Slashdot Mirror
Google Unofficially Announces GDrive By Leaked Code
An anonymous reader writes "Google has unofficially announced the GDrive by source code. In an in-direct way, Google has publicly advertised the new, much-anticipated online storage drive called the GDrive. If you take a look at the source code of some javascript within the Google Pack, you will clearly see the GDrive referenced. The code categorizes the GDrive as an 'Online file backup and storage' device. It also provides the following descriptions; 'GDrive provides reliable storage for all of your files, including photos, music and documents' and 'GDrive allows you to access your files from anywhere, anytime, and from any device — be it from your desktop, web browser or cellular phone.'"
Seriously, who didn't see this coming at least four years ago? I'm glad it's finally closer to "official" but really, not a surprise in the slightest.
put the what in the where?
This market place is already saturated with companies like box.net, dropbox, mozy, amazon s3, xdrive, pocketque and many others. What is interesting about GDrive, other then it'll search through my data to mine advertising opportunities?
Better be a massive amount of free online storage. What is the online storage to privacy exchange rate anyway?
Exactly. I'll be curious to see the google analytic stats on what these drives are actually used for. Taking bets on the percentage that is porn, my guess is 80%.
Anyone else at least on notice that Google is looking to know not only all of the sites we visit with google analytics and chrome, all of the videos we watch on google video and correlate this with our gmail/video logins, but also get statistics on data that we store.
Not that they are necessarily going to do anything nefarious with it. But it's a lot of data that, if someone had access to and was inclined to mine, could yield an unnerving amount of information about an individual who heavily uses Google products.
I think I'm gonna change the drop box on my browser to Yahoo! for a while. Need to spread the love.
Have a backup. Just like with any storage.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
You can say that with any online backup who's server you don't own. That being said, I don't think it will be marketed towards that but a more personal backup that you can access anywhere. Loosing a few gb of music won't kill you for example. Also, stuff like documents which aren't critical where you forgot your thump drive can be uploaded to it. All in all, it's beats not having the options in the first place. How useful it is depends on the user, I know I would love to upload my documents or whatever that I prefer not to delete but it wouldn't kill me if it was gone.
That being said, if it was so important, having more than one backup is always good idea wherever you backup to. (It's up to you whether google's track record is good enough for gdrive as your 2nd/3rd/etc... backup choice)
Only debug code.
I'd guess the code must be commented out since the service in question doesn't exist. So if this code were to try to connect to it, it would hang. Right?
So it's non-executing code. Which means that maybe it's a leftover from some meeting where they thought they would offer this service but changed their minds since then.
How many times have you been fooled by reading outdated comments?
Believe it when it launches. Inferring Google's direction from reading code comments is clever, but perhaps a bit too clever.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What do you mean 'when'? Google has already openly stated that mining is part of their business model for GMail.. Why would GDrive be any different. If I was to use it, I think I would take ten minutes to write a script that encrypts the files first. I'd even go so far as to mangle the filenames and keep track of the original names locally. With that in mind, what the heck, GDrive could be good for small uses here and there if it's free.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
My MP3 collection and some digital photos I don't wnat to lose isn't like some secret, private data I'm terrified they will analyze.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Well that sucks for Google.
No, at no time whatsoever will you ever have access to the files you store on gdrive. In fact, gdrive is really just a counter attached to /dev/null
Will it have backup abilities? WTF? You either uploaded a file to it, thus implying you had access to it, enabling you to back it up. Or you can download the file from it, thus implying you have access to it, enabling you to back it up.
Google isn't a new company. They've been around a while and have a positive track record. They're fairly transparent. Microsoft and Apple have had fairly negative track records for ages.
Please explain to me your assumption that Google will change against all reason their company strategy to emulate their competitors that they constantly try to differentiate themselves from?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
agreed, but this will most likely be connected to some *cough cloud* form on online computing. will it have backup abilities ?
No, backups are your job.
Just don't delete the stuff you upload.
You need to have the files on your computer First before you can store them on gdrive anyway. They are already there.
The act of spending no energy, and doing nothing, in that case gives you your backup.
The act of spending energy, time, resources, and thought on deleting your copies afterwards, is not just a waste but will put you in a bad situation when something happens to gdrive (or where ever you stored the copy at)
And if you DON'T have the files already on your computer, then you dont need to be worrying about uploading them to anywhere :}
More information about you? Plus, they can.
The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency...
I think you mean "the only time we know about...". Under the PATRIOT act it's entirely possible that Google has handed over lots of data to the US government but has been instructed that they're not allowed to tell anyone about it.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
I have no reason to suspect Google would not do precisely that, if ordered to by the courts (after the inevitable, expensive appeals are finally exhausted). Much as I like cyberpunk sci-fi, I don't see Google declaring itself an extraterritorial sovereign entity no longer subject to national laws any time soon...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Then how do you suppose that email sent to user@gmail.com gets to the Google account? Someone just kindly forwards it?
It would become public knowledge the moment that information was used as evidence in a trial, which it never has.
Google's data on people would be pretty incriminating, but their entire business model would also be destroyed if no one trusted them with private data.
Google's advertising model is based upon targeted advertising. Without users, and specifically without information on their users, Google is nothing.
Google would have a very good argument against handing over data.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
don't think big trusted names can't fold. and if it happens, how will you get this data? i would advise extreme caution on what you use this for.
Is there any form of data storage that doesn't beg for advice like this?
- Hard drives fail.
- CDRs deteroriate.
- USB may not be around forever.
I mean, I appreciate the suggestion and all, but it's like there's a story about being able to purchase a flying car and me advising that you get insurance for it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Would you be willing to offer a contract to someone else with reliability better than Google is, using your water-damaged ancient hardware? The SLA isn't about what they think they are likely to deliver, but what they think they can *guarantee*. There is some safety margin in there.
I'd only use it for backup, why waste limited backup space on porn? Porn is already well backed up by everyone else.
Actually they do. Anyone can take a matter to court and argue that a law impedes their Constitutional rights. In fact, it has already been ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/38113prs20081215.html
I knew the second anyone with a decent lawyer tried to fight one, they'd win their case.
Secondly, you assume that Google would immediately cave in to the government in a case they'd win, and in doing so, risk the entire profit model of the company? That makes zero sense.
In the two times a government has asked Google to violate user's privacy, Google has fought both times.
Your argument flies in the face of documented precedence.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Given Google's "all your data are belong to us" attitude, I'd rather stick to my own self-engineered remote storage solution.
Blood oaths are great theater, but that doesn't stop someone from bringing in an iPod and slurping files in other companies. I'm sure if the stakes are high enough, a competitor of a firm that uses a cloud computing storage system can find someone who has access to the machines with the stored data they can compromise. It doesn't have to be bribes either... the employee (or one of his/her family members) could have a dirty secret that the competitor can use as blackmail to coerce them into compromising data. Finally, if the employee has access and is an I-9 worker, even their home country can tell them to do an inside job, or face loss of citizenship and not being allowed back to their home nation once the I-9 contract expires.
This is not to belittle Google or its employees and the job they do. In fact they do a superb job. However, businesses need to pack their own encryption parachute when using a cloud. A breach can come from sources nobody has ever thought of.
I think what the grandparent was pointing out is the problem of entrusting someone else with your information. Not specifically Google, which as you mentioned is really behaving properly, but more as an issue.
A point to ponder is that Google is a changing organization working in a changing legal and political environment. Who knows what will Google become or how will the US and the world change in 20 years? Maybe information you entrusted to them today would become vulnerable at the future.
Consider the banks which used to be discreet and reliable organizations in the past and today are anything but. Even Switzerland enacted laws that compelled banks to reveal information about their clients for tax purposes and in order to fight crime and--you guessed it--terrorism. The clients entrusted money and information to the bank based on the banks past reputation without considering the implications of the changing world in the future.
https has been vulnerable to MITM attack, and is vulnerable to bogus keys (that look valid), but is currently pretty safe from attack when using a sane browser. Lots of people (inside and outside the company) keep very close watch on google.com's SSL keys, so without someone poisoning your DNS (and close to just your DNS)...
If you're enabling SSL on your connection to google, your data is as safe as we can make it. The government possibly has access to the raw bits on the wire between our datacenters, but still doesn't have access to your data (inferring the argument behind this assertion is left as an exercise to the reader).
The easiest way for the government to get to your data without you knowing it is to rootkit your machine. The lowest-cost weakness isn't on the google end of things.
Here's hoping that GDrive can address the biggest problem with online backup services today: price. For backing up large amounts of data (10s or 100s of GB), it is vastly cheaper to buy 2-3 additional hard drives and make your own backups than it is to use any online service.
For example, to back up 1 TB of data, buy two external TB drives from Newegg, copy your files to the drives, and store one offsite. Total cost: $200.
To backup to Amazon's S3 service, transfer all the data once, and store it for a year. $100 for the transfer plus (12 months * $150/month) for storage = $1900 for the year.
I'm sure there are good reasons for the cost discrepancy. I know the $200 cost doesn't include time, electricity, or the possible need to replace drives. But still, I think there has to be a way that clever engineers can bring the costs down for online storage. The fact that most of the data on a backup system doesn't need to be loaded at the same time should open up possibilities for cost savings. I'd be willing to accept a little delay in accessing my backups if it would allow for a much cheaper service.
The easiest way for the government to get to your data without you knowing it is to rootkit your machine. The lowest-cost weakness isn't on the google end of things.
Yeah, right, as a wise man once said. Rooting millions of individual machines would take rather a lot of money, time, and effort, and would directly involve a lot of people who might otherwise be oblivious. Tapping Google itself? The government's sweetest wet dream.
The Supreme Court had no problem with the Feds illegally tapping directly into the phone companies. What makes Google so special?