Re: On privacy and cloud services

Self hosted also leads risk of data loss; few people have data mirrors set
up. No data loss has to be a key feature, as well. Would it be possible to
keep people's data in encrypted chunks on other servers and laptops ?

For me; I would want to know whenever people accessed my information
whether I know them or not. Is there a way to create audit trails with ISP
locations on them?


Am I the only person that thinks that developing a rubric for developing
public access to non-identity related aggregate data could be huge?
Clearly, a lot of conversation would have to be had.


Darrell





On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl>wrote:

> Dnia piątek, 14 czerwca 2013 o 18:40:18 Blaise Alleyne napisał(a):
> > On 13-06-14 11:45 AM, Daniel Smith wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
> > >> On 13-06-10 09:20 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > >>> On 13-06-10 05:27 AM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> > >>>> <rant> I am just afraid that we do not have anything to offer
> instead
> > >>>> of the centralised, surveilled services. All we have is a myriad of
> > >>>> incompatible protocols. </rant>
> > >>>
> > >>> Setting up a social server for your family and friends on a server
> > >>> you control is a step in the right direction.
> > >>
> > >> I find this actually more challenging that it sounds. [...] for
> > >> social networking with any aspect of private data... beyond say my
> > >> wife and maybe my parents, most family members and friends are
> > >> probably more comfortable with the NSA having full access to their
> > >> data then with someone in their own social circle.
> > >>
> > >> It's not that they don't trust me, but very few family members or
> > >> friends what to share *all* their information with me. There's
> > >> going to be some things that they want to keep private, and I will
> > >> not always be the intended audience. [...]
> > >
> > > Yes, Blaise, but that's the fascinating thing about these concepts.
> > > If you added up all the ignorance or missing part of reality in
> people's
> > > perceptions...
> > >
> > > :) [...]
> >
> > Well, more awareness might make people value their privacy from
> > government/corporate surveillance more, but it doesn't eliminate the need
> > for healthy privacy between family/friends as well. I think it would add
> > weight to the "remote" privacy concern, maybe even tip the balance, but
> it
> > doesn't negate the "local" privacy concerns.
> >
> > Something like end-to-end encryption with client-side keys could, but
> > that's complicated and burdensome...
> >
> > It's not a dealbreaker. But it is another hurdle that I've been coming to
> > notice more and more. Just because you value your privacy from
> > government/corporate surveillance, doesn't mean that you want to share
> > *everything* with your good sysadmin friend -- that's a challenge for
> > hosting private data for people to you know.
>
> Yes, but hosting the data with your sysadmin friend (at least for me) is a
> lot
> more comfortable than using corporate walled garden.
>
> Also, as I have pointed out earlier, the Right Way to solve it finally is
> self-hosted peer-to-peer, completely decentralised, federated, encrypted
> social network. Like RetroShare or Sneer.
>
> But they are years away from being useful, still. So we need this top-gap
> measure of semi-centralised solutions (like Friendica, Diaspora, etc), so
> that
> people use them and have their data at least partly accessible and
> exportable,
> not completely locked-down in walled-gardens.
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam
> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>
> Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania
>