Is Your Data Your Own Business?
Today, there’s a false sense of privacy felt by consumers and businesses using cloud-based services like Gmail and Dropbox to communicate about everything…
September 06, 2017 at 01:01 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Today, there's a false sense of privacy felt by consumers and businesses using cloud-based services like Gmail and Dropbox to communicate about everything – from their personal relationships to financials. Because these services are cloud-based and accessible by password, it's assumed that the communications and files being shared are secure and private. But, the reality is – they aren't
Mass migration to cloud computing means that more data is stored on the cloud than ever before. And, that makes the cloud a bigger target for hackers and makes it even riskier to store data there.
Inside Counsel sat down with Randy Battat, CEO and co-founder of PreVeil, an up and coming company helmed by tech entrepreneurs that provides next generation email, file-sharing, and storage systems that turn this “false sense of privacy” on its head.
Users are misled by marketing materials that list services as “secure” and user data as “encrypted” or “protected.” According to Battat, the types of encryption used by these companies do not provide any privacy for a user's information. Cloud providers use encryption in transit and encryption at rest, but even with both types of encryption, the cloud provider retains the ability to access a user's information.
“While these companies don't tell you they can read your data, their Terms of Service make this clear,” he said. “They read your data to sell advertising or to provide additional services to consumers or businesses.”
For example, a series of 2014 federal and state privacy lawsuits led Google to finally update their Terms of Service, clearly acknowledging that they read your content. Their recent (privacy announcement did not change this fact. For paying business users and consumers alike, the fact remains that most cloud providers read all your data to sell advertising and/or provide additional services. The bottom line is that most users simply don't realize they are making this privacy tradeoff.
“If a service provider can read user information, so can a hacker,” explained Battat. “The vast majority of cloud-based services have a fundamental design vulnerability in which they can read all user information. Because these services can access user data, it's not possible to guarantee that the data can't be seen by an attacker as well.”
In fact, Verizon's Data Breach Investigations Report 2017 shows that 81 percent of hacking-related breaches leveraged either stolen and/or weak passwords. Password re-use exacerbates the problem as more than 80 percent of people in one study admitted using the same password for more than one service, so hackers can steal a user's password by attacking a different, more weakly protected service.
IT is migrating to the cloud – almost half of all IT services are being delivered by the cloud, according to Battat. As the cloud gets bigger, it becomes a larger and more attractive target – especially as companies capture and store increasingly important data in the cloud. The cloud providers are a central point of attack. “By targeting cloud service providers, hackers can access data from multiple companies at once. An additional benefit to hackers is that the cloud can be attacked from anywhere in the world,” he said.
Storing data in cloud-based services is like handing your phone to a stranger, per Battat.
He added, “By using a cloud-based service that doesn't use end-to-end encryption, you are effectively giving them any data you store with them. Exposing your information to the world. Not only can the service provider read your data, but so can anyone who hacks them. If a service provider is breached, your data can be exposed – even if you're not the intended target.”
So, how can businesses and consumers ensure that their data is their business only?
Battat's advice is to encrypt information with end-to-end encryption – this ensures that only the intended recipients can decrypt the encrypted information. With end-to-end encryption, nobody else, not even the service provider can read a user's information. Next, reassess information sharing policies and protocols – encryption methods are most effective when used in conjunction with well-aligned internal policies. Additionally, decentralize access to data when possible, minimize or eliminate accounts with privileged access, and carefully consider the risks when deciding to share data or use SaaS services. And finally, ensure that encryption tools are easy to use. Encryption tools are only effective if they are used.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
- 2Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 3Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 4Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 5Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250