5 ms·

It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data and expect no one to take advantage of the fact that they are the ones holding it.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
If the so-called liberal Western regimes respected privacy rights they way they claim to it would be perfectly reasonable to trust a cloud provider with your data.
- indymike 3y ago
  Technology moves faster than law, so we’re seeing areas where the existing precedent, such as the “Third Party Doctrine,” just doesn’t work well when I’m renting server space (all SaaS is this way) for much of what would have been personal property and papers. The nice thing about Western democracies is that they evolve over time and generally get better. In the US things are changing as judges are forced to review decisions and laws are changed as both judges and representatives start to understand new tech. It takes time.
- itishappy 3y ago
  I think I'm not understanding your point. GDPR seems to be the current gold standard for privacy at the moment. Are there any similar policies in non-western nations to speak of?
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    How is what non-western countries do relevant to the question of if western governments actually practice the values they claim to hold?
    - itishappy 3y ago
      You're making this out to be a western problem, but I suspect it's actually a general human thing. Actually, I have a hunch that the west has made more progress here than anywhere else, and I'm curious if anyone disagrees.
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        I doubt anyone would disagree with that statement. Would you agree that the actions of western leaders reveal their liberalism is superficial?
        itishappy 3y ago
        Somewhat, sure. They certainly haven't achieved 100% of the liberal ideal. But if they're currently setting the bar for policy in this regard, can it be entirely superficial?
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Yes and it is. If they actually believed in libety or democracy they wouldnt drag their feet like this and be content with merely bei g “more liberal” than your standard dictatorship.
Spivak 3y ago
This is true only because our laws allow such a thing. The 3rd party doctrine is something that should be heavily restricted to encapsulate people's reasonable expectation of privacy for hosted services. The least of which for our industry because as it stands it requires wasteful work to add unnecessary security just to play legal games and hurts our ability to sell products that store people's sensitive data.
mlyle 3y ago
Yah, that's not the problem he's referencing. He's referencing that we have early 20th and late 19th century case law about third parties holding documents, etc, that is used to make everything sitting at a cloud service subject to subpoena without a warrant (email, etc, too). There's all kinds of precedent that was based on sane tradeoffs for the 1800's that doesn't make sense anymore with the more complicated ways we transact and interact and with the ability of technology to commit mass surveillance.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  But if Western countries really had liberal principles of democracy and freedom why do we not already have these protections?
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up. The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue. It is, of course, still broken.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
indymike 3y ago
> It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data Eventually, this has to change for the better. Right now, users don't understand/don't care...
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Eventually, this has to change for the better. How? Things don't magically get better "eventually" just because we wish for them to. Things change if rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it in order to impact the elected leaders, otherwise everything stays the same or gets worse. Currently the rich and powerful are not on your side on this, and the little people care more about putting food on the table and making rent rather than who gets to access their cloud storage. >Right now, users don't understand/don't care... Nor will they anytime soon if what happened after Snowden (nothing) is anything to go by.
  - indymike 3y ago
    > rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it You'd be surprised how easy it is to get time one one-on-one with a congressperson/senator and their entire legislative team. My strategy is simple, I just call and ask if I can stop by and say hi for 20 minutes or so. If you get 10 minutes, you are doing as well as most lobbyists. If you do get a meeting be nice, even if you disagree with the Senator. Your not going to debate them into changing their vote. But... if you share engaging and emotional stories, especially about people back in the home district, you might just get what you need. Also, be ready for this question: "What's your ask?" That is where you can be really direct: "I'd love it if we could get ___ passed, or It would be really good for the home district if ____ didn't pass." Have a quick story answer for why: "so people like ___ don't have to close ____ on ___ st in home city." Schedule around meals - a lot of time the legislator will go to lunch (and pay for yours) just to avoid another hour with legislators and negotiators.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

If the so-called liberal Western regimes respected privacy rights they way they claim to it would be perfectly reasonable to trust a cloud provider with your data.

indymike 3y ago
Technology moves faster than law, so we’re seeing areas where the existing precedent, such as the “Third Party Doctrine,” just doesn’t work well when I’m renting server space (all SaaS is this way) for much of what would have been personal property and papers. The nice thing about Western democracies is that they evolve over time and generally get better. In the US things are changing as judges are forced to review decisions and laws are changed as both judges and representatives start to understand new tech. It takes time.
itishappy 3y ago
I think I'm not understanding your point. GDPR seems to be the current gold standard for privacy at the moment. Are there any similar policies in non-western nations to speak of?
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  How is what non-western countries do relevant to the question of if western governments actually practice the values they claim to hold?
  - itishappy 3y ago
    You're making this out to be a western problem, but I suspect it's actually a general human thing. Actually, I have a hunch that the west has made more progress here than anywhere else, and I'm curious if anyone disagrees.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      I doubt anyone would disagree with that statement. Would you agree that the actions of western leaders reveal their liberalism is superficial?
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Somewhat, sure. They certainly haven't achieved 100% of the liberal ideal. But if they're currently setting the bar for policy in this regard, can it be entirely superficial?
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Yes and it is. If they actually believed in libety or democracy they wouldnt drag their feet like this and be content with merely bei g “more liberal” than your standard dictatorship.

Spivak 3y ago

This is true only because our laws allow such a thing. The 3rd party doctrine is something that should be heavily restricted to encapsulate people's reasonable expectation of privacy for hosted services. The least of which for our industry because as it stands it requires wasteful work to add unnecessary security just to play legal games and hurts our ability to sell products that store people's sensitive data.

mlyle 3y ago

Yah, that's not the problem he's referencing. He's referencing that we have early 20th and late 19th century case law about third parties holding documents, etc, that is used to make everything sitting at a cloud service subject to subpoena without a warrant (email, etc, too). There's all kinds of precedent that was based on sane tradeoffs for the 1800's that doesn't make sense anymore with the more complicated ways we transact and interact and with the ability of technology to commit mass surveillance.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
But if Western countries really had liberal principles of democracy and freedom why do we not already have these protections?
- mlyle 3y ago
  Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up. The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue. It is, of course, still broken.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.

indymike 3y ago

> It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data Eventually, this has to change for the better. Right now, users don't understand/don't care...

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Eventually, this has to change for the better. How? Things don't magically get better "eventually" just because we wish for them to. Things change if rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it in order to impact the elected leaders, otherwise everything stays the same or gets worse. Currently the rich and powerful are not on your side on this, and the little people care more about putting food on the table and making rent rather than who gets to access their cloud storage. >Right now, users don't understand/don't care... Nor will they anytime soon if what happened after Snowden (nothing) is anything to go by.
- indymike 3y ago
  > rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it You'd be surprised how easy it is to get time one one-on-one with a congressperson/senator and their entire legislative team. My strategy is simple, I just call and ask if I can stop by and say hi for 20 minutes or so. If you get 10 minutes, you are doing as well as most lobbyists. If you do get a meeting be nice, even if you disagree with the Senator. Your not going to debate them into changing their vote. But... if you share engaging and emotional stories, especially about people back in the home district, you might just get what you need. Also, be ready for this question: "What's your ask?" That is where you can be really direct: "I'd love it if we could get ___ passed, or It would be really good for the home district if ____ didn't pass." Have a quick story answer for why: "so people like ___ don't have to close ____ on ___ st in home city." Schedule around meals - a lot of time the legislator will go to lunch (and pay for yours) just to avoid another hour with legislators and negotiators.