4 ms·

Privacy as a Service sounds like a very plausible business model for the future (or even today). edit: I forgot about this[1], so apparently it already exists!

by aqme28 14y ago

Privacy as a Service sounds like a very plausible business model for the future (or even today). edit: I forgot about this[1], so apparently it already exists! [1]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57412225-281/this-internet-provider-pledges-to-put-your-privacy-first-always/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57412225-281/this-internet...

AncientPC 14y ago
Tor has its own issues (difficult set up, high latency), as well as VPNs (single point failure / tracking, US-based companies must obey warrants). Perhaps there's an opportunity for a company based in Switzerland to run a private TOR network for obfuscation with guaranteed bandwidth. Private TOR network has its own problems though. You need a large number of users to anonymize each other's data, and the block of assigned IPs can be treated as a single entity and blocked / rerouted as a result.
- lambada 14y ago
  I'd argue Tor has removed the difficult set-up recently. Now it's as simple as downloading the recommended Browser Bundle, run it and you get a standalone (branded?) Firefox completely set up and ready for Tor surfing. Admittedly, it is still complicated to set-up your existing web-browser to use it, and latency is still a huge issue - not helped by the limited number of exit nodes.
- derrida 14y ago
  The problem with the latency on Tor is not the bandwidth, (Tor can download a 1mb file quite quickly), it's the ping. This is an aspect of the onion routing model, not the fact that volunteers run nodes. There are proposals to switch from HTTP to a faster protocol from the exit to the user. It's expected this would result in an observable latency improvement for web browsing.
AJ007 14y ago
I have been advocating startups build privacy in to their systems as differentiation points over their competitors. As privacy breaches make the headlines, it makes for PR that you can piggyback on to fairly effectively.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Its an interesting place. At Blekko we've been very aggressive at building privacy in from the start, and we talk about that with folks all the time. When I was at Sun I was deeply involved in doing security work both in the kernel and on the network. There were lots of places to improve. In both the Blekko and Sun cases the 'better' version doesn't seem to carry a lot of retail influence. Which is to say if you offer a consumer a choice, the 'secure' one which costs a bit more (either in cash or in complexity) or the 'insecure' one which is cheaper, not enough people pick 'secure' to make the investment pay off. You have to pay for your investment somehow, and the fewer people who are willing to pay for a feature, and the more it costs to implement, means a higher per-consumer price for that feature. Security often pushed that cost threshold over the limit into 'non-business'. When we were discussing implementing the best privacy policy and technology in any search engine I was pretty clear that having the 'best privacy policy of any search engine' was a nice add-on feature but you couldn't base your business on it. We had to have a search engine that was just as good or better than the competition, and the fact that 'oh by the way its got the best privacy policy' could be icing on the cake, but for the majority of people it would not be their reason for using it. You can see this sort of effect in lots of different communities.
interknot 14y ago
You're unfortunately correct: http://www.abine.com/ http://www.abine.com/ and of course Phil Zimmerman is giving it a go: https://silentcircle.com/ https://silentcircle.com/ [ though all of that ex-SEAL presence among the founders sets off some of my paranoid alarms about US government backdoors ] I certainly hope there's enough demand to sustain privacy protection services…but I'm not optimistic. I've never had much luck convincing "regular" people that privacy concerns are worth abandoning the convenience/entertainment of things like Google and Facebook.

by aqme28 14y ago

AncientPC 14y ago

Tor has its own issues (difficult set up, high latency), as well as VPNs (single point failure / tracking, US-based companies must obey warrants). Perhaps there's an opportunity for a company based in Switzerland to run a private TOR network for obfuscation with guaranteed bandwidth. Private TOR network has its own problems though. You need a large number of users to anonymize each other's data, and the block of assigned IPs can be treated as a single entity and blocked / rerouted as a result.

lambada 14y ago
I'd argue Tor has removed the difficult set-up recently. Now it's as simple as downloading the recommended Browser Bundle, run it and you get a standalone (branded?) Firefox completely set up and ready for Tor surfing. Admittedly, it is still complicated to set-up your existing web-browser to use it, and latency is still a huge issue - not helped by the limited number of exit nodes.
derrida 14y ago
The problem with the latency on Tor is not the bandwidth, (Tor can download a 1mb file quite quickly), it's the ping. This is an aspect of the onion routing model, not the fact that volunteers run nodes. There are proposals to switch from HTTP to a faster protocol from the exit to the user. It's expected this would result in an observable latency improvement for web browsing.

AJ007 14y ago

I have been advocating startups build privacy in to their systems as differentiation points over their competitors. As privacy breaches make the headlines, it makes for PR that you can piggyback on to fairly effectively.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Its an interesting place. At Blekko we've been very aggressive at building privacy in from the start, and we talk about that with folks all the time. When I was at Sun I was deeply involved in doing security work both in the kernel and on the network. There were lots of places to improve. In both the Blekko and Sun cases the 'better' version doesn't seem to carry a lot of retail influence. Which is to say if you offer a consumer a choice, the 'secure' one which costs a bit more (either in cash or in complexity) or the 'insecure' one which is cheaper, not enough people pick 'secure' to make the investment pay off. You have to pay for your investment somehow, and the fewer people who are willing to pay for a feature, and the more it costs to implement, means a higher per-consumer price for that feature. Security often pushed that cost threshold over the limit into 'non-business'. When we were discussing implementing the best privacy policy and technology in any search engine I was pretty clear that having the 'best privacy policy of any search engine' was a nice add-on feature but you couldn't base your business on it. We had to have a search engine that was just as good or better than the competition, and the fact that 'oh by the way its got the best privacy policy' could be icing on the cake, but for the majority of people it would not be their reason for using it. You can see this sort of effect in lots of different communities.

interknot 14y ago

You're unfortunately correct: http://www.abine.com/ http://www.abine.com/ and of course Phil Zimmerman is giving it a go: https://silentcircle.com/ https://silentcircle.com/ [ though all of that ex-SEAL presence among the founders sets off some of my paranoid alarms about US government backdoors ] I certainly hope there's enough demand to sustain privacy protection services…but I'm not optimistic. I've never had much luck convincing "regular" people that privacy concerns are worth abandoning the convenience/entertainment of things like Google and Facebook.