You are currently browsing the Frank’s Case Book weblog archives for the day 2010 June 20.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | Jul » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
- Afghanistan (4)
- climate change (1)
- Economics (72)
- Education (21)
- health care (9)
- healthcare (8)
- Iraq (5)
- Law (120)
- Politics (387)
- Social Commentary (308)
- terrorism (2)
- Uncategorized (3)
- 2011 September 2: Thoughts on Evolution and Republican Candidates
- 2011 August 13: It's Not the Stimulus It's the Regulation
- 2011 August 6: Liberal Bias in the Media: A Study
- 2011 July 17: Bytes of the Apple
- 2011 June 19: Judge's Lesson
- 2011 June 12: The Quiet Death of the War Powers Act
- 2011 May 29: From Chickens to Rabbits
- 2011 May 8: Quick Thoughts on Bin Laden Killing
- 2011 May 1: Net Neutrality
- 2011 April 17: Atlas Shrugged: The Book and Movie
Columnists
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
- June 2001
- May 2001
- April 2001
- March 2001
- February 2001
- January 2001
- December 2000
- November 2000
- October 2000
- 0
Archive for 2010 June 20
Securing Data in the Cloud
2010 June 20 by Frank Monaldo.
The laws and traditions surrounding the rights of people to “…be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” takes on new and interesting twists in a world where communications are conducted via e-mail rather than traditional mail and where papers and effects are stored not only in the home or office but virtually in the “cloud.” It is not clear that statutory law and case law has recognized these distinctions. Where do we have or not have reasonable expectations of privacy? Is it reasonable to have any expectation of privacy for anything that is online?
A couple of interesting cases have brought this issue to our current attention. Hushmail is a service where people are promised that they can send encrypted e-mail secure from outside scrutiny, even by Hushmail. A Javascript program is installed on a person’s local browser which encrypts the e-mail before it is sent from the computer.
It turns out that Hushmail may not be quite a secure as some users believed. Hushmail turned over 12 CD’s worth of clear text mail to prosecutors pursuing the distribution of illegal steroids.
The case of Thomas Drake is more sensational. Drake was a former NSA employee accused of sharing classified information with a reporter for a “national newspaper.” Some of the alleged communications transpired over Hushmail.
We have every reason to assume in these cases that all the proper warrants were obtained and the appropriate court supervision was provided. From a technical standpooint, how then was the Hushmail data in these case obtained. Much depends on the users. Using Hushmail with a local Javascript is the most secure way of using the service. However, for the sake of convenience, Hushmail also allows uses to use SSL encryption on the way up to Hushmail servers where it is then encrypted for e-mail transmission. Hence, between the point that the uploaded e-mail in unencrypted from the SSL session and the point it is re-encrypted for e-mail transmission, the mail is in clear text. It is at this point, the Hushmail could have saved e-mails to turn over to authorities. In principle, it would always be possible for Hushmail to push down new Javascript code that would make it appear that local encryption was taking place when it actually was not.
This same issue is relevant with cloud storage. As a matter of good practice, one should backup one’s data continuously offsite. One convenient way to do this is to use services like Carbonite, Mozy, or Backblaze. It is easy to imagine a situtation where the private papers of many people are stored in the cloud. Perhaps, even lawyers, doctors, and accountants who have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain confidentiality would find it prudent to use cloud storage.
Besides the standard SSL encryption on transmission, all these services offer additional encryption such that even the provider, ostensibly, cannot decrypt the data. However, just as the case with Hushmail, it would be possible for the provider, upon instruction from the authorities, to push new software that would bypass the user’s encryption key. It would be possible for a user to double encrypt, i.e., encrypt data using some other protocol before uploading and adding the encryption on the outside server.
There is not a lot of evidence that the government or others are abusing these offsite storage capabilities. Encryption is important from the standpoint of protecting data from private snooping. We should always presume that under the appropriate circumstances governments can and many times should have the ability to search private data. However, from a civil liberties standpont, it is important for the government to provide statutory protection for data stored in the cloud and not wait for the courts to do so. Personal data stored in the cloud should enjoy the same protection that paper documents stored in one’s house. The legal hurtles to obtain a search warrant should be the same for private data in the cloud as it is for one’s home or private office. Professions that have statutory protections of their relationships with clients, should have these offsite storage options treated with the same respect that the paper files stored in offices are normally accorded.
Posted in Law, Social Commentary | Print | No Comments »