Linked by David Adams on Fri 11th Dec 2009 01:25 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption I was reminded of Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy's infamous sound byte (used as the title of this article) when I read about Google CEO Eric Schmidt's foot-in-mouth moment during a recent CNBC interview (YouTube Link). Here's what Schmidt said: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Permalink for comment 399145
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The question first struck me with Amazon's storage service; do they store my data in such a way that it is an encrypted blob only accessible by me? The only way I would consider using one of these services would be as a duplicate of my backup archives in encrypted form. This on the basis that I'd be using it as an off-site backup since the service adds no advantage for me as an active data storage (I call those flashdrives or ye-old port 22 back at the ranch ;) ).

My thinking the other way is that it's unlikely to be encrypted on the server side. Provided they can differentiate which files belong to which user; why add the expense of managing encryption beyond the ssl tunnel for the network traffic. I honestly would like to think that storage providers are setting up double-blind encrypted storage for the users but it's not likely. If the user didn't encrypt the files then I don't forsee them not being cleartext in the storage providers database.

(this is something I'd rather be corrected on rather than correct about though)

Reply Parent Score: 2