Cloud Computing Concerns

[Heretic]

With the advent of \"Cloud Computing\" do you have a concerns that your security and privacy maybe at risk? If not you should. I hate to be the one who is going to be called an Obama basher but I will.

DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail

Even after promising to strengthen privacy protections for the digital age he and his administration has tried to read our emails that are still in the Cloud. Thanks to Yahoo and Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation for defending and stopping this intrusion of our private emails. Now they want to track our cell phones through their GPS chips with no warrant.

Prosecutors told a federal appeals court in Philadelphia last month, for instance, that Americans enjoy no \"reasonable expectation of privacy\" in their, or at least their mobile phones', whereabouts.

So where is the left screaming about the abuses of power on this?

[CUDA]

So where is the left scream about the abuses of power on this?

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

you might hear it from "some" people on this board. but only because they want to save face. but you'll never hear it from a true lefty because lefty's have no rules.

[Isaac]

If I voted for Obama, I'm on the left, right?

So where is the left scream about the abuses of power on this?

GOOD POST!!!! /EXTRA BIG SCREAM

This is the tip of the iceberg, of what's to come.

What I don't get is, they'll go above and beyond to read our emails, but when the FCC wants to protect Net neutrality they somehow drop the ball; to hell with the user, but let's make the telecoms as rich as possible.

[Krom]

There is no privacy on the Internet, it is a complete myth in this day and age of \"cyber-terrorism\" \"DMCA\" \"ACTA\" and \"Child Pornography\". Never put anything on or even near the Internet that you want kept private. Soon virtually every message and packet transmitted over the internet will be inspected for \"suspicious\" keywords or patterns and anything that matches will be logged for further inspection/tracking.

[Isaac]

but you'll never hear it from a true lefty because lefty's have no rules.

Grammatical rules?

[CUDA]

but you'll never hear it from a true lefty because lefty's have no rules.

Grammatical rules?

isn't it time to get your diaper changed?? grow up. you act like a 3 year old that's just discovered his penis for the first time and can't stop playing with it.

[Isaac]

Don't get mad.

[Spidey]

If what you posted is true, there won’t be any outcry…but the spin will be awesome.

[Isaac]

If what you posted is true, there won’t be any outcry…but the spin will be awesome.

Yeah, wow. No kidding.

[Heretic]

but when the FCC wants to protect Net neutrality, they somehow drop the ball;

Please read more about Network Neutrality.

http://reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs ... /phpZw.pdf

[flip]

Get your dancing shoes on.

[snoopy]

There is no privacy on the Internet, it is a complete myth in this day and age of "cyber-terrorism" "DMCA" "ACTA" and "Child Pornography". Never put anything on or even near the Internet that you want kept private. Soon virtually every message and packet transmitted over the internet will be inspected for "suspicious" keywords or patterns and anything that matches will be logged for further inspection/tracking.

That's why encryption exists. You can at least make it hard for people to spy on you... set up top-level encryption in person (no transmitted keys), and then communicate 100% encrypted. Theoretically, you're good until someone brute-force breaks the key... but then I guess cloud computing can handle that, too. If you cycle the key before the old one gets cracked, you can do that over the encryption, too.

[Isaac]

but when the FCC wants to protect Net neutrality they somehow drop the ball;

Please read more about Network Neutrality.

http://reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs ... /phpZw.pdf

Sorry: trouble with link. Both my browsers download a php file instead of a pdf.

However, I reviewed my statement and I'm not in error.

[Xamindar]

There is no privacy on the Internet, it is a complete myth in this day and age of "cyber-terrorism" "DMCA" "ACTA" and "Child Pornography". Never put anything on or even near the Internet that you want kept private. Soon virtually every message and packet transmitted over the internet will be inspected for "suspicious" keywords or patterns and anything that matches will be logged for further inspection/tracking.

Well, there are ways to encrypt messages. My instant messenger and email programs both support it. Problem is getting everyone else to do it too. The stuff is out there already to make the internet more "anonymous" (tor, freenet, and other encryptions) and I'm sure people will start using it when the privacy issue gets too out of control.

We just have to hope they don't make laws to ban encryption which I am sure someone will try to do.

[woodchip]

There is no privacy on the Internet, it is a complete myth in this day and age of "cyber-terrorism" "DMCA" "ACTA" and "Child Pornography". Never put anything on or even near the Internet that you want kept private. Soon virtually every message and packet transmitted over the internet will be inspected for "suspicious" keywords or patterns and anything that matches will be logged for further inspection/tracking.

That's why encryption exists. You can at least make it hard for people to spy on you... set up top-level encryption in person (no transmitted keys), and then communicate 100% encrypted. Theoretically, you're good until someone brute-force breaks the key... but then I guess cloud computing can handle that, too. If you cycle the key before the old one gets cracked, you can do that over the encryption, too.

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that we are now looking at ways to encrypt our use of the internet? The question is, why does our new socialist commie govt. feel the need to peek into everything we say and do on the internet? I guess the left leaning mainstream news organs were selectively outraged when Bush was tapping into known terrorist calls, but when their champion is in control, why the sky's the limit. I guess this is all about the "change" our Pinky President promised us.

[Krom]

Woodchip: All of the stuff that I mentioned was started under the Bush Administration or even earlier (with wide bipartisan support) and I have heard of no significant change in it since Obama took office. ACTA which has been a work in progress since 2007 hasn't passed yet, but I know that Obama is a strong supporter of it. Obama is not blameless since he has failed to put a stop to these things, but by bashing the left or the right you are doing nothing but dancing in the palms of their hands as the perfect distraction that enables them to commit their crimes.

And who exactly is pushing for all this increased internet surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism and improving security? I'll give you a hint: It isn't the democrats or the republicans who are all simply lapdogs to entities that are most definitely NOT on your side.

This whole issue is far bigger than left, right, republican or democrat, but it is plainly obvious that you woodchip are not.

[Heretic]

Thanks for enlightening us more on this topic Krom. Makes for a good horror show of the control big money has on the government. Which was why Obama ran as a person of hope and change but still the change has only further ends of control upon the people.

[Bet51987]

.

[Duper]

Bee, didn't you read what Krom posted?

[Top Gun]

Prosecutors told a federal appeals court in Philadelphia last month, for instance, that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their, or at least their mobile phones', whereabouts.

I honestly don't feel like getting into the rest of the topic, but I think the point of that quote is that a cell phone is, by its very nature, a device which cannot conceal its location. I mean, its sole function is to transmit and receive high-powered RF signals, and anyone with the equipment to detect signals at those frequencies would be able to track its position with little to no effort. Expecting location privacy while using a cell phone is the equivalent of tying a high-powered searchlight to your head and expecting no one to be able to see you. Now granted, the concept of actually listening to those calls is a whole other kettle of fish, both legally and logistically, but the location side of things seems fairly clear-cut.

[Gekko71]

No offense Woodchip & Bee, but IMO, (and as Krom and others here have already intimated) discussing cloud computing in terms of US politics is a rather redundant notion given the internet's global nature.
With respect you need to take a more global view. China's (potentially state sanctioned) attempts to access cloud computing data recently on Google and Yahoo is a perfect example.

Back to the original question:

With the advent of "Cloud Computing" do you have a concerns that your security and privacy maybe at risk?

Short answer, hell yes!

For a start, I'm not sure on the ownership/legal status of data (encrypted or otherwise) that passes through overseas countries via http packets.

Does the data on the cloud servers of US companies fall under US jurisdiction if the server is not based on US soil? It's not always practical to outsource IT services to Asia without moving data over there too.

Yahoo and Google typically insist in their user agreements that legal disputes be settled in US courts, but that doesn't mean that such a clause is binding in the end user's country of origin.

Can encrypted data pass legally through countries where encryption laws are prohibitive or does the data need to be re-routed?

Do foreign powers have the right to keep cached/temp data that passes their borders?

Is ownership of a data packet even possible? Origin and destination of data packets are traceable, but these concepts are distinctly different from ownership and the notion of personal/company property.

The whole legal grounding of cloud computing is still far too ethereal for me (or many other business owners) to take seriously. When they sort out all the above, I'll consider it.

[Spidey]

It’s the “idea” or “content” that has the right to privacy, what it’s transported in, on or where is irrelevant, and only serves to confuse the issue.

But, with that being said, privacy in a modern technological world is only an illusion. Take all the steps needed to protect your data. Don’t expect the law to help you.

[Gekko71]

It’s the “idea” or “content” that has the right to privacy, what it’s transported in, on or where is irrelevant, and only serves to confuse the issue.

But, with that being said, privacy in a modern technological world is only an illusion. Take all the steps needed to protect your data. Don’t expect the law to help you.

I agree that privacy online is an illusion Spidey, but the question of "Where the data is" and "What the data is recorded on" is totally relevant. I'm not trying to confuse the issue - the issue is confusing by nature.

'Ideas' for example have no protection at all under Australian law, only the expression of an idea can be protected. Therefore the form(s) the expression of an idea takes on are vital.

'Content' has its own legal definitions as well, but even that definition is nebulous depending upon the terms, context and jurisdiction under which it is defined.

Thirdly the very notion of a personal 'right' (to privacy or otherwise) also varies under different legal jurisdictions.

This is all relevant because cloud computing is a business model that falls under multiple jurisdictions where there are a relative lack of precedents and test cases to refer back to.

Nations have also been known to apply judicial decisions retroactively and this all affects your rights and decisions if you are attempting to use a cloud computing model as part of your business practices across national borders.

If you only do business in the US and never travel outside its borders than it's far simpler. I unfortunately don't have either of those luxuries - hence no cloud computing for me .

[Spidey]

My main business computer isn’t even on line.

Let me give an anology to demonstrate my point about the medium, and where it is. (I won’t dispute your points about ideas or content, because I haven’t a clue about Australia’s laws in that regard)

If I live in India, and I hire a Chinese trucking company to deliver a load of books to a port in China…does China have a right to stop the truck, copy every part of the contents, just because it’s passing through China?


....................

BTW, your point about “ideas” and “content” kinda makes my point…that being nobody has the right to know what’s in those “packets” except the intended recipient. So if the contents are not protected by this or that law, the point is moot, because you had no right to look into them in the first place.

Now you can make a case for exceptions…like viruses or illegal content.

In the case of illegal content, well here you need probable cause, and in the case of viruses, packets can be inspected by algorithms without the content being divulged.

In the end…if you are dumb enuf to trust private or important data to the “cloud”…well I don’t even want to go there.

[Gekko71]

My main business computer isn’t even on line.

I envy you that. My current business would be total impossible to operate if our network was offline.

Let me give an anology to demonstrate my point about the medium, and where it is. (I won’t dispute your points about ideas or content, because I haven’t a clue about Australia’s laws in that regard)

If I live in India, and I hire a Chinese trucking company to deliver a load of books to a port in China…does China have a right to stop the truck, copy every part of the contents, just because it’s passing through China?

I know for a fact **exactly** that sort of thing happens in China all the time - though it usually happens at the Chinese factory that creates the products as opposed to out on the open road - and it's usually done by IP pirates and not by the government ...although sometimes I do have to wonder.

Perhaps a more relevant angle on the analogy might be Could Indian law stop the (in this case) Chinese antagonists from searching the truck and cataloging all its contents (as well as reverse engineering the items) when the truck and parts in question are still on Chinese soil?

The answer to this analogy would be of course not. Indian law has no relevance outside of India and its territories (trade agreements notwithstanding). Both India and China have systemic corruption and little to no effective protection for foreign IP under national law (China is a signatory to the Madrid Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_system) but a near total lack of enforcement make this point moot. And don't even get me started on IP protection mechanisms in India

My central point remains: cloud computing offers insufficient protection for me to seriously entertain notions of adopting it either professionally or personally.

....................

.... nobody has the right to know what’s in those “packets” except the intended recipient. So if the contents are not protected by this or that law, the point is moot, because you had no right to look into them in the first place.

There are no rights outside of those enshrined in law (unless you count morality and religious laws - but those rights are hardly binding *within* borders let alone across them).

If there is no law to stop one from looking at the contents of packets, people will do so (they do so even when there is a law against it if they really want to)

Now you can make a case for exceptions…like viruses or illegal content.

In the case of illegal content, well here you need probable cause, and in the case of viruses, packets can be inspected by algorithms without the content being divulged.

Again, probable cause presupposes the existence a legal structure that requires a good reason and legal procedure to investigate and capture data.

the end…if you are dumb enuf to trust private or important data to the “cloud”…well I don’t even want to go there.

Well said - this is precisely my point.

[snoopy]

n the end…if you are dumb enuf to trust private or important data to the “cloud”…well I don’t even want to go there.

Do you have a gmail account?.... I've got plenty of private information on my gmail account... At this point, I'm not even sure to what level. I'd consider all of it private.

[woodchip]

Woodchip: All of the stuff that I mentioned was started under the Bush Administration or even earlier (with wide bipartisan support)

actually Clinton had the Carnivore proggy where the feds could read everyones emails

This whole issue is far bigger than left, right, republican or democrat, but it is plainly obvious that you woodchip are not.

No Krom, if you understood my post you would see it is the selective coverage that is at fault. Mainstream press jumped all over Bush for the slightest wiretapping offense. Can you say the same now with even broader infringements of privacy under "Snoop Dog" Obama? My beef is with the fourth leg of government not doing their job.

[Spidey]

n the end…if you are dumb enuf to trust private or important data to the “cloud”…well I don’t even want to go there.

Do you have a gmail account?.... I've got plenty of private information on my gmail account... At this point, I'm not even sure to what level. I'd consider all of it private.

No, I don't.

[snoopy]

n the end…if you are dumb enuf to trust private or important data to the “cloud”…well I don’t even want to go there.

Do you have a gmail account?.... I've got plenty of private information on my gmail account... At this point, I'm not even sure to what level. I'd consider all of it private.

No, I don't.

I guess you're a lot more consistent with your privacy concerns than me... this might motivate me to change the way that I operate.

[Heretic]

...Which was why Obama ran as a person of hope and change but still the change has only further ends of control upon the people.

Because to remove some of those controls (aka wiretaping) will raise the ire with the party of no who will quickly condemn Obama as a president working for the terrorists.

Bee

I am sure that isn't true they already think that, so it has to be something else.