Oh if only our current government had the balls to do this. Historically you'd be spot on.
Unfortunately there's zero chance right now. Bush North, er, I mean Harper, already has us bent over with our pants down for this. He tried forcing through a DMCA style bill through both terms in minority and thankfully failed. He has no such restrictions now however and it is only a matter of time before this happens.

Not only is this dependent on the quality of the sysadmins, it is dependent as well on the policies and actions of those governing any particular cloud. The sysadmins do not create these policies, they merely implement them. Bottom line is that when you put data in a 'cloud', you are trusting the corporation or entity in control of that cloud with your data. Their policies could change at any time. Or the government could do so for them. Or another entity could take ownership and again change the policies involved.

Bottom line is that once your data is on someone else's server, all bets are off. Someone else is in 'possession' of this data, and may choose to do things with this data that you might not agree with.

Heck, never mind seizure, how about willfully providing this information? Twitter is now providing all public posts to the government.

Bottom line, if it's in a cloud, you have zero guarantee as to how that information will be used and who will end up with access to it.

Came here to see if any had posted this. Total rip-off. He was at this point over 4 years ago.
Article from 2008 here: http://www.popsci.com/node/21644

Ehh, nothing a good lick won't fix!
(Having had Geckos, I know that they actually do this quite a bit.)

You're right about the bloodthirsty mob part, but wrong about the rest. It usually requires a bloodthirsty mob to overthrow a violent suppressive regime. Btw, who do you think is in charge of the entire country of Mexico right now anyways?

A revolution is absolutely needed, but it's going to need a lot of help down there.

Given that this went public, the kidnap victim is as good as dead anyways.

Wow, your posts in this thread are really just all over the map aren't they?
You're getting the responses you are because, well, you're being a total dick.

Look, everyone knows that the cartels are fucked. And everyone knows that they are thriving on the war on drugs, and that that situation was created by the US. Nothing new here. But you're arguing for the sake of argument. One minute you're saying one thing, then the next something completely different.

Lets try this then, got anything _constructive_ to add here?

So what, they should just bend over and take it?
All of us should then for ever? Accept as fact that the cartels will be our overloards? Shall I just start forwarding my paycheck to them now?

You are right about what the cartels are, but your could not be more wrong about how to deal with them or what should be done in this situation. It's about time someone with some balls stood up and said Fuck You. We ALL should be doing this. Fuck, the US should have been fighting a war on the cartels the past 20 years instead of dicking around in the mid-east. THAT would have been worthwhile.

But sorry, you're right, wouldn't want to reach a hand out for someone else when there is a one in millions chance that collateral damage might somehow affect YOU.

Let me guess, you also wouldn't stop and help out at the scene of an accident either just in case the person bleeding out might have some blood born disease?

Fuck.

I should just ignore that last line there as at this point it's got to be flamebait...but just in case you're really still that ignorant of what vb.net is at this point....

C# and VB.NET are one and the same at this point, really just wrappers for the CLR that have syntactic differences, but share all the features of the other. Sure, at any given point one or the other is slightly ahead in terms of feature set, but that flips back and forth constantly.

What's really a problem with your statement however is the implication that vb is anything even remotely similar to vb.net. This is dangerously naive at best. Place where I work has a lot of old school vb6 devs. Myself and a few other new devs are rebuilding the core system in .Net. Management really wants this done in vb.net so that the other devs will be able to easily migrate into the new environment. I'm still fighting this, it's the WORST mistake they could make. See, at least if they start off in the new system using c#, then they will know for sure that things are different, and adjust accordingly. But if it looks like vb, and they can turn off all those flags like option strict, then it will behave like vb too! Oh joy!

You see, there really are two vb.net languages, the proper one, and the one that imports the VisualBasic namespace and turns off all the compile time type checking measures meant to hand-hold those few remaining vb6 devs on their way into the land of .net. Unfortunate as this does lead to mistaken ideas about what vb.net is.

Personally, I actually prefer both for certain things. C# for plumbing and back end work, intricate lambdas, things like that...syntax is just cleaner for this kind of stuff. Vb.Net for front end work, it's just quicker, and in some cases somewhat clearer about what exactly you're doing with events etc. Besides, the not quite as good devs will tend to stop at the c# line and come ask for help instead of diving in to muck stuff up.