> 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. Absol

> 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.