Reasonable Expectation of Privacy From Web Hosts?

Shafted writes "I'm in a bit of dilemma, and I'm wondering what fellow Slashdotters think regarding this subject. I've been hosting web sites for some clients for years using my own server. About a year and a half ago, I got a reseller account with a company that will remain nameless. They are, however, fairly large, and they did come highly recommended. Other than the usual slow tech support, occasional server overloading, and... well... typical support staff, it's been pretty good and has saved me from having to deal with problems like hardware and driving down to the colo at 4AM to figure out a routing problem. All-in-all, it was acceptable. Until yesterday, when I was asking for a relatively minor email-related fix, and by the tech support staff's response, they had accessed my MySQL database directly and looked at the contents; presumably, in order to tell me what I was doing wrong. Regardless of the fact that they missed the boat with regards to the support question, I found it surprising that they would access my database data without my consent. When I asked them why they were accessing the database without my permission, they've pretty much ignored me, despite repeated requests asking why they think this is acceptable. So, my question is this: Do I, as a customer who, according to the acceptable use policy, owns my data, have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the data which I own, despite it being hosted on a third-party's server? Or do web hosting companies have the right to poke around at everyone's data as they see fit?" Read below for the rest of the question. Shafted continues: "I did get a response from one of the higher-ups, who said it was ok - they were perfectly within their rights, and their privacy policy supports that. Problem is, I've read the privacy policy, terms of service and acceptable use policy, and nowhere does it make mention that they have the right to look at files or data. It does indicate that I am the one who owns the data (presumably to cover copyright infringement). Another fellow indicated he felt that, as site admin, he had the right to look at whatever he wanted on the site, whether it's his data or a customer's (he, from what I can tell, is not an employee). I can understand looking at data to determine whether it violates the AUP or TOS, provided that it's justified (i.e. a scanner or audit indicates that something fishy is going on). But since I haven't violated the AUP or TOS, do they have this right? Is this something all web hosting companies do? If it isn't expressly stated, either that they do or do not have the right, does that automatically give them the right? Is this an industry norm, or did someone make a mistake and they're simply unwilling to admit to it? I'd really like to hear what some of you have to say, knowing that many of you probably have sites hosted by third-parties, and some of you may work for web hosting companies. Since this is the first one I've ever dealt with, I'm unsure whether I should expect this anywhere else, and if so I may end up going back to self-hosting."

Comments

Circuit City Firedog Dispatch - PC & TV Techs

[ItaloSuave]

-- I worked as Tech Dispatcher (a Volt temp) for PlumChoice.com, a very new Company in Billerica, Massachusetts, that is doing a great business dispatching Circuit City Firedog PC and TV Techs nationwide. They are the biggest profit center for Circuit City. The loot is truly exceptionally good, adn the Company is growing quite strongly. They have received at least two rounds of venture capital funding. Unfortunately, they could not figure out a way to consider my 53 year old personage for a regular status job. Instead, when I asked why I was not getting considered, they chose to end my work assignment, rather than answer my question. This is the kind of corporate entity you cannot trust in any respect, let alone in the personal business of mucking around in your home PC computer and wireless network. The technique used for remote tech support, was to e-mail the customer a Java applet attachment file which would supposedly expire at the conclusion of the appointed use for remote tech access to the person's home or office computer. However, I found that people were sold computers that had undesirable 30-day trial software, with pop-ups and advertisements and forceful blandishments to buy or be disabled in your PC functionality. Also, the PC tech support service guarantee was only 5 days. As such, people, particularly elderly or older Americans who were vulnerable to this sort of marketing and sales presssure, were encouraged to pay and pay again and again to fix the same problem. It was really quite disgraceful, but there you go -- mo' money means mo' business in corporate America. Based on my experience as a worker for these corporations, I would never use their proffered services, and I would be aware that they are now working with Microsoft's new "fix your computer remotely" service, whereby they download enabling software permanently and surreptitiously onto your computer. But what else is new, when it comes to Microsoft? Who controls your desktop and files, you or the Corporations and the Government? According to them, they have ownership, and you do not own your own files or desktop. Your description of a PC or Network Tech accessing your personal files is just the "tip of the iceberg" of this ongoing problem. The Internet started out free and accessable to all at a reasonable or nominal price. Now, the governments and the corporations are moving in to "take ownership" and their reach extends into your home, into your home network, into your operating system and your desktop and your files. I have heard that home PCs (and telephones) can be enabled to spy on the home's occupants, as well. So much for due process, limited government, privacy rights, worker rights, "government of, by and for the people" and informed consent. http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;334364884;fp;4;fpid;3