Fascinating article, thanks. I'll look more into the BTC stuff.
To be clear, whether it endangers a witness individually is not the question here. I'm just asking whether it is illegal. Thus far, it looks like it definitely is. Possession on illegal content is the legal precedent here. All data on the Steem blockchain is stored on my servers. As a centralized agency, I'd immediately delete all illegal data, but as a witness to a blockchain, I'm unable to do so and the illegal data still lies in my possession. No different from an individual with a child porn collection, doesn't matter what they do with it.
Under that theory, that you are personally responsible for illegal data on the blockchain, all the cloud services are exactly as liable as are you, and I don't see them being prosecuted under such statutes anytime soon.
Maybe FOSTA/SESTA changes that calculus. Maybe the attack imminent and ongoing on Silicon Valley by the anti-globalist forces changes that. Dunno. Amazon, Microsoft, etc., are no less vulnerable to the exact same legal theory as are blockchain witnesses, however.
Except Amazon can instantly remove content from their servers when hit with a DMCA notice, for example. I can't do shit.
The sales pitch for the cloud has been that the data isn't available to the providers, that's it's your data, secure and private, encrypted on the cloud.
Are you saying that cloud providers are aware of the content of the data that is stored on the cloud? Because they would have to be, in order to be able to remove it.
They pitch the above mentioned privacy assuming you abide by their ToS and the laws of their land.
When the authorities issue a notice to take down illegal data, the cloud providers have to comply - track down and remove the data from their servers. The recent CLOUD Act further clarifies situations where the US government can issue takedown notices on US cloud providers even if they host content overseas. (Of course, there are provisions in place for cloud providers and citizens to challenge these. Note, CLOUD Act principally focuses on surveillance, i.e. FBI requesting data about an individual using the services, but it extends to removal of illegal data as well.
Well, what you are stating is the capability of LE to know that illegal data is in the cloud means that the clouds aren't secure at all, and that the providers are completely aware of all the data in the cloud, and so is LE.
Do I understand correctly?