Put another way, having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the
commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly
invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make
one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil
-- Glenn Greenwald
In part it is because encryption with customer controlled keys is
inconsistent with portions of their business model. This architecture
limits a cloud provider's ability to data mine or otherwise exploit the
users' data. If a provider does not have access to the keys, they lose
access to the data for their own use. While a cloud provider may agree to
keep the data confidential (i.e., they won't show it to anyone else) that
promise does not prevent their own use of the data to improve search
results or deliver ads. Of course, this kind of access to the data has huge
value to some cloud providers and they believe that data access in exchange
for providing below-cost cloud services is a fair trade.
Falkenrath and Paul Rosenzweig
The concept is simple enough. We need to make abuse of the patent and copyright enforcement system so painful that even the most dedicated corporate executive masochist will think twice before pulling the trigger on their attacks.
Threats and the filing of takedowns, lawsuits, and other actions in the absence of strong and verifiable evidence of significant wrongdoing, not just haphazard shotgun barrages based on mere suspicion and wishful thinking, must trigger significant financial penalties and perhaps other serious sanctions as well.
How about a fine of a million dollars per false attack? Or 1% of gross earnings? And perhaps a five year prohibition against more filings?
If these sound draconian, or unrealistic, that's OK -- consider these to be the outer bounds starting points for discussion.
-- Lauren Weinstein
to post comments)