April 4, 2013

Increasing Transparency Alongside Privacy – 2013 Report

by with 4 comments

As we stated in our Transparency Report in 2012, privacy continues to be at the root of all we do at SpiderOak. Every new product and feature is designed to fit tightly alongside our ‘Zero-Knowledge’ privacy commitment. And we continue to understand how transparency plays a role in overall privacy.

In our ongoing efforts to stay on top and aware of this ever-changing landscape, our work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) continues to keep us better informed and aware of what we can do when fighting for the rights of our users.

Given all this, we have reproduced a Transparency Report for that covers all activity over the last calendar year – from April 2012 to April 2013. The report is as follows:

SpiderOak Transparency Report

We are proud to stand behind our commitment in keeping our users informed of any and all activities involving their data and the constant protection of their privacy. Our relationship with the EFF and other organizations will always improve our outreach and understanding so that you – our user – will benefit from a fully transparent and open environment. As always, we greatly value your thoughts and feedback so please don’t hesitate to send further thoughts or questions anytime.

Comments
  1. Hey, nice table that shows privacy. But, my question is that would the government be able to confiscate your servers and take it to their lab and be able to read what is in the servers??? This needs to be clearly defined.

  2. I’m confused by the SpiderOak ‘Guide for Law Enforcement’ which states, “… SpiderOak will not provide any information about a user (including account information) unless that request has been legally approved via the courts and a proper search warrant has been issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures.” IANAL, but aren’t there various state and federal laws that make subscriber information available to Law Enforcement with just a subpoena? (see: https://ssd.eff.org/3rdparties/govt/subpoena).

  3. @ Timothy: Thank you for passing along your thoughts on our ‘Law Enforcement Guidelines’. Unfortunately, it appears an early draft of that document was posted and not the final. The updated version has now been appropriately put in place which I believe more accurately addresses the issue you mention above. We would welcome your review of the updated information and don’t hesitate to send additional thoughts or questions anytime.