3 ms·

For encryption, check out SpiderOak. I used to work with the CEO and know a few of their engineers. The privacy use case is looking stronger and stronger. ht

For encryption, check out SpiderOak. I used to work with the CEO and know a few of their engineers. The privacy use case is looking stronger and stronger. https://spideroak.com https://spideroak.com

kijin 13y ago
I've been a SpiderOak user for over 3 years. I like the "nearly zero knowledge" aspect of it, but the clunky, non-native, freezes-all-the-time user interface drives me crazy. Despite Dropbox's horrible privacy and security, I can't deny that it offers the smoothest file-storage and file-sharing experience that I've ever had.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'm unwilling to trust a company to provide me with a binary that touches unencrypted data/keys AND also host all my data. It's just too easy to slip in a special backdoor on update (and failing to update = big security risk, too, and generally unworkable for general purpose products for features/OS reasons.) What I want is a trustworthy client, ideally written to an open published standard, which can either backend with a service (with ideally several providers), or with a self-hosted binary (or appliance).
- vader1 13y ago
  Unfortunately I had the same experience when I evaluated it a couple of years ago. You should check Wuala: while still not perfect (the client is closed source and java) the user experience has been pretty much as smooth as Dropbox'.
  - kijin 13y ago
    Been there, done that. I liked Wuala even less because its UI is not a reliable indicator of what it is doing at any given moment. For example, the upload/download queues would often be empty, even when Wuala is clearly transferring files in the background. A folder would show a green check mark, indicating "fully synched", but it would have a subfolder that isn't quite finished. Inconsistencies like that made me give up on Wuala. If a program is going to be as slow as molasses, that's fine. Client-side encryption means that a lot of things that Dropbox does on their servers need to be done on my low-powered devices instead, so I can tolerate it to some extent. But at least I'd like to see exactly what's taking so long. </rant>
- StavrosK 13y ago
  I'm currently doing EncFS over Dropbox, which works great. I'm also writing my own EncFS alternative for adding an encrypted layer over any backup program, which I will release soon (it already works well).

For encryption, check out SpiderOak. I used to work with the CEO and know a few of their engineers. The privacy use case is looking stronger and stronger. https://spideroak.com https://spideroak.com

kijin 13y ago

I've been a SpiderOak user for over 3 years. I like the "nearly zero knowledge" aspect of it, but the clunky, non-native, freezes-all-the-time user interface drives me crazy. Despite Dropbox's horrible privacy and security, I can't deny that it offers the smoothest file-storage and file-sharing experience that I've ever had.

rdl 13y ago
I'm unwilling to trust a company to provide me with a binary that touches unencrypted data/keys AND also host all my data. It's just too easy to slip in a special backdoor on update (and failing to update = big security risk, too, and generally unworkable for general purpose products for features/OS reasons.) What I want is a trustworthy client, ideally written to an open published standard, which can either backend with a service (with ideally several providers), or with a self-hosted binary (or appliance).
vader1 13y ago
Unfortunately I had the same experience when I evaluated it a couple of years ago. You should check Wuala: while still not perfect (the client is closed source and java) the user experience has been pretty much as smooth as Dropbox'.
- kijin 13y ago
  Been there, done that. I liked Wuala even less because its UI is not a reliable indicator of what it is doing at any given moment. For example, the upload/download queues would often be empty, even when Wuala is clearly transferring files in the background. A folder would show a green check mark, indicating "fully synched", but it would have a subfolder that isn't quite finished. Inconsistencies like that made me give up on Wuala. If a program is going to be as slow as molasses, that's fine. Client-side encryption means that a lot of things that Dropbox does on their servers need to be done on my low-powered devices instead, so I can tolerate it to some extent. But at least I'd like to see exactly what's taking so long. </rant>
StavrosK 13y ago
I'm currently doing EncFS over Dropbox, which works great. I'm also writing my own EncFS alternative for adding an encrypted layer over any backup program, which I will release soon (it already works well).