4 ms·

It doesn't sound like he's advocating that everyone run their own server. He said that if you require your data be available all the time, then you should run y

It doesn't sound like he's advocating that everyone run their own server. He said that if you require your data be available all the time, then you should run your own server; otherwise, you should keep your data on your computer. That being said, I don't see a problem storing data on someone else's computer as long as that data is encrypted and I alone have the ability to decrypt it. Trusting someone to encrypt your data for you when you give them your data is essentially the same thing as giving them access to the unencrypted data.

nbadg 11y ago
> Trusting someone to encrypt your data for you when you give them your data is essentially the same thing as giving them access to the unencrypted data. Absolutely agreed, which is precisely why it's so important to be end-to-end, which implies client-side encryption. Unfortunately, this is a totally different environment than we're used to; it doesn't break the internet, but it definitely breaks the web. Part of the challenge of the work I've been doing on this problem has been to envision exactly how this new thing would work. It's really cool stuff, but it's a dramatic departure from what we're accustomed to. > It doesn't sound like he's advocating that everyone run their own server. He said that if you require your data be available all the time, then you should run your own server The problem is, total availability is exactly what we've come to expect from the vast majority of internet use. This is particularly true of the most popular websites. Facebook, google, etc wouldn't work with totally intermittent data availability, but for a growing number of people, they are the internet.
zekevermillion 11y ago
Yes, I wonder if RMS has any objection to clouds where the user data is encrypted end-to-end, like with Tahoe-LAFS. Does that count as running your own server if you have client-side encrypted data through Tahoe backed up on Amazon servers? Or is there too much info leaked, or some other way that Amazon could engage in hostile behavior with respect to data it cannot read?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  If there is no risk of surveillance or lock-in, he'd probably be ok? After all, "cloud" is a pretty ill-defined term. He certainly doesn't object to things because someone calls them "cloud-something", but because of the power structure they entail--which happens to include stuff such as surveillance and lock-in with a lot of the stuff that's currently being sold as "cloud services".

nbadg 11y ago

> Trusting someone to encrypt your data for you when you give them your data is essentially the same thing as giving them access to the unencrypted data. Absolutely agreed, which is precisely why it's so important to be end-to-end, which implies client-side encryption. Unfortunately, this is a totally different environment than we're used to; it doesn't break the internet, but it definitely breaks the web. Part of the challenge of the work I've been doing on this problem has been to envision exactly how this new thing would work. It's really cool stuff, but it's a dramatic departure from what we're accustomed to. > It doesn't sound like he's advocating that everyone run their own server. He said that if you require your data be available all the time, then you should run your own server The problem is, total availability is exactly what we've come to expect from the vast majority of internet use. This is particularly true of the most popular websites. Facebook, google, etc wouldn't work with totally intermittent data availability, but for a growing number of people, they are the internet.

zekevermillion 11y ago

Yes, I wonder if RMS has any objection to clouds where the user data is encrypted end-to-end, like with Tahoe-LAFS. Does that count as running your own server if you have client-side encrypted data through Tahoe backed up on Amazon servers? Or is there too much info leaked, or some other way that Amazon could engage in hostile behavior with respect to data it cannot read?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
If there is no risk of surveillance or lock-in, he'd probably be ok? After all, "cloud" is a pretty ill-defined term. He certainly doesn't object to things because someone calls them "cloud-something", but because of the power structure they entail--which happens to include stuff such as surveillance and lock-in with a lot of the stuff that's currently being sold as "cloud services".