Slashdot Mirror
US Government: You Don't Own Your Cloud Data So We Can Access It At Any Time
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)."
Anyone surprised?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Does this mean that my backups to Barracuda Networks cloud service are no longer mine? This would kill cloud services.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Nice move government you just destroyed pretty much all of the cloud computing industry.
Huzzah.
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.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
By your logic the money we keep in the bank isn't ours either.
Public road is not the same as a cloud service. The better analogy would be parking garage.
When the governments of the USA and Iran are using the same playbook you shouldn't really be surprised by stuff like this.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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: anything that's not kept in your hands 100% of the time is open to be taken away? where does this encroachment end?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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...
But yeah, I know, that's just crazy talk...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"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. "
Then you better learn what the fuck Right to Possession means, if you're going to use such a flawed logical analogy, and see why your words just went to shit with that supposition.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance