3 ms·

I always figured the better solution would be to have a cloud-in-your-pocket. You can carry your own data with you and sync backups to a site you personally co

by Lerc 13y ago

I always figured the better solution would be to have a cloud-in-your-pocket. You can carry your own data with you and sync backups to a site you personally control. Phones certainly have the capability to do the job of a personal server (of course you may not want it to be an actual phone considering the latest snooping news). A mechanism to use any nearby desktop or laptop as a client would enable most of what you need without any requirement for an untrusted remote storage provider.

vog 13y ago
Another (or complementing) implementation of that idea is the FreedomBox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox
- Lerc 13y ago
  Certainly complimenting. By definition communication requires more than one person accessing information. I know what I'd like to see in this area, but I don't have a good idea how to implement it. FreedomBox might be heading towards that implementation. The idea I'm kicking around in my head for comms is something where I'd want a distributed data store (possibly just a file system) with access controls to enable requests such as "UserA acting on behalf of UserB would like to read data at /path/to/data". Where UserA might be twitter and UserB might be StephenFry. UserB can control what UserA can see and manipulate. UserA can do things that UserB cannot (such as acting on behalf of UserC)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jebblue 13y ago
>> The prisoners in the Panopticon could thus never know whether they were being surveilled, meaning that they have to, if they want to avoid running the risk of severe punishment, assume that they were being watched at all times. Yup good idea, I agree, only I'd break the synced data up into segments and spread the encrypted segments around 2 to 3 cloud providers. Wow, sometimes my brain amazes me and yours too in this case. Buy Product X - it's PRISM proof. :)

by Lerc 13y ago

vog 13y ago

Another (or complementing) implementation of that idea is the FreedomBox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox

Lerc 13y ago
Certainly complimenting. By definition communication requires more than one person accessing information. I know what I'd like to see in this area, but I don't have a good idea how to implement it. FreedomBox might be heading towards that implementation. The idea I'm kicking around in my head for comms is something where I'd want a distributed data store (possibly just a file system) with access controls to enable requests such as "UserA acting on behalf of UserB would like to read data at /path/to/data". Where UserA might be twitter and UserB might be StephenFry. UserB can control what UserA can see and manipulate. UserA can do things that UserB cannot (such as acting on behalf of UserC)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jebblue 13y ago

>> The prisoners in the Panopticon could thus never know whether they were being surveilled, meaning that they have to, if they want to avoid running the risk of severe punishment, assume that they were being watched at all times. Yup good idea, I agree, only I'd break the synced data up into segments and spread the encrypted segments around 2 to 3 cloud providers. Wow, sometimes my brain amazes me and yours too in this case. Buy Product X - it's PRISM proof. :)