Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Apr 2012 17:39 UTC
Permalink for comment 515566
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-06-20
Otherwise, an excellent alternative would be SpiderOak, the only one to do privacy right: all is encoded on your side.
https://spideroak.com/
And they like open-source: https://spideroak.com/code
Otherwise, I think you get it slightly wrong, Thom: professional paranoids like John Young, the guy who runs http://cryptome.org/, or security experts like Bruce Schneier ( http://www.schneier.com/ ) would tell you that even if the US laws where more lenient, even if Google was doing it fully as a non-profit, in fact even if you could find a safe country where to store your files with an organisation with high moral standards, it doesn't matter: never trust anybody to take care of your own security.
So yeah, you almost made the point by telling people to host their files themselves. But I will gladly use Google Drive, and you should too. They are just a convenient place to put your encrypted sensitive files.