3 ms·
Your claims: 1)"destroys the split between client/server that allows a diverse set of clients to exist" 2)"destroys the ability for clients to be versioned in
by narrowrail 12y ago
Your claims:
1)"destroys the split between client/server that allows a diverse set of clients to exist"
2)"destroys the ability for clients to be versioned independently of the server"
3)"destroys the ability for clients to manage data in a way that it can't be read/captured/stolen by the server"
In response:
1) One could create any number of clients to interact with backend software that they control.
2) No idea what you are talking about here; perhaps you can explain more specifically the problem. I don't think this matters. At all.
3) The whole idea is that the user controls the client and server so the data is supposed to be able to be read.
All in all, I'm curious what a solution to the privacy issue would look like that would satisfy your criteria. Any proposals?
- teacup50 12y ago> All in all, I'm curious what a solution to the privacy issue would look like that would satisfy your criteria. Any proposals? No server other than a gateway at the house. Peer-to-peer sync. If centralized servers are required, perhaps someday we'll have the keying/trust infrastructure necessary to deploy sandboxed code that can't be introspected externally, e.g., using Intel SGX.