Slashdot Mirror
Google's Gdrive Raises Instant Privacy Concerns
An anonymous reader writes "The rumor mill is already raging over the potential functionality and capacity for Google's online storage service we talked about earlier this week (the company says 'it makes sense' to put all its Web apps under the same umbrella). But Internet rights advocates are now crying foul over liability issues, a probable lack of encryption and a cash-cow model that could scan all your personal data for advertising keywords. From the article: "'Google would be wise to offer users an option to encrypt your information,' says Nimrod Kozlovski, a professor of Internet law at Tel Aviv University. 'It really needs to have really detailed explanations of what the legal expectations are for storing your info.'""
You have the choice to:
Seriously, the issues raised are the same as with the other on-line storage services. And, this move by Google mostly integrates/consolidates what they already offer, albeit with the extension of storing any kind of data. I think it's great, I've started storing much of my data on line in various forums and I love the internet access. At your parents house and need a file? Download from the clouds. Got a special inside track on a new job and they need your resume, quick? From the clouds. Serenity now!
If you've got data you think sensitive, encrypt it, or figure out a different way to store it. Personally, from anecdotal, but plentiful, observation, those who store their data "in"/on the internet:
As for the screaming about Google figuring out a way to make money doing this, hwah? Kind of what running a company is about. And the more money they figure out how to make by ads makes the price point that much less for you and me, or anyone willing to trust Google. For the moment, I am. I'm assuming I'll get enough warning signs to not trust them, I'll move my data elsewhere. For now, good for Google.
This isn't new, just big. And, from a personal standpoint, I hope it's one more ding in Microsoft's armor. The more there are alternatives to data locked up in Microsoft's products, the better chances of real competition, and ultimately progress (finally!) in technology. (sorry, had to dig... this is slashdot, right?)
First off, if you're that concerned about your data being secure, you probably should just store it on a personal webserver and encrypt it yourself.
That being said, I really don't see this as a major concern for Google in relation to the success of Gdrive. A large percentage of people today really don't care about whether or not their personal data is scanned an analyzed, as proven by the information people list on social networking sites like facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc.
So the real question here is whether or not Google (and the small percentage of users that would use encryption) would benefit enough from this feature to offset the time needed to develop it and the hassles that will come along with it. I think that alot of the users wont realize that if Google encrypts their data with the password that the users provide, then there will no longer be that friendly "Forgot your password? Let us reset it for you." button. People will then be constantly complaining that they can no longer access their data if they forgot their password and had it reset (Because the data is encrypted based on their old password obviously). The only way that Google would be able to recover that data for the user is a.) by brute forcing it, or b.) by using precomputed hashes in a rainbow table format (though something tells me that Google is smart enough to use salts and this wouldn't be an option). Realistically, even Google doesn't have the resources to go around brute forcing people's passwords. This means the only real way that Google could encrypt the data would be to store their passwords as plaintext in case the user forgot it, which is really just providing security as the cost of losing alot more security. All in all I don't see the process being beneficial for Google or the users.
Because that's not useful. If they encrypt your data for you, guess what? They have the key! If you want your data safe from them, YOU need to encrypt it. That's just how it works. If you send your data in the clear to someone else and then they encrypt it for you, that means they can get at your data. Same deal is you send them data and the encryption key as well (see AACS). The only way to give it to them, but not let them at it is for you to encrypt it yourself, and to not give them the key. Then and only then can you be assured that while they have a copy, they can't read it.
Seriously people, get Truecrypt, it isn't hard.
At least let Google say something on their plans first...?
...). Software may send usage information to some company's servers. Game companies analyze your system to detect cheats, and could in the process find a lot of other things on it.
Besides, what's so special even if they'd do this? It's the norm to not encrypt mails. It's the norm to not encrypt instant messages on servers on services that provide offline messaging (Messenger, ICQ,
As usual, when this is released, I think *gasp* that the users will just have to decide for themselves if they care for having encryption or not. They'll also be free to encrypt their data. Why the rumor mill? Just chill and take it for what it is, as with any other service. It's not like Google will force you onto it. Then I could see the fearmongering kicking in early be more motivated.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Disclaimer: I don't see myself being an early adopter or anything of this service, but not because of privacy.
cash-cow model that could scan all your personal data for advertising keywords
What, like the "disaster" that Gmail is? I'm all for Internet privacy, but get some perspective. I trust this service in the hands of Google. They've done nothing to shake that trust, and to be frankly I have good faith that they won't. They're a data miner, sure, but they have always done in the least intrusive way as possible. Get this, I even like their ads sometimes! I know, unbelievable right! So thanks for being watchdogs and all, but as of right now, Google has my trust.
I got a catholic block.
#1 - Everything on the internet is not free. Actually, nothing is truly free - there's a cost SOMEWHERE. #2 - You do not have to use G So stop getting your panties in a wad. Just because YOU don't like the idea of it, doesn't mean some of us couldn't care less and like the idea of free storage. Everyone acts like GMail is the only mail system out there or that they are being forced to use it. Don't like the ads? Don't like that Google might read your mail? DON'T USE IT. You have plenty of choices out there - it's not Google's responsiblity to provide you with free anything. Get over yourselves.
Use truecrypt. Open, GPL, quick and easy.
.
When it comes to GDrive, I wonder whether anyone is being forced to use it. I doubt this is the case. If this is not the case, why not just avoid it? Shhesh?
It's a free service, some will find it useful, some won't. I mean, what kind of nimrod would expect his data to be 100% perfectly private and encrypted if he's outsourcing his data retention to someone else, and then question the company storing his data for, um, storing his data in the form he transmitted it? I just don't get the OMFGism.
Simple, don't use it. Seriously, google aren't in the business of simply giving stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts. They're giving things away because they think that they can generate revenue. Pretty much the only thing they get for storing your data "for free" is the data itself.
Just like your emails: you pay them by giving data so that they can search it advertise to you. Why would anyone think that they would do anything else with more of your data.
If you are sufficiently naive to think that a company will simply give you free online storage for no benefit to themselves, than I have a bridge to sell you. Lots of traffic, one careful owner...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Maybe I'm just completely mising your point, but:
This is patently wrong. Why can't I supply them with a public key that they use to encrypt,
Because if they are doing the encryption then they have the plaintext.
They store two copies, the text that they encrypt and allow you to read, and the plaintext that they mine for info.
Actually, Nimrod is a fairly common Israeli name. It's from the Bible.
This is idiotic. Seriously. The "product" in question is a rumor. No details are confirmed about how it will work, what advertising hooks there will be, what features it will have, or whether it will ever see the light of day. You know what criticizing it at this point makes you? Not an analyst, not an expert, not a technologist. It makes you a guy with a guess and a blog.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Do they write these articles from scratch or do they have a program that just generates them from a template whenever Google makes an announcement?
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Granted Google has not yet shown us they're capacity for evil (tm) the way M$ has over the years but give them a chance... they're still young. Bottom line is that the same arguments I've seen here for why it's not a big deal (ex. do this, do that or don't use them) are the very ones used for why M$'s monopoly is not so bad (ex. use Linux, do this, do that) Problem is M$'s stanglehold at this time makes those options less "adaptable" for the masses. If we knew then what we know now we would have prevent M$ from even getting there.
But Google can do no evil, right, therefore despite this company being at that very point where we can do something before the ignorant masses consume their products in such quantities to the point where, like M$, change is difficult, we shouldn't worry about the same thing happening here, right? Yeah... right. Unfortunatley I see another monopoly coming but this time on personal information products which may not restrict our freedom of choice in the same sense as the M$ one does (eg. our ability to choose alternate technologies) but will be so valuable and so entrenched in everything that it'll be just as difficult to move away from.
We realistically could see most people, companies and even the governments depending on Google the way we did on Blackberries. It took the RIM injunction scare of 2006 to open some eyes up since even emergency services were depending on Blackberries (sigh.) Think beyond this on Google product, their 700MHz band bidding and every isolated move they've made in the past 5 years or so. Look at all of it holistically and as much as I like them and their products I don't like where it potentially leaves us in the future.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
Would that be called the "G-Spot"?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Whats the point of having Google encrypt and decrypt your info? They'll have to turn it over, decrypted, if served with papers. And wouldn't release it otherwise.
Encryption has to happen client-side.
I don't know who these supposed "privacy advocates" are, but as far as I'm concerned they can go f**k themselves. If they don't trust their data on Google's servers, then don't use the service. END OF DISCUSSION.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
When Google provides a Linux filesystem (either native or via FUSE), people can use eCryptfs to prevent Google from reading the contents of their files. eCryptfs stacks on top of other filesystems and encrypts the data.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
zzzz..*snort* roomba!...zzzzzzzzz *dreams of capresso* Back OT: I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. But, that doesn't mean it's not a useful service and that I won't use it. I'll just stash my bank records somewhere else. See? simple!
Well hell, with a name like "Anonymous Coward" I can see why you would get picked on. My name got its share of yuks, especially since I wore coke bottle glasses* "Oh, mcgrew, you've done it again!"
But I really felt sorry for another kid in class, Charlie Salmon.
-mcgrew
* Coke bottles used to be made of very thick glass back before the stone age. Mr. Magoo was a nearaly blind cartoon character who was too vain to wear his glasses and unwittingly did good in every episode. Yes, I'm a geezer. I see they brought Charlie Tuna back.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You can just use any obsolete archiver if you don't want Google scanning your data. Sure, they could write a module to unzip your files, but are they going to bother with LHarc and .ZOO files?
This same paranoia came up when GMail came out. People all freaked out that Google was reading their mails to match up ads.
I don't have GMail. I pay for a service (*) rather than look at ads.
But you know what, I still let my e-mail provider read all my mails. How else does anyone think that spam filters work? You can't filter out spam without reading the e-mails.
It's not like Eric Schmidt is there reading each message looking for the good ones.
* service = fastmail.fm I highly recommend them.
There already exist drive in the sky web services. I suspect Google's gdrive is only a me-too comparable service. If we're so paranoid (which I probably am), then the game is already won by the bad guys. Case in point, over the last year, I have needed to wipe my hard drive clean four times because something went awry, just unexplicable things like network services starting to do strange things. No virus check found anything. With the guise of a Microsoft update, my computer can be surreptitiously surrendering all kinds of information against my will, we don't need a gdrive for that, it's already possible and more than likely happening to almost all who use Windows.
I can think of a few fixes but it's probably not going to be something that will happen fast or without a fight.
Does no-one else observe the futility of griping about a product that does not exist yet? Let's see what they come up with before gathering the pitchforks and torches. -ellie
You can ignore it. It's the same advice you gave.
If there's a privacy problem, Google is not likely to tell you about it. Not everyone in the world is aware of problems with the privacy of their data. "Advocates" are the people who warn other people about those problems. Everyone should make their own informed decisions. It is ridiculous to think every possible user of GDrive would know the possible issues with it.
That's assuming the problems will actually exist, which I'm not convinced of yet.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.