Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is Your Data Safe In the Cloud?
With so much personal data being kept on the cloud, including government and health records or your source code, do you have any concerns about it falling into the wrong hands? Do you think the cloud's benefits are outweighed by continuing security issues?
No one is going to care as much about your data as you do. Next question please.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yes, exactly.
Servers "in the cloud" are installed, secured, and maintained, by sysadmins like you and me. Some of those sysadmins are good at what they do, and some of them aren't. "The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality.
Every time we read an article about "the cloud", it's useful to take a moment to consider what it actually means in that particular scenario.
Although "the cloud" means "I don't care where my servers are", there are in fact actual servers somewhere, and there's an actual person or team of persons responsible for maintaining that server or servers, and they are either good at their job, or they aren't. Talking about "the cloud" as though it's one homogeneous mush of data is nonsense, and leads to all sorts of false conclusions.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
It's still someone else's servers holding my data and I still have to go through some hoop(s) to get at it from other devices. What is so special about it?
::rimshot::
No, seriously - depending on the cloud service, aren't buckets of data encrypted in such a way that only the owner of the data can access them? Cloud service providers may be required to hand over data, but do they have the means of handing over the encryption keys along with it?
For certain cloud services where you're uploading via browser, they may be encrypting your data post-upload, so the request to decrypt may be more trivial. However, if you manage your own (like S3 backups) - or simply use a service that encrypts BEFORE uploading, I'm not sure there's a whole lot Amazon or some other provider could do to hand over the data in any usable form.
Those who are concerned about security of their data should ensure that the backup is encrypted in an acceptable method, or simply stash it in an encrypted container before storing it "online" (I realize there may be limitations of scale with that suggestion).
$ man woman *
-bash:
Unlike all other Ask Slashdots, this question is not prededed by "$USERNAME writes", so who actually proposed this question? A user that didn't get credit? A Slashdot editor? Someone from Sourceforge? The post introducing sponsored Ask Slashdots says that "the sponsors don't pick the questions", but that's still ambiguous. Many people are skeptical about this being thinly veiled astroturfing, so it's important to be as transparent as possible.
Heck, never mind seizure, how about willfully providing this information? Twitter is now providing all public posts to the government.
Bottom line, if it's in a cloud, you have zero guarantee as to how that information will be used and who will end up with access to it.
No Comment.
Servers "in the cloud" are installed, secured, and maintained, by sysadmins like you and me. Some of those sysadmins are good at what they do, and some of them aren't.
I don't get it then, what makes the sysadmins and employees at these companies that run "the cloud" any more or less secure than my own employees and sysadmins? And what makes the government where "the cloud" resides any more respectable of my privacy than my local government? My own reaction is that there's just another layer of security risk here. At least if they're my employees or sysadmins and I find out data is being leaked, I can fire them and do an internal investigation. If some sysadmin is dumping databases at a "cloud" site, then who is ever going to know and how is that ever going to be rectified?
I'm not arguing against "the cloud" and I don't have a good example on hand of where "the cloud" has failed but to me it seems like a lot of these are virtual machines sitting on physical hardware running more software. And every layer is just another potential weak point in the chain of software. Is that not true? Isn't it possible that employees of VM farms are simply cloning and dumping memory or hard disks (or entire VMs for that matter) for their own personal use?
There was a paper a while back about encrypted computing just to address this very fear.
"The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality.
Just like the title to this Ask Slashdot encourages us to debate the security of something that cannot be intrinsically secure or insecure? If you're telling me that "the cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure why are we having this conversation? I mean, I think it's worthwhile to consider what a lot of "the cloud" services are that are out there (the big few that exist) and to debate their security success or potential holes. You can always deflect my arguments by saying that they're just "implementing the cloud wrong" and we won't go anywhere. But it is my opinion that sensitive, personal and secure information should not be handed off to yet another third part for computation or storage unless your trust with them is enough to risk litigation against yourself from all of your customers.
My work here is dung.
Twitter is now providing all public posts to the government.
I've never used Twitter, so maybe I'm missing something.
Isn't Twitter providing all public posts to the whole world?
While I wasn't too thrilled about this whole sponsored post idea, I shrugged my shoulders and moved on. However, this first go at it is somewhat troubling. The question is rather ambiguous, with no information given about who submitted the question, but that's already been discussed.
My big problem with it is why this story seems to be 'floating' in the feed. All morning, it's been at the number two position. I don't really mind the glaring blue story staring at me, but I would appreciate it if it faded to oblivion just like the rest of the articles/stories/slashvertisements, so I don't have to continue to stare at this giant blue SourceForge logo when I browse the news feed. I had tried to keep an open mind, but this whole thing looks like an attempt to whore out the site for money.