Cart before the horse on the breech of the peace argument, as there would be no issue if the TSA weren't flagrantly violating fourth and fifth amendment rights.
... in a lot of ways, but I still have to wonder if this is what happens when you vocally and frequently criticize the TSA from a position of some authority.
Thus preventing the owners of the cloud from detecting infringing content. Which means, that yes, you can't have both.
Remember, burden is being placed not on the users of the services, but on the owners.
Thus, to even allow encrypted data that the owners and/or law enforcement can't read is doomed to be labeled as criminal and terrorist.
Plausible deniability has nothing to do with what's going on here, which is about the power of the corporations to own forever all information and content.
Actually, I'd say that we're in the process to reverting to the true ancient common-law notion that your feudal lord owned you and everything in his fief.
(In deep authoritarian voice) - No, actually, I won't. Because you are now no longer a US citizen. Welcome to Gitmo. Who am I? Now, that is a matter for YOU to guess, because that I do not have to answer.
A huge part of the whole cloud approach is that it is an approach to data storage that comes with all of the redundancy built in. The idea is that it's expensive to run your own redundant data stores, keep them secure, etc. So, one basically outsources it to the cloud.
Now we're in a situation where the manner in which some subset of the users of a given cloud can bring the entire thing down for everyone, resulting in the loss and exposure of everyone's data.
Let's consider for a minute AWS. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of companies that exist pretty much solely in AWS space. They rely upon the cloud for their existence. AWS is a lot more reputable than Megaupload. However, at the end of the day, the same problem potentially exists with storing things in the AWS cloud.
And if this can happen to one company, it can happen to any, including the "more reputable" ones like AWS. Especially with the SOPA-esque laws and treaties being pushed.
This will absolutely break the cloud model. It renders all the advantages of the cloud moot, and in fact, opens up a completely new security hole (that of unwarranted seizure and or destruction of data by government agencies, or perhaps even rival corporations with an accusation of illicit content). Disney thinks that MyLittleComic is storing their data in JoesCloud? Accuse JoesCloud of hosting illicit data, get the whole thing nuked.
This results in loss of business (at least in the USA); it makes it harder for the smaller firms and startups to be viable; and it further entrenches those corporations that are big enough to pay the appropiate bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyist donations in Washington DC.
Finally, I would never, ever argue against due diligence. I would, however, claim that for a number of organizations that cloud use IS due diligence. And I'd still maintain that a good number of folk's fourth amendment rights were just tossed into the crapper.
The legitimate users of the service have lost real property without any intent to do wrong. The takedown was without warning. The folks who lost their legitimate data have had their fourth amendment rights absolutely trampled.
And you think they should be grateful that all they lost was their data, and not their physical freedom?
It would, however, prevent you from using any sort of cloud hosting if you want to keep your data private. Because in order to be SOPA compliant, a cloud would have to scan your data to ensure that you didn't have any sort of "illicit" files.
So - why use the cloud at all? Well, for better or worse, services like AWS make it possible for certain businesses to grow and thrive - and in some cases, exist at all.
Which brings us back to my original point. Given the constant push by the seriously monied interests in SOPA-esque laws and treaties worldwide, and given the trend towards consolidation of the various corporations and services out there, eventually, it's going to be hard for a certain class of business and user not to have all their eggs in one basket - a basket that has both corporate and government eyes peeking at pretty much every bit that's out there.
If this scenario does not appeal, then perhaps a way to change the underlying trends of corporate and government Big Brotherhood needs be found.
Here's the problem with the "willful" argument in general.
Either you can have a cloud in which your data is private, or the owners of the cloud can actively prevent the use of the cloud for hosting "infringing content".
But once the SOPA-esque laws and treaties become The Way That Things Are (tm) - and unless things change drastically, they eventually will - and once the Great Consolidation has run its course - what choice will there be?
Keep 'em poor so they need the Walmart prices to be able to buy stuff, so they buy en masse at Walmart... it's a vicious circle.
Note that I've nothing against leveraging the economy of scale. I do have a problem with a corporation that treats it's employees like pondscum and that acts as a pipeline of US wealth to China. In this day and age of too many people and not enough resources, it may be that we need to have the efficiency of the mega-box stores. But the avarice of Walmart is "doin' is wrong".
I'm betting on a wireless taser system for zapping their wage slaves remotely, with a motion sensor that detects when they're not moving for more than a few minutes, a microphone for listening in and a camera.
The whole thing will be fashioned to look like a big smiley face button.
Slashdot Mirror
Cart before the horse on the breech of the peace argument, as there would be no issue if the TSA weren't flagrantly violating fourth and fifth amendment rights.
I'm sure the TSA would like you to think so.
... in a lot of ways, but I still have to wonder if this is what happens when you vocally and frequently criticize the TSA from a position of some authority.
Thus preventing the owners of the cloud from detecting infringing content. Which means, that yes, you can't have both.
Remember, burden is being placed not on the users of the services, but on the owners.
Thus, to even allow encrypted data that the owners and/or law enforcement can't read is doomed to be labeled as criminal and terrorist.
Plausible deniability has nothing to do with what's going on here, which is about the power of the corporations to own forever all information and content.
Actually, I'd say that we're in the process to reverting to the true ancient common-law notion that your feudal lord owned you and everything in his fief.
Simple answer:
Because many cloud services promise secure and guaranteed redundant backups.
This.
(In deep authoritarian voice) - No, actually, I won't. Because you are now no longer a US citizen. Welcome to Gitmo. Who am I? Now, that is a matter for YOU to guess, because that I do not have to answer.
I'm speaking in the general case, not from personal or professional experience with MegaUpload.
You had encrypted files?
What are you hiding?
Are you some sort of terrorist?
A huge part of the whole cloud approach is that it is an approach to data storage that comes with all of the redundancy built in. The idea is that it's expensive to run your own redundant data stores, keep them secure, etc. So, one basically outsources it to the cloud.
Now we're in a situation where the manner in which some subset of the users of a given cloud can bring the entire thing down for everyone, resulting in the loss and exposure of everyone's data.
Let's consider for a minute AWS. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of companies that exist pretty much solely in AWS space. They rely upon the cloud for their existence. AWS is a lot more reputable than Megaupload. However, at the end of the day, the same problem potentially exists with storing things in the AWS cloud.
And if this can happen to one company, it can happen to any, including the "more reputable" ones like AWS. Especially with the SOPA-esque laws and treaties being pushed.
This will absolutely break the cloud model. It renders all the advantages of the cloud moot, and in fact, opens up a completely new security hole (that of unwarranted seizure and or destruction of data by government agencies, or perhaps even rival corporations with an accusation of illicit content). Disney thinks that MyLittleComic is storing their data in JoesCloud? Accuse JoesCloud of hosting illicit data, get the whole thing nuked.
This results in loss of business (at least in the USA); it makes it harder for the smaller firms and startups to be viable; and it further entrenches those corporations that are big enough to pay the appropiate bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyist donations in Washington DC.
Finally, I would never, ever argue against due diligence. I would, however, claim that for a number of organizations that cloud use IS due diligence. And I'd still maintain that a good number of folk's fourth amendment rights were just tossed into the crapper.
Isn't "the cloud" supposed to provide redundant back?
Isn't that a big part of the point right there?
That, in a word, is horseshit.
The legitimate users of the service have lost real property without any intent to do wrong. The takedown was without warning. The folks who lost their legitimate data have had their fourth amendment rights absolutely trampled.
And you think they should be grateful that all they lost was their data, and not their physical freedom?
It wouldn't.
It would, however, prevent you from using any sort of cloud hosting if you want to keep your data private. Because in order to be SOPA compliant, a cloud would have to scan your data to ensure that you didn't have any sort of "illicit" files.
So - why use the cloud at all? Well, for better or worse, services like AWS make it possible for certain businesses to grow and thrive - and in some cases, exist at all.
Which brings us back to my original point. Given the constant push by the seriously monied interests in SOPA-esque laws and treaties worldwide, and given the trend towards consolidation of the various corporations and services out there, eventually, it's going to be hard for a certain class of business and user not to have all their eggs in one basket - a basket that has both corporate and government eyes peeking at pretty much every bit that's out there.
If this scenario does not appeal, then perhaps a way to change the underlying trends of corporate and government Big Brotherhood needs be found.
Here's the problem with the "willful" argument in general.
Either you can have a cloud in which your data is private, or the owners of the cloud can actively prevent the use of the cloud for hosting "infringing content".
You can't have both.
But once the SOPA-esque laws and treaties become The Way That Things Are (tm) - and unless things change drastically, they eventually will - and once the Great Consolidation has run its course - what choice will there be?
It's the company script model, scaled up.
Keep 'em poor so they need the Walmart prices to be able to buy stuff, so they buy en masse at Walmart... it's a vicious circle.
Note that I've nothing against leveraging the economy of scale. I do have a problem with a corporation that treats it's employees like pondscum and that acts as a pipeline of US wealth to China. In this day and age of too many people and not enough resources, it may be that we need to have the efficiency of the mega-box stores. But the avarice of Walmart is "doin' is wrong".
I'm betting on a wireless taser system for zapping their wage slaves remotely, with a motion sensor that detects when they're not moving for more than a few minutes, a microphone for listening in and a camera.
The whole thing will be fashioned to look like a big smiley face button.
The enrichment of those who own has always far exceeded that of those who actually create.
It's the way of the world.
Not right, but how it is.
Mine would be too... if I could find luggage that took 30+ character passwords :/
How quaint - a fourth amendment reference.
What are you, some sort of seeker of justice? /snark
You have a knife in your pocket? Quick, taze and spray!
Two coming of age talks:
1. The birds and the bees.
2. Internet security.
Doesn't matter. You still have a Facebook presence. And a Google one. And probably a few others.
'We all need an illusion of whatever scraps of privacy we have left, and your email is just that.'"
Because we sure as hell don't have any privacy left anymore.