3 ms·
I've been working in the privacy space for a few years and always had the same opinion. If a customer doesn't trust the data processor, the logical conclusion i
by fhd2 4y ago
I've been working in the privacy space for a few years and always had the same opinion. If a customer doesn't trust the data processor, the logical conclusion is to not send any sensitive data at all, which is technically possible. But it means more edge processing, more client side processing, most likely not what Google wants. But they have to do _something_, even if nobody uses it in the end.
- yafbum 4y agoThe practical way that people deal with this is putting a swarm of auditors all up in the processors' business. It used to be this way for telecom as well: to know whether comms were secure, you needed to walk the length of the cable and look for taps. Comms encryption has radically changed this. The question is, is there a similar revolution in the making for processing as opposed to comms. I strongly doubt the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks.