Not sure if others agree, but I think these "privacy"- centered alternatives to "cloud" need to be open source to be taken seriously. Now that is only my opini

Not sure if others agree, but I think these "privacy"- centered alternatives to "cloud" need to be open source to be taken seriously. Now that is only my opinion - and I am not in sales. But in my view, you cannot pitch a privacy solution honestly without disclosing the architecture of your proposed system, and the only practical way for anyone to verify that architecture and your implementation is going to protect privacy is to look at the source code. Of course, you can pitch a solution and be less than 100% transparent about how it works. And this may be enough to make sales. But there's no way for the customer to really know if you're being honest unless they, or their trusted agent, can read and compile the source code. Assuming there are open source alternatives to "cloud" (e.g. peer-to-peer architectures), then maybe there is a market for "privacy consulting" where customers pay consulting fees for the know-how to use open source alternatives to construct data transfer and storage systems that can deliver a level of privacy that the "cloud" architecture cannot. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud. Anyway, it's good to hear WSJ saying customers are seeking privacy. The market will no doubt respond.