SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Cloud, edge and decentralized computing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (418)4/18/2010 10:43:39 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Respond to of 1685
 
Spam Suspect Uses Google Docs; FBI Happy

By Kevin Poulsen
Wired
April 16, 2010 | 3:20 pm

FBI agents targeting alleged criminal spammers last year obtained a trove of incriminating documents from a suspect’s Google Docs account, in what appears to be the first publicly acknowledged search warrant benefiting from a suspect’s reliance on cloud computing.

The warrant, issued August 21 in the Western District of New York, targeted Levi Beers and Chris de Diego, the alleged operators of a firm called Pulse Marketing, which was suspected of launching a deceptive e-mail campaign touting a diet supplement called Acai Pure. The warrant demanded the e-mail and “all Google Apps content” belonging to the men, according to a summary in court records.

Google provided the files 10 days later. From Beers’ account, the FBI got a spreadsheet titled “Pulse_weekly_Report Q-3 2008? that showed the firm spammed 3,082,097 e-mail addresses in a single five-hour spree. Another spreadsheet, “Yahoo_Hotmail_Gmail - IDs,” listed 8,000 Yahoo webmail accounts the men allegedly created to push out their spam. The Yahoo accounts were established using false information, allegedly in violation of the CAN SPAM Act.

Privacy advocates have long warned that law enforcement agencies can access sensitive files stored on services like Google Docs with greater ease than files stored on a target’s hard drive. In particular, the 1986 Stored Communications Act allows the government to access a customer’s data whenever there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the information would be relevant in a criminal investigation — a much lower legal standard than the “probable cause” required for a search warrant.

But in the spam investigation, FBI and federal prosecutors opted for a full-blown search warrant, making it palatable — more or less — even to government watchdogs.

“Assuming the warrant is valid and satisfied the Fourth Amendment … the government’s conduct in this case certainly satisfied one of our biggest concerns,” says EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston. “We think a warrant should be required to access cloud data.”

The cloud, though, undoubtedly makes things easier for the feds. If the alleged spammers had kept their files strictly on their local hard drives, the FBI would have had no choice but to serve the warrants in person, seize the computers or image their contents, and leave the suspects with a copy of the search warrant and a written inventory of everything taken.

The Google Docs search warrant, in contrast, was issued under seal and presented politely to Google, without an FBI agent having to draw his gun or sternly bang on a door. More significantly, and unlike most physical search warrants, the government has no obligation to disclose the cloud search to Beers and de Diego, unless criminal charges are filed. Beers said he’s received no notice that his documents were searched, even though nearly eight months have passed since Google handed them over. “I have not received notification from Google or the government about this search warrant,” he writes.

“Notice can be a little tricky if it’s not a physical place,” says Orin Kerr, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. “You can imagine a law that requires the government to send an e-mail to the account, ‘Your receipt for what we recovered.’”

For its part, Google says it has a policy of providing notice whenever it can. “Currently, if it doesn’t jeopardize the investigation … and is allowed under the law, we work to notify the user before turning over any information requested,” says spokesman Brian Richardson. “That will allow the user to contest the demand in court.”

The New York search warrant was issued under seal, but was detailed in a public follow-up search warrant affidavit (.pdf) filed in Denver this year, which successfully sought access to the contents of dozens of Yahoo webmail accounts used in the spam operation.

The same Colorado prosecutors’ office made news this week for attempting, and failing, to gain access to some Yahoo e-mail content without a search warrant, in a separate case that’s mostly under seal. It’s unclear if the cases are related. Jeffrey Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver, declined comment.

Updated 11:50 p.m. to add comment by Beers, who responded to an e-mail inquiry after the story was published.

David Kravets and Ryan Singel contributed to this report.


wired.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (418)4/18/2010 9:27:39 PM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1685
 
Companies Slowly Join Cloud-Computing

By BRAD STONE and ASHLEE VANCE
New York Times
April 18, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — This year, Netflix made what looked like a peculiar choice: the DVD-by-mail company decided that over the next two years, it would move most of its Web technology — customer movie queues, search tools and the like — over to the computer servers of one of its chief rivals, Amazon.com.

Amazon, like Netflix, wants to deliver movies to people’s homes over the Internet. But the online retailer, based in Seattle, has lately gained traction with a considerably more ambitious effort: the business of renting other companies the remote use of its technology infrastructure so they can run their computer operations. In the parlance of technophiles, they would operate “in the cloud.”

Ah, the cloud — these days, Silicon Valley can’t seem to get its head out of it. The idea, though typically expressed in ways larded with jargon, is actually rather simple.

Cloud providers, large ones like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and AT&T, and smaller ones like Rackspace and Terremark, aim to convince other companies to give up building and managing their own data centers and to use their computer capacity instead.

The concept of renting computing power goes back decades, to the days when companies would share space on a single mainframe with big spinning tape drives. The technology industry has matured to the point where there is now an emerging mass market for this rental model.

Led by Amazon, most cloud services have largely been aimed at start-ups, like the legion of Facebook and iPhone applications developers who found they could rent a first-class computing infrastructure on the fly.

Now cloud providers are trying to bring these types of flexible services to the more conservative and lucrative world of large corporations. Although most large companies have taken their first cautious steps into the cloud, many are anxious about data failures and slow delivery of data over a network. They also fear that their confidential information could be vulnerable on another company’s systems, out of their control.

To alleviate those concerns, Google held a daylong conference last week called Atmosphere at its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, selling its cloud computing services — like e-mail and business software — to executives of large corporations.

Employees of the Amazon Web Services subsidiary are currently on a multicity tour to convince even those companies that might compete with Amazon, like Netflix, to stop building their own data centers and move their data onto Amazon’s servers instead.

Kevin McEntee, Netflix’s vice president of engineering, said Netflix switched in order to “focus our innovation around finding movies, rather than building larger and larger data centers.”

As for tethering Netflix’s future to a rival, Mr. McEntee said, “It’s in their interest to make us successful in the cloud. That’s why we felt comfortable.”

In Amazon’s model, businesses pay only for the computing cycles they use. Customers eliminate the upfront cost of computer hardware and can then buy more time on Amazon’s data center as needed.

Companies have also used Amazon as a backup system, either to handle sudden spikes in computing demand or to keep information in a secondary spot in case of a disaster. In another cloud model, advocated by companies like VMware and I.B.M., tech companies help large businesses develop “private clouds” in their own data centers, so that various departments and employees can rent computing capacity as they need it without making big budget commitments.

Though Amazon characteristically releases few statistics about its Web Services effort, Citibank estimates that it will generate between $500 million and $700 million this year. That’s less than 3 percent of Amazon’s annual revenue.

Still, Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, has predicted that its cloud computing division will one day generate as much revenue as its retail business does now.
For that to happen, Amazon and other cloud providers will have to convince big business.

Almost every big company is cautiously testing the waters these days. 3M, the St. Paul, Minn., conglomerate, is using Microsoft’s new Azure cloud service to allow advertisers and marketers to tap into a service that mathematically analyzes promotional images and evaluates how visually effective they are likely to be. “It took a lot of the risk out of whether to commercialize it or not,” said Jim Graham, a technical manager at 3M.

But most big organizations say they are wary of placing more critical software and business operations on another company’s computers.

“We are no different than anybody else. We are concerned about privacy and security and compliance,” said Dave Powers, a senior systems engineer at Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical giant based in Indianapolis, which uses Amazon’s cloud services for some research and development efforts. “We are very careful about what we are putting out there today.”

Government agencies are looking at it too. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab currently runs various experiments on the computers of Amazon, Microsoft and Google — to avoid committing to a single company, said Tomas Soderstrom, the I.T. chief technology officer there. Among other experiments, the agency is using Amazon’s servers to process vast amounts of telemetry data coming from the rovers on Mars.

But NASA executives also tell of the seven months it took to reach its licensing agreement with Amazon. NASA wanted, among other things, to be able to inspect the hardware it was using; Amazon declined.

“There was a lot of bending on both sides,” said Mr. Soderstrom, adding that NASA settled the matter by using a new Amazon Web service called Virtual Private Cloud, which allows a customer to cordon off a collection of servers and use them exclusively as if they were its own hardware.

When given a clean slate, many new companies have chosen a full embrace of the cloud model, figuring the technology industry has matured to the point were these types of services make basic business sense. For example, Arista Networks, a five-year-old company that makes networking equipment, runs its sales software with a cloud software company called NetSuite, its corporate e-mail on Google Apps, and other Web infrastructure with Amazon.com.

“It’s so much easier,” said Andreas von Bechtolsheim, the co-founder Arista and Sun Microsystems and one of earliest investors in Google and VMware. “For a new company like us, you would just never build a traditional data center anymore.”

nytimes.com