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)."
hey, what's that pressure I feel?
its the pressure of a boot, stomping on your face. pressing down, always pressing down.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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
Yes.
The US gov has long held that your webmail doesn't belong to you either.
The feds already have full access to your gmail or hotmail account, and everything in it.
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.
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.
Were the Rolling Stones singing to the US Government? HEY, YOU, GET OFF OF MY CLOUD!
One more reason to maintain your own data and backups. Like you say, this shouldn't have surprised anyone.
Free Martian Whores!
By your logic the money we keep in the bank isn't ours either.
... and Obama administration went into overdrive with it.
http://1202013.blogspot.com/2012/09/as-debates-approach.html
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
What about Hoover? (The FBI guy, not the engineer.) He _started_ the whole surveillance of government subjects thing.
Of course not, you !(poster.political_alignment) crony. Open your eyes, man! It was clearly getPolitician(!(poster.political_alignment))'s work!
or, for that matter, the skulls in my safety deposit box...
Wonderful how that excuses the continued erosion of our civil rights. "Well Bush did it."
What a great get out of jail card that is.
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
But this is certainly the first one someone claims you lose your rights to data by placing it with an external providers
I am sure that companies that provide storage lockers are watching this with interest. Next, on suspicion of drugs, seize the entire local U-Store branch... Or the entire contents of bank safebox room. And let the owners come forward and sue to recover if they can prove them own their stuff legally. (and imagine there was a car analogy somewhere in there)
I believe warrantless wire taping started under Bush....*eye roll*
An excellent example! It did start under Bush. And Obama, plucky Senator from Illinois, railed against the program.
Until he became president.
Merely three days after being sworn in, the tune changed, article here, with citations 1 and 2:
On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al. The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July, 2008 legislation that immunized the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of complicity in the eavesdropping program, according to testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.
AC's point stands pretty clear with this information, I think.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Which just goes to show, you can't grant power to government and confine it only to your own party. Typically, when the other party holds office, they inherit the power. Something to think about when your representatives grant far reaching power to *your* candidate.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
> That would be Romney... good luck there.
At least luck is a factor. Obama has already proven he's more then willing to run with this crap, and that was in the first term when he'd theoretically be trying to stay enough on the good side of the populace to get reelected.
> It's like leaving a guy that doesn't worship you enough for one that beats you black and blue every night.
No, it's like leaving a guy that beats you black and blue every night for a guy that hung out with someone that used to beat you black and blue every night. I'm not going to pretend that Romney would be any better, but realistically given how willing Obama has been picking up where Bush left off, I can hardly consider 'Romney's going to be like Bush because he's from the same faction as Bush' as much of a reason to consider Obama over Romney.
And Obama, plucky Senator from Illinois, railed against the program.
Until he became president.
Merely three days after being sworn in, the tune changed,
I think the explanation is obvious
There is a black book at the oval office that explains why the world will end if the people are not watched by a benign dictator that knows what's best. Obama read that manual right after being sworn in and was compelled to switch his position.
Either that or Obama cynically lied to his supporters throughout his entire campaign.
Either that or Obama cynically lied to his supporters throughout his entire campaign.
Isn't that just called running for office?
WTB [sig], PST!!!
It was NOT all right for Bush to do it and it is NOT all right for Obama to do it. And it will NOT be all right for Romney to do it. Nor was it right for whatever clandestine degree Clinton, Bush Sr, His Holiness Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc. etc.
Screw your petty little partisan sniping. Some of us want to be able to live in the country we say we are, not in the country we've become.
Totally irrelevant. But just the same, also factually wrong, so I'll reply:
Actually, no he didn't...not even close. You can go back a couple of decades to the Black Chamber, or even further back by centuries to Sir Walsingham. You could argue that Sun Tzu was a forerunner, but if I had to pick a single person to actually start the surveillance of citizens by government, I'd choose Walsingham. And you know what? He stopped a number of plots against Queen Elizabeth I that way, and it's really hard to argue that his methods were unnecessary or heavy-handed.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.