More free shackles!!! Yeah!!
Exactly. “Please store all your sensitive data on our free cloud storage. We won’t spy on it, promise, because we’re ‘Not Evil’.”
Huh? If you’re worried about Google spying on the data you’re storing on Nearline, couldn’t you just encrypt it?
So what’s the plan here? Get small/business in at an early stage and milk them once they’re big and have their entire infrastructure stuck on Google? These 10,000$ gifts need to be earned back somehow…
Sure, you could encrypt it, and that might be good enough, but you could also attempt to use services that aren’t trying to make selling your private data their business, and that have violated their users trust in the past, and have colluded in crimes with state intelligence organizations. I also wouldn’t want to store my encrypted data on NSA free cloud storage. [Side note: I respect people like Bill Benny’s sacrifices as a whistleblower. His testimony makes it clear stopping crime or terrorism wasn’t the goal of the NSA leadership, as they wanted to pick a bigger, expensive, non-useful, and invasive corporate solution to data gathering, even though they had a in-house non-invasive solution working already for a fraction of the cost, that protected the world’s privacy. See peace revolution podcast #87 for a great interview.]
We can sign up in this services and farm some safecoins??
“Nearline” don’t like the name any more than Sony’s “Near” or Tricare’s DEERs, something wrong in a tech context way too sloppy emotive, gross. There is a sound resonance in these product concepts, products with this kind of verbal music tend to fail- my observation not saying its been researched or anyone else agrees.
Also what are they saying with line? Is that like a telephone line or money with strings attached. Also normally giving away products seems so much better than trying to push with ads etc., but here it seems like a bribe. Also I hope businesses don’t take the bate. Amazon has some silly conflict of interest sponsorship nonsense in its retail store but its a better partner than firms that’s main business is search increasingly compromised by sell out sponsorship.
Also as someone who is an outsider its always curious to me that by now the cloud is really still thought of as a data storage repository and not a processing system. It may be that people still think in terms of latency but it seems strange to me that its just memory or really data base and not transactions per second or some other measure that is marketed. Since its IT pros they market too I guess it is storage that is the bottleneck. I guess the firms can do their processing onsite but store offsite?
What the business insider article fails to mention that the 100PB of “free” storage is only available for the first 6 months. After that, you pay just like anyone else.
I honestly wouldn’t mind storing my data on “NSA free cloud storage” as long as I encrypted everything myself before uploading it. Maybe that’s just me though.
Anyway, I find the frequent allegations of Google “selling your private data” to be overly dramatic at best, and outright lies and FUD at worst. Google doesn’t sell data, they sell ad space. They may use private data to make the ad space more valuable, but they don’t sell the data itself or reveal it to third parties. Also, pretty sure they don’t use data on their AWS-style cloud services for that purpose, which is what’s being described here.
The “colluded in crimes with state intelligence organizations” is probably true, and IMO is the real concern here. Can’t really blame Google specifically for that one though; when you’re a legitimate US company and a US government agency orders you to do something, you kind of have to comply. From a practical standpoint though that’s definitely a concern. Obviously that’s not just applicable to Google though; pretty much any company could be subject to monitoring or coercion by government entities. You can’t rely on others to handle your security if you want absolute privacy.
It’s not just selling ad space. They, along with other companies, were paid to give information on their users to the NSA.
I need to find another source for this info, but as the article above says, even though may be “ordered” to give data, they are still handsomely paid for that service. So, the order gives them cover, but they are selling your data to a fascist government (remember the definition is where the state is in partnership with corporations which help it accomplish its goals). I find most of their claims of benevolence and transparency hollow, and think that like facebook, you are not the customer but the product being sold. Maybe they are a helpless giant multinational corporation, but I tend to doubt that given what we know at this point (which they were not forthcoming about). I’m not singling Google out though, as I believe this is the case with a lot of large corporations, but that doesn’t get them off the hook. It really doesn’t look good. To each his own interpretation though.
P.S. Sorry for derailing this conversation slightly from the topic.
Well it’s not like Google can just turn them down. “Selling”, to me, implies that they have a choice.
Like I said though, regardless of whether they’re sharing the information willingly or not, your concerns are definitely valid.