3 ms·

I disagree. Again encryption is not the same as not having access at all to the data. If centralized services offer the concept of having access control mecha

by ahnick 6y ago

I disagree. Again encryption is not the same as not having access at all to the data. If centralized services offer the concept of having access control mechanisms available and we trust them to delete the files, then why not have those same types of mechanisms in place for a decentralized network? Asking people to delete their keys is user hostile and will likely lead to people just not using the service.

SamReidHughes 6y ago
They're running software that connects to your overlay of the network, no? It doesn't involve human interaction.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ahnick 6y ago
  When I say "user" here I'm talking about me the service provider being the user of the network. Instead of "user hostile", what I should have said is it "just doesn't solve the problem of access". The concern I have is about malicious actors being able to access the raw objects held on the Filecoin network. They won't be able to do anything with the encrypted objects immediately, but I don't know that you can claim that will always be the case decades from now.
sneak 6y ago
> Again encryption is not the same as not having access at all to the data. Yes, it is. If you delete the keys, nobody has access at all to the data. The ciphertext is irrelevant.
- ahnick 6y ago
  The ciphertext is irrelevant now, today. That might not always be the case if computing power improves sufficiently to be able to breakthrough that encryption or a flaw in the encryption algorithm (or default parameters being used in a particular implementation) is discovered. At that point, it would be nice to know that even the ciphertext was not exposed.
  - bavell 6y ago
    If your data is so important that it needs to be protected from future theoretical attacks.... what the heck are you doing uploading it to a globally distributed and decentralized platform?! Said another way: you are trying to fit a centralized-shaped peg into a decentralized-shaped hole... wrong tool for the job. If your use case does involve this situation somehow (?) then the only real solution is to encrypt it, as others in this thread have pointed out. There is simply no other option in an open-membership P2P network... otherwise the RIAA and MPAA would have long ago crushed BitTorrent.
    - ahnick 6y ago
      I'm not trying to fit any peg into any hole. Filecoin is the one that advertises the network is for private data. It's hard to quantify the risk from future theoretical attacks and anyone that is storing private data on Filecoin (or IPFS) needs to weigh their own risk tolerance. Other networks have implemented mechanisms for the network nodes to delete files as detailed elsewhere in this thread and I think it is entirely reasonable to say there is more that could be done at the network level to help mitigate exposure. Dealing in absolutes is a dangerous proposition.

by ahnick 6y ago

SamReidHughes 6y ago

They're running software that connects to your overlay of the network, no? It doesn't involve human interaction.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ahnick 6y ago
When I say "user" here I'm talking about me the service provider being the user of the network. Instead of "user hostile", what I should have said is it "just doesn't solve the problem of access". The concern I have is about malicious actors being able to access the raw objects held on the Filecoin network. They won't be able to do anything with the encrypted objects immediately, but I don't know that you can claim that will always be the case decades from now.

sneak 6y ago

> Again encryption is not the same as not having access at all to the data. Yes, it is. If you delete the keys, nobody has access at all to the data. The ciphertext is irrelevant.

ahnick 6y ago
The ciphertext is irrelevant now, today. That might not always be the case if computing power improves sufficiently to be able to breakthrough that encryption or a flaw in the encryption algorithm (or default parameters being used in a particular implementation) is discovered. At that point, it would be nice to know that even the ciphertext was not exposed.
- bavell 6y ago
  If your data is so important that it needs to be protected from future theoretical attacks.... what the heck are you doing uploading it to a globally distributed and decentralized platform?! Said another way: you are trying to fit a centralized-shaped peg into a decentralized-shaped hole... wrong tool for the job. If your use case does involve this situation somehow (?) then the only real solution is to encrypt it, as others in this thread have pointed out. There is simply no other option in an open-membership P2P network... otherwise the RIAA and MPAA would have long ago crushed BitTorrent.
  - ahnick 6y ago
    I'm not trying to fit any peg into any hole. Filecoin is the one that advertises the network is for private data. It's hard to quantify the risk from future theoretical attacks and anyone that is storing private data on Filecoin (or IPFS) needs to weigh their own risk tolerance. Other networks have implemented mechanisms for the network nodes to delete files as detailed elsewhere in this thread and I think it is entirely reasonable to say there is more that could be done at the network level to help mitigate exposure. Dealing in absolutes is a dangerous proposition.