3 ms·

The main problem is that of data ownership (which implies, having the data local, and processing it locally). Subsidiarily, having control over one own data se

The main problem is that of data ownership (which implies, having the data local, and processing it locally). Subsidiarily, having control over one own data sets, means that you can process them with various tools, and therefore that those data sets are independent from the tools. (I'm pointing the finger at you, iOS and Android). How this data is refered to, organized, and stored is irrelevant. The classic notions of file, hierachical directory, file systems are very useful and practical, because they promote full data set ownership and processability by user controled programs. Other kinds of systems may provide other notions (such as that of catalogs of objects, in capability based operating systems). But as long as the user has control over his own data, and can process it orthogonaly with his own programs, it doesn't matter much how it's stored. The problem indeed is when corporations lure users into giving up control of their data and processing with convenience. Users should be better educated. https://my.fsf.org/donate/ https://my.fsf.org/donate/ Oh, and developer should also try to provide convenience while preserving user ownership and control. (Unfortunately, it's very hard to do on platforms like iOS and Android, notably thru their app stores).

motters 12y ago
I think "data ownership" needs to be highlighted more prominently as a feature. I think it's a critical battle and that loss of ownership - as we can already see - leads to a lot of negative consequences for the user.
sseveran 12y ago
In my experience users don't want to be educated, they want software that just works and is easy to use. They want transparent access to their documents wherever they are on any device without thinking about it. So to achieve this goal users want a piece of software (Drive,iCloud,Dropbox,etc...) to manage their data for them.
wtbob 12y ago
> The main problem is that of data ownership (which implies, having the data local, and processing it locally). I think that your concept of data ownership can be broken down into two related but independent concepts: access and control. Access means the ability to read; control means the ability to delete. Right now, if I upload content to almost any cloud provider I give access and control of my data to that provider: using G+ gives Google the ability to view every photo I upload, and to delete them all at a whim. In a hypothetical cloud provider which enabled me to encrypt data locally, they would have no access to my data, but would still be able to delete it. I would actually like the ability to grant control over a copy of my data without granting access to it; the two should be independent. I've had a vague idea for some time of system which enabled me to store encrypted data and share the keys with my friends but not with the storage provider. There's been some interesting work in indexing encrypted data which could be pertinent to this, enabling a storage provider to offer search capability while still being unable to read the data itself.

motters 12y ago

I think "data ownership" needs to be highlighted more prominently as a feature. I think it's a critical battle and that loss of ownership - as we can already see - leads to a lot of negative consequences for the user.

sseveran 12y ago

In my experience users don't want to be educated, they want software that just works and is easy to use. They want transparent access to their documents wherever they are on any device without thinking about it. So to achieve this goal users want a piece of software (Drive,iCloud,Dropbox,etc...) to manage their data for them.

wtbob 12y ago

> The main problem is that of data ownership (which implies, having the data local, and processing it locally). I think that your concept of data ownership can be broken down into two related but independent concepts: access and control. Access means the ability to read; control means the ability to delete. Right now, if I upload content to almost any cloud provider I give access and control of my data to that provider: using G+ gives Google the ability to view every photo I upload, and to delete them all at a whim. In a hypothetical cloud provider which enabled me to encrypt data locally, they would have no access to my data, but would still be able to delete it. I would actually like the ability to grant control over a copy of my data without granting access to it; the two should be independent. I've had a vague idea for some time of system which enabled me to store encrypted data and share the keys with my friends but not with the storage provider. There's been some interesting work in indexing encrypted data which could be pertinent to this, enabling a storage provider to offer search capability while still being unable to read the data itself.