knowing that the local police can threaten the company hosting it, then knock on your door and "get you to stop" --, or would you rather put it on some server in the USA, where they have no power?
There are many corporations within Germany in particular that have no desire to host the data, and don't particularly care if the German government gets access to it, but they are legally obligated to keep it out of the hands of FOREIGN governments. I have several clients under just such restrictions.
This is the first mover. Next wave will be SaaS companies (Email e.g.) guaranteeing data stays in the EU. At the end of January no EU company can transfer email addresses, IP addresses or HR data into the US. Only if there is a Safe Harbor II coming where the US guarantees to not spy on data without warrant/open procedure and legal recourse by EU citizens.
PS: I know this EUGH ruling does not make sense with UK and France having the same intransparent all-people are spyed on. But this are the rules now.
> Only if there is a Safe Harbor II coming where the US guarantees to not spy on data without warrant/open procedure and legal recourse by EU citizens.
That guarantee would be completely unbelievable at this point.
> I know this EUGH ruling does not make sense with UK and France having the same intransparent all-people are spyed on.
The EUGH ruling makes perfect sense, it's just a partial solution instead of a complete one.
Given the US is believed to be the most powerful of the bad actors (i.e., they NSA have the most backdoors and other capabilities) removing them from the system is not an insignificant step. Shutting out UK and France as bad actors will be more complicated.
From my point of view it's exactly not a partial solution, with the UK (and perhaps Germany) sharing data with the US if I e.g. use an UK SaaS email provider. It doesn't make any difference to EU citizens.
It's a partial solution, not in the sense that it improves anything by itself, but in the sense that combined with getting other countries to stop sharing data with the US, it would prevent Europeans from being spied on by the US.
Besides the faux-security of this offer this is the first "real" public cloud offer Deutsche Telekom does. Well, they don't - they have to partner up. A couple of months ago they already announced to partner with Huawei to build a public cloud (in late 2016, no further details), now they are renting out space for Microsoft (in early 2016), like Equinix does in Frankfurt for Amazon AWS.
Deutsche Telekom is still owned by the Federal Republic (31% iirc) so one could argue that most substancial decisions, like preventing FTTH, undermining net neutrality and the lack of innovation, is either accepted or even enforced by the biggest single shareholder.
Or it's just another sign, that politics should get out of the business as they are not qualified and not independent enough to control their stakes in corporations which also includes a technological perspective for the foreseeable future to secure the business.
Deutsche Telekom has no such perspective in its home country business, only the US mobile business keeps growing. At home, Deutsche Telekom is just fighting an rearguard battle. Whatsapp killed SMS, Skype killed Voice, AWS kills the mid/large enterprise datacenter outsourcing business, margins fall, jobs got cut. Venture Capital business "T-Venture" failed, was shut down, only some SV investments will be made in the future, no focus on local/German startups anymore.
Even their marketing department has no clue about "that cloud thingy", releasing official media materials like:
It's a shame that Germany has no investor person like Carl Icahn who is able to force the management to deal with the consequences: Shutting down/selling dying T-Systems, selling T-Mobile USA, revamping local access business to make money and stay competitive.
Yes, but then it was a failed biz. Since the IPO business is going quite well, at least they could further reduce their stake in T-Mobile USA.
Usually the next wave of technology also implies new investments into the network and less profits, so IMHO right now it would be a great time to sell as much of the T-Mobile USA stocks as possible.
This is interesting approach that works for what EU requires (that data stays in EU). Basically, it solves the safe harbor to some extent. Still, they may have leakage of data or something under the hood that can make this useless, but on paper it has some value.
[ads]Btw, if you need to store sensitive data in EU then you should use chino.io[/ads]
It's really amazing how all MS-related posts still seem to attract the people wearing tinfooil hats. Not saying there's no truth in there but, you know, just sayin'.
"Will be interesting to see whether customers will agree to pay a premium for a risk that they do not understand much less can quantify.
The elephant in the room is that all European companies engaged in international commerce are breaching European data protection laws in some way on any given day. The vagueness and subjectivity of many obligations under the legislation leave businesses in an almost impossible position. And most citizens have no idea what benefits the legislation bestows on them because it is so complicated and philosophical. The regime has been in place since 1995 and since that time the average Jo, Jean, Juan and Johannes have all had their 'privacy' massively eroded, however you define that term. The one benefit it was meant to have was harmonisation to make the single market work, but that hasn't really worked either. Frankly, it is a complete sham and failure.
Whilst the single market is powerful force for good, it is continually under attack from this sort of well-intentioned but barmy 'social' protection initiative. All it seems to benefit is the army of regulators at a national and European level who engage in endless navel gazing, looking out for the next hapless target to keep them gainfully employed."
Yes, Government surveillance is a problem. That doesn't make data protection law worthless.
It's thanks to the Data Protection Directive that you can force Facebook to hand over the data it's secretly collecting on you despite not using it, for example.
(a) The number of intentional leaks in Microsoft products (esp new Window's) that might be inspired by NSA surveillance
(b) The leaks showing German BND and Five Eyes cooperate very closely on SIGINT with BND letting them use selectors that no patriot of German government or industry should've tolerated.
Many articles, esp Der Spiegel, also indicate that German intelligence is lap-dogging so hard in an attempt to join Five Eyes club. Additionally, remember that the TAREX teams in ECI leaks were focusing on Germany, South Korea, and China. Yeah, not all the terrorism they talk about on TV: one opponent and two seeming partners. What do all three have in common? They're among the biggest economies competing with American (and Five Eyes') business interests. Makes sense among scheming intelligence agencies to use assets against them to get privileged few tight with Washington a competitive advantage and do counter-intelligence against their agencies doing the same.
So, Microsoft are either a bunch of idiots that have no awareness of Snowden leaks or reporting on the situation with NSA and Germany. Or they knew that while subverting their European offering to give NSA every chance to hit the customers' data as a favor to them to avoid pressure and keep lucrative contracts. I'm betting on the latter to be safe and continuing a boycott of Microsoft tech where possible.