Your data doesn't belong to you in the cloud

[nic2k4]

At least that's what the government believes:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/governments-attack-cloud-computing

[smrpix]

Doesn't matter what the government or anyone else believes. Once it's out there it's out there and you're kidding yourself if you think its secure.

Just like these posts.

[jman98]

There's nothing wrong with pointing this out by linking the article as it's something many here would be interested in. But do note that right now this is only a government assertion in a court case and it may not carry the day. The US government is going to use every trick in the book in this case, both underhanded and on the level, to try to win this case to please their Sith lords in Hollywood. Let's see how the courts rule. Not to digress, but for about 200 years the US government asserted that dual (or more) citizenship was illegal for US citizens and it took a Supreme Court ruling during the Clinton presidency in the 1990s to finally settle it once and for all that it was indeed legal. My point is that until the courts rule, government assertions are still just assertions and not points of law.

[fritzi93]

But do note that right now this is only a government assertion in a court case and it may not carry the day... My point is that until the courts rule, government assertions are still just assertions and not points of law.

That's my understanding of it. Or shall we say "settled" law.

Here's another one, a recent denial by the Registrar of Copyrights of a proposed exemption to copyright protection for DVDs in regard to breaking encryption:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-copy/feds-deny-dvd-copying-exemption-28711

So actually it's a *RE*-assertion of the provision in the DMCA. But, significantly, it has never been tested in a court case.

[jagabo]

But do note that right now this is only a government assertion in a court case and it may not carry the day... My point is that until the courts rule, government assertions are still just assertions and not points of law.

That's my understanding of it. Or shall we say "settled" law.

It hardly matters. Try starting a US based company that sells DVD ripping software. See how long it takes for an army of MPAA lawyers to swoop down on you and put you out of business.

[fritzi93]

Yes, but there's an obvious distinction between offering a decrypter (for sale, or free), and the individual breaking encryption for the purpose of using legally owned content on his own devices. The MPAA could only show injury (probably) in the former case, but they don't dare bring a test case to decide the latter. It's far from certain they would prevail, and if they didn't...

No one in their right mind would try to start such a business in the U.S.

[jagabo]

Yes, but there's an obvious distinction between offering a decrypter (for sale, or free), and the individual breaking encryption

Only in that you aren't likely to get caught.

[jagabo]

Even your cloud based email is open to the state:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/ecpa-turns-twenty-five/

And remember gmail keeps copies of everything that was ever sent to or from your account.

[TreeTops]

Maybe time to encrypt everything that I send to the cloud?

[jagabo]

Maybe time to encrypt everything that I send to the cloud?

They probably have back door keys for that.