4 ms·
Who will pay for that and how are you going to force manufacturers to participate in such scheme? Most people "have nothing to hide" and don't care about privac
by kbart 9y ago
Who will pay for that and how are you going to force manufacturers to participate in such scheme? Most people "have nothing to hide" and don't care about privacy, so they won't be happy as manufacturers pass cost of this to them. More realistic way (though not easy too) is to install a firewall on a proxy all traffic is run through and filter suspicious/unknown connections.
- kartickv 9y agoManufacturers or software developers who're especially privacy-conscious, or collecting data that wouldn't be able to get with otherwise, might use this scheme. Maybe the folks who run the upstream server will also pay for the intermediate server. It shouldn't cost much for an entity that's already operating at scale, whether in users or revenue.
- kbart 9y ago"Manufacturers or software developers who're especially privacy-conscious" Those are few and far between. I still don't see how you are going to get major players into this. Niche -- maybe, but we already have few of these (other comments in this thread mention them). Also, such server would be a very sweet target for hackers and high security requirement raises upkeep by quite a bit.
- kartickv 9y agoNo more a target for hackers than upstream log servers. In fact, it will be easier to audit, since it's open-source and does less (only aggregate and anonymise data and pass it on). Yes, it will be niche to begin with, but everything starts that way. If minor players adopt this, over time, it can put pressure on the big players to do so as well. It's a long game. For example, MS opened an Azure datacenter in Germany where MS doesn't have access to user data. So, people are starting to do things to restrict their own access.