Canada Quietly Offering Sanctuary To Data From the US 184
davecb writes "The Toronto Star's lead article today is Canada courting U.S. web giants in wake of NSA spy scandal, an effort to convince them their customer data is safer here. This follows related moves like Cisco moving R&D to Toronto. Industry Canada will neither confirm nor deny that European and U.S. companies are negotiating to move confidential data away from the U.S. This critically depends on recent blocking legislation to get around cases like U.S. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, where U.S. courts 'extradited' Canadian bank records to the U.S. Contrary to Canadian law, you understand ..."
Implying Canada isn't an accomplice (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been doing intelligence cooperation with the US for ages, why would they be any more trustworthy?
Re:Implying Canada isn't an accomplice (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Canadian, I always find our ability to blame everything on America quite interesting.
Anything that is not some liberal utopian ideal is BECAUSE AMERICA.
We talk about drug laws in Canada... and it's those damn Americans who force us into the war on drugs. Of course Canada's history isn't full of old conservative white folks who feared Chinese workers and their opium.
We talk about sexuality and its the damn American influence that prevents us from being a nudist paradise.
We don't have any history of conservatism or banning Madonna for too much sexuality. All that must come from the US.
We talk of wars and it's always those damn Americans and their war machine. No hint of Canada's history of war.
And yes, when it comes to spying or betraying its own citizens... it's always those darn Americans. Canada didn't have anything to do with Japanese internment because Canada has human rights. The US doesn't. Canada has never had to spy on its citizens. Surely Canada didn't spy on the various Quebec separatist movement historically.
At the end of the day, it's as if people don't realize that historically Canada and the USA are very similar. Both led by old Europeans. Sure there are differences. And much has changed post WW2. But still remarkably the same.
Re: (Score:2)
We talk about sexuality and its the damn American influence that prevents us from being a nudist paradise.
I thought that was because your country is one of the few places that is colder than the state I live in, that and horse flies.
Re: (Score:2)
The mosquitoes are not insignificant, either.
Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely meaningless as long as any data has to traverse any network in the US. For that matter, I highly doubt that Canada or any other US ally won't actually cooperate with the NSA. This is nothing but a marketing move on Canada's part.
Not Meaningless (Score:3)
This is completely meaningless as long as any data has to traverse any network in the US.
If I am exchanging data between Canada and any other place but the US, why would it traverse the US? If these companies want to do business with the rest of the world without being spied on by US agencies, being outside the US is a good place to start.
Whether that alone is enough is questionable, but it's a start and certainly not meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If I am exchanging data between Canada and any other place but the US, why would it traverse the US?
Because of the way the internet works.
The shortest, fastest network connection between two points isn't always geographically the shortest.
A connection between a computer in Montreal and a computer in Toronto might transit a network in New York or Chicago, because those pipes are bigger, faster & cheaper.
Although, given the Snowden leaks, there may be increased interest in routing internet traffic within
Re: (Score:2)
Take a wild guess which country the Internet's root DNS servers are located?
Sweden? [root-servers.org] Netherlands? [root-servers.org] Japan? [root-servers.org]
While the USA has a bunch of the root name servers, there's many of them elsewhere. Here's a lovely map of where they are, or at least where they were in 2007. [google.com] Assuming it's still accurate, there's 4 root nameserver instances in Canada, two each of the F and J nameservers, located in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
Its all about the perception of their customers. US territory is tainted in the eyes of the world now.
Re: (Score:2)
US territory is tainted in the eyes of the world now.
That's the main point. The article is about Canada trying to convince companies to move, but it's pretty unlikely that Canada is the only country doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as mentioned in the original post, companies like Cisco are considering moving their R&D to Canada where they will not be forced to include backdoors for the NSA. As someone whose main business is networking gear, I can see this as being a big selling feature to Cisco.
Whether the actual data that is routed through the US is safe or not doesnt matter as much as being able to assure your customers that your devices dont contain NSA backdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the execs live in the US, the company will do whatever .gov wants them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's just the image they want to project.
The real reason why companies have development centres in Canada is simple - it's a LOT easier to get work visas and such in Canada! And there's a bunch of times when particular pe
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as mentioned in the original post, companies like Cisco are considering moving their R&D to Canada where they will not be forced to include backdoors for the NSA. As someone whose main business is networking gear, I can see this as being a big selling feature to Cisco.
Whether the actual data that is routed through the US is safe or not doesnt matter as much as being able to assure your customers that your devices dont contain NSA backdoors.
Cisco is a US company. It's bank accounts are in the US. A lot of it's people are in the US. It's customers are all in the US. If the NSA has the juice to force Cisco to implement a back-door then it doesn't matter where the routers are designed, the backdoor will be implemented.
I believe there have actually been cases where banks tried to conceal their Canadian customers data because Canadian law said that was their duty, but the US got it anyway because they had bank accounts on this side of the border th
Canada is already America's bitch. (Score:5, Informative)
Our banks will release all personal information to US law enforcement, even though this directly contravenes our Constitution.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-banks-to-be-compelled-to-share-clients-info-with-u-s-1.2437975 [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Canada is already America's bitch. (Score:5, Informative)
Canada also assisted the NSA in spying [www.cbc.ca] including spying on attendees at the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010.
As this is common knowledge, I'm skeptical that any entity would trust Canada more than the U.S. with its confidential data. I certainly wouldn't.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't have to be true, just marketable. (Score:2)
Crazy (Score:3)
The NSA et al are (legally) *more* restricted in the US than abroad. While there might be congressional hearings & other hand wringing about what the NSA does in the US, foreign countries are a cyber free fire zone. Information superiority is the goal, and the NSA has huge fire power ATM.
Re:Crazy (Score:4, Informative)
In other countries they must actually do 'spying' though, as opposed to just forcing companies to hand over data under threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice business opportunity. (Score:3)
Security is an illusion people will pay for, so why not make a profit?
Why trust Canada? (Score:2)
So if
Re: (Score:3)
There was the whole "stop loss" program, where enlistees were prevented from leaving the military after their enlistment term ended. That sounds pretty close to conscription to me. Only a lawyer would argue otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? (Score:2)
So what (Score:2)
US companies shouldn't be able to shirk tax laws just by going to an overseas bank. This posits a false dichotomoy, where either you're in favor of the NSA, or you think multi-national companies should be able to avoid laws and regulations they don't like by doing all their extra-legal business in Canada or the Cayman islands or where tax laws/regulations are most convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
US companies shouldn't be able to shirk tax laws just by going to an overseas bank.
Yes, they should. It's up to the US government's law enforcement arms to enforce tax laws within its own borders; foreigners have no obligation to help them enforce their laws. If a company is located within a country, it's pretty hard for them to move money outside the country in a way that's impossible to monitor for authorities inside that country. If the company is getting some kind of tax break by moving the money out
not so simple (Score:2)
The companies don't just transfer money from one bank account to another...it's way more complicated. One way is to pay an offshore subsidiary huge amounts of money for relatively little actual work. They can then call that a "cost" in the USA and reduce taxes owing, then show the profits in another country with lower taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
One way is to pay an offshore subsidiary huge amounts of money for relatively little actual work. They can then call that a "cost" in the USA and reduce taxes owing, then show the profits in another country with lower taxes.
Again, these seems like a failure of the US (or any national government in the same position) to create decent laws to regulate this sort of thing. One obvious easy fix is to simply disallow companies from owning offshore subsidiaries or being multinational. Another would be to heavil
U.S. courts 'extradited' Canadian bank records? BS (Score:3, Interesting)
That court case did nothing of the sort - it was a court case against a local US bank subsidiary asking for records of other subsidiaries in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands.
The real problem is the coming US FATCA law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act [wikipedia.org]
This US law requires foreign banks to provide information about accounts held by Americans, or ELSE.
Canada is not generally regarded as a tax haven - there is no bank secrecy here, no secret corporate ownership and Canada isn't a low-tax jurisdiction. Our taxes are higher than most of the USA.
There is a Canada-US tax treaty, and generally speaking US citizens living in Canada don't have to pay tax to the USA since they get an IRS deduction for the taxes they pay to Canada (they don't get taxed twice on the same income).
Under US law, all US citizens have to file with the IRS every year, even if they live in a foreign country and owe nothing in taxes.
However, for a Canadian bank to provide information about US customers to the IRS (absent a crime or court order) violates Canadian privacy law. So Canadian banks are in a very difficult position:
- comply with FATCA and break Canadian law
- get permission from their US customers to hand over info to the IRS
- don't do business with US citizens living in Canada (of which there are about a million)
Re: (Score:3)
- get permission from their US customers to hand over info to the IRS
- don't do business with US citizens living in Canada (of which there are about a million)
I fail to see how that puts the banks in a difficult situation. Canadian banks have no obligation to comply with US law; they do, however, have an obligation to comply with Canadian law.
The burden of compliance here rests entirely on those US citizens storing money in Canada. The Canadian banks simply
You missed the real reason... (Score:2)
The banks do business in the USA. If the Canadian side didn't cooperate, then the American side would presumably be targeted by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, the solution is for the rest of the world to stop doing business with the United States.
And as a US citizen, I urge you to please do it! The Federal government is no longer under citizen control; a worldwide embargo might be the only thing left that could stop it from continuing to run amok.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian banks have no obligation to comply with US law
They do if they operate in the USA. I know RBC does.
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies to banks choosing to do business in the US, whether or not the US says otherwise. Though as you point out, most banks do choose to do some of their business in the US.
Actually, the EEA hasn't said that at all. Many foreign banks are choosing to not do business with US citizens since that is an easier solution.
Nonbinding at this point, but yes, they have said exactly [europa.eu]
Re:U.S. courts 'extradited' Canadian bank records? (Score:2)
To be precise, the case was one in which the US required the Bank of Nova Scotia's subsidiary in the US to duplicate records from the Cayman Islands, contrary to the laws of the Caymans and also of Canada, where the Bank is chartered. That's why I put quotes around the "extradited" (;-))
If the records were already in the 'States, there wouldn't have been reason for the Bank to object to a subpoena from a US grand jury.
Returning to your post, FATCA is indeed a problem, and IMHO is a US response to tight
Re: (Score:2)
That court case did nothing of the sort - it was a court case against a local US bank subsidiary asking for records of other subsidiaries in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands.
I came in here to address this issue.
An interesting quote (emphasis mine) from the linked-to case:
Corporations control congress right? (Score:2)
Why aren't large corporations pressuring congress to reign in the NSA?
Who's holding the puppet strings?
Re: (Score:2)
What does the corruption of the US Congress have to do with the marketing decisions of Canada's Prime Minister? One thing Canada is quite clear on: They aren't the US, and never will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Amongst those "large corporations" are companies that are suppliers to the NSA (people, equipment, etc.) and they have better contacts within Congress than the Silicon Valley companies that suffer due to the NSA's activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're bitching about voting with their feet, but that doesn't make it a credible threat. Business is always bitching about something.
The problem Silicon Valley has is there's nowhere to go, and even if they leave they still have to obey US Laws or lose the US Market. And by "US Market" I don't just mean customers in the US. I mean suppliers in the US, US banks, etc. Canadian banks [www.cbc.ca] were just ordered to a) violate Canadian privacy laws by collecting data on precisely which of their customers is a US citizen
Welcome to your data (Score:5, Insightful)
American citizens, come and host your data on canadian soil !
Therefore, it will technically be foreign data.
Therefore, the NSA will be able to spy on it without trespassing any law regulating spying on its own citizens.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
But according to their internal standards if they're 51% sure you're Canadian they can collect whatever info they want. Since most people who use a .ca email address are Canadian then they can collect your data. If it turns out you aren't Canadian they were acting in good faith, so they can still use the data at trial.
Now you can disagree with the standards all you want, or think they shouldn't have the right to spy on Canadians, but until the Supreme Court (which appointed the guys who wrote the damn stand
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you think that sucks, did you know there's an entire political party organized around the belief that companies won't screw their customers as long as there are no regulations and laws which require bribing legislators to get around? Who'd have thought that removing those laws and regulations without any need to bribe anybody would have the opposite effect removing them on pain of bribe would have.
You can rule out any ECHELON affliated countries (Score:2)
NSA has no borders (Score:3)
What makes you think a hacked Cisco border router plugged into the Internet is any more secure in Canada? It's just a couple more hops, that is all.
Re: (Score:2)
the "thought" is that Cisco was being forced to write compromised code...
Re: (Score:2)
the "thought" is that Cisco was being forced to write compromised code...
far more likely they offered Pakastani pre-comprimised code as an "upgrade" option for 30% off their uneasonable retail price to all government agencies
Trust no-one. (Score:2)
If you really care about keeping that data confidential, keep it in your own computers! If a government agency wants it, at least then you'll probably find out.
Five Eyes (Score:2, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA [wikipedia.org]
Spoiler alert: Canada is one of them.
Catch22 (Score:3)
Its an interesting catch22; moving the data out of the US theorectically elevates the legitimacy of any NSA attack on it, since its now a legitimate attack on 'foreign signals'.
On the other hand thanks to the rampant domestic abuse, and undermining of local legal protection, at least moving it outside the country requires the NSA actually attack it rather than just help themselves.
All that is assuming the Canadian's won't be complict sharing the data; but to my knowledge at least, that would still require somebody attack it as Canada doesn't seem to have quite the same degree of "give us your all data, don't tell anyone you are doing it, because: national security".
Is it a marketing move? Absolutely.
But it does still have some real impact; and really if you want the US to change its habits, an economic angle is really the best way to get their attention.
Bank of Nova Scotia case (Score:2)
Somebody didn't bother reading his own link. There, information was requested from the American branch of a Canadian bank, seeking information about American customers where the files resided in the Caymans.
Totally irrelevant if you're a "US company"... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't bet on it. (Score:2)
Our rights are slowly being eroded thanks to Harper. The actual government won't be happy until we are a police state.
Just remember Hushmail (Score:3)
Yeah, that won't work for example: Hushmail folded like a house of cards. [theregister.co.uk]
Non-security (Score:2)
They'll just let the NSA know that the national password is 'bacon' and it's back to spying as usual.
Look Elsewhere (Score:2)
Canada will also never refuse an extradition request [marianopolis.edu] to the US, or any of it's allies. A special circumstance is made for "political refugees" but I'd be completely surprised if some bullshit trumped up terrorism charges couldn't override that.
So, US compani
Re: (Score:2)
Canada's Constitution has a Right of Privacy (Score:2)
The US Constitution - as you no doubt have figured out by now - doesn't.
Can't trust them (Score:2)
Cold Climate (Score:2)
LOL!
Actually read the article. Which basically says that the NSA stuff with Snowden has made the perception of the US and privacy bad for cloud hosted services.
Canada better privacy laws and...
skilled workforce,
COLD CLIMATE
relatively cheap sources of electricity,
make it ideal for companies to relocate data centers dedicated to cloud services to Canada.
Heh, I suppose with the Cold Climate it would make cooling the data center less of an issue... :) Anyway made me laugh a bit. Though executives might not want
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:4, Funny)
Blame Canada!
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it would be worse for US to store their data in Canada because at that point, NSA is just spying on another country rather than in their own turf. Something that is in high scrutiny at the moment.
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it would be worse for US to store their data in Canada because at that point, NSA is just spying on another country rather than in their own turf. Something that is in high scrutiny at the moment.
Excellant point. Data stored abroad would not necessarily be afforded the same legal protections as data stored in the US. Even given the recent revelations companies should take that into consideration as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my site is hosted in Canada. I'm waiting for a visit from them wanting to know how I knew who the Area 51 Grays really were and who really killed Kennedy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think it would be worse for US to store their data in Canada because at that point, NSA is just spying on another country rather than in their own turf. Something that is in high scrutiny at the moment.
The seems to be spying on their own turf as well, so I don't see that there's much of a difference. :/
Also, given that both countries are part of the Five Eyes collective, I think they're less likely to go into Canadian territory (at least not without asking). They'd probably just get CSEC to do the work instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It WOULD technically be legal for the NSA to hack their way into these out-of-country systems, even if they know they are targeting data on American's, but they don't have to. We are America's lap dogs, and we are happy to just hand over the data on request. We have even weaker laws regarding this than the US, and even worse press coverage about what CSIS is doing [basically a combination of CIA and NSA].
There is a reason why the President uses a BlackBerry and that the US NEVER complained about not being
Re: (Score:2)
No country that recognizes the US as a sovereign entity is technically allowed to apply their internal laws to agents of the US Government. The definition of a sovereign entity is that it is the fucking law in your little bailiwick. If other countries have a problem with what a sovereign country they can do damn near anything (nuclear weapons, diplomatic notes, the random shit the Indians are doing to protest their Consul being arrested, etc.), except apply their domestic law codes to the agents of that cou
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually worse than just them rolling over.
See, Canadian operations are firmly within the jurisdiction of the NSA. So moving out of country makes you more hackable, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian operations are firmly within the jurisdiction of the NSA.
So? They don't seem to let that keep them from spying in the US.
moving out of country makes you more hackable
Not necessarily. Hacking is easier when you can operate inside US operations, with the cooperation of management.
Re: (Score:3)
To spy in the US, though, they need a FISA rubber stamp. So there's a record of it, somewhere, supposedly.
To spy in Canada, they just need to push the button.
If it were my company, I would have all the realms under my own authority as much as possible. Nobody could be served a warrant without my knowing about it. So no data centers, vendors, or other third parties with access to my systems, and they'd need to be in the US.
This way were any of my data seized there's just cause to go looking for a copy of
Re: (Score:2)
To spy in the US, though, they need a FISA rubber stamp.
Since you already called it a rubber stamp, all I need say is that I agree.
If it were my company, I would have all the realms under my own authority as much as possible. Nobody could be served a warrant without my knowing about it.
Are you sure that's a good idea? Plausible deniability has it's uses.
This way were any of my data seized there's just cause to go looking for a copy of the warrant.
They don't seize your data like it was a physical item, they just make a copy of it. Usually that's surreptitious, so you don't even know it's happened. Look up things like recognized "national security exceptions" to the 4th Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was a major aspect of British tyranny that we fought a revolution to get rid of. What a shame these things aren't mentioned in textbooks on American history. Oh, wait ...
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian operations are firmly within the jurisdiction of the NSA.
So? They don't seem to let that keep them from spying in the US.
They do plenty of things in the US they wouldn't do in Canada. Bother with FISA warrants for one thing. Another is they actually try to figure out whether you're American before spying on you.
Granted they don't have to work hard to fulfill either requirement, but something is always harder to do then nothing. And in Canada they have to do precisely nothing.
moving out of country makes you more hackable
Not necessarily. Hacking is easier when you can operate inside US operations, with the cooperation of management.
You do realize the management in Canada is Stephen Harper? AKA: the guy who tried to send Canadian troops to Iraq?
The NSA can get his help to do anything
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is, when your data is stored in the US, the US can pass laws saying that the data has to be handed over, and the companies holding it for you can't tell you. If it's in Canada, there are two options.
First, Canada rolls over and requires the data be sent to the US. Of course, we don't currently have laws to require that, or for us to be silent about it if it does happen. Granted, we have the notwithstanding clause [wikipedia.org], which allows plenty of leeway, but not so much that they can emplace gag orders or warrantless searches.
Second, the Canadian company holding your data knowingly and actively does all it can to stop the unlawful access of your data, and responds if there are attempted breaches. Note that this will not and can not happen in the US as things currently stand.
At worst, it will be no different from having your data in the US. At best, you may have actual corporate security.
Re: (Score:2)
If some guy was setting up a social network in Canada to replace facebook, and some CanMail company was replacing gmail, you would have an excellent point. Nobody is talking about hiring Canadian companies to host their data in a format that they can't access from their office in the Valley.
They're talking about a) building server-farms they own, or b) hiring Canadian server-farms. In either case if the Canadians start protecting data the Feds can simply get a FISA order sent to the main office, and since t
Re: (Score:3)
I was about to write an angry reply, but it's too cold outside to care.
Signed, a fellow Canadian.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong mod, posting to kill
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:5, Funny)
You know the Canadians will roll over on you, eh?
Please, sir (I say "sir", and I apologise if you are a "ma'am", ma'am), but on behalf of all Canadians, I urge you to consider that it is "politeness, pleasantries, civility, and common courtesy" that you misinterpret as "rolling over".
We simply rush to the front and open the door for you, sir/ma'am.
I hope I haven't offended you in any way, and I apologise for taking your time.
Thank you, and all the best, Godspeed.
Re:You Know They'll Roll Over! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you
Thank you kindly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Godspeed.
One has to wonder, would a meth-addicted God be better or worse than the incomptetent one currently holding sway?
Re: (Score:2)
Godspeed.
One has to wonder, would a meth-addicted God be better or worse than the incomptetent one currently holding sway?
So you want to have a dictatorial god that forces everyone to do everything his way? Is that what you actually want? It is awfully easy to sidestep personal responsibility and morality if you instead decide to blame god for everything bad that men do.
As a Canadian, No not really. (Score:2)
1) Canadian privacy laws are MUCH stronger here.
2) Canada does not have laws like the Patriot Act, and others that facilitate government getting at your data legally.
Our current PM seems to want to bend over backwards to do anything the US wants, but is still constrained by law (he isn't King of Canada just yet).
Our intelligence agency, has had a couple of incidents where they "shared" information with the US. In at least one of these cases they are getting sued in a pretty big way, and will probably lose.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand your system very well if you think Harper isn't de facto King. He's got a majority in Parliament. Two of your core Constitutional principles (Parliamentary Sovereignty, and Unity of Powers), mean he could re-write the laws on a whim. As long as his Tory backbenchers supported him he's fine. The restrictions on his power are that a) a parliament only last five years, so he needs to not piss people off or he'll lose and stop being King, b) Canada is a Federal system and there are certain
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptography can't protect all information. It can protect the content of your communications, but it can't protect the fact that you communicated. If you send an encrypted message to someone, if it's strongly-encrypted, then yes, it's very difficult to decipher the message, but the NSA will still be able to (assuming they're monitoring you, or the communications links between you and the receiver) see that you've communicated with that person. From the patterns of your communications, they can infer a l
Re: (Score:2)
The OP seemed to be assuming the use of non-backdoored encryption, so I was just pointing out that having perfect encryption still doesn't give you perfect privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What were previously known as tin foil hat types have been vindicated by recent revealed information. They've gone from being laughed at to being able to say "I told you so".
Re: (Score:2)
Being crazy and then happening to be right doesn't make you less crazy.
They were called crazy precisely because of the things they said that "just happened" to be right. Where I come from repeatedly getting things right is called a good track record. It should make you question your original assumption about them being crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it enables and encourages the crazy which is never a good thing.
Don't worry about it. The NSA and our illustrious elected officials won't change regardless of whether they're "enabled and encouraged".
Re: (Score:3)
I don't trust the tin foil makers. What can I do?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust the tin foil makers. What can I do?
Switch to cellophane. The tin foil acts as an antenna anyway.
Re: (Score:2)