- Navy officer dies on board INS Kolkata off Mumbai
- SC calls Sahara proposal an âinsultâ, Subrata Roy to stay in jail till March 11
- I'm not a terrorist, Modi should have met me: Arvind Kejriwal
- Modi to hold 'Chai Pe Charcha' on women empowerment on Saturday
- SC issues notice to Centre on Kiran Reddy's PIL against creation of Telangana
Tech majors' letter to the US government could kickstart reform in state surveillance practices.
The neverending stream of leaks about the US National Security Agency's all-encompassing web of electronic surveillance — this week's reports suggest the NSA infiltrated new worlds of spycraft by reaching into online gaming forums dotted with trolls and elves in its search for terrorists — appears to have shaken even the most jaded internet users out of their ennui on the issue of control of personal data. People across the world are deeply unhappy about the extraordinary powers vested in intelligence agencies by governments, and they are expressing this discontent by switching over to online service providers with better standards of encryption, or better yet, those that don't collect customer data at all. It is likely that this direct threat to their revenue streams explains the move by eight of the biggest technology companies — Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, LinkedIn and AOL — to advocate for reform in states' online spying practices.
In an open letter to President Barack Obama and members of Congress on Monday, the coalition proposed that "governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data" and called for a transparent legal framework to regulate how intelligence agencies track and collect user information. These companies also want to be able to disclose the "number and nature" of government demands for data. Also, perhaps fearing a balkanisation of the internet whereby countries prohibit their citizens' data from leaving their borders, they argue that the onus of smoothing out legal wrinkles should be on governments, especially in cases where laws contradict each other. While the letter addressed the US government, it was directed at governments worldwide, especially since some of the biggest growth markets for these companies are overseas.