Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cloud Computing May Draw Government Action

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the internet-is-a-series-of-jet-streams dept.

Government 119

snydeq brings us this excerpt from InfoWorld: "Cloud computing will soon become an area of hot debate in Washington, as the increasing popularity of cloud-based services is putting pressure on policy makers to answer tough questions on the privacy and security of data in the cloud. For example: Who owns the data that consumers store on the network? Should law enforcement agencies have easier access to personal information in the cloud than data on a personal computer? Do government procurement regulations need to change to allow agencies to embrace cloud computing? So far, US courts have generally ruled that private data stored in the cloud doesn't enjoy the same level of protection from law enforcement searches that data stored on a personal computer does, said Ari Schwartz, COO of the Center for Democracy and Technology. 'I do think government has an almost infinite ability to screw up things when they can't see the future,' former Bill Clinton tech policy adviser Mike Nelson added. 'We have to have leadership that believes in empowering users and empowering citizens.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (5, Insightful)

Maestro485 (1166937) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985499)

It's interesting that if I have a locker in a public place with a lock on it, I have a legal right to privacy. Yet, if I have an online storage account with a password ("lock"), it's fair game.

Lawyers, please enlighten me!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (3, Informative)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985551)

Generally speaking the government doesn't want you having any privacy whatsoever so their automatic assumption is that you don't have rights unless the courts force them to acknowledge them. I don't think that the EFF and the ACLU are going to sit idle on this but lately the government (Dem controlled mind all you Obama-will-fix-everything believers) has been passing very repressive legislature. I fully expect there to be a lot more legislature in the pipes on this in the near future. None of it in our (working class) favor, of course.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (4, Interesting)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985637)

So why use the cloud? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

That said, I do like the lock-on-public-storage-space analogy the GP invokes, especially since our government seems to increasingly have a hard time remembering what the Constitution is.

Other than convenience, are there real reasons to use/trust cloud computing -- that is, to trust offsite storage with critical information?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985793)

Other than convenience, are there real reasons to use/trust cloud computing -- that is, to trust offsite storage with critical information?

Everything that isn't a basic need (food, sleep, shelter) is a convenience, basically.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (3, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985975)

sure, if you're okay with living like we did 10,000 years ago.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986191)

Or living like people still live like on the other side of the world.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986227)

Good point.

I would have thought that someone old enough to have a 6 digit ID (Fulcrum of Evil) would be old enough to understand that only 1/3rd (if that!) of the world actually has the benefits of fulfilling their basic needs... Even the homeless in north america have it pretty good, compared to africa, china or many parts of russia.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (2, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986405)

Yeah, well I am mostly concerned with my own corner of the world. More specifically, I just want to short the stupid need/want argument, since it's been redundant longer than I've been alive. Really, read Maslow's hierarchy and tell me if there's anything to add to it. Also note that the people in Africa are so very poor largely because the people in power are crooks and thugs who derive advantage from their misery. Nothing I can really do, and totally irrelevant to the argument.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0, Flamebait)

Lord Flipper (627481) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987235)

Also note that the people in Africa are so very poor largely because the people in power are crooks and thugs who derive advantage from their misery

That is, easily, the most uninformed, shallow and inaccurate explanation of what ails Africa that I have ever seen. And there's a lot of bullshit out there, so congratu-fucking-lations, you moron.

Here's a couple facts Mr I-Read-Maslow-Asshat:

  • 1 - The basic story on political and military strife on that continent goes back to colonizers drawing arbitrary political boundaries, and ignoring tribal 'boundaries and areas of influence that had existed for centuries [see: divide & conquer]
  • 2 - The UN's Food distribution programs, since World War II, have been dumping the same food products, on targeted areas, where those same products were already being grown, and available. [that's known as 'dumping', and yes, genius, it put the farmers out of business
  • 3 - The World Health Organization gave multinational pharmaceutical conglomerates a 'pass' enabling them to dump expired/out=of-date antibiotics throughout the entire Continent [making it common for a lady w/a headache in Nairobi, to waltz in and buy 2000 ampicillin tabs in a grocery store [Put down Maslow and check out shifting-gen viruses, rise of AIDS and HCV, etc]
  • 4 - Even five minutes of objective research will yield the fact that the chief explanation for malnutrition in Africa, is the peoples' inability to afford food [we use 14pounds of grain, here in the US, to make one pound of meat, and the taxpayers subsidize the corn guys, or is it McDonald's and Arby's etc, being subsidized. Either way, the thugs in Africa have a lot less to do with it, than the greedy, spoiled assholes over here. 'Your' self-absorbed ("not my problem, irrelevant") fellow asshats, in other words.

I suggest you augment your reading, and maybe try to focus on reading for retention, for a change. That welded shut mind might seem comfy, to you, but you probably should have educated it first. Oops.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#24989479)

The question I have is why is it that the REST of the world developed while a lot of people in Africa still live like it's the stone age.

I'm not trying to be racist or troll or anything, I'm just wondering why. Did everyone just ignore Africa?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24989761)

Did everyone just ignore Africa?

Short answer, yes. Also, Does everyone just Exploit Africa? is a valid question as well. Yes, there is relief work and development going on... but not at the rate that goes on anywhere else.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

fugue (4373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24990281)

That's exactly the question that Jared Diamond addresses in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Fascinating. Ultimately, his newer book, Collapse, is the important one (possibly the most important book ever written), but you might be intrigued by the former.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24990789)

That is not true.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

fugue (4373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986397)

Maslow adds a couple more: we also need personal safety, friendship/love, and the ability to pursue one's potential (in that order?). Given those things, sure, why not live the way we did 10000 years ago? We don't need iPods, exactly... the technological details of how we get our self-fulfillment are irrelevant. Of course, standards for safety have changed (health care (everywhere but the USA, at least), something like habeas corpus (ditto), etc...), but fundamentally technology is there to enable richer lives, and too few people ask which pieces of it are succeeding.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 6 years ago | (#24988471)

You mean on dialup? No thanks.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985989)

Other than convenience, are there real reasons to use/trust cloud computing -- that is, to trust offsite storage with critical information?

How about the need for offsite backups?

Granted, it's best if that information is encrypted.

Is there something that stops you from encrypting information before putting it on the cloud?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987069)

You asked:

Is there something that stops you from encrypting information before putting it on the cloud?

Well, yes... The usual point of the cloud is not just storage... it is computations. I use amazon S3 for encrypted and unencrypted storage, but the Elastic Compute Cloud virtual machines need to be able to decrypt it when necessary. So if the cloud is doing work on the data it needs it to be decrypted.

--jeffk++

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 6 years ago | (#24990861)

In that case, you need a separate controller system for your cloud resources to provide the required key materials when necessary.

But key material for a required encrypted object will never be committed to persistent storage.

Use public key crypto so your cloud computing processes can WRITE freely, but not read freely.

The only way any data will be compromised is if the cloud computing provider makes efforts to devise specialized methods to snoop on RAM and CPU instructions to checkpoint your hardened cloud nodes.

Most software methods of snooping on CPU instructions or memory would slow down your node, if it is I/O intensive, and you could make this timing discrepancy be detected by communications between your node OS and your cloud controller.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (4, Interesting)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986049)

One of the biggest reasons my employer let me switch their file downloads from their dedicated server to Amazon S3 is reliability (the other being cost). With our own dedicated server we have to take care of hard drive failures, manage service uptime, and so on. Amazon takes care of all that stuff for us.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (3, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986241)

So why use the mail? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

So why use a security deposit box? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

So why use an internal hard drive? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

Or, I don't know, we could all be actually upset with the way things are going and actually force the government to do our bidding instead of running in fear on what new way the government will try to chip away at our freedoms. Perhaps it'll take a few [figurative] martyrs. Perhaps it'll take a [real] revolution. If you assume that the situation is futile, then there's no such thing as "devices that you physically control": it's only a matter of time for the government to make such things illegal and to punish people like you. Change should happen *now* because it'll be a lot harder and a lot bloodier if we all squat and wait on our own pile of data to protect.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986295)

So why use an internal hard drive? Keep all your important data on devices that you physically control, and encrypt anything you consider sensitive.

Um... because I do control said drive, and it's already encrypted.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987001)

Why does there need to be a reason other than convenience? I could run my own mail server, which would involve purchasing extra equipment, learning how to administer a mail server, paying more money to my ISP to let me run a server, and spending a non-trivial amount of time administering the whole thing. Or I could just let gmail do all the work for me, for free.

Put it this way: other than convenience, are there real reasons to trust landlords, construction workers, and architects rather than designing, building, and owning your offices yourself?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987291)

That said, I do like the lock-on-public-storage-space analogy the GP invokes...

WHAT?!?! But it's not a CAR ANALOGY!!1one!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (4, Interesting)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985641)

Generally speaking the government doesn't want you having any privacy whatsoever so their automatic assumption is that you don't have rights unless the courts force them to acknowledge them. I don't think that the EFF and the ACLU are going to sit idle on this but lately the government (Dem controlled mind all you Obama-will-fix-everything believers) has been passing very repressive legislature. I fully expect there to be a lot more legislature in the pipes on this in the near future. None of it in our (working class) favor, of course.

Unfortunately, the Government wants to do away with the constitution. This is why it is important to support the EFF, ACLU, and others in order to protect the constitution.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985865)

Too bad the ACLU refuses to support the 2nd amendment as it pertains to the individual. I refuse to support a organization that selectively supports the constitution.

Sorry, it it's all or nothing.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985977)

I always hear this. Does any accomplished active* non-government organization actually support more of the civil liberties amendments/main text, than the ACLU? And why not donate X% of your "activism fund" to ACLU and the rest to NRA? It's not like ACLU actively goes against gun rights, at least recently, even if they ever did. The NRA only supports one amendment for crying out loud; and it's not like the ACLU makes a secret of not supporting the Second.

It just doesn't make sense. I suspect that people like you actually have something else against the ACLU, and you just use this flimsy excuse. Otherwise, with no negative externality to donating, you'd just split your donation as above. What's the real story?

Please don't "educate" me about either gun rights (I am generally pro-2nd.), or the distant anarcho-communist history of ACLU (which is frankyl irrelevant), except in so far as it explains your donating policy.

*: By active, I mean roughly: taking up individual legal cases and influencing policy through "open" means such as lawsuits against the state, rather than being primarily a think tank representing ideas and interests (e.g. CATO).

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (3, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986095)

I was a bit harsh in my post. I don't really dislike the ACLU, it just disappoints me off when an organization that supports liberty doesn't always support it. I think every amendment is as important as the others.

That being said, I support them in most every other situation and have donated to them.

From the ACLU website: [aclu.org]

"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right."

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987021)

Fair enough, and I agree with you (and 5 Supreme Court justices) about the inconsistency of their stance.

I have known other people who really do hate them, and they always use the gun rights excuse. I was mostly thinking of that in general.

But do you really think the 25th is as important as the 1st, 2nd or 19th; and this is to say nothing of the 16th? :)

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986003)

And I support Sarah Palin. So, for me this clownstitution thing is just a communist piece of paper!
Down with the clownstitution! Down with the 4th amendment! Down with the 13th amendment!
Sarah Palin is the Will of The Almighty Lord God!
Sarah Palin for President 2008, 2012, 2016 and FOREVER!
Hang the opposition on a very tall tree!!!!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Ozrius (1225368) | more than 6 years ago | (#24988937)

If I had mod points left, I would moderate this +1 funny.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986015)

They don't refuse, they defer defending the 2nd to the NRA. It makes sense to let specialists do their work for them.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (2, Interesting)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986063)

I've never been a fan of the ACLU's methods. They seem to support whatever cause is in the media at the moment rather than the issues that actually need to be addressed.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986157)

bite me. The ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd ammendment because the NRA already does it. Why should they go stepping on toes when they can just cooperate?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985919)

And according to the article: "Mike Nelson added. 'We have to have leadership that believes in empowering users and empowering citizens.'"

And it doesn't appear that either choice this year will be that type of leadership. We desperately need a viable 3rd party candidate, that represents more closely the will of our founding fathers, and the constitution. While we're at it....I'd like a pony too.

:(

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987581)

What does Obama's campaign or his supporters have to do with the trend of governments taking more power and privacy away from their citizens?

1. The current congress isn't heavilly Democratically controlled. They can't pass whatever law they please w/o some Rep support.

2. Bush and the congress he had in his earlier years were/are Republican, and that administration doesn't have exactly a sterling shining record. A lot of freedoms were happilly taken because they were dangerous in a "post 9/11 world."

It happens on both sides and should be fought on both sides.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24990841)

Same for copyright and patent law [stopsoftwarepatents.org] . A lesser evil somewhere in the cloud?

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24991119)

Yeah the lesser evil is in the unelected part of the cloud.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

jrnchimera (558684) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985553)

Good point!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985709)

IANAL

I fail to see how you can make a local law against any usage of cloud computing. After all, which country is the information in?

And I hate to say it, but it might be time for a worldwide treaty with business that store data outside the signatory nations being blocked from doing business's in those countries.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (2, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986001)

I fail to see how you can make a local law against any usage of cloud computing.

Oh, there'd no difficulty making a local law against cloud computing; all you need to do is get enough clueless legislators to agree on it. Enforcing it, now, that's a different, much more difficult proposition.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (1)

www.inkampus.com (1358655) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985961)

It's interesting that if I have a locker in a public place with a lock on it, I have a legal right to privacy. Yet, if I have an online storage account with a password ("lock"), it's fair game.

IANAL. One reason could be because you have to be physically present in front of locker, so it is protected by default to only who can reach there. For latter case, potentially anyone can access the site from anywhere in the world. So its hard to protect "across borders", since it may fall in others jurisdiction.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985983)

Because people can plead the 5th for a password if asked for it in a court of law.

You cannot plead the 5th if they get a warrant to search your locker and ask for your key -- you are forced to give the key or sit in jail.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24988289)

Fail Whale!

You can plead the 5th if you have a combination lock!

Regardless, if an LEO wants in bad enough, he'll ask a judge to let him cut the damn lock.

Not quite so easy with good crypto.

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24987055)

Easy!

The USPTO shows us that adding a computer to an otherwise obvious and easily understandable concept changes it into something novel and completely mystical.
*You* think that storing data on a computer is like putting it in a locked locker. You need to take the USPTO's Computing Training Course to see just how wrong you are, mister!

Re:Physical storage vs. virtual storage? (2, Informative)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987773)

There is the pretty clear difference in that your password is not a "lock" on your data. It is simply how you let the service know it is okay to send your data over the internet and let you edit it. An actual lock for "cloud" services would be for the data to be encrypted and only decrypted client-side.

Perhaps somehow it could be decrypted by Javascript with a passphrase entered client-side. There are lots of problems with that approach the main two that occur to me are (1) the service probably wants to serve ads based off your data, which it cannot do if it only has encrypted copies and (2) there is no way for the user to tell the difference between what I described and the current process of logging into Google Docs.

On the other hand, it might work okay for using S3 as file server like another poster mentioned. Unfortunately, if the data is encrypted, then it has to be decrypted on the computer doing the calculations. I suppose an encrypted index could be stored on the S3 file server, but this seems like it is getting a bit ridiculous.

Christian Weston Chandler's Sonichu dick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985537)

Lol! Autism + Sonic + Marker + Dick + Sonic rip-off character + Testosterone + Internet = http://lulz.net/furi/res/330616.htm [lulz.net]

Asking the wrong questions... (3, Interesting)

RiCentro (1362973) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985607)

I love how those who supposedly have the people's best interests in mind, would rather worry about how easy it is for them to get their hands on my information as opposed to just protecting my information.

Posession is ... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985801)

You know what they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Re:Asking the wrong questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985869)

It is the government's job to secure the nation. So don't worry, they will they will gather every bit of information possible on its citizens and keep it securely filed away with the DHS and the rest of the alphabet soup guarding it for you. They will also fix any information on you that they determine is incorrect. Your worried about all those corporations not securing your private information that they keep on you? Don't worry, the government will keep a copy of it too making sure your private information is backed up! Further, if you should feel too endangered by your information, the government has this well guarded resort in Quantanamo Bay Cuba where they can keep you safe and sound till they rebuild your stored information facilitating your move to your new home at another federal resort!

You own it. (1)

sdkmvx (1283388) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985621)

Who owns the data that consumers store on the network?

Shouldn't copyright laws apply? If you create something eligible for copyright, you automatically own it. It seems to me that the government is always looking for something new they can apply differnt laws to. Take spam, it's unsolicited advertising, but since its on the Internet, it must be different. </sarcasm>

You thought you owned it. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985747)

"Shouldn't copyright laws apply?"

You didn't get the memo, did you? People for the Liberation Of Other Peoples Ideas have finally succeeded and copyright has been abolished. You can now do whatever you want...unfortunately like all good ideas there's a downside. You can no longer claim copyright on ANYTHING you create.

Anybody else (4, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985627)

Want to find the person who coined this stupid term and burn his house down?

Re:Anybody else (4, Insightful)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985711)

Sign me up. I've heard people claiming they put their data "in the cloud" because that makes it safer. Why do they think this? Because "the cloud" is a concept rather than an object, and therefore cannot be destroyed?

I prefer to replace "the cloud" with "a bunch of servers I don't control and can't locate". Clears a lot of things up for me.

Re:Anybody else (4, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986045)

C.L.O.U.D:
Control Lost Over Ur Data

Re:Anybody else (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24988531)

Copious
Leaking
of
User
Data?

Re:Anybody else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985717)

Hell, yes! I got my pitchfork, anybody have a torch?

Re:Anybody else (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985903)

I've always heard the term "cloud" used to represent a privately owned network to which multiple people/companies connect that is not the internet.

More on Cloud Privacy from Pew, Princeton (3, Insightful)

miller60 (554835) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985629)

The article briefly mentions a survey on cloud computing [datacenterknowledge.com] released today by Pew Internet, which warns that "sloud users show high levels of concern when presented with scenarios in which companies might use their data for purposes users may or may not fully understand ahead of time. This suggests user worry over control of the information they store online." That includes using personal information for ad targeting.

Earlier this year Princeton University held a forum on cloud computing, which included an in-depth session of data ownership in the cloud and the issues it raises. It's available on YouTube [youtube.com] in its 90-minute entirety.

Cloud of goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985651)

Compute a cloud of goatse [goatse.cz] , that should get their attention.

Precedence (1)

Pincus (744497) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985659)

Don't lawmakers and the courts usually love precedent? I expect we'll see data in the cloud afforded the same measure of privacy that things stored in my locker storage locker are afforded.

Re:Precedence (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985811)

Don't lawmakers and the courts usually love precedent?

Only if it doesn't appear that you are a terrorist threat. Or trying to defraud the studios protected by the RIAA/MPAA. Or trying to voice an opinion that is contrary to the 'norm'.

Encryption makes this somewhat moot. (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985705)

Ultimately, the decisions made by policy makers on this front may not be so important. I'd like to have a government that respects my privacy, but I can always encrypt anything I don't store locally. Right now this might be involve some inconvenience, but I don't think it will be long before convenient and fast encryption is available for data stored in the cloud.

Re:Encryption makes this somewhat moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985749)

And why can't government officials intercept your key during transit? Do you think even decrypting your data for your personal use won't expose it if anyone else wants access?

Re:Encryption makes this somewhat moot. (1)

dgarbett (833374) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986175)

Presumably you would store an encrypted file in "the cloud" but keep the key to yourself. This might be useful if you live in a universe where writable DVDs don't exist and there is plentiful net bandwidth.

Re:Encryption makes this somewhat moot. (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986759)

-1?

Mods must be crazy.

Re:Encryption makes this somewhat moot. (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986775)

And why can't government officials intercept your key during transit?

Because you don't transmit the key.

Do you think even decrypting your data for your personal use won't expose it if anyone else wants access?

Depends on how secure your computer is.

Easy questions. (4, Interesting)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985713)

Who owns the data that consumers store on the network?

The customers.

Should law enforcement agencies have easier access to personal information in the cloud than data on a personal computer?

No.

Do government procurement regulations need to change to allow agencies to embrace cloud computing?

Only if they pick the wrong answers for 1 and 2.

Re:Easy questions. (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985847)

"Should law enforcement agencies have easier access to personal information in the cloud than data on a personal computer?

No."

But the fact is they have. It is easier to force a company into releasing data about you because they do not have an interest in the privacy of your data. If they want my offline data they will have to personally come to my house(or basement ;) ) and demand that I release my data. I now have knowledge about it and I may even have the file in an encrypted form making it hard to get. If you send data on to the innernets, it is out of your control. Do not expect any privacy of your data from that moment on.

Re:Easy questions. (1)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986951)

Yeah, I don't understand how fundamentally having data on a cloud computing system is any different from having data on a shared computer, a. la. any webhost that sells shared hosting, etc.

I mean, plan for that. Manage permissions. If you don't like it, build your own cloud.

2nd amendment (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985779)

Use that fun weapon known as encryption and then you can enjoy your right to privacy.

Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985841)

I fucking hate American politics.

Really? (1)

Puffy Director Pants (1242492) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985849)

Color me surprised. Honestly, what doesn't draw Government action?

Clinton adviser? (4, Interesting)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985897)

What the hell, I'll go for this one.

The Clinton administration's opposition to encryption technology has made it vastly easier for governments to spy on their citizens, by slowing the adoption of encryption into core internet data communications.

Even John Ashcroft opposed their restrictions (though these days he has a different attitude towards government powers).

So spare me the crocodile tears.

If you want your data to be secure, you better own, host, store, and secure it yourself. No major corporation is going to protect you from governmental powers, and you really wouldn't want them to have that power. At least the government is theoretically accountable to you in some way.

As much as I like Google and Yahoo etc, you can't get the same kind of accountability from them you can from the local dogcatcher.

Re:Clinton adviser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986225)

"former Bill Clinton tech policy adviser Mike Nelson added. 'We have to have leadership that believes in empowering users and empowering citizens.'"

Yes, empower us. Get out of the way.

People Powered Media
http://pyrabang.com/?ref=mentormatt8

He has a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986907)

Actually, he has a good point. Any government rules restricting cloud computing would not withstand the test of time, and would get in the way of innovation.

Oh, you were just ranting about Bill Clinton instead of responding to his argument. Carry on then.

You need democrats (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24985941)

supposedly republicans were to be a bunch that were for less govt. control.

EVERY goddamn thing they did in the last 8 years have been the EXACT opposite of this.

you definitely need democrats now. at least they are not psychopath as this bunch.

Re:You need democrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986179)

You're truly naive if you think the Democrats will be significantly better.

They're not the psychopath uncles that the Republicans are, but they are the crazy aunt.

well (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986219)

let me put it this way :

you need to go to college. choices are A,B,C,D.

colleges C and D are way out of your budget.

College B, is too far away, and you would need to check up on your family every once in a while.

what do you choose ? you choose A.

so dont give me that crap about how one is bad, how other is also bad. life is a string of choices for the better among worst.

for now, democrats are better. at least their candidates show some decency.

however if you have any magical plan that may put an independent candidate to white house this fall, im ready to listen.

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986575)

That analogy is not applicable.

A better one would be choosing between shooting yourself in the foot versus shooting yourself in the balls.

They're both bad choices, but one is less bad than the other.

You still get shot.

well (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987295)

you WILL get shot, regardless. your choice is getting shot in a manner that hurts less. thats the point.

and, i have to say, all these stuff against democrat candidates are wildly exaggerated.

obama is a world class candidate. if you dont want it, give him to eu. we appreciate talent here. dont also have fuckin' inclination to portray everything as equally bad.

Re:You need democrats (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986269)

you definitely need democrats now. at least they are not psychopath as this bunch.

The 2006 elections were over almost two years ago.

ehhhh (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986287)

unfortunately they dont have enough majority to push stuff in senate.

and with the ass whopping number of 'executive' authorities and orders bush had piled up thanks to 6 years of republican congress, i very much doubt that senate is that powerful anymore, be it republican or democrat.

someone needs to go into white house, clear all the 'executive' authorities that have been so vulgarly given by the rep senate, and therefore restore the plural rule in the country. that cant happen if you have a republican president vetoing everything that may decrease his authority in the white house.

Re:You need democrats (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986763)

supposedly republicans were to be a bunch that were for less govt. control.

Actually, quite frankly, that's why people* are excited about the Palin nomination, and how McCain can be saying that "change is coming" and not be laughed out of the election by his own party.

*(People, of the appropriate political persuasions. This post does not seek to speculate upon the political efficacy with which any candidate will implement the alluded-to agenda of change in the future, or that the message and results anticipated by people of the aforementioned persuasions are realistic or desirable. Do not take this post if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you may become pregnant. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.)

Let me quote Barbara Walters (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987281)

as he asked mccain :

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/12/campaign.wrap/index.html [cnn.com]

Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "Who's she going to reform, you?

Re:Let me quote Barbara Walters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24987531)

Yeah; ironically, that set isn't particularly interested in good old Campaign Finance Reform aka "Incumbent Protection Act" McCain (-Feingold). He's a great old guy, to be sure, and I think the "zomg Internets" attacks are pathetic and shallow, but he's not exactly your ideal disestablishmentarianist Republican.

Re:Let me quote Barbara Walters (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987589)

honesty is more important for me.

there was nothing about change in mccain's campaign for months. when they saw obama was successful, they suddenly adopted 'change'. what change, you ask them, you get no answers. at least barbara walters wasnt able to get any.

this kind of hypocrisy tells me that there is real dishonesty in a person. veterans are not exempt from being dishonest too.

You have a problem though... (2, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987597)

Republicans have strayed from their "less government" standpoint and are in bed with big business in general, but particularly resource-barron and credit industries.

Democrats, however, are not only doing what the republicans do, but are traditionally (and actually) in bed with hollywood.

You have two choices, strychnine or ricin...

Personally, I'm actually leaning toward the republicans simply because they have so many people they're already sold out to, they may not get around to giving their handouts to the anti-internet crowds.

actually (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987705)

all the horrible anti-internet moves came and approved during republican rule.

republicans care much less for protests, voter sentiment, approval from what i see. democrats on the other hand, are more sensitive.

even just remembering how dissent was treated dnc and how people's homes were raided during rnc, makes me shiver.

Say you own a house... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985945)

..and also have a rental storage unit. They need a warrant to search either place technically, yes? Why should a computer at home or a rental computer some place else be any different?

Safer from government in the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985973)

Oh, I get it. It would be much tougher for government to get to an arrested political protester's files if first they have to go through Google's army of lawyers.

Ha, slashdot's captcha asked for such an appropriate word on submitting this comment: rodents

Leadership? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24985987)

Surely the quote at the end of the summary isn't referring to Washington, D.C. "Leadership" is an interesting, if not paradoxical, word to describe what goes on there--especially with regard to technology issues.

banks? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986121)

I keep my money in a bank. What's different about keeping my data in a data bank?

Re:banks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24987369)

F. D. I. C.

F. D. I. C. (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24988003)

For the benefit of the international readership: could you explain what F. D. I. C. is?

Re:F. D. I. C. (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 6 years ago | (#24991219)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (as google will tell you). Banks buy insurance against loss. The question is, will, for example, Google, buy insurance in case of data loss? Now of course, when your money is lost, the insurance will replace it with money. When data is lost, replacing it with money won't exactly help. But still, I think I would rather save all my email and other data with a service that promised to give me money in the event of data loss. (This would of course create the possibility of "data arson" where you hire somebody to take down a server and wipe their data so that you can collect.)

Policy makers to answer tough questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986457)

The true? You can't TAKE the truth.

Policy makers's skills lie in cutting deals, mostly for themselves. If you expect real intellectual heavy lifting (as you would expect in cases of privacy, human rights or Constitutional freedoms) you've come to the wrong circus. As for the police, I would trust them with all the power they say they need; if they were noble. But they aren't-they're human. Which is why they should be regarded with respect, and a good deal of suspicion.

Er...you want me to vote Republican? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24986473)

'I do think government has an almost infinite ability to screw up things when they can't see the future,' former Bill Clinton tech policy adviser Mike Nelson added. 'We have to have leadership that believes in empowering users and empowering citizens.'"

Er...you want me to vote Republican?

The term 'Cloud computing' is poor (1, Interesting)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#24986571)

Can't anyone come up something better? How about 'web software'? Jeez.

Re:The term 'Cloud computing' is poor (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 6 years ago | (#24987255)

Why "web software"? A lot of it has nothing to do with HTML/HTTP. For example, with Amazon's EC2, you use the web to manage your virtual hosts, but you might not have any web servers running on the hosts. Perhaps your application uses FTP, ssh, or even NFS to transfer data.

This fashion won't take off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24989735)

I recently priced up hosting and the Amazon cloud is MUCH more expensive and a pain in the ass compared to the cost of renting a dedicated server. The google cloud is braindead with little facility to do anything (apart from python which doesn't access sockets). Both clouds mentioned also don't provide relational DB access.

Compare that to the going rate of 1000 Euro per year for 1000GB access on a real 4GB/quad processor box and I don't see the attraction of the cloud. At all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?