From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   Chris  wrote:   
   > Frank Slootweg  wrote:   
   > > John  wrote:   
   > >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 20:03:53 +1100, Daniel70   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> On 21/01/2026 5:18 am, Maria Sophia wrote:   
   > > [...]   
   > >>>> which means my medical and financial records are in a Veracrypt   
   > >>>> encrypted volume while my passwords are in KeepassXC on Windows (with   
   > >>>> compatible apps for them on Android).   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Too Hi-Tech for me. ;-P   
   > >>   
   > >> Yeah, best to let your G.P. and clinics sell your data to a variety   
   > >> of commercial entities and ultimately to Apple, Microsoft and Meta.   
   > >> Those guys keep *everything* and they keep it *forever*. You know that   
   > >> your data is secure and safe with them.   
   > >>   
   > >> UKland, where our Government *protects* our valued, private,   
   > >> confidential data really, really well so we don't need to.   
   > >   
   > >   I  assume that also that last remark was sarcasm, because, like most   
   > > European (and other) countries, your government is probably also using   
   > > 'services' from US companies, which fall under US jurisdiction,   
   >   
   > Incorrect. In fact the opposite is true. The UK forced Apple to drop   
   > advanced device protection capability on iphones.   
      
     That's not the opposite of UK government using US controlled services.   
      
   > > even if   
   > > the servers containing your data are in the UK. So the US   
   > > administration, etc. can not only access your data,   
   >   
   > They cannot access your data if the system is set up properly (i.e.   
   > encrypted).   
      
     I'm not talking about 'my data' from my devices, but about my data as   
   it is stored in governmental (etc.) systems which use US services, which   
   fall under US jurisdiction. *That* data might well be not encrypted or   
   it may be encrypted, but the US government might be able to access it   
   anyway.   
      
     We (in The Netherlands) actually have such a pending case where a   
   Dutch service provider for governmental services, which affect *all*   
   citizens, is about to be taking over by a US company, which will cause   
   it to fall under US jurisdiction. If that happens, the US administration   
   will be able to see which people login when to which official sites,   
   including tax office, hospitals, etc., etc.. And we might not be able to   
   stop this takeover, because the argument that our 'friends' are no   
   longer our friends might be overruled by anti-competition laws/rules.   
      
   > > but can disable your   
   > > (government's) access to it.   
   >   
   > Potentially, but will also affect other global systems.   
      
     In the below case, they have targeted specific services (work e-mail,   
   creditcards, etc.) of specific individuals, So yes, it can be more   
   widespread, but it can also be (very) pinpointed.   
      
   > > On a small scale this is already practiced   
   > > (ICC judges, etc.), so 'we' only have to wait for a full-scale event.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)