Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Dec 2009 23:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 398762
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 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links




Member since:
2006-02-15
The whole idea of storing my files on a remote server, with high capacity, various protective measures and all the things that I can't afford at home makes it quite compelling and reasonable. There is just simply no way I can make something even half as durable and secure as the Google servers are.
However, there's still several reasons why I don't store my files out there somewhere; because I have no idea and no assurances of the files actually being gone when I delete them, it would takes ages to download or upload all the stuff I wish to backup, and most importantly, I don't trust people I don't know; there is ALWAYS bound to be someone working there that likes to sifle through my files, go through my personal photos and so on. The only way I could prevent that would be to encrypt all my files beforehand, but then I wouldn't be able to use the files until I unencrypt them again.
I just like to think that giving full control of and access to all of my digital belongings, without me being able to control him/her/them, is too risky.