Storing your data in "the cloud," Good or bad?

[LinuxFanBoi]

I don't want to make this thread about Googles OS or any OS in particular, I just want to know if others share my concern about the safety, liability or general good sense of storing your data in the cloud.

One could argue that there is nothing wrong with storing your data in the cloud so long as the user takes steps to adequately encrypt it. I have two problems with this argument. Number one, I would say that it's unlikely that the average user understands the principals behind encryption or even how to do it. Number two, where is the private key-half stored? given that Google's new OS it very restrictive of what data can be stored locally, it wouldn't be to hard to capture a users password since someone else essentially controls the way your OS functions.

It bothers me when I start to see language that requires you to agree to allow the managers of the "cloud" to allow you to use your data for what ever they wish, and hold them harmless of any liability that may result.

Microsoft has been pushing people to embrace the concept of "the cloud" for quite some time, and Ubuntu is even opening up this can of worms.

Personally, Having a hard disk in my machine is not so much of a burden that I must find an alternative. Storage space is getting cheaper every day, and mass storage devices are performing faster and faster all the time. So why the need to farm your data out to a third party for storage. That's like trying to rent a storage locker to a guy who already owns a warehouse. I also don't like the idea that my data may be inaccessible should my ISP go down.

The more paranoid side of me thinks that the only reason this concept is being thrust upon us is profit. Perhaps a college student writes a bang up dissertation and saves it to the cloud but forgets to encrypt it. Someone at company X claims ownership because the data resides on it's servers and patents ideas he finds. Perhaps subscription based software licensing? Instead of buying an office suite you simply go to a website and pay a subscription. Meanwhile your data is out there, and the company you subscribe to decides, it's time to raise your subscription fees.

Something deep down inside of me says that this is something we should resist at all costs. No matter how innocuous it may sound this is a slippery slope and I don't like what I see at the bottom of the hill.

[jwbrase]

+1

I generally agree with the above.

I can see how *some* cloud computing, if done right, and if the customer is careful, could be very beneficial. I can also see how it may be good for people who make a lot of use of Web-connected cell-phones, PDA's, etc, that don't have alot of onboard data storage (though even then I have my doubts, given the tininess of USB sticks, probably better to make cell phones able to read USB sticks).

[ddarsow]

The concept of cloud computing is not new, only the term itself and the fact that it is being thrown around as a marketing buzzword lately. If you use any web based email, such as: Yahoo!, Gmail, MSN, etc... then you are already using cloud computing.

I see benefits and downfalls to each side. I am certain that "cloud computing" is here to stay, but it is not going to make the traditional storage of data on ones own machine obsolete by any means.

[ZankerH]

What is this, the 8th google/cloud thread today? Can we please have ONE thread each for everything google and everything cloudy in the recurring discussions?

To repeat what I've probably written in one form or another about fifty times in the last week: Cloud computing amounts to allowing (or, in some cases, paying) some corporation to hold your data hostage on their restrictive proprietary platforms.

[LinuxFanBoi]

I understand the concept goes back to the earliest networks, The difference is that then your data was stored on an in-house "cloud" where you could implicitly trust the host. The host often times was your employers very own network, and your best interests and theirs where interchangeable.

Today, we're talking about trusting other people that would throw ethics and morals out the window for profit. If your data resides on their network, and they in turn use it for profit, the court system would likely rule that the data belongs to the host while it resides on their network.

I guarantee you that you will not find any commercial software developer storing the source code for their projects outside their own servers. and if they wouldn't trust a third party with their data, why should we. There are those of us who use our computers for more than e-mails and Internet porn. I have legitimate concerns about the storage of my data.

As it stands, I already encrypt my entire hard disk. so even if my files where stored remotely, and encrypted, I'm still removing one layer of protection.

If an attacker wanted to get thousands of peoples personal data, they would need access to each persons PC. in the cloud they could compromise only one system and get everyone's data that resides on it. Furthermore who's to say that the person hosting your data isn't the one who is going to steal it? Wolf in sheep's clothing anyone? "Here let us take the burden of storing your data off your hands... you can trust us... just sign over the rights to your data to us.."

[aysiu]

The more paranoid side of me thinks that the only reason this concept is being thrust upon us is profit. Perhaps a college student writes a bang up dissertation and saves it to the cloud but forgets to encrypt it. Someone at company X claims ownership because the data resides on it's servers and patents ideas he finds. Google doesn't make money from plagiarizing dissertations. It makes money from advertising.

[pwnst*r]

yay another cloud thread.

[ZankerH]

The more paranoid side of me thinks that the only reason this concept is being thrust upon us is profit. Perhaps a college student writes a bang up dissertation and saves it to the cloud but forgets to encrypt it. Someone at company X claims ownership because the data resides on it's servers and patents ideas he finds.

And that's why you should ccrypt everything with a random 32-bit encryption key before you even consider copying it anywhere off places you don't own.

[Ric_NYC]

Wind-blows the Cloud...


:D

[pwnst*r]

Wind-blows the Cloud...


:D

weak.

[Ric_NYC]

I understand the concept goes back to the earliest networks, The difference is that then your data was stored on an in-house "cloud" where you could implicitly trust the host. The host often times was your employers very own network, and your best interests and theirs where interchangeable.

Today, we're talking about trusting other people that would throw ethics and morals out the window for profit. If your data resides on their network, and they in turn use it for profit, the court system would likely rule that the data belongs to the host while it resides on their network.

I guarantee you that you will not find any commercial software developer storing the source code for their projects outside their own servers. and if they wouldn't trust a third party with their data, why should we. There are those of us who use our computers for more than e-mails and Internet porn. I have legitimate concerns about the storage of my data.

As it stands, I already encrypt my entire hard disk. so even if my files where stored remotely, and encrypted, I'm still removing one layer of protection.

If an attacker wanted to get thousands of peoples personal data, they would need access to each persons PC. in the cloud they could compromise only one system and get everyone's data that resides on it. Furthermore who's to say that the person hosting your data isn't the one who is going to steal it? Wolf in sheep's clothing anyone? "Here let us take the burden of storing your data off your hands... you can trust us... just sign over the rights to your data to us.."

You are 100% right.

[insane_alien]

i'm of the opinion that the cloud could be a great thing. but i have a few points to make beforehand.

1/ yep, i mistrust it too for data storage(although i do use dropbox extensively(with a truecrypt file)

2/ its not just about storage.

In this age of netbooks and internet capable mobile devices the cloud can be an amazing tool for processing power.

lets say your ben the accountant and you've got a big report to do that involves a massive spreadsheet or two. normally stuff you'd do on your home or work pc/laptop that has a bit of grunt and memory behind it to deal with the massive number of figures and calculations. but oh no its went up in smoke and you only have your piddly little netbook available(but being sensible you've backed up your spreadsheet to a USB drive.) its going to take hours for this thing to run through the calculations and you won't be getting much else done while that happens.

here comes cloud to the rescue. lots of nice chunky servers with oodles of power behind them. get the cloud to do the heavy lifting while you scramble on with the rest of the report which as its only a word document(open office of course) your little netbook can handle that fine.

i think the cloud will have many purposes, but i don't think storage will be the only/primary function.

[aysiu]

Those worried about privacy may want to check out SpiderOak.

Cloud does not equal Google.

[LinuxFanBoi]

here comes cloud to the rescue. lots of nice chunky servers with oodles of power behind them. get the cloud to do the heavy lifting while you scramble on with the rest of the report which as its only a word document(open office of course) your little netbook can handle that fine.

i think the cloud will have many purposes, but i don't think storage will be the only/primary function.

I agree, We've already seen many underfunded yet ambitious projects farm out their data processing to volunteers. Distributed computing is a great idea, in theory. But so is communism. on paper it sounds great, but when you add the greedy human factor into the equation the potential for abuse becomes enormous.

lets say that spread sheet that the accountant put out into the cloud contained inside information about the company. That spreadsheet may become more valuable than all of the company's assets. Be it extortion, insider trading, competitive advantage the list goes on. In the wrong hands data in the cloud can destroy individuals, companies, or even governments.

One thing is very clear, the concept is here to stay. There is no putting this genie back in the bottle. If we're gonna go down this road lets at least make an effort to educate the consumers who are going to use and trust it how to protect themselves. Lets have some regulations put in place to require that encryption of client data be a requirement of doing business. Furthermore, if the private/public encryption key pair is being generated server side how can I be sure that even my key is secure? Password? again if everything is operating in a cloud, how do I even know my keystrokes aren't being logged?

The potential for abuse is too high to trust that people will be responsible for protecting themselves. We are already aware that the vast majority haven't the first clue how to safeguard their PC's and the data within them. Now we're talking about making the very same people even more vulnerable. This just doesn't sit well with me at all.


Google doesn't make money from plagiarizing dissertations. It makes money from advertising.I'm sure that they would never ever sell your personal data to one of their sponsors. How much do you think the billing data for every Verizon customer would be worth to a company like say, AT&T? or vice, versa.

[tubezninja]

Clouds are convenient, and I readily use a cloud solution for syncing my various computers' data, all of which have local copies of my most important stuff. But the sidekick (http://www.tmonews.com/2009/10/sidekick-fallout-qa/) has taught us that it shouldn't be the only solution for keeping stuff safe.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Clouds are convenient, and I readily use a cloud solution for syncing my various computers' data, all of which have local copies of my most important stuff. But the sidekick (http://www.tmonews.com/2009/10/sidekick-fallout-qa/) has taught us that it shouldn't be the only solution for keeping stuff safe.

This is what my router and USB hard drive are for. If I'm away from my home LAN, I have my data on my own server so I can access it from my laptop if I'm on a hot spot, All encrypted of course. setting up a desktop PC to act as a personal FTP server isn't that hard to do. I see no need to pay for an on-line backup service when I can buy a USB hard drive for a fraction of their service fees.

[Bezmotivnik]

What is this, the 8th google/cloud thread today? Can we please have ONE thread each for everything google and everything cloudy in the recurring discussions?

No, of course not. It's against Linux principles not to have insane amounts of meaningless, redundant, inefficient "choice."

Why, next thing you know, you'll be wanting to get rid of about eight or nine hundred totally meaningless garbage Linux distributions and pool development efforts and resources like grown-ups. :-\"

[pwnst*r]

lol

[soni1770]

How much do you think the billing data for every Verizon customer would be worth to a company like say, AT&T? or vice, versa.


Staff at mobile phone company T-Mobile passed on millions of records from thousands of customers to third party brokers, the firm has confirmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8364421.stm


so even if the company hosting your data didn't plan to missuse it, what about the staff

[pwnst*r]

Staff at mobile phone company T-Mobile passed on millions of records from thousands of customers to third party brokers, the firm has confirmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8364421.stm


so even if the company hosting your data didn't plan to missuse it, what about the staff

truth. looks like everybody better start planning their own cellular network.

[soni1770]

truth. looks like everybody better start planning their own cellular network.



oh, it's just a little worse than that.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8371171.stm

[pwnst*r]

that's hot!

[mmix]

trivial data, picture, garbage dumps on the cloud.

then, your HDD much lighter than before ever!
and save on its electricity bill.

[MasterNetra]

As I see it the cloud would be a good thing for storing non-personal/sensitive data. But still the good old fashion hard drive for the personal/sensitive stuff. For Window users the reverse might be true.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Staff at mobile phone company T-Mobile passed on millions of records from thousands of customers to third party brokers, the firm has confirmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8364421.stm


so even if the company hosting your data didn't plan to missuse it, what about the staff

It seems that, out of mockery, some of you are making my point for me. The market for personal information already exists. Is it any wonder then why these "cloud" services are being thrown at us, often times for free? There's profit in personal information.

They want it, because someone out there will pay for it. To me it only fits that this has started out with useful tools like image shack, pastebin and photo bucket, Then gradually over time, more and more of your data travels through the cloud, and before you know it, it's not only the medium, but the platform.

Raise your hand if you do your taxes on-line, pay your bills, do your banking, college, write your congressman, write your mother, write your mistress, watch your porn, the list goes on... the bottom line is that someone out there will be willing to pay money for every detail that's out there about us. In a time when personal information has proven to be a huge liability and the source of more and more crime, is this really the direction we should be going?

we're at a point now where personal data is more valuable than gold and the only reason I can think of why the powers that be want to make it so easy for us to get ourselves into the cloud is that they want to collect this data for profit.

[soni1770]

umm, linuxfanboi, don't really see the mockery in my post,
i was agree with you.

oh well:-({|=

[LinuxFanBoi]

umm, linuxfanboi, don't really see the mockery in my post,
i was agree with you.

oh well:-({|=

I'm sorry, sorry I didn't mean to say you where mocking me, I was using what you posted to further support my statements. I probably could have said it differently. sorry for that.

I say let Microsoft and Google fight for the netbook market share. but for things that require a big boy operating system this could be Linux's time to shine. Perhaps this can be spun by the folks at Canonical. While Google and Microsoft are abandoning th principals that are the backbone of data, information and personal security Linux embraces them.

You know Apple, Inc. is going to spin it. I'm sure very soon we'll see Mac and PC standing in a white room with a relaxing baby nursery tune playing softly in the background, PC telling us how great the cloud is for personal computing and Mac chiming in to ask PC how he feels about having all his personal information in the hands of strangers. PC, with a stumped look on his face saying, "well I haven't really thought it through yet, but look it's the coolest thing... and it wont have any of the problems Vista had!"

[soni1770]

:Ddon't worry linuxfanboi
it's all good.
:KS
i do agree with what your saying .

and i won't be putting my stuff in the cloud.

peace

[youbuntu]

What is this, the 8th google/cloud thread today? Can we please have ONE thread each for everything google and everything cloudy in the recurring discussions?

To repeat what I've probably written in one form or another about fifty times in the last week: Cloud computing amounts to allowing (or, in some cases, paying) some corporation to hold your data hostage on their restrictive proprietary platforms.

+1 - I made a thread about this last week!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1324098

[ZankerH]

No, of course not. It's against Linux principles not to have insane amounts of meaningless, redundant, inefficient "choice."

Why, next thing you know, you'll be wanting to get rid of about eight or nine hundred totally meaningless garbage Linux distributions and pool development efforts and resources like grown-ups. :-\"

I'm not saying that. What in fact happened is that we had around 3-4 identical threads with identical people bleating identical talking points at each other, at the same time - the epitome of redundancy - which the situation regarding software distributions of GNU/Linux isn't, so your comparison is invalid.

[Bezmotivnik]

I'm not saying that. What in fact happened is that we had around 3-4 identical threads with identical people bleating identical talking points at each other, at the same time - the epitome of redundancy - which the situation regarding software distributions of GNU/Linux isn't, so your comparison is invalid.
OK, call 'em "forks."

Haw!

Anyway, if this forum is about anything at all, it's ridiculous amounts of redundant threads. It's the Cafe's very identity.