4 ms·
The details matter here, so far as the decision is that if they are bit-for-bit duplicates, there's no need to store more than one copy. I was under the impres
by carussell 15y ago
The details matter here, so far as the decision is that if they are bit-for-bit duplicates, there's no need to store more than one copy.
I was under the impression that the bit-for-bit duplicates weren't the only things Google et al had their sights on though, i.e., they were hoping to do something along the lines of iCloud. Was I mistaken?
In any case, it's a shame that it was necessary to go through the judicial hoopla to determine that it's okay to practice what's more commonly known as "compression".
- SODaniel 15y agoUndoubtedly great for those services who cross deduplicate data. As a user however, I think it's a little 'scary' as it per default requires the service provider to have access to encryption/decryption information, hence no 'zero-knowledge' storage policy is possible.
- Dylan16807 15y agoSomeone before proposed a deduplication scheme where the hash of a file is used as an encryption key. (and an encrypted database of keys is accessible by the user only) It's not no-knowledge in terms of what files are the same, of course, but it keeps the actual contents safe from prying.