How the Fourth Amendment Applies to Cloud Computing

[HardOCP News]

Terry passed on this story about a Minnesota law student that wrote a paper on how the U.S. Constitution’s fourth amendment applies to cloud-based data.

Hypothetically, if a briefcase is locked with a combination lock, the government could attempt to guess the combination until the briefcase unlocked; but because the briefcase is opaque, there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked container. In the context of virtual containers in the cloud...encryption is not simply a virtual lock and key; it is virtual opacity.

 

[Azhar]

As long as the **AA hold sway our government, the 4th Amendment will have no say in unreasonable searches in the Cloud. Hell, they do it when your data is stored locally! All they need is your IP address and a packet sniffer.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

One only wanders how many decades it will take for law to catch up with the internet age. So many current laws worldwide can't properly cope with the added issues the internet adds. Concepts such as "scene of the crime" or jurisdiction come to mind. (Gary McKinnon case for example)

 

[BakedA|aska]

I wonder what that means for the likes of a number of private/public corporations which are subcontracted to the CIA, NSA, and FBI for domestic surveilance.

 

[ProfessorKaos64]

Laws seem so out of date for the digital age, things get taken out of proportion wayyyy too much.

 

[CraftyChicken]

I'd be scared...
if I a wasn't a cynic who thought the G-Men weren't a bunch of inept pud-knockers.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How much simpler can something be.

Shit of yours, in a place not clearly open to public inspection, is YOUR EFFECTS, by definition.

It doesn't matter what new technology comes along, the information on it, in it, whatever, is still YOUR EFFECTS, and is subject to full 4th amendment protection.

It is a basic test of functional non-monkey intelligence, this very simple concept. If you don't "get it", you literally are stupider than a fucking monkey. I of course realize that a majority of members of Congress actually flunk this test and are in fact, stupider than a fucking monkey.

 

[FranklyShankly]

It is a basic test of functional non-monkey intelligence, this very simple concept. If you don't "get it", you literally are stupider than a fucking monkey. I of course realize that a majority of members of Congress actually flunk this test and are in fact, stupider than a fucking monkey.

The first thing you are forced to learn in constitutional law is that nothing is as simple as it appears. Constitutional interpretation is very complex, and even if it may seem to the layperson to be cut and dry, things don't really work that way when it comes to questions of constitutionality.

 

[uclajd]

Of course, people arguing abut the Fourth Amendment and warrants forget how easy they are to get in a criminal investigation, and how even easier it is to serve a subpoena for records in a civil case is. No Fourth Amendment in civil cases!

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

Nonsense. Of course there is 4th amendment... and every other amendment... protections in civil court. In court, out of court, on the moon, it is a RIGHT, that's what a RIGHT is...always with you.

The opponent may not be the government but the judge is the government.

Any idiot can write a subpoena and hand it to you, it means nothing. You can ignore it, or respond that it asks for things unrelated or privledged or its overly broad or onerous or you just don't feel like it.

The opponent can then ask the judge to issue a court order, but he will have to explain why (PROBABLE CAUSE) and it better be justified....and supported by Oath or Affirmation. Most subpoena's in criminal cases are all court orders, they don't waste time asking the gangbanger nicely, and then go ask the judge to order compliance after the goof refuses voluntarily compliance.

As an example, the three credit reporting agencies will NOT even respond to any subpoena that isn't a court order signed by a district court judge (or higher). So you cannot obtain communications relating to your credit file, or a copy of your entire credit file (not your "report", your file) without a judges order to comply with the subpoena.

Mind you, in a civil case, your refusal may lose you the case... but noone is going to slap the cuffs on you and take a sledgehammer to your briefcase.

That is the second mistake Clinton made in the Paula Jones case (the first being to have had any interaction with that skank in the first place)... when the Monica question was asked, he was under NO OBLIGATION to answer it, period. Simply refuse to answer on the grounds it is unrelated IMMATERIAL, period.

The civil opponent can protest but would have to lay out a complete argument to the judge about why it was MATERIAL to the case (which they couldn't) in order to even get the judge to order him to answer. Of course, they'd have to do it in front of him and his lawyers and the trap would be blown.

Proving Clinton was a fucking horrible lawyer... as are 99.999% of all politicians, especially the ones with LAW DEGREE's.