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)."
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: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.
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
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.
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]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
For the Google [panamalaw.org] impaired [thesun.co.uk]
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'.