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.
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.
>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
Most of my money is "stored" by my bank, backed by promissory notes which in turn are notionally backed by gold deposits stored in some other location that my bank doesn't know about. It's all in the cloud, and has been my entire life. Do I still have property rights over that?
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
#
Shouldn't the EFF argue that a cloud service is the equivalent of a bank's safe deposit box? Someone else holds your property on your behalf. For SDBs, the government needs a warrant...just like if your stuff was in the cloud.
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
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/
I'm surprised it took someone this long to think of this.
--
BMO
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 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.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
By your logic the money we keep in the bank isn't ours either.
or, for that matter, the skulls in my safety deposit box...
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.
Dose it apply to http://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/
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?
Logic is sound. We don't necessarily own the money we place into banks. MF Global comes to mind. Furthermore, try to take out a large amount and see what happens. Either they won't have the cash on hand (call ahead to get your money!) or you're going to have some paperwork to fill out. To, you know, prove you're not funding terrorism or something. There are limits to what one can do with one's money after it's been deposited. Using a bank, one is essentially storing money for them to use as loans, investments, what-have-you. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, banks can be a good thing but to think that one has total control over their money once it's deposited? Wishful thinking. There will be at least some hoops/questions to answer when closing out an account, withdrawing large amounts. From personal experience, trying to be vague in the explanation of "why" doesn't work so well either.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
US Government: "You don't own anything stored in the cloud."
Kim Dotcom: "Sweet. The US government has declared cloud stored data is not 'owned.' If you don't own it, if it's not yours, how could you possibly be liable for it? Everyone please subscribe to my new service fuMPAAItsAllInTheCloud.com!"
All my data on the Google Drive and Dropbox is encrypted by me first. Have fun trying to crack it.
Fun note: some of the files are simply dumps of /dev/random with fun filenames like "secret-files.zip" and "plan-b.tgz"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There's more to it than Kelo. Mr. Romney has come out saying he wants to stack SCOTUS with people who would overturn Roe vs Wade at the first opportunity. His choice would also most likely do everything they could to fight equal rights for gay Americans. For example Lawrence vs Texas; even though it was a 6-3 decision, former Justice O'Connor was in the 6, and she was replaced by Justice Alito who almost certainly would have voted with the Court's conservative bloc to make that a 5-4 decision if argued today.
And forgive me for labeling hyperbole the idea that Kelo was the "most significant civil liberty decision in the last 15-20 years". In my opinion there are greater civil liberties than just the right to property.
For example, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld and Hamdi vs Rumsfeld. Those cases were about locking people in cages without any kind of due process, which is without a doubt far more significant than merely losing some property. In both cases, Justice Ginsburg was on the side of protecting civil liberties, and our friends on the right wing of the court like Justices Scalia and Thomas (and Alito in Hamdan) decided that they were okay with the denial of basic due process rights.
I see the examples of Hamdan and Hamdi, among others I'm sure, as evidence that civil liberties barely dodged a bullet. And if Justice Ginsburg is replaced by someone like Justices Scalia or Alito, you can kiss those civil liberties goodbye.
:(){