US Government: You Don't Own Your Cloud Data So We Can Access It At Any Time 531
New submitter jest3r writes "On Tuesday the EFF filed a brief proposing a process for the Court in the Megaupload case to hold the government accountable for the actions it took (and failed to take) when it shut down Megaupload's service and denied third parties access to their property. Many businesses used Megaupload's cloud service to store and share files not related to piracy. The government is calling for a long, drawn-out process that would require individuals or small companies to travel to courts far away and engage in multiple hearings just to get their own property back. Additionally, the government's argument that you lose all your property rights by storing your data on the cloud could apply to Amazon's S3 or Google Apps or Apple iCloud services as well (see page 4 of their filing)."
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone surprised?
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
hey, what's that pressure I feel?
its the pressure of a boot, stomping on your face. pressing down, always pressing down.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Were the Rolling Stones singing to the US Government? HEY, YOU, GET OFF OF MY CLOUD!
One more reason to maintain your own data and backups. Like you say, this shouldn't have surprised anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone surprised?
Of course not. The US government is bald-facedly beholden only to corporations and turned the country into a true opressive totalitarian state. I have a real opportunity to live and work in Japan, I'm seriously considering taking the offering company up on it and sayng "fuck this".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a foreigner in Japan you will have NO rights. Good luck with that.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Sssh! You'll spoil the surprise.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone surprised?
Of course not. The US government is bald-facedly beholden only to corporations and turned the country into a true oppressive totalitarian state. I have a real opportunity to live and work in Japan, I'm seriously considering taking the offering company up on it and sayng "fuck this".
In this case, I'm not sure it's all about the government being beholden to corporations, as it seems Megaupload is getting screwed too, as well as any other companies that may have legitimate data on those servers. The government's behavior shows that it's more about Government wanting to do whatever they want w/o regard to anyone's (personal or corporate) rights - you know, for the "greater good" - and setting a precedent for such activity.
True, they're pursuing supposed copyright infringement, but we, the people, voted in the unethical, corrupt monkeys that passed the laws being enforced. Perhaps after enough poo has been flung, we'll get up off our lazy asses and do some laundry...
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You want full control of your data? Own the hardware and don't plug it into the interwebs.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Own the hardware and host it outside of the US.
We already had the majority of our equipment in Europe. We're moving the last of our data and processes over the next 60 days from Chicago to Amsterdam.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be careful about parking your car in a private parking structure then.
You want full control of your car? Own the garage that it is parked in.
Re: (Score:3)
Another nail in America's corporate coffin as businesses move to wherever has the sense to look after the customer...
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is an analogy;
I rent a locker at a local storage locker company. ... and gets caught.
The guy with the locker next to mine, fills his with drugs
Police put a crime scene tape around the entire facility and block my access to my stuff.
Police want to verify that there isn't any drugs in my locker.
What happens next?
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I rent a locker at a local storage locker company. ... and gets caught.
The guy with the locker next to mine, fills his with drugs
Police put a crime scene tape around the entire facility and block my access to my stuff.
Police want to verify that there isn't any drugs in my locker.
I think you missed the best part.
Police confiscates drugs along with your stuff and the contents of every other locker in the facility
You are invited to sue them and prove that your stuff is yours and is acquired legally. But you are (probably) never getting your things back if you just wait.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
... and Obama administration went into overdrive with it.
http://1202013.blogspot.com/2012/09/as-debates-approach.html [blogspot.com]
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which just goes to show, you can't grant power to government and confine it only to your own party. Typically, when the other party holds office, they inherit the power. Something to think about when your representatives grant far reaching power to *your* candidate.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonderful how that excuses the continued erosion of our civil rights. "Well Bush did it."
What a great get out of jail card that is.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
But this is certainly the first one someone claims you lose your rights to data by placing it with an external providers
I am sure that companies that provide storage lockers are watching this with interest. Next, on suspicion of drugs, seize the entire local U-Store branch... Or the entire contents of bank safebox room. And let the owners come forward and sue to recover if they can prove them own their stuff legally. (and imagine there was a car analogy somewhere in there)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This actually happened in the UK. based on some very dubious statistics about the likely contents of the safeboxes.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
For the Google [panamalaw.org] impaired [thesun.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it so wrong to ask you to back up your statement with references. This whole "for the google impaired" says more about your laziness then his Google skills.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, I can see the future of research reports:
Bibliography
Just google it.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
An excellent example! It did start under Bush. And Obama, plucky Senator from Illinois, railed against the program.
Until he became president.
Merely three days after being sworn in, the tune changed, article here [wikipedia.org], with citations 1 [wired.com] and 2 [wired.com]:
On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al. The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July, 2008 legislation that immunized the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of complicity in the eavesdropping program, according to testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.
AC's point stands pretty clear with this information, I think.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
And Obama, plucky Senator from Illinois, railed against the program.
Until he became president.
Merely three days after being sworn in, the tune changed,
I think the explanation is obvious
There is a black book at the oval office that explains why the world will end if the people are not watched by a benign dictator that knows what's best. Obama read that manual right after being sworn in and was compelled to switch his position.
Either that or Obama cynically lied to his supporters throughout his entire campaign.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or Obama cynically lied to his supporters throughout his entire campaign.
Isn't that just called running for office?
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
What about Hoover? (The FBI guy, not the engineer.) He _started_ the whole surveillance of government subjects thing.
Of course not, you !(poster.political_alignment) crony. Open your eyes, man! It was clearly getPolitician(!(poster.political_alignment))'s work!
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally irrelevant. But just the same, also factually wrong, so I'll reply:
Actually, no he didn't...not even close. You can go back a couple of decades to the Black Chamber, or even further back by centuries to Sir Walsingham. You could argue that Sun Tzu was a forerunner, but if I had to pick a single person to actually start the surveillance of citizens by government, I'd choose Walsingham. And you know what? He stopped a number of plots against Queen Elizabeth I that way, and it's really hard to argue that his methods were unnecessary or heavy-handed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of irrelevant to the point. The o.p. stated the justice department is out of control under obama ignoring what the justice department did under bush - warrantless wire tapping, water boarding, enemy combatant, suspending Habeas corpus, indefinite detention....the list goes on...
How do you rectify ignoring one past administration (Hoover) and not ignoring another past administration (Bush)?
The current Obama DoJ maintained the status quo, the sins of the fathers, by choice.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
How do you rectify ignoring one past administration (Hoover) and not ignoring another past administration (Bush)?
The current Obama DoJ maintained the status quo, the sins of the fathers, by choice.
If I understood correctly, the GP was talking about J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org] not Herbert Hoover [wikipedia.org]. J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and its predecessor (Bureau of Investigation) from 1924-1972. If I counted right, that was through seven presidential administrations -- three Republican and four Democratic.
Sometimes it helps to have a clue. Just sayin'.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was NOT all right for Bush to do it and it is NOT all right for Obama to do it. And it will NOT be all right for Romney to do it. Nor was it right for whatever clandestine degree Clinton, Bush Sr, His Holiness Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc. etc.
Screw your petty little partisan sniping. Some of us want to be able to live in the country we say we are, not in the country we've become.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be Romney... good luck there.
He's from the same faction that started this nonsense.
It's like leaving a guy that doesn't worship you enough for one that beats you black and blue every night.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> That would be Romney... good luck there.
At least luck is a factor. Obama has already proven he's more then willing to run with this crap, and that was in the first term when he'd theoretically be trying to stay enough on the good side of the populace to get reelected.
> It's like leaving a guy that doesn't worship you enough for one that beats you black and blue every night.
No, it's like leaving a guy that beats you black and blue every night for a guy that hung out with someone that used to beat you black and blue every night. I'm not going to pretend that Romney would be any better, but realistically given how willing Obama has been picking up where Bush left off, I can hardly consider 'Romney's going to be like Bush because he's from the same faction as Bush' as much of a reason to consider Obama over Romney.
Electing SCOTUS, not POTUS (Score:3)
While I'm of the mentality that we're picking from two sides of the same coin, there is one significant difference between the candidates, to me. Who they will nominate to replace Ginsburg when she retires. While Obama will almost certainly move the needle toward the center (by nominating someone from the center, which is probably to the right of Ginsburg), Romney will almost certainly pick another Scalia/Alito type, swinging the pendulum very far and resulting in what amounts to another Lochnear era.
Re:Electing SCOTUS, not POTUS (Score:4, Interesting)
There's more to it than Kelo. Mr. Romney has come out saying he wants to stack SCOTUS with people who would overturn Roe vs Wade at the first opportunity. His choice would also most likely do everything they could to fight equal rights for gay Americans. For example Lawrence vs Texas; even though it was a 6-3 decision, former Justice O'Connor was in the 6, and she was replaced by Justice Alito who almost certainly would have voted with the Court's conservative bloc to make that a 5-4 decision if argued today.
And forgive me for labeling hyperbole the idea that Kelo was the "most significant civil liberty decision in the last 15-20 years". In my opinion there are greater civil liberties than just the right to property.
For example, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld and Hamdi vs Rumsfeld. Those cases were about locking people in cages without any kind of due process, which is without a doubt far more significant than merely losing some property. In both cases, Justice Ginsburg was on the side of protecting civil liberties, and our friends on the right wing of the court like Justices Scalia and Thomas (and Alito in Hamdan) decided that they were okay with the denial of basic due process rights.
I see the examples of Hamdan and Hamdi, among others I'm sure, as evidence that civil liberties barely dodged a bullet. And if Justice Ginsburg is replaced by someone like Justices Scalia or Alito, you can kiss those civil liberties goodbye.
Re: (Score:3)
At least luck is a factor. Obama has already proven he's more then willing to run with this crap, and that was in the first term when he'd theoretically be trying to stay enough on the good side of the populace to get reelected.
The problem is that this shit is popular with the general populace because most people don't have enough empathy or foresight to realize how it can be misused. They hear that it is all about keeping them safe from teh terrorists and that's good enough for them. If anything, Obama's been pandering to the majority of the population with this shit.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
[sarcasm] [cynicism] [dispair]
If Romney is pres, you can at least expect the Dems to wet their pants in horror over Romney's civil liberties abuses, just like they did with Bush.
[/sarcasm] [/cynicism] [/dispair]
Now, is that a better or worse situation than the current one, where Dems seem completely uninterested that a Democratic President is murdering citizens without any due process far from any "battlefield."
I'm not sure I know - but it certainly throws a wet blanket on the "the Republicans are SO crazy" that electing Romney has to be worse.
[You may dispute it's murder, but IMO, killing someone without due process and not on a battle-field is murder. There simply is no recognized legal basis for it, and unless it's recognized by law, one should consider it murder.]
At least, if we could count on Dems cynically using the situation to maximize damage to Romney, and opposing, as they once did such civil liberties excesses, then it might actually be better. Perhaps not better for the reasons you'd have thought, but because of shameless cynicism.
The downside? That wretched stew can't be good for the country.
As I see it...we are so screwed, it can only be amusing, in a sick twisted way.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
This will continue to get worse no matter which party is in charge
You sound like someone who doesn't realize that there are other parties to choose from then the republicrats.
http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]
http://www.gp.org/ [gp.org]
http://www.aipca.org/ [aipca.org]
Just 3 off the top of my head that are actively working against the interests of the republicrats. Only *YOU* can stop voting for the same old crap, and choose something different.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the major media outlets refuse to acknowledge the existence of other parties. They can hold a rally that 100 people show up for and no news outlet will even mention it. AP and Reuters will ignore it, even if they are handed a press release.
Is it possible to engage a third party candidate in a debate of any sort with Republican or Democratic candidates? No.
The major problem is that for the most part the parties have not managed to garner 5% of the vote and until that threshold is met they are deemed to be irrelevant. Part of the problem is they aren't going to get 5% of the vote without being publicized by the media so we have a chicken-and-egg problem.
The last time there was a realistic third party Presidential candidate was in 1992 with Ross Perot. He did get more than 15% of the vote but the party he was fronting collapsed and has no candidates any longer. So the media's belief that these candidates are irrelevant keeps getting validated.
In reality the only way out of this situation is for someone from say the Libertarian party to cross over and become the Republican candidate. If they were elected this would go a long way towards making these parties relevant. I think that is the only way they will achieve relevance. Certainly getting 3% (or less) of the vote isn't going to do it.
Does this include backups. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean that my backups to Barracuda Networks cloud service are no longer mine? This would kill cloud services.
Re:Does this include backups. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
The US gov has long held that your webmail doesn't belong to you either.
The feds already have full access to your gmail or hotmail account, and everything in it.
DUH. It never was yours (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean that my backups to Barracuda Networks cloud service are no longer mine?
I don't get where supposed rational technical people on Slashdot of all places, think that any data they transmit over public networks NEVERMIND then storing said data on hard drives owned and physically controlled by someone else, was ever YOURS.
Forget law. The physical reality of the thing is that by definition, any data you are keeping on devices controlled by someone else is never really yours. You just might be able to access it, and even that is never guaranteed.
Cloud backups are great as a cheap last offsite resort but are not the same as backups that you physically control. You should never have data you care about recovering on a cloud service that you do not also have in multiple copies on devices you own.
Any other notion is just fantasy.
Re:DUH. It never was yours (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic the money we keep in the bank isn't ours either.
Re:DUH. It never was yours (Score:5, Funny)
or, for that matter, the skulls in my safety deposit box...
Re:DUH. It never was yours (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it isn't. The banks can keep you from your money any time they want. They've actually done it in the past. The only thing keeping them from just right out claiming your money is a fragile social contract...
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think it is? (Score:5, Informative)
By your logic the money we keep in the bank isn't ours either.
Sorry to go all Eliza on you, but what makes you think it is?
If there is a run on the bank, and you are not fast enough - you do not get your money. Simple as that.
You may get re-imbursed by FDIC, but that doesn't change what happened.
There is a vast difference between what is yours by law and what you can practically access. All I am saying is everyone should realize there is a difference and be prepared.
In the case of the server I have zero pity for anyone who kept data only on the servers that were seized. Yes it is there data, but they also had responsibility if that data was important to keep it somewhere they controlled.
Re:DUH. It never was yours (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get where supposed rational technical people on Slashdot of all places, think that any data they transmit over public networks NEVERMIND then storing said data on hard drives owned and physically controlled by someone else, was ever YOURS.
Sounds a lot like stuff transported over public roads.
You moved it in your car from your house a the local U-Haul storage locker. You used an Interstate Highway. Therefore it's not really your property. Now the government can come and take it at will. Great logic there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
thank you.
the tranport has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with your privacy and rights.
why link the two? this is playing into their trap!
"oh, but you stored it blah and it went over blah and it left your house ..."
so fucking what!
seriously - so what. and I wrapped it in a blue envelope and its 'we hate blue envelopes day' today so we get to keep it.
arbitrary reasons, repeated many times, does not make them have any more sense and reason.
yes, my data went over wires I don't own. SO FUCKING WHAT!
what's next: anyth
Yes, exactly (Score:3)
Sounds a lot like stuff transported over public roads.
Correct. Which is why anything of value is moved over said roads in guarded and/or armored transport.
You moved it in your car from your house a the local U-Haul storage locker. You used an Interstate Highway. Therefore it's not really your property
You seem to be confusing law with reality.
The property, by law is still yours.
BUT you are no longer in control of it. The storage locker owner can access it at any time, as can any burglar.
Can you please try
you miss the point (Score:3)
The government is trying to say that the data is not legally yours because it's stored on someone else's server.
This is akin to saying your property is not legally yours because it's stored in a storage locker that you rented.
In both cases you are paying someone to store something for you. In both cases it legally *should* still belong to you.
Re: (Score:3)
that has nothing do with what he said.
he said if you own a thing, and you then give that thing over to SOMEONE ELSE FOR SAFEKEEPING, you lose control of it. which is logically sound, you do lose direct control of it; you have instead entrusted that SOMEONE ELSE with controling it in your interests usually defined by a contract.
however i believe that while you may have ceded direct control to someone else, you have -NOT- ceded ownership (no reciept, no bill of sale, etc). and as such, Constitutional protecti
Think again... (Score:3)
Cloud backups are the virtual equivalent to the the local U-Haul storage locker. The judges only need to look at this to figure out what the law should be.
So if you stop paying your storage provider they should be able to access the data you were storing, and sell it to third parties?
So many people here trying to map physical concepts onto the virtual, never a good idea...
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing is ever "really" yours, since property is just an idea.
But I'd say that an encrypted blob (encrypted locally!) in a cloud service somewhere is more "yours" than an unencrypted blob in a hard drive in your home. Most people don't live in bunkers where you need more than a few tools to get into, but an encrypted blob requires you to disclose the passphrase (voluntarily or not).
It's all yours, but not all available. (Score:3)
But I'd say that an encrypted blob (encrypted locally!) in a cloud service somewhere is more "yours" than an unencrypted blob in a hard drive in your home.
I don't really follow that, all of that data is yours equally, encrypted or not, wherever it lives.
But the thing is, if all you have is that encrypted blob on the server you do not control, then someone else can prevent access to it. It may not be right to do so; that is irrelevant. The fact is that you could have, because it was digital data, easily ha
Re:DUH. It never was yours (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get where supposed rational technical people on Slashdot of all places, think that any data they transmit over public networks NEVERMIND then storing said data on hard drives owned and physically controlled by someone else, was ever YOURS.
Depends on your definition of "YOURS". Most people in modern Western civilizations recognize a distinction between posession and ownership.
The physical reality of the thing is that by definition, any data you are keeping on devices controlled by someone else is never really yours.
Shall I assume, by that definition, that you never park your car anywhere except on your own property, and that you never leave it in the custody of an auto repair or maintenance facility? Similarly, have you never left your coat at a coat check, or let your dry cleaner have posession of your clothing?
Your statement is both valid and poignant regarding the risk of a custodian unlawfully distributing or granting access to your information. This argument, however, claims you have no legal standing regarding the information in the first place, like saying you no longer own your street clothes when you leave them in the gym locker.
Cloud backups are great as a cheap last offsite resort but are not the same as backups that you physically control. You should never have data you care about recovering on a cloud service that you do not also have in multiple copies on devices you own.
Your advice is sound, particularly in the current legally uncertain context. But it does not imply that the government's argument is reasonable or excusable. It is our responsibility to the future of our nation to protect its information security from these misguided government officials. We must raise our voices against this sort of behavior precisely because our legal right to our information is not yet rooted in statutory bedrock.
Re: (Score:3)
> Forget law. The physical reality of the thing is that...
The physical reality of the thing is that the government can break into your house, murder your pets and family, torture you for all your passwords, download your data, and then shoot you in the head and torch the place.
The law (and associated notions of civility, etc) is _everything_. Without it, every notion is just fantasy.
gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice move government you just destroyed pretty much all of the cloud computing industry.
Huzzah.
Re:gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice move government you just destroyed pretty much all of the cloud computing industry.
Huzzah.
Yeah. Say you're a business relying on cloud storage/computing:
1. Use cloud services
2. Someone else also using cloud service suspected of doing something illegal.
3. Service provider shut down/seized by feds.
4. No profit.
There's not even room for the ambiguity of a "???" in that sequence.
Re:gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't be such a problem if they would stop shutting the whole damn thing down whenever someone does something wrong. They don't need to do that. I'm surprised they haven't figured out they could get by without a lot of whining/protesting if they just stop using a bulldozer when a hammer is appropriate.
Re:gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
Then take an image, and bring it back up (with the suspect accounts suspended). There is no reason to take it all down for so long.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, what might end up happening is that some startup gets off the ground whose sole function in life is to provide an in-house encryption appliance similar to a HSM. Data goes in to the module, encrypted data gets stored in the cloud. All keys are kept in a "physically secure" 1U rack module with a USB port in front so one can back up the keys stored in the device.
Businesses will buy those encryption appliances, and IT goes on as normal.
Re:gov just destroyed the cloud business (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, there could hardly be a bigger stimulus. If you don't own your data when it's in the cloud, you can't be responsible for it. Just keep all your pirated material in the cloud and watch Amazon get sued for it.
Wait, you mean you can still get sued for data hosted in the cloud? So it's my data when it's convenient for the government, and it's not my data when it's convenient for the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
what really have you accomplished?
The requirement for an actual court order that you can challenge.
Re: (Score:3)
encrypt the data before uploading?
and so, now your data looks more appealing to them. you think they can't compel you to decrypt it?
what really have you accomplished?
You can be compelled to decrypt by court order which is a much higher standard from the status quo of no protections or standard of any kind.
Government can take your non-financial data stored by a third party for any reason it wants without permission and without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Fantastic, I'm off to start a cloud hosting service outside the US as the government just killed their industry dead!
Wasn't Megaupload based in Korea?
Flipside (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Flipside (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean that all of those copyrighted works I am hosting "in the cloud" are no longer the property of their respected copyright holders? I can see this being argued in all sorts of funny ways.
No no, see, because those rights holders have lots of very expensive lawyers on retainer. Do you? Thought not.
Re:Flipside (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
>Additionally, the government's argument that you lose all your property rights by storing your data on the cloud
Bullshit. I don't lose the rights to my property if they are in the temporary posession of a third party. If it was so, then nobody could rent anythiing ever or even check a coat.
Hurr.
--
BMO
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oooo the arguments....
Re: (Score:3)
Actually you do for cloud services. Read the contracts that Google has....so the government can argue you don't have any expectation of property rights if you waive them with the cloud carrier.
Huh? I haven't read the contract with google, but do you really relinquish your rights to data??
I assume the contract says that they are not liable if they lose your data and that you should have backups, but I would be surprised if the ToS actually said that Google can take your data (copy it and deny you access) and use it for something else whenever they feel like it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
but then again, you have a very different set of rights (much stronger) when you are home and 'in your castle' than when you are, say, driving in your car or even worse, inside an airplane that is public.
the law seems to think that it matters, where your property is.
boggles me. seems stupid and like a glaring bug in the system.
then again, I think our system is totally bug-ridden and ready to self explode in our (or the next) generation. I have the lowest amount of faith in our current system when it comes
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is wrong. IANAL, but I *am* a right-wing logician so everything I say makes extreme amounts of sense.
What you need to understand here is that data stored "in the cloud" is data stored in leased property. That is, you store the data in property owned by someone else who has conferred to you access rights to use their property for storage--in fact, Web services like AWS hosted servers could be considered similar to living and operating space.
To the point, in one model you lease a home--house, apartment--or a building or office area in a building. Legally, leases make you a tenant, which gives you rights of occupancy. As such, the property is yours--the landlord is not legally capable of conferring to police the right to enter the property; the landlord cannot even enter the property himself without your consent, except in emergency situations (including property damage--leaking pipes etc). Thus you have legal ownership of everything in the rented space, and legal jurisdiction over such.
Cloud services similarly confer tenancy onto a customer. Certain facilities are turned over to the customer, keys made (login accounts), leases billed. The facilities are owned by the cloud service provider; however there are terms of lease, there is an expectation of control over facilities, an expectation of non-intrusion. Loading your data into "the cloud" doesn't confer the right for the provider to happily peruse your data. Your data could contain customer personal information, which would place the provider into a situation of high liability for casually perusing.
Counter-arguments about terms-of-service and other such things can be made here; but consider simply what would happen if a service provider chose to data mine through customers' private data. Think of the civil and criminal possibilities. We quickly realize that, in practice, such behavior would result in severe suits. If we surmise that the courts would judge against the provider, then we admit that a cloud service is a tenancy, a lease to resources and to space, and that it comes with tenant assumptions such as residency in said space--privacy, control, ownership.
This complicates things. On the other hand, it creates more resistance than grey area: it makes it ... difficult to argue that a service provider has the right to turn over data of a customer, or that the police can order suspension of services to tenants through the service provider without an order to the tenants. It provides that ownership must be seized from tenants--search and seizure of the general service provider is potentially not legal, and could cause uncomfortable, difficult, complicated court battles.
Need more cloud services like Dropbox (Score:3)
All of our BDR servers also run on a triplicate model - the original data, the data on the backup server, and a copy of the most critical data in the cloud just in case the building catches on fire.
Wow, just wow... (Score:3)
What about money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of my money is "stored" by my bank, backed by promissory notes which in turn are notionally backed by gold deposits stored in some other location that my bank doesn't know about. It's all in the cloud, and has been my entire life. Do I still have property rights over that?
Re: (Score:3)
Property rights? Over money stored at a bank? In a bank-account?
Sorry, you don't own that money. The only thing you have is credit. The bank promises to give you that amount of money when you ask for it. That's all.
So, well, the answer is; no.
Re:What about money? (Score:4, Interesting)
which in turn are notionally backed by gold deposits stored in some other location that my bank doesn't know about
We abandoned the gold standard years ago, old man. No currency on Earth is backed by gold right now.
Interestingly, that makes his fundamental argument/question about "cloud money" even better, since money is really data now.
local storage FTW (Score:4, Insightful)
cloud storage is an easy target: it hosts data of many individuals, and is a single entity. Of course govt will want easy access to that, since that's a lot simpler than requesting access from each person separately.
And that is why I never wanted to use cloud storage. I didn't need it also, to be honest. I always prefer my personal servers that I manage myself, and can encrypt & backup at my own desire.
Safe Deposit Boxes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shouldn't the EFF argue that a cloud service is the equivalent of a bank's safe deposit box? Someone else holds your property on your behalf. For SDBs, the government needs a warrant...just like if your stuff was in the cloud.
I've made this argument for *years* (Score:5, Informative)
The courts established a long time ago that you don't have the same property rights under the 4th amendment when it's stored with a third party.
I've raised this issue whenever I hear that a legal office has outsourced their mail service (do they still have attorney-client privilege if the information has been 'shared' with the ISP?)
There are two issues -- (1) does it require a warrant and (2) do they have to notify you of the warrant (so that you can contest it) or only the party holding the information?
There was an article on the topic in the Journal of Consitutional Law [upenn.edu] a couple of years ago. One of the key things -- ECPA considers any email stored for 180 days can be obtained from an ISP without notifying the user. There was a case in 2008 that found that argued against it and the court agreed, but the case was overturned on other issues so the decision never stood as a precident. It has some interesting things to consider, such as the issues with using a cloud-based thing client without knowing it (in the example, a kid setting up a computer for his uncle), and losing their fourth amendment rights.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
When the governments of the USA and Iran are using the same playbook you shouldn't really be surprised by stuff like this.
GovCloud (Score:5, Interesting)
Dose it apply to http://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/ [amazon.com]
Yeah Gee (Score:4, Insightful)
But yeah, I know, that's just crazy talk...
As Kim Dotcom Just Heard That (Score:5, Funny)
US Government: "You don't own anything stored in the cloud."
Kim Dotcom: "Sweet. The US government has declared cloud stored data is not 'owned.' If you don't own it, if it's not yours, how could you possibly be liable for it? Everyone please subscribe to my new service fuMPAAItsAllInTheCloud.com!"
Rethinking MicroSD Card Slots? (Score:3)
Considering how everyone always laughs at me, calls me a luddite, tells me the future is the cloud, etc whenever I complain about the latest tablets and phones being released without some sort of user loadable storage, is this news enough of a reason to make you rethink your positions?
Good luck Govt Guys.... (Score:4, Funny)
All my data on the Google Drive and Dropbox is encrypted by me first. Have fun trying to crack it.
Fun note: some of the files are simply dumps of /dev/random with fun filenames like "secret-files.zip" and "plan-b.tgz"
Re:If you don't want them seeing it, encrypt! (Score:4, Informative)
This is Kimdotcom's next move.
His new project encrypts on the local machine before uploading to the server, and it's transparent to the user to make it easy.
http://kim.com/mega/ [kim.com]
I'm surprised it took someone this long to think of this.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised it took someone this long to think of this.
Tarsnap, designed and developed by the FreeBSD Security Officer and security researcher (Colin Percival) is four years old.
Its BSD licensed client encrypts everything on the client - including file names - and then uploads it to Amazon S3.
It's awesome.
http://www.tarsnap.com/ [tarsnap.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the government founded on enlightenment-era idealism has degenerated into a machine for maintaining the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful.