Cloud Computing May Draw Government Action

snydeq brings us this excerpt from InfoWorld: "Cloud computing will soon become an area of hot debate in Washington, as the increasing popularity of cloud-based services is putting pressure on policy makers to answer tough questions on the privacy and security of data in the cloud. For example: Who owns the data that consumers store on the network? Should law enforcement agencies have easier access to personal information in the cloud than data on a personal computer? Do government procurement regulations need to change to allow agencies to embrace cloud computing? So far, US courts have generally ruled that private data stored in the cloud doesn't enjoy the same level of protection from law enforcement searches that data stored on a personal computer does, said Ari Schwartz, COO of the Center for Democracy and Technology. 'I do think government has an almost infinite ability to screw up things when they can't see the future,' former Bill Clinton tech policy adviser Mike Nelson added. 'We have to have leadership that believes in empowering users and empowering citizens.'"

Comments

Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[Maestro485]

It's interesting that if I have a locker in a public place with a lock on it, I have a legal right to privacy. Yet, if I have an online storage account with a password ("lock"), it's fair game.

Lawyers, please enlighten me!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[runlevelfour]

Generally speaking the government doesn't want you having any privacy whatsoever so their automatic assumption is that you don't have rights unless the courts force them to acknowledge them. I don't think that the EFF and the ACLU are going to sit idle on this but lately the government (Dem controlled mind all you Obama-will-fix-everything believers) has been passing very repressive legislature. I fully expect there to be a lot more legislature in the pipes on this in the near future. None of it in our (working class) favor, of course.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[FlyByPC]

So why use the cloud? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

That said, I do like the lock-on-public-storage-space analogy the GP invokes, especially since our government seems to increasingly have a hard time remembering what the Constitution is.

Other than convenience, are there real reasons to use/trust cloud computing -- that is, to trust offsite storage with critical information?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[dunnius]

Generally speaking the government doesn't want you having any privacy whatsoever so their automatic assumption is that you don't have rights unless the courts force them to acknowledge them. I don't think that the EFF and the ACLU are going to sit idle on this but lately the government (Dem controlled mind all you Obama-will-fix-everything believers) has been passing very repressive legislature. I fully expect there to be a lot more legislature in the pipes on this in the near future. None of it in our (working class) favor, of course.

Unfortunately, the Government wants to do away with the constitution. This is why it is important to support the EFF, ACLU, and others in order to protect the constitution.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

sure, if you're okay with living like we did 10,000 years ago.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[techno-vampire]

I fail to see how you can make a local law against any usage of cloud computing.

Oh, there'd no difficulty making a local law against cloud computing; all you need to do is get enough clueless legislators to agree on it. Enforcing it, now, that's a different, much more difficult proposition.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[HeronBlademaster]

One of the biggest reasons my employer let me switch their file downloads from their dedicated server to Amazon S3 is reliability (the other being cost). With our own dedicated server we have to take care of hard drive failures, manage service uptime, and so on. Amazon takes care of all that stuff for us.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[HeronBlademaster]

I've never been a fan of the ACLU's methods. They seem to support whatever cause is in the media at the moment rather than the issues that actually need to be addressed.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[schnikies79]

I was a bit harsh in my post. I don't really dislike the ACLU, it just disappoints me off when an organization that supports liberty doesn't always support it. I think every amendment is as important as the others.

That being said, I support them in most every other situation and have donated to them.

From the ACLU website:

"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right."

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[CastrTroy]

Or living like people still live like on the other side of the world.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[10101001 10101001]

So why use the mail? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

So why use a security deposit box? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

So why use an internal hard drive? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

Or, I don't know, we could all be actually upset with the way things are going and actually force the government to do our bidding instead of running in fear on what new way the government will try to chip away at our freedoms. Perhaps it'll take a few [figurative] martyrs. Perhaps it'll take a [real] revolution. If you assume that the situation is futile, then there's no such thing as "devices that you physically control": it's only a matter of time for the government to make such things illegal and to punish people like you. Change should happen *now* because it'll be a lot harder and a lot bloodier if we all squat and wait on our own pile of data to protect.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, well I am mostly concerned with my own corner of the world. More specifically, I just want to short the stupid need/want argument, since it's been redundant longer than I've been alive. Really, read Maslow's hierarchy and tell me if there's anything to add to it. Also note that the people in Africa are so very poor largely because the people in power are crooks and thugs who derive advantage from their misery. Nothing I can really do, and totally irrelevant to the argument.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage?

[AnyoneEB]

There is the pretty clear difference in that your password is not a "lock" on your data. It is simply how you let the service know it is okay to send your data over the internet and let you edit it. An actual lock for "cloud" services would be for the data to be encrypted and only decrypted client-side.

Perhaps somehow it could be decrypted by Javascript with a passphrase entered client-side. There are lots of problems with that approach the main two that occur to me are (1) the service probably wants to serve ads based off your data, which it cannot do if it only has encrypted copies and (2) there is no way for the user to tell the difference between what I described and the current process of logging into Google Docs.

On the other hand, it might work okay for using S3 as file server like another poster mentioned. Unfortunately, if the data is encrypted, then it has to be decrypted on the computer doing the calculations. I suppose an encrypted index could be stored on the S3 file server, but this seems like it is getting a bit ridiculous.

Asking the wrong questions...

[RiCentro]

I love how those who supposedly have the people's best interests in mind, would rather worry about how easy it is for them to get their hands on my information as opposed to just protecting my information.

Anybody else

[sleeponthemic]

Want to find the person who coined this stupid term and burn his house down?

Re:Anybody else

[Daffy Duck]

Sign me up. I've heard people claiming they put their data "in the cloud" because that makes it safer. Why do they think this? Because "the cloud" is a concept rather than an object, and therefore cannot be destroyed?

I prefer to replace "the cloud" with "a bunch of servers I don't control and can't locate". Clears a lot of things up for me.

Re:Anybody else

[MRe_nl]

C.L.O.U.D:
Control Lost Over Ur Data

More on Cloud Privacy from Pew, Princeton

[miller60]

The article briefly mentions a survey on cloud computing released today by Pew Internet, which warns that "sloud users show high levels of concern when presented with scenarios in which companies might use their data for purposes users may or may not fully understand ahead of time. This suggests user worry over control of the information they store online." That includes using personal information for ad targeting.

Earlier this year Princeton University held a forum on cloud computing, which included an in-depth session of data ownership in the cloud and the issues it raises. It's available on YouTube in its 90-minute entirety.

Easy questions.

[CSMatt]

Who owns the data that consumers store on the network?

The customers.

Should law enforcement agencies have easier access to personal information in the cloud than data on a personal computer?

No.

Do government procurement regulations need to change to allow agencies to embrace cloud computing?

Only if they pick the wrong answers for 1 and 2.

Clinton adviser?

[MadAhab]

What the hell, I'll go for this one.

The Clinton administration's opposition to encryption technology has made it vastly easier for governments to spy on their citizens, by slowing the adoption of encryption into core internet data communications.

Even John Ashcroft opposed their restrictions (though these days he has a different attitude towards government powers).

So spare me the crocodile tears.

If you want your data to be secure, you better own, host, store, and secure it yourself. No major corporation is going to protect you from governmental powers, and you really wouldn't want them to have that power. At least the government is theoretically accountable to you in some way.

As much as I like Google and Yahoo etc, you can't get the same kind of accountability from them you can from the local dogcatcher.

You need democrats

[unity100]

supposedly republicans were to be a bunch that were for less govt. control.

EVERY goddamn thing they did in the last 8 years have been the EXACT opposite of this.

you definitely need democrats now. at least they are not psychopath as this bunch.

banks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep my money in a bank. What's different about keeping my data in a data bank?

You have a problem though...

[plasmacutter]

Republicans have strayed from their "less government" standpoint and are in bed with big business in general, but particularly resource-barron and credit industries.

Democrats, however, are not only doing what the republicans do, but are traditionally (and actually) in bed with hollywood.

You have two choices, strychnine or ricin...

Personally, I'm actually leaning toward the republicans simply because they have so many people they're already sold out to, they may not get around to giving their handouts to the anti-internet crowds.