The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted Nov 05 2012, 5:20 AM Category: Big Brother/Orwellian Source: Print

Megaupload and the Government's Attack on Cloud Computing

BY CINDY COHN AND JULIE SAMUELS, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Yesterday, EFF, on behalf of its client Kyle Goodwin, 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 like Mr. Goodwin access to their property. The government also filed a brief of its own, calling for a long, drawn-out process that would require third parties--often individuals or small companies--to travel to courts far away and engage in multiple hearings, just to get their own property back.

Even worse, the government admitted that it has accessed Mr. Goodwin's Megaupload account and reviewed the content of his files. By doing so, the government has taken a significant and frightening step. It apparently searched through the data it seized for one purpose when its target was Megaupload in order to use it against Mr. Goodwin, someone who was hurt by its actions but who is plainly not the target of any criminal investigation, much less the one against Megaupload.  This is, of course, a bald attempt to shift the focus to Mr. Goodwin, trying to distract both the press and the Court from the government's failure to take any steps, much less the reasonable steps required by law, to protect the property rights of third parties either before a warrant was executed or afterward.  And of course, if the government is so well positioned that it can search through Mr. Goodwin's files and opine on their content--and it is not at all clear that this second search was authorized--presumably it can also find a way to return them. 

But in addition, the government's approach should terrify any user of cloud computer services--not to mention the providers.  The government maintains that Mr. Goodwin lost his property rights in his data by storing it on a cloud computing service.  Specifically, the government argues that both the contract between Megaupload and Mr. Goodwin (a standard cloud computing contract) and the contract between Megaupload and the server host, Carpathia (also a standard agreement), "likely limit any property interest he may have" in his data.  (Page 4). If the government is right, no provider can both protect itself against sudden losses (like those due to a hurricane) and also promise its customers that their property rights will be maintained when they use the service. Nor can they promise that their property might not suddenly disappear, with no reasonable way to get it back if the government comes in with a warrant. Apparently your property rights "become severely limited" if you allow someone else to host your data under standard cloud computing arrangements. This argument isn't limited in any way to Megaupload -- it would apply if the third party host was Amazon's S3 or Google Apps or or Apple iCloud.   

The government's tactics here also demonstrate another chilling thing--if users do try to get their property back, the government won't hesitate to comb through their property to try to find an argument to use against them.  The government also seeks to place a virtually insurmountable practical burden on users by asking the court to do a slow-walking, multi-step process that takes place in a far away court.  Most third parties who use cloud computing services to store their business records or personal information are not in a position to attend even one court appearance in Virginia, much less the multiple ones the government envisions in its submission to the court. 

Ultimately, if the government doesn't feel any obligation to respect the rights of Megaupload's customers--and it clearly doesn't--it's not going to suddenly feel differently if the target of its next investigation is a more mainstream service.  The scope of its seizure here was breathtaking and they took no steps to engage in what the law calls "minimization," either before its searches and seizures or afterwards, by taking  steps to return property to cloud computing users who it knew would be hurt. And now the government is trying to use standard contractual language to argue that any user of a cloud computing service has, at best, "severely limited" ownership rights in their property.

 Those who have been watching on the sidelines thinking that the issues in this case are just about Megaupload should take heed.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- California Law Requires Police to Get a Warrant Before Accessing Your Data
- Drudge on AJ: Copyright Laws Will Destroy the Internet
- Homeland Security Detains Stockton Mayor, Forces Him to Hand Over His Passwords
- GCHQ's Karma Police: Tracking and Profiling Every Web User, Every Web Site
- Senate Intelligence Committee Ends Efforts To Turn Social Media Companies Into Government Spies
- Mandatory Breathalyzers Could Soon Be in Every Car If Feds Have Their Way
- Glenn Greenwald Debates Former NSA Director Keith B. Alexander At HP Conference
- NY Pushing for Black Boxes in Your Car That Records Everything About Your Driving

Comments Add Comment Page 1 of 1

Posted: Nov 05 2012, 8:18 PM

99250 Never ever use US based cloud services!!!

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Daughter Calls 911 to Help Suicidal Mother, Cops Shoot Her by Mistake, Then Kill Her Mom - 10/12VIDEO: Roid Raging Cop Chokes and Body Slams Sports Fan For No Reason - 10/12VIDEO: Police Officers "Protect a Serve" a Computer Science Student -- to Death - 10/12Cop Shoots Family's Dog, Accidentally Hits 4-Year-Old Girl, Leaves Scene Without Helping - 10/12Drone Operator Seen Schooling Cop In Viral Video Arrested For Crashing Drone Into Capitol - 10/1216-Yr-Old & His Mom Tazed & Arrested After Boy's Waving at Cop Deemed 'Suspicious' - 10/09Mom Violently Attacked by Cop While Picking Daughter Up From School, For Parking On The Grass - 10/12The Mystery of ISIS' Toyota Army Solved - 10/09

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up