3 ms·

There is a trade off between availability (spread it around) and privacy/confidentiality (the more places it is spread the more you are exposed to risks of hack

There is a trade off between availability (spread it around) and privacy/confidentiality (the more places it is spread the more you are exposed to risks of hacking or insiders at any of the companies). There is no right answer but it depends on the person and the content.

scholia 13y ago
I think you greatly reduce your risk by spreading it around. There cases where people have had a single Google or Apple account compromised and lost everything. That wouldn't have happened if their stuff had been distributed... though you'd still be in trouble with an email account hack, because of password resets and passwords sent in plain text emails.
- josephlord 13y ago
  > I think you greatly reduce your risk by spreading it around. That only applies if loss of data/access to data is a greater problem for you than exposure of the data. Spreading it into multiple locations/services gives more choices for an attacker to breach to expose it and they only need to get into one of them.
  - scholia 13y ago
    No. It's not the same data, it's about using different sites for different services. If you have six and one gets hacked, the other five are still secure. If you use the same site for everything, that probably increases the risk of being hacked (because a single site gives your activity more exposure), and when you are hacked, you lose all your data, not just 1/6th.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
There's also a tradeoff between availability and the fact that many of Google services are simply an order of magnitude better (both in terms of functionality and user experience) than anything else out there. I happily use DropBox instead of GDrive for syncing files, but I'm yet to see an acceptable replacement for GMail.
- scholia 13y ago
  Outlook.com is an acceptable replacement for Gmail. Have you tried it recently? Most comparative reviews find Gmail slightly better, but there's very little in it. http://www.maximumpc.com/best_email_service_2013 http://www.maximumpc.com/best_email_service_2013 http://mashable.com/2012/08/14/outlook-vs-gmail/ http://mashable.com/2012/08/14/outlook-vs-gmail/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010598/gmail-vs-outlook-com-which-offers-the-best-email-in-the-cloud.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010598/gmail-vs-outlook-com-... http://lifehacker.com/5931621/outlook-vs-gmail-a-feature+by+feature-comparison http://lifehacker.com/5931621/outlook-vs-gmail-a-feature+by+...
  - Teckla 13y ago
    Outlook.com is an acceptable replacement for Gmail. It's not. I've tried for days to login to Outlook.com, and verification text messages aren't coming through. I finally had to start the email recovery procedure, which requires a mandatory 30 day waiting period. Sigh.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    I haven't; I'll check it out, out of curiosity.

scholia 13y ago

I think you greatly reduce your risk by spreading it around. There cases where people have had a single Google or Apple account compromised and lost everything. That wouldn't have happened if their stuff had been distributed... though you'd still be in trouble with an email account hack, because of password resets and passwords sent in plain text emails.

josephlord 13y ago
> I think you greatly reduce your risk by spreading it around. That only applies if loss of data/access to data is a greater problem for you than exposure of the data. Spreading it into multiple locations/services gives more choices for an attacker to breach to expose it and they only need to get into one of them.
- scholia 13y ago
  No. It's not the same data, it's about using different sites for different services. If you have six and one gets hacked, the other five are still secure. If you use the same site for everything, that probably increases the risk of being hacked (because a single site gives your activity more exposure), and when you are hacked, you lose all your data, not just 1/6th.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

There's also a tradeoff between availability and the fact that many of Google services are simply an order of magnitude better (both in terms of functionality and user experience) than anything else out there. I happily use DropBox instead of GDrive for syncing files, but I'm yet to see an acceptable replacement for GMail.

scholia 13y ago
Outlook.com is an acceptable replacement for Gmail. Have you tried it recently? Most comparative reviews find Gmail slightly better, but there's very little in it. http://www.maximumpc.com/best_email_service_2013 http://www.maximumpc.com/best_email_service_2013 http://mashable.com/2012/08/14/outlook-vs-gmail/ http://mashable.com/2012/08/14/outlook-vs-gmail/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010598/gmail-vs-outlook-com-which-offers-the-best-email-in-the-cloud.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2010598/gmail-vs-outlook-com-... http://lifehacker.com/5931621/outlook-vs-gmail-a-feature+by+feature-comparison http://lifehacker.com/5931621/outlook-vs-gmail-a-feature+by+...
- Teckla 13y ago
  Outlook.com is an acceptable replacement for Gmail. It's not. I've tried for days to login to Outlook.com, and verification text messages aren't coming through. I finally had to start the email recovery procedure, which requires a mandatory 30 day waiting period. Sigh.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  I haven't; I'll check it out, out of curiosity.