The Fortune 1000 is not going to use SAFE, their culture won't support it

Title may be a bit strong but if I am not mistaken a group of people in the forum think there will be strong uptake for SAFE by large corporations.

Look at the NSA. It kept wanting us to use shorter encryption keys that it obviously could crack. It may have more viable quantum computers. It may be privy to breakthroughs in prime number theory. It seems to have a backdoor in every Windows system and hardware trojans built into standard hardware at the firmware level. Its been spying on all US domestic citizens with PRISM and if its anything like the Brit system its been listening to us through our smart phones even when they’re turned off. And it wouldn’t be surprising at all to learn that Face Book was just its effort to learn about everyone’s social connections, at least initially.

So that’s the NSA. But should we have been surprised when we learned that it used Chinese hardware to spy on the Chinese and that backfired (if it was another intelligence agency are we to presume the NSA was too smart for this, CIA head got burned over his own work email) or surprised that it used the private contractor (out sourced it seems to Italian firm) Hacker Team to help it spy on everyone and then it was learned that Hacker Team put in a back door that was compromised- spread around over possibly a long period of time. It seems as if the NSA has become a transparency virus. Notice how bitterly the US complains about the Chinese stealing US IP. That may be reference to trade secret losses. Well if the NSA had a backdoor to everything but was itself backdoor(ed) and its private keys to everything were spread around through the use of that back door or something like that- kind of like MS losing its source code prior to Vista but so, so much worse and maybe through such back doors- then it seems the NSA likes to have access to everything but is otherwise very careless and doesn’t care much about who gets hurt, it just wants access at all costs.

When this stuff about capitulating tech firms started to get out made Microsoft made a very bold well done commercial video saying it would never fall prey to this stuff and would fight back vigorously in every way. And a little while later in its EULA we have MS seeming to admit that its been this stuff since at least Win 7 but we are supposed to ignore it because they will give you Win 10 for free and MS is getting more open source friendly? Apple seems to have fared possibly slightly better. But in general these firms roll over for the government’s constant audit. The US, UK, now Australia- its the preemptive war states.

To do otherwise with states that believe in preemptive war (and by implication terror- drone strikes etc.) is to incur the wrath of the government and probably lose government contracts and lose revolving door connections and maybe even lose lobbying power. Its still sort of strange, if we have the best government money can buy and its ruled by money (not sustainable) why would the Fortune 1000 spy on itself? Is this government that isn’t completely puppetized? No its simply the kind of power corporate players think they are entitled to and when they go through the revolving door they think they can demand it. The Fortune 1000 are monopoly or oligopoly players in their home markets, and they can lose that status if they annoy their domestic government in the wrong way.

But its this kind of limited response potential that makes it seems like the corporate world’s days are numbered. Let me apologize for everything I was totally wrong about or clueless about in advance. All I am saying is the notion that the Fortune 1000 would use or want to use a truly secure network even for misdeeds seems like utter rubbish on it its face. They are even more broken than entities like the NSA with its total access zero accountability approach. At least with the NSA its environment of circular national security claims to prevent discussion understandably led to its lopsided approach. Corporations only care about profit for their disconnected rent seekers, if the issue isn’t in their puppet media it doesn’t exist and can’t be addressed so they think its not their problem and they don’t care about it. The NSA’s problem only mattered when it somehow got covered by the puppet media (infighting or bits of functional net working,) but we still have at least half the Patriot Act and apparent back doors in Windows continues etc.

The NSA has a we’re watching you so we can black mail you effect. According to Richard David Steele all US intelligence despite employing as many people as Walmart has something like a 1% or less effectiveness or return rate on investment. The results get put into a magazine that a President may read or may not. But corporations if they can get access to that blackmail data can keep their people in line and subordinate and maybe with all the back doors the NSA possibly left laying around they’ve had access. They won’t use SAFE it would be against the core of their culture. Again, sorry if I am fool and I have no clue what I am talking about on the intelligence side, I am still pretty sure I am right about the corporates. For instance, unsanctioned tax evasion is total delusion, not enabled by stuff like SAFE, it won’t be revving up the Cayman islands. They won’t use SAFE coin either, they will use the standard the 9 major global banks are developing out of bit coin so they can help support negative interest theft and other corporate culture friendly approaches. Remember, gov is the top of the power greed scale in their mind, they don’t defy it.

Seems like your arguement fails to explain why corporations will not want to use SAFE.

You assume that there is such thing a unified “core corporate culture” and that all companies adhere to such. That is totally silly. Companies do all kinds of things in all kinds of ways, and very little of their decision making has anything to do with politics or anything of that nature… They don’t care about preseving the Status Quo or anything like that – If they can break the status quo to the detriment of their competition, they will do it, nearly every chance they get – The only unified core value is that they want to provide their customers with services in the most economical and efficient manner possible. That’s it…

Currently there is no way to store customer data securely. They are getting hacked left and right, and the only good solution on the way is SAFE. They are not going to ignore the cheapest, most effective solution to a problem that is costing them billions and billions of dollars, just to go along with some political agenda someplace. If they continue to fail because they are too stubborn to use SAFE they will soon lose customers to their competition that is less stubborn and successfully defends customer data.

Corporations use Linux. They Use Apache. They use PGP. Many companies contribute big to open source projects. Corporations in general are not beholden to IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle or anyone else – they use what they find that works. Corporations are going to use SAFE and similar technologies because they don’t want to be Sony.

The government is not going to threaten corporations for using SAFE. Remember the corporations are the puppeteers of the government, not vice versa.

Commercial entities do not want to have their secrets in the hands of Microsoft or Google any more than anyone else does – Many of them have corporate rivalries with such parties. Corporate Spying is a bigger risk for most of them the government spying. They don’t want to pay rent to the big techs any more than you or I do – If there is a secure alternative that is free and doesn’t require anyone’s permission to use nor require disclosure to anyone that you are using it -it will be used.

The NSA will not know what corporations are using SAFE any more than they can know what other individuals are using SAFE.

I might also remind you that once it is implemented. SAFE will be politically agnostic. The NSA can use it. The IRS can use it. The KKK can use it. The Communist Party can use it. Microsoft can use it. The Koch bros can use it. The Sanders campaign can use it… The network will not know, it will not care, and it will not discriminate, and it will not tattle.



You may be suprised, for companies mostly it comes down to cost. What happens if some of your competitors are using the low cost data storage mechanism that Maidsafe is offering and that it has been shown over years to be reliable similar to Skype.

I am sure when skype started, it looked at with some trepidation e.t.c maybe not at the level that safenetwork may experience but the concept is similar. I would just want the safenetwork to be the Amazon for the poor and privacy centric individuals, as time goes by, other functionality will creep in and bring more people on board.

Most don’t care about TCP/IP or other protocols, why should safe be any different if it provides what you want…


Sony got hacked from the inside. Corporations are run by people who hate them (think pension rip offs) and hacked by the same people. They are nominally run by the bricks at the top who think things like: don’t own a computer don’t turn it on, don’t use it, leave it at that.

So you think they would get hacked if their data was on SAFE?

I don’t think so. It is easy to hack a machine where you can get Admin privileges to or where you have physical access to the machine. Neither are likely to exist on SAFE. It is also easy to steal data that is rather unsecured (Which is quite common, but it doesn’t need to be if tech like SAFE is around)

Data doesn’t exist unless you know it exists in SAFE. That is kinda magic. It is also nicely subpoena resistant, which is a great thing for folks like Hillary Clinton.


I can see that smart flat highly automated cooperatives might take up SAFE very quickly. The silicon cooperatives composed of conservatives who quit their 300k per year jobs to work with their friends because the corporate world (the very best that it offers at that) was too constraining at that and they are now accidentally practicing core Marxism, yes I think they pick it up quickly. Sure or maybe firms like Juniper Networks, maybe IBM as its developing Adept. But I think for the corporate world outside of their limited MIS bubble its like Harvard Business Journal editor Nicholas Carr’s famous article that got Microsoft all pissed off: “IT Doesn’t Matter.” They don’t want to hear about stuff like iCEO that’s going to deflate their bubble. They don’t like IT, they don’t trust it and they don’t know much about it. Its a good sign. It means a swarm of people empowering little piranha organizations will eat them up. Bad for blue chip dependent stock markets but good for the world.

The big corporations will be very slow to adopt the SAFE network (or similar network) but when it has reached a critical mass and become huge through the network effect, then even the big companies will start using it.

And because of the Law of Accelerating Returns, a critical mass can be reached quickly. When the World Wide Web was invented, there were mostly static webpages available. Today large amounts of software and information systems have been developed for the internet. And much of that software will be possible to use on the SAFE network. So instead of having to invent the wheel again so to speak the SAFE network will include functionality on a higher level than in the early days of the World Wide Web.

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).

We can organize these observations into what I call the law of accelerating returns as follows:

  • Evolution applies positive feedback in that the more capable methods resulting from one stage of evolutionary progress are used to create the next stage. As a result, the

  • rate of progress of an evolutionary process increases exponentially over time. Over time, the “order” of the information embedded in the evolutionary process (i.e., the measure of how well the information fits a purpose, which in evolution is survival) increases.

  • A correlate of the above observation is that the “returns” of an evolutionary process (e.g., the speed, cost-effectiveness, or overall “power” of a process) increase exponentially over time.

  • In another positive feedback loop, as a particular evolutionary process (e.g., computation) becomes more effective (e.g., cost effective), greater resources are deployed toward the further progress of that process. This results in a second level of exponential growth (i.e., the rate of exponential growth itself grows exponentially).

  • Biological evolution is one such evolutionary process.

  • Technological evolution is another such evolutionary process. Indeed, the emergence of the first technology creating species resulted in the new evolutionary process of technology. Therefore, technological evolution is an outgrowth of–and a continuation of–biological evolution.

  • A specific paradigm (a method or approach to solving a problem, e.g., shrinking transistors on an integrated circuit as an approach to making more powerful computers) provides exponential growth until the method exhausts its potential. When this happens, a paradigm shift (i.e., a fundamental change in the approach) occurs, which enables exponential growth to continue." –


I am not faulting SAFE in anyway but yes I think corporations are so hopeless at this point that even this unbelievably brilliant tech won’t be able to protect them. Even if Sony had SAFE I think they still go down for a fourth time. This is because they undermine the people who make them work and then try to just power through that situation with dirt. They are actually run by people up to their eye balls in debt and bill and who face a corporation that wants more and more of their time for less and less pay and at some point they don’t care about being able to get another job or dirt and they snap. The people at the top of the MIS chain can’t run the company by themselves its what they spend all their time trying to avoid. And every big company is looking more and more like Enron. Look at this article from 96 about GM’s Lopez, an exec who ran off with GM’s plans and gave them to Volkswagon
SAFE won’t protect from that.

@warren, You have an inaccurate picture in your head of all things corporate.

You firmly believe what you believe, but the truth is you are absolutely prejudiced and your interpretation. Its almost like a racism thing with you. You believe the worst and won’t even allow a shadow of a doubt to be given an ounce of respect.

Yes, every company does have some degree of “Office Space” going on, but no companies are really "Initec’ That is a hyperbole exaggeration where everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Even in the government, non profit and co-operative sectors, Office space rings just as true.

I work in IT. Based on real world experience, and no academic hypothesis, I foresee that incumbent companies will be slow to make the choice to jump to SAFE. I suspect a lot of Software will be written with SAFE as the backend… (For things like mobile apps – Bitcoin Wallets etc) Once those technologies are proven, Other more mainstream software vendors (Think Point of Sale vendors etc) will see it as an excelent alternative to the lawsuits and rampant breaches, and some of the incumbents in those fields will follow suit.

New companies will start to use SAFE like small companies use Gmail or Google Docs. A good way to have a IT infrastructure without dedicated staff or big equipment outlays.

Once companies are running on SAFE and the SAFE community is big enough that there are plenty of “experts” at it, the bigger companies will start to take a look at the infrastructure level. I suspect they will already be “in” in a way because the software developers will jump first, and many companies will already be running some software that has SAFE on the backend. (Probably for stuff like storing credit cards etc)

So in the long run, it will probably be 10 or more years before companies start “Ditching oracle and moving everything to SAFE” But SAFE will creep in via lots of other smaller ways…


I had the same number in my mind. I agree with that 100%. I think it takes the blue chips a decade to start the move. Take MS, you could use SAFE there but the management would be making sure the NSA key loggers were working so what’s the point. They are actually transparent now as are their customers because of them but we aren’t supposed to talk about it.

@anders what you are saying highlights just how damaging this decade long uptake that jreighly and I seem to see for the big firms will be. But for me unlike jreighly I don’t think even SAFE can save them, they die at the hands of smaller more agile firms that have figured out how to genuinely value and empower their people. When I think of the impact 4chan has made in the world and then realized it’s had only one admin for the past 13 years who started at age 15 it seems clear that the future for these small organizations is super bright. That admin got some help but its still a small crew.

The decentralization will surely be disrupting for many big corporations. But I’m actually a great fan of big corporations like Google in a certain way (not the centralization but the impressive technology). And I predict they will last a long time because they can use both their size and the new decentralization. Crowdsourcing is still in it’s infancy, although we will probably see an exponential acceleration in that too. So we will see what happens.


I think they will go where the people are, simply as that, A billion people using the safe network in years to come because of events of privacy and security are continued to be breached, people will start to look for alternatives and companies will follow the money. The safe network will be a fortune 1000 as everyone will be a shareholder of safe coin “shares”.


I haven’t been in that group.
Some could use it, but if you’re an IT decider who’s got things working as is, why would you “sell” the idea to the beard?
Most can’t even consider it because data would be sent abroad which governments have banned in order to protect customers/users (lol).

I don’t see the culture playing a big part in this, it’s mostly because of governments, secondly because of the risk (known risks are probably deemed to be small, but unknown are orders of magnitude higher vs. the traditional on-premise approach). Do nothing is a wise approach for those guys.


As for governments and their increasingly totalitarian stance even in some ways against corporations, well that to comes from corporate culture from unaacountable entitled business leaders. Corporate types in government see themselves as the over corporation, hence the NSA total back door policy.

If the Fortune 1000 won’t use SAFE, it will be goodbye Fortune 1000 because they will be left behind in their old outdated paradigm. They will become dinosaurs. In fact many of them are already dinosaurs in my humble opinion. They will have to either adapt to the new, or die out with the old.

1 Like

Maybe you missed this topic below which claims that anyone who copies customers’ private data outside of the EU could get in trouble legally. The EU nanny statists just mandated that companies operating in the EU have to stick to the old outdated paradigm.

Thanks for the link janitor, I’ll have a read.

Just off the top of my head, how would the ‘centralised authorities’ know where they were storing their data if they used SAFE? I guess they would have to ban them from using SAFE. But then how would they know they were even using SAFE to store their data? They wouldn’t be able to prove where the data was stored becuase nobody would know. They wouldn’t be able to prove their data was stored across borders.

Well the nanny state system is so designed that they don’t have to prove that data is actually stored anywhere.
In a totalitarian system anything that’s not explicitly allowed is forbidden, so there is a risk that as a SAFE user you may be required to show that you did not store data abroad. I think with SAFE one can’t prove that he didn’t make copies of data outside of the EU (in fact the application is specifically designed to ensure that you do make copies in distant places.)

As a corporate officer you can’t use any technology without telling the board and being legally responsible for your decision.
Some small time company can put their backups on SAFE and in all likelihood noone will know (although they might still be in violation). But that’s not how public companies work.


Well, if that’s the case they would never manage to enforce it. They would have to audit every single user of SAFE, which would be ridiculously expensive and practically impossible to administer, so to them I say - good luck with that!

1 Like

You just need to audit those Fortune 1000 companies. In fact, they must audit themselves. Anyone found lying gets fired or worse.

1 Like