Ok. Understanding this, what is the proposal? To change the default search page of Ubuntu on all browsers? []s Alexandre Strube Sent from my touchpad <div class="gmail_quote">Em 24/06/2013 21:31, "Alexander Hanff" <<a href="mailto:a.hanff@think-privacy.com">a.hanff@think-privacy.com</a>> escreveu: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> >I'll just leave this here: ><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa</a> ><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/new-leaks-british-intels-direct-from-fiber-taps-worse-than-the-us/" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/new-leaks-british-intels-direct-from-fiber-taps-worse-than-the-us/</a> GCHQ are UK Intelligence service and have zero jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Whereas the Netherlands have been using PRISM - PRISM data is only applicable to US corporations, given Startpage are not in the US they have never been and cannot be forced to comply with an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so PRISM revelations regarding the Netherlands are irrelevant to this discussion on Startpage. >Sure they aren't. But they are vulnerable to Dutch orders, and Article 125K of the Criminal code is mighty interesting. Dutch orders under Article 125K of the code you reference only permits investigations of a specific person and not the wholesale surveillance of all users. Furthermore, orders under 125K can be challenged in the courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights as well as the European Court of Justice. Both these facts make the situation far more favourable than FISAAA and PATRIOT which we now know have been used for the wholesale surveillance of citizens' communications. All countries have surveillance laws, the issue is that the US have setup a secret court to interpret their law and block any legal challenges to those interpretations. The EU is a completely different environment, laws are challenged and changed (such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which is the UK equivelant to the Dutch Criminal code you referenced) in the UK. >I also managed to find: ><a href="http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/dutch_security_service_has_rec.php" target="_blank">http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/dutch_security_service_has_rec.php</a> ><a href="http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/no_prism_for_dutch_security_bo.php" target="_blank">http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/no_prism_for_dutch_security_bo.php</a> The changes being requested to Dutch law by Opstelten currently do not exist in statute and are unlikely to be passed given that they would put the Netherlands in breach of multiple EU Directives and Conventions including: Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications 2002/58/EC; European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC; European Convention on Human Rights and; Lisbon Treaty. With regards to Dutch access to PRISM see my comment at the top but also note that it is highly likely that the Dutch will be subject to infringement proceedings by the European Commission for this and that there is currently outrage amongst Dutch politicians and the citizens making it even less likely that such provisions will be passed into Dutch law. We cannot base decisions on laws which do not exist and are merely being discussed/drafted - the vast majority of Bills never make it into law and in this case given the issues with EU Directives, it would seem even less likely to happen. Regards, Alexander Hanff -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss</a> </blockquote></div>