5 ms·

Agreed and not to mention that most people won't use anything close to the 50GB, combine that with the deduplication plans they have and you have a very differe

Agreed and not to mention that most people won't use anything close to the 50GB, combine that with the deduplication plans they have and you have a very different scenario.

lubos 14y ago
they say, all files will be client-side encrypted which won't allow them to "deduplicate" anything.
- joenathan 14y ago
  There was a discussion the other day on how this was possible, where a hash would be created and that would allow for both encryption and deduplication. Let me see if I can find it.
  - lubos 14y ago
    I understand this would be possible but then they are essentially lying about their privacy attributes.
    - TylerE 14y ago
      Doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me.
    - rscale 14y ago
      Dropbox used to say: "All files stored on Dropbox servers are encrypted (AES256) and are inaccessible without your account password." even though the files were accessible without their account password. Mega might be doing the same thing: saying one thing to attract early adopters, and changing the marketing language once it gets broader adoption by people who don't care about that attribute. It's dishonest, but it would hardly be shocking to learn that a multiple felon was being dishonest.
- larvaetron 14y ago
  I don't think this is true. 50 GB of free storage for each user would be cost prohibitive without (at least) block-level deduplication.
- alsocasey 14y ago
  Some kind of homomorphic encryption scheme maybe?
- X-Istence 14y ago
  Just because a file is encrypted doesn't mean that a small block doesn't match another encrypted block even if the two are from two different files. This would allow them to do deduplication at the block level (see ZFS for example).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Think about that one for a second. An encrypted block is essentially supposed to look like random data. I.e. if two people encrypt the same file with different keys, you shouldn't be able to tell that they're the same file (or your encryption sucks). So your block-level de-duping then depends on incidental matches between random data. What's the probability of two 4KB (or whatever) blocks of random data being identical? Basically zero even with petabytes of data.
    - harryh 14y ago
      see: convergent encryption The encryption on the client doesn't use a random key. The key is a hash of the unencrypted contents of the file.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Reading list-ed. Interesting.
        harryh 14y ago
        The issue is that you don't get the full benefits of encryption. If you upload the map to the rayiner family treasure that only you have seen you're good. No one else will be able to read it. But if you upload the latest episode of Modern Family and Disney gets ahold of the same rip you used they (if they can get a government to help them out) can see what you did and charge you with copyright infringement (or whatever the appropriate crime would be).
        tptacek 14y ago

Agreed and not to mention that most people won't use anything close to the 50GB, combine that with the deduplication plans they have and you have a very different scenario.

lubos 14y ago

they say, all files will be client-side encrypted which won't allow them to "deduplicate" anything.

joenathan 14y ago
There was a discussion the other day on how this was possible, where a hash would be created and that would allow for both encryption and deduplication. Let me see if I can find it.
- lubos 14y ago
  I understand this would be possible but then they are essentially lying about their privacy attributes.
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me.
  - rscale 14y ago
    Dropbox used to say: "All files stored on Dropbox servers are encrypted (AES256) and are inaccessible without your account password." even though the files were accessible without their account password. Mega might be doing the same thing: saying one thing to attract early adopters, and changing the marketing language once it gets broader adoption by people who don't care about that attribute. It's dishonest, but it would hardly be shocking to learn that a multiple felon was being dishonest.
larvaetron 14y ago
I don't think this is true. 50 GB of free storage for each user would be cost prohibitive without (at least) block-level deduplication.
alsocasey 14y ago
Some kind of homomorphic encryption scheme maybe?
X-Istence 14y ago
Just because a file is encrypted doesn't mean that a small block doesn't match another encrypted block even if the two are from two different files. This would allow them to do deduplication at the block level (see ZFS for example).
- rayiner 14y ago
  Think about that one for a second. An encrypted block is essentially supposed to look like random data. I.e. if two people encrypt the same file with different keys, you shouldn't be able to tell that they're the same file (or your encryption sucks). So your block-level de-duping then depends on incidental matches between random data. What's the probability of two 4KB (or whatever) blocks of random data being identical? Basically zero even with petabytes of data.
  - harryh 14y ago
    see: convergent encryption The encryption on the client doesn't use a random key. The key is a hash of the unencrypted contents of the file.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Reading list-ed. Interesting.
      - harryh 14y ago
        The issue is that you don't get the full benefits of encryption. If you upload the map to the rayiner family treasure that only you have seen you're good. No one else will be able to read it. But if you upload the latest episode of Modern Family and Disney gets ahold of the same rip you used they (if they can get a government to help them out) can see what you did and charge you with copyright infringement (or whatever the appropriate crime would be).
        tptacek 14y ago