[berberous]

Well, what's your threat model that you are worried about? I would imagine all of these companies have much better security and reliability than most internal IT departments. And I don't see them snooping for their own purposes. The NSA can get what they want anyways.

The one big issue is subpoena's / third party doctrine issues, but I imagine for many companies that's a decent tradeoff for the reduced IT overhead / security / reliability issues. Other industries, like law, should obviously avoid such services.

[Mc_Big_G]

>>And I don't see them snooping for their own purposes.

This is snarky, but have you looked? If you were suddenly trying to be acquired by FB, would you want all your secrets available to them? Sure, that particular problem affects a very small percentage of companies, but I'm not evil enough to imagine all the ways FB could and would use your data.

[snowwrestler]

These don't seem like particularly new concerns to me, though. U.S. businesses have used 3rd parties to carry or store sensitive information for decades.

Do you worry that Verizon is listening to or recording all your phone calls? Or FedEx is opening and reading the documents you're overnighting around? Or that document storage companies are opening every box they store, in case there's something useful in there? How do you know Quickbooks isn't mining your bookkeeping data so they can sell leads to tax or collections firms?

And what about IAAS and PAAS companies like AWS, Google Compute, or even hosting companies like Rackspace or Softlayer, who typically have root access to every machine they manage? How many companies--even big companies--own all their servers and the buildings they are in?

Ultimately, our economy is based on specialization and carefully constructed relationships of mutual obligation. Contracts have to mean something or there's not much business going to get done.

[king_jester]

> And I don't see them snooping for their own purposes.

That is contrary to the history of how companies take advantage of data provided to them, even when that data is supposed to be confidential.

[Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd]

> And I don't see them snooping for their own purposes.

Well, Google does read your email to show you better ads. But they never made a secret of that.

> The NSA can get what they want anyways.

If they really want to, yes. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try to make it as hard as possible for them. They won't bother if their cost/benefit analysis says you aren't worth it to get out the big guns. (Reliable 0 days aren't cheap and using them too often soon makes them worthless.)

[the_hangman]

> Well, Google does read your email to show you better ads. But they never made a secret of that.

I really wish this trope would die already. Google is not a person. Google does not read your emails. Employees at Google aren't sitting there reading your emails. An algorithm scans your emails for certain keywords, and displays ads based off of what it finds. That is not the same thing as reading your emails, and it's ridiculous that a forum like this would fall for such fear mongering.

[millstone]

> Employees at Google aren't sitting there reading your emails

Well, except when they do. http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-tee...

> An algorithm scans your emails for certain keywords, and displays ads based off of what it finds

It's more than that. For example, they also scan images to identify child porn. Or Google Buzz, which showed that they scan and track the people you contact most often, and may do undesirable things with that information, like publish it.

It's naive to expect that Google/Facebook/whatever supplier of corporate IT stuff will just serve as a wholly passive platform, especially if the service is not paid.

[Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd]

I'd change that 'read' to 'scan' but I can't anymore. I really don't care about that particular phrasing. Not being a native speaker I don't think I'm even qualified to argue the semantics of the word 'read' and whether it can be applied to an algorithm or not.

I was trying to point out that some level of snooping by the cloud providers themselves is going on right now. Note that I tried to defend Google's behavior by saying that it is no secret and people are opting into it willfully.

[Retra]

I think the important point here is that you still have some anonymity in the sense that your data is processed in the same way as everybody else's. Saying "Google reads your emails" is basically a fear-inducing way of saying "Google scans everybody's emails."

Yes, they scan your emails. But not _particularly_.

[spacemanmatt]

Google also read your mail to store it on disk or send it over the network.

[einrealist]

If don't own the pipe, then you don't own the data.