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.'"

Comments

Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, somewhere to back up all of my important porn!

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to unimportant...?

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[relguj9]

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.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Malevolyn]

Is this just Google's front for collecting porn for themselves? Taking all bets!

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey! Who told you about Google Perv? That hasn't been released yet!

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Vectronic]

Pfft, that was the last codeword, it's now referred to as GSpot.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[RCourtney]

Pfft, that was the last codeword, it's now referred to as GSpot (BETA).

There, fixed that for ya. And don't feel bad if you can't find it - submitter had to dig deep in the code to even know it existed, too.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[SleepyHappyDoc]

It would probably cross the line, but I'd love to see them do a Zeitgeist report on the porn people have in there.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Winckle]

Eric Schimdt likes porn just like every other guy.

He just happens to archive it in the petabytes instead of gigabytes.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Arthur Grumbine]

We've been hearing about the coming(sp?) of this GSpot for decades. It's actual existence is more questionable than Duke Nukem Forever. Pure vaporware.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for GSpot for years. Sadly, I'm beginning to suspect that think they hired too many Duke Nukem Forever developers for it as I can't find it anywhere.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[calmofthestorm]

Eric Schimdt likes porn just like every other guy.

He just happens to archive it in the pedabytes instead of gigabytes.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[stonedcat]

You betcha!

Unimportant porn gets deleted much more quickly than important porn, but this way it can stick around a little longer.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[howman]

I have the mac version called iShot

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[aliquis]

I hate sticky porn

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[aliquis]

I'd only use it for backup, why waste limited backup space on porn? Porn is already well backed up by everyone else.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[linhares]

I hate sticky porn

Goatse?

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[BikeHelmet]

I think I'm gonna change the drop box on my browser to Yahoo! for a while. Need to spread the love.

Ahh!...hahaha!

The company that hands over info without a warrant. :D You're screwed!

At this point I'd rather give my info to Google than another company. The other companies(Yahoo, Microsoft, Alexa, etc. etc. etc.) share info so much that I can't keep track of it anymore. At least with Google, it seems to stay with Google.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Bu11etmagnet]

Here you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSpot

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[thetoadwarrior]

G-Spot may or may not be real but being a man it doesn't matter to me.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[TheRaven64]

I think they renamed it 'streetview' for general release.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[KDR_11k]

With the kind of stuff that's on the internet... One look in the wrong folder would drive you insane faster than a staring contest with Cthulhu.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[thetoadwarrior]

Xdrive is closed down.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Twisted64]

WRONG, there used to be a lot more nudie pics of some Russian lass called Elena Hohlova floating around, and now there are about 4 left. What happened?

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[aliquis]

But you're not allowed to have multiple accounts on Gmail if I remember correctly, and I rather respect their rules.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Annymouse Cowherd]

They don't stop you even if you sign up using another gmail address.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[ocularDeathRay]

gspot is vaporware

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Five Bucks!]

You could just use 'NoScript' in Firefox and selectively disallow google-analytics.com from running their trace.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[aliquis]

I still think they tell you you're only allowed one account.

I think it's nice of them to give me one in the first place so I'd rather not take advantage of them. Sure if I make another account for a couple of other e-mails it won't hurt them but if I use them to store 10*6 GB of data or so it will somewhat.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Wardish]

Can't resist.

I have the old version of that:

iShotJR

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[Fjandr]

Obligatory:

G-Spot may or may not be real but being a slashdotter it is irrelevant to me.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[IonOtter]

Dude, if you've done any reasonable amount of searching for porn on the internet, then staring Cthulhu in the face wouldn't faze you one bit.

Re:Like xdrive and idrive before it

[LinuxLuver]

The US government will insist on having access to it.

what happens if google folds

[timmarhy]

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.

Re:what happens if google folds

[Directrix1]

Have a backup. Just like with any storage.

Re:what happens if google folds

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:what happens if google folds

[timmarhy]

agreed, but this will most likely be connected to some *cough cloud* form on online computing. will it have backup abilities ?

Re:what happens if google folds

[Chyeld]

agreed, but this will most likely be connected to some *cough cloud* form on online computing. will it have backup abilities ?

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.

Re:what happens if google folds

[The MAZZTer]

Depending on how it's implemented on the Windows/Linux desktop, you might be able to create and mount a TrueCrypt volume on it.

Re:what happens if google folds

[dissy]

don't think big trusted names can't fold. and if it happens, how will you get this data?

You get that data by opening the files on one of your PCs or backup media.

Why is it a lot of people seem to have the mindset of "once you move data from place A to place B, you should get rid of the data in place A" ???

If it is important to you, encrypt it up, and store it EVERYWHERE. All your home PCs, offsite HDs, friends houses, USB keys, as well as Gdrive, and every other online storage service you can get (or can afford.)

Re:what happens if google folds

[dissy]

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 :}

Re:what happens if google folds

[Dan541]

Backup, I thought those where extinct?

Re:what happens if google folds

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Re:what happens if google folds

[ToasterMonkey]

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.

WOW, well that's just grand if all everyone wanted to do was keep immutable copies of their documents on the Internet.
That's a pretty ignorant notion considering Google itself has an array of online office productivity apps.

It will either need a separate backup solution, or bidirectional replication like Apple's iDisk. I'm betting replication.
Last time I checked, Google apps couldn't access WebDAV documents. It's too damned obvious, and Google is chock full of Apple users. Synced online storage + online apps == DUH. They had to have been holding out for this, their own competing storage service.

Re:what happens if google folds

[10Neon]

Why is it a lot of people seem to have the mindset of "once you move data from place A to place B, you should get rid of the data in place A" ???

Well, they're moving it, not copying it. It's a holdover from their previous method: chiseling data into stone tablets.

Re:what happens if google folds

[KPU]

More to the point, Google can cancel or limit services at will. This has or will happen with premium Google Video (issuing a double refund), Dodgeball, Notebook, Mashup editor, and Catalog Search. To be fair, in the event of a cancellation they will probably provide notice and a grace period.

Re:what happens if google folds

[Chyeld]

I have no doubt that they have something more sophisticated. My point was to hightlight the ridiculous nature of spreading FUD that there might somehow not be a way to backup files for a online service that is billed as a way to store and share files online.

Re:what happens if google folds

[denton420]

While you are certainly correct in stating that big trusted names are not immune to "folding", you forget that such events are often highly publicized and can take many months. Dire situations exposing themselves well before anything is officially set in stone.

Big companies certainly fail, but not overnight without warning.

Even if the company were to announce its departure from the field and be gone within a month, you would be sure to receive emails about the closure of the service and have ample time to download your uploaded pron and put it that new 10TB drive you got from Best Buy for 80 bucks.

Re:what happens if google folds

[mlts]

TrueCrypt is an excellent solution, its only drawback is that you have to specify fixed-size containers. Because the GDrive won't be NTFS, you can't use TC's sparse file option. There are some ways of making containers that can expand to fill up whatever quota Google gives a person:

If on Linux, you could use EncFS.

OS X can use EncFS + FUSE, or one can use the Disk Image tool and create a sparse bundle image which is in actuality a directory with 8MB files (called bands) under it. When something is changed, only the relevant changes to that 8MB band are propagated, which both allows for the image to dynamically expand and be easily backed up. You can also use PGP and PGPDisk. So, you have three good options.

With Windows you will need a commercial solution: PGPDisk creates expanding drive images that expand as files are saved to them.

There are other options too. You can use 7Zip, WinRAR, or PKZip for decent (AES-128) encryption for archives and store those.

Re:what happens if google folds

[evanbd]

And if you DON'T have the files already on your computer, then you dont need to be worrying about uploading them to anywhere :}

Unless, of course, I'm using my GDrive from a library computer. Or a friend's computer. Or...

Of course I agree with you; backups will be trivial and are the user's job. But I can certainly think of cases where I'd have to spend effort doing so (OK, not a lot of effort, but more than zero).

Re:what happens if google folds

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's a pretty ignorant notion considering Google itself has an array of online office productivity apps.

Exactly: they already have such an array. What would be the point of doing it again?

It will either need a separate backup solution, or bidirectional replication like Apple's iDisk. I'm betting replication.

If it can be mounted as a filesystem, in what way will that be even remotely hard?

Last time I checked, Google apps couldn't access WebDAV documents. It's too damned obvious, and Google is chock full of Apple users.

Google Calendar provides a CalDAV interface. Both iCal and Sunbird can simply wire directly to that calendar.

How about another example: IMAP. I can back up my entire Gmail account, about as easily as any other IMAP account.

Re:what happens if google folds

[Paradise Pete]

don't think big trusted names can't fold. and if it happens, how will you get this data?

I put my data at Microsoft's SavesForSure portal, because I know there's no way they would turn their back on anything named like that.

Re:what happens if google folds

[magarity]

Well, what about if YOU fold? What's Google supposed to do with your data then?!?

Re:what happens if google folds

[Solra Bizna]

No, we restored from backup.

-:sigma.SB

Re:what happens if google folds

[beaviz]

Why is it a lot of people seem to have the mindset of "once you move data from place A to place B, you should get rid of the data in place A" ???

RIAA/MPAA ;)

Re:what happens if google folds

[peragrin]

Well the short way is to setup a quick encyption scheme for yourself. That way google can't search them at random.

Re:what happens if google folds

[hobbit]

Loosing a few gb of music won't kill you for example.

Unless of course you loose it into your own face with a trebuchet. Or perchance did you mean "lose"?

Re:what happens if google folds

[shiftless]

Unless of course you loose it into your own face with a trebuchet.

Pics or GTFO!

Re:what happens if google folds

[Repton]

Papyrus. Lasts forever.

Clay pots are pretty good too.

Re:what happens if google folds

[hobbit]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g

Re:what happens if google folds

[Cro Magnon]

I agree. I have backups on my desktop, laptop, and two online sources. If GDrive is better/easier/more reliable than the others, it might become my main backup, but it will never be my ONLY backup.

Re:what happens if google folds

[shiftless]

fuck! bastard!

Re:what happens if google folds

[hobbit]

Sorry, it was the closest I could find to your request.

Security

[nz17]

I know that Google is all about introducing new (usually useful) services which tie into its already existing sites and services, and for that I applaud it. However I hope that it takes privacy, security, and encryption into account for this new online storage service. It's one thing to do a search with Google's engine - trusting Google with personal files is another issue entirely.

Also, here's hoping for a rich desktop client instead of just a Web interface.

Re:Security

[SanityInAnarchy]

Let's hope it's implemented as FUSE, for portability...

If it's actually exposed as a local filesystem, then it should be trivial to encrypt the files using something like encfs.

Re:Security

[calmofthestorm]

That's why God made egd. I mean google just might have the processing power to break some encryption, but I'm willing to gamble they won't en masse.

Still feels a bit like cheating them, though, given that they'll likely offer it for free and use targetted ads.

Or I just get a bunch of ads for encryption softwares like I do when I receive/send pgp-encrypted gmail.

Re:Security

[Minupla]

As with any other time, if you want something encrypted do it yourself with an opensource product. If you trust someone else with your encryption, you can expect they won't care as much for your privacy as you would.

Google can feel free to mine my pseudo random porn :)

Min

Re:Security

[mcrbids]

And why would you trust Google with your personal files? You'd do much better plugging a HDD into the craptastic Pentium II you've been using as a Linux firewall/router for all these years and sharing a Web folder with SSL and WebDAV. Then, your privacy concerns are nonexistent.

Don't want to host it yourself? Pay $8 per month to some hosting provider for some assurance of privacy.

Don't want to pay for it, either? Get ready to lose all your privacy... they have to get theirs somehow. Google isn't a charity. Either pony up, or sell your much beloved privacy for $8/month or the cost of putting some junk hardware together and spending an afternoon figuring out how to make it work.

It's a simple choice, you pick what you pay the piper with: Money, time, or privacy.

(Me? I'm a privacy minded tightwad, so I choose time... )

Re:Security

[quickOnTheUptake]

TFA has a link to an internal PDF that describes the Gdrive showing up in Explorer as a g: drive. So it sounds pretty well integrated.

Re:Security

[DelgadoRandom]

encryption's been the issue since this thing was announced - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/30/189212 I think the real issue isn't so much the spider mining, but the potential for data so stored to be considered "less private" by government and the courts until society and its norms catches up with technological innovation. People who wouldn't think to peek through a slot in a bathroom stall might not feel the same instinctual aversion to paging through someone's private photos or diaries if they're stored in some "newfangled" online virtual drive. It should be encumbent upon Google to provide obvious privacy-seeking options for its users to differentiate data stored in something like GDrive from other data posted to semi-public storage systems like megaupload. Then, the case that people had a "reasonable expectationt of privacy" would be more robust. Social acceptance of snooping and hacking online must be countered with industry policies designed to cultivate a sense of security based in reality that, if broken by government or private actor, cause immediate recognition of personal violation. Then the potential for online personal space becomes real.

Obvious

[bhsx]

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.

Re:Obvious

[dmomo]

If by "closer to official" you mean "closer to Beta" which for Google means "yeah, it's official, we just cannot claim it's 100% without flaw"

See also: GMail... still in BETA!

Re:Obvious

[mikek2]

Yes, but other major player is forging ahead with goodies like this?

I, for one, welcome our new Googly overlords.

Until, of course, they fuck it all up.

Re:Obvious

[morgan_greywolf]

Apparently not C|Net, ZDNet and Wired, who all have been writing articles and posturing about this for like three or four days now. They'd all written it off.

But if you've been paying attention to Google's strategy, then it's an obvious next step.

Slowly by surely Google is taking its best shot at making the operating system irrelevant. Microsoft sees that and that is why they've been preoccupied with Google. (So "duh" to all you people going "Why is Microsoft so preoccupied with Google?")

Re:Obvious

[Ethanol-fueled]

Nobody will make the OS irrelevant. All this "cloud" hype is just another buzzword. Sure, Google is jumping on it, but it's only another service. Google are agile and humble enough to call it quits if it dosen't work. From a Wired interview:

Wired: Will the success of Google Apps mean market share erosion for Microsoft Office?
Schmidt: It may. Or it may be that consumers will push us to solve completely new problems.

In another recent Wired interview with some high-ranking Microsoft guy, said guy acknowledged with a straight face that the cloud was the future and laid out Microsoft's plans for it. Does Microsoft really believe in their own planned obsolescence?

Re:Obvious

[Thinboy00]

1. Shrink Vista to the size of Win95
2. Displace Linux as the dominant netbook OS
3. ??? (well duh!)
4. Profit!

Re:Obvious

[Dhalka226]

If by "closer to official" you mean "closer to Beta" which for Google means "yeah, it's official, we just cannot claim it's 100% without flaw"

Nobody claims something is 100% without flaw. Read your licenses, disclaimers and terms of service sometime. Google's "beta" products work better and more consistently than most of the "real" releases out there, regardless of what they choose to call it.

I suppose this was just meant to be another "zomg all of Google is in beta!" joke, which hasn't been particularly funny for years. Kudos on somehow getting an interesting mod for it.

Re:Sounds Good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dm_crypt

Give them my data? Not bloody likely. Poke around with some free storage for non-critical applications? Sure, sounds fun.

Not as surprise

[inKubus]

Duplicity, a clever backup tool, has let you use Gmail boxes for a storage engine for a while now. I'm sure they are just taking the next logical step. Of course, you can assume that they will probably index your files in some way, even if it isn't made public.

Misplaced priorities?

[bogaboga]

I know this is not officially released by Google but I would rather have Google get Gmail out of beta. My school would like to move to Gmail but the "beta" label is a show stopper on this front. What do you think?

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If you pay for Gmail ("Google Apps for business") it isn't beta, and it has an SLA and whatnot. Gmail's interpretation of "beta" seems roughly the same as all the other free webmail services' interpretation of their default release states, so it isn't as though Google is really behind in that area. If "beta" is just a scary word, ignore it. If you are waiting to get enterprise SLAs for no money, forget it.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Creepy Crawler]

My water-damaged discarded 333MHz file server has a better uptime than Google SLA provides.

They only offer at most 95% per month, MINUS pre-scheduled downtimes, and non-scheduled downtimes that are "exempt". Honestly, 90% uptime per month real. The key is that these numbers are not real, because of the possible exemptions and everything, so a real SLA is unknown.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Chyeld]

K'. And how does that negate GP's point?

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[rriven]

They only offer at most 95% per month, MINUS pre-scheduled downtimes, and non-scheduled downtimes that are "exempt". Honestly, 90% uptime per month real. The key is that these numbers are not real, because of the possible exemptions and everything, so a real SLA is unknown.

You could not be more wrong:

Enterprise-class service â" Google Apps includes a 99.9% uptime SLA.* Phone support is available for critical issues.

*The 99.9% uptime SLA for Google Apps is offered to organizations using Google Apps Premier Edition, as described in the Google Apps Premier Edition Terms of Service

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/messaging.html

Sure it is only 3 nines but that is way better than the 90% you said

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's Google's SLA. They have to give you free credit if their uptime is worse than 99.9%:

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/sla.html

Three nines. Not 95%.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[evanbd]

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.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Dan541]

In Google-English "Beta" means released.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Petrushka]

If you're a school, not only is it not beta, you don't even need to pay. http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html:

Google Apps Education Edition

Google Apps Education Edition is free for educational institutions. In addition, we have add-on security and compliance software that can be purchased at a 66% educational discount.

Includes Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, Google Video, Google Docs, Google Sites, API for integration, and support .

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[thetoadwarrior]

You're completely wrong about their uptime. At least try to lie about something that's harder to disprove.

Re:Misplaced priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly didn't follow the asterisk in the page that you quoted to the actual SLA.

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/sla.html

This is not a normal SLA. "Downtime" is measured as a function of error rate for ALL users, not just you. If one customer is out of service, it's not downtime.

Downtime is also measured in blocks of ten minutes. If you are without email for 9 minutes 30 seconds, then your inbox loads, then it goes down for a further 9 minutes, there was no downtime.

With terms like that, Google can claim whatever uptime they want.

Also note that the only recourse you have in the event that things go so badly that the agreement is violated is a longer service term at no cost (Maximum 15 days). No refunds.

Storage Poll

[pieterh]

You would save your work on:

* 8" floppy drives
* Removable Winchesters
* Good old spinning rust
* SSD, like my MBA
* GDrive: slow, but cosmic
* Cowboy Neal's Sneakers

Re:Storage Poll

[morgan_greywolf]

Where's the "post to an FTP site and let the world mirror it" option? Linus will feel left out!

making up new words

[Anonymous Coward]

"in-direct"?

that word is im-possible.

hold on, i have to tie my shoe-lace, be-cause i keep tripping over all the hy-phens.

Re:making up new words

[Anonymous Coward]

grammar-nazi's

Well played, sir!

Re:making up new words

[DigitalReverend]

I am glad I am not the only one who noticed.

Re:making up new words

[morgan_greywolf]

Hey, that would be gram-mar na-zi's to YOU, pal!

Saturated

[fireteller2]

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?

Re:Saturated

[Rakishi]

Not to mention that some of those are set up so they can't access your data themselves, period. Unless it's encrypted and the encryption key never leaves my computer I wouldn't trust any such service.

Re:Saturated

[Enderandrew]

From what I've read, you'll be able to map it like another drive on your computer, just drag and drop files. Unlike a slow web interface with other products, you can very quickly access your files. There will be tons of storage, and it will be completely free with no nags to upgrade to a premium service.

Otherwise, exactly like this should have been handled by everyone else from day 1.

Re:Saturated

[MightyYar]

I'll reserve judgment until gDrive is released, but it's hard for me to conceive of a better approach than DropBox, with a dedicated folder on each Mac, PC, or Linux machine and the ability to get different versions through the web interface.

Re:Saturated

[dookiesan]

So what does google get out of this?

Re:Saturated

[zlogic]

Dropbox already does this. You install their software and choose a local folder, if you add or change anything, it will be uploaded by the app running background.

Re:Saturated

[initialE]

Yeah. Idrive. Welcome back to the 2000 dot-bomb.

Re:Saturated

[Enderandrew]

That's awesome. Is it multiplatform at all?

Re:Saturated

[Enderandrew]

More users signing up for Google services.

Re:Saturated

[Mascot]

Gee, I wonder if this online service might have some sort of - I don't know - webpage, maybe, that contains that kind of information?

Oh. My. God! It does! Who would've thunk it.

Dropbox is supported on Windows XP and Vista (32 and 64-bit), Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard, as well as Ubuntu 7.10+ and Fedora Core 9+.

We've also had users report success running Dropbox on Debian, OpenSUSE, Arch Linux, Gentoo as well as several other distributions of Linux. While Dropbox may work just fine on other platforms, we don't officially support them.

Yeah, Right.

[Kid Zero]

...and it's all online, so that when the government decides to datamine your life, Google will just send it over without bothering you.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[icepick72]

They can datamine me through GDrive as much as they want because I'm not stupid enough to put important, sensitive or incriminating data online. However I might put up other kinds of information so I can access it from anywhere. If I do see the need to store something sensitive online be rest-assured it will be well encrypted and the private key will not be stored alongside it.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[dissy]

...and it's all online, so that when the government decides to datamine your life, Google will just send it over without bothering you.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but shame on you for sending data you don't want the govt to see unencrypted over the internet! It's time for you to retake your geek test to see if you should keep your geek card :P

I could see that as a valid complaint for 'regular joe six-pack' types who don't know about encryption, or realize that when you put data out in front of the public, that *gasp* the public can see it!
(Ok, a bit bitter there, but I just had an unsecured WiFi argument with someone who had sniffed chat transcripts used against her, yet wont even turn on wep/wga because she hates remembering passwords...)
But in my experience, those same users don't seem to care when the dangers are explained to them and alternatives offered, so can it really be too big of a concern?

Either way, this is slashdot, and you should just know better :}

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

btw, anyone using google can be tapped by the US (or any local) gov. google replicates data all over the world and so any local DC can be 'tapped' by the gov in that region and google will be happy to roll over. giving data to google is not something you do when you need privacy, we should know THAT much by now. google has already tipped their hand more times than needed to see the true 'rollover to the gov' colors they have.

I work for Google. In a project closely related to "GDrive". And I know for an absolute fact that you, sir, are full of shit. Google is the one company that has stood up to our government's "requests for information" and said, "Show me the subpoena." Hell, that's one of the big reasons I work at Google. As for your privacy, the only entities that can see the actual content of your files are 1) you, 2) the ads analysis program, 2) Google developers/system maintenance staff who sign a blood oath that they will not violate user trust, and 3) government agencies that provide a lawful warrant or subpoena for the data. The moment that list fails to be complete, a significant fraction of all Google employees will leave in disgust.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[mystik]

You can already do this now, with Amazon S3 and Brackup

It'll encrypt it, and split up the files, so the owner of the target host can't infer anything from the stuff you store there.

Just don't lose your key :)

Re:Yeah, Right.

[ChunderDownunder]

Paranoid, much? :)

Re:Yeah, Right.

[jcrash]

Um, are you forgetting that Uncle Sam has the pipe running through his sandbox? You have no idea what he gleans between your end and our end.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

Hey dude, it was a mistake. Too bad I can't get some slack on it. The list is right though.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

Astroturfers don't clearly identify sources of possible bias. I'm biased cause I work at Google and I like working at Google. I'll tell you that because I'm honest about my biases.

I'm also well-informed, and though I can't tell you very much of what I know, I will tell you that Google tries* to do the right thing, including act as an advocate for user privacy.

* "tries" is a very carefully chosen word here.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

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.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

Those agreements would still require the cooperation of people I know and trust to get to your data. And it wouldn't be given without a fight.

Legal subpoena's notwithstanding.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[sunwolf]

As for your privacy, the only entities that can see the actual content of your files are 1) you, 2) the ads analysis program, 2) Google developers/system maintenance staff who sign a blood oath that they will not violate user trust, and 3) government agencies that provide a lawful warrant or subpoena for the data.

They are one and the same!

Re:Yeah, Right.

[cryptoluddite]

1) you, 2) the ads analysis program, 2) Google developers/system maintenance staff who sign a blood oath that they will not violate user trust, and 3) government agencies that provide a lawful warrant or subpoena for the data.

About the second #2, first of all Google does not have the authority to enforce a blood oath so we know for a fact that you're at the very least grandstanding.

Second, lots of people have made actual blood oaths only to go back on them even when they know people will die as a direct result. And with only privacy on the line you can bet a lot more will break their trust. So if you actually believe that those people that you know won't violate people's privacy then you almost certainly don't know them as well as you think you do.

Third, google is a central clearinghouse of lots of information. That means they are a target to any number of interested parties.

Fourth, 'national security' letters, gag orders, etc. If these people who you know are so trustworthy then they likely won't even let on if they were made to violate somebody's privacy.

For all of these reasons and more, the simple truth is that if you have something private that you really don't want others to know about then you don't store it on google's servers. That should be patently obvious to anybody qualified enough to work at google.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

For all of these reasons and more, the simple truth is that if you have something private that you really don't want others to know about then you don't store it on google's servers. That should be patently obvious to anybody qualified enough to work at google.

I did not say that Google is a secure data vault. That's simply retarded. If the content of your files is that important, encrypt it or keep it to yourself or both.

I objected to the statement that Google as an organization rolls over for the government and has already done so several times. It does not and has not. Google will require a warrant or a subpoena before they hand over your data to the government. They will provide data in response to a lawfully presented warrant or subpoena, but they'll require the legal document.

I (and many others) don't see such an action as a violation of privacy, since IMHO, privacy ends where crime begins, and as long as the investigation of that crime is occurring with all due process...

And yeah, grant me a little hyperbole on the "blood oath" comment. The supplemental agreement that I have to sign before I get access to live user data is fairly scary. No blood, but scary enough even so. Google is serious about user privacy.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

Doesn't working for Google require you to count to at least four?

Typing fast, changing how I construct a list, slashdot's auto-list-numbering tool built into the editor seems to be broken...

Cut me a break. I'm an actual human being who develops software for a company, not the PR department.

Oh, and the mistake was at (3), not (4), but who's counting?

Re:Yeah, Right.

[cryptoluddite]

And yeah, grant me a little hyperbole on the "blood oath" comment. The supplemental agreement that I have to sign before I get access to live user data is fairly scary. No blood, but scary enough even so. Google is serious about user privacy.

This is civil law. You might also break criminal laws, but that's a completely separate issue from any agreements you signed with google.

An injunction is not scary ('stop stealing data from google'). A request for specific performance won't be granted if it's impossible, would be undue hardship, contract is terminable at will or vague or unconscionable, etc. So no big deal there.

So it won't be materially worse than bankruptcy. That's serious, but anybody with the ability to get hired by google can recover from that. Again, it sounds like histrionics to me.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

The assumption of liability would cover bankruptcy very quickly. Also, the fallout wouldn't "keep me from working in the industry" but it would put a damper on getting work via most of my current professional network.

I'm concerned enough about user privacy that I don't need scary contracts to do the right thing. Even so, when I read that contract, it looks like they tried really hard to make it clear that they're really serious about putting the user first and adding some incentives for Google employees to do the same thing.

Call it what you will, but I am surprised at how literally you're interpreting remarks that are clearly chosen to add a little levity and humor to a posting. Mention of a "blood oath" should invoke feudal imagery and a remark that I've drunk too much of the kool-aid, not a literal interpretation that I actually cut my finger for a contract.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Yeah, Right.

[AlXtreme]

I will tell you that Google tries* to do the right thing, including act as an advocate for user privacy.

Good stuff! So this means Google will try to do the right thing if I ask them to delete my search records after half a year? Or stop profiting from domain squatters? Or not take photos of my house and neighborhood? Or not bend over backwards for China?

All hail Google! Google is good! We've also always been at war with Eurasia!

Re:Yeah, Right.

[Teun]

Sure but then there is this bitch of an NDA...

Re:Yeah, Right.

[rossifer]

I'll answer these one at a time.

1. Individual search data deletion and a shorter global policy: the argument is this is a balance between user utility and user comfort. Yeah, I don't buy it either. There's no reason the data can't be anonymized and still be useful. We're working on it. A bunch of Googlers want this too.
2. Domain squatters: IMHO domain squatters are annoying, not bad. Taking money from domain squatters == ?
3. Photos of your property: request that your address be omitted from live view and if there are images of your property request their removal.
4. Photos of your neighborhood: convince your neighbors to all request that their property be omitted.
5. China: yeah, sucky situation, though it was Yahoo that handed dissidents over to China, not Google. In many other ways, I also wish that Google cooperated less with the Chinese government. Keep complaining, and convince your friends to complain.

As for the comparisons to 1984, exaggerate much? Google has the potential to be big brother. Google is not big brother. Almost every Googler is just as afraid of Google going bad as you are.

Borgle?

[Toe, The]

Show of hands... how many slashdotters use Google for multiple services?

Next question; why do you trust them so much? What makes them so radically different from Microsoft or Apple?

Once they become the Borgle, do you really think they'll do no evil with the vast amount of data you are giving them? Remember, this means not just your actual data, but also all the implications they can draw from your data habits.

Re:Borgle?

[pieterh]

About 10 years

Re:Borgle?

[Enderandrew]

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?

Re:Borgle?

[MightyYar]

Next question; why do you trust them so much?

I don't "trust" them - it's just that all of their services that I use offer a way to back up my data locally. Gmail has IMAP and POP, Calendar exports to iCal, Apps exports to almost anything, etc. Who cares if they flake out? I'm not tied to them.

Re:Borgle?

[not already in use]

It's same assumption held by all members of the Church of RMS. Anyone interested in making money and retaining the rights to their intellectual property is inherently evil.

Never debug comments

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Never debug comments

[__aasqbs9791]

If you read the pdf (and assuming it is legit) they do say they want to offer it to google users, but that it isn't quite ready yet. And I can't think of any reason they wouldn't want to offer it (and since people are already using Gmail that way through things like gmailfs, etc). It gives them even more information on people, which they do want (they are primarily in advertising after all). I think you'd need to be careful with what you put on it, but I don't see it as an automatically bad thing. Of course most users I know won't be able to understand what that means, but I've given up on teaching most of them about computers and safety already.

Re:Never debug comments

[Enderandrew]

Several people have been reporting on GDrive rumors, fairly specific ones, for months.

It just so happens that Google code also references a product whose name and description match those rumors.

The title of this article says the announcement is "Unofficial" not "Officially Confirmed".

That seems like a fair assessment to me.

Re:Never debug comments

[not already in use]

Did you read it? It's not debug comments, it's an i18n file.

Perhaps a bit like skydrive as well

[dhavleak]

http://skydrive.live.com/

Re:Perhaps a bit like skydrive as well

[Apathist]

Oh, yeah, skydrive...
but isn't that a bit like Office Live
but isn't that a bit like Live Mesh

Can anyone say "Confused Product Strategy" three time backwards?

Re:Perhaps a bit like skydrive as well

[afidel]

Live mesh is nothing like livedrive, livedrive is online storage, mesh is like P2P file sync for your various machines. Office Live is like a more limited version of skydrive just for office documents and it has a nice interface for online collaboration.

Gmailfs

[iYk6]

I wonder if this will be as good as gmailfs.

Re:Gmailfs

[John Hasler]

Description: Use your GMail account as a filesystem
  GmailFS provides a mountable Linux filesystem which uses your Gmail
  account as its storage medium. GmailFS is a Python application and
  uses the FUSE userland filesystem infrastructure to help provide the
  filesystem, and libgmail to communicate with Gmail.

Re:Gmailfs

[BigJasonWebb]

Why so upset about this? I am a little confused.

Re:Gmailfs

[ToasterMonkey]

I wonder if this will be as good as gmailfs.

Is that rhetorical sarcasm or something?
How could something INTENDED to be used an online storage be as BAD as gmailfs?
Some karma whore just got +4 insightful for providing a summary of gmailfs and not answering your f'ing question, WTF?

This would most likely be served via WebDAV, so YES, it could be 1000x better than gmailfs.
I really don't understand how you think it could be worse, or even on par for that matter. FTP would be a step up from that hack.

Time to whore it up.. I didn't write this spooge, your brethren at wikipedia did.

"The WebDAV protocol allows "Intercreativity," making the Web a readable and writable medium, in line with Tim Berners-Lee's original vision.[1] It allows users to create, change and move documents on a remote server (typically a web server or "web share"). This is useful for authoring the documents that a web server serves, but it can also be used for storing files on the web, so that the files can be accessed from anywhere."

Re:Gmailfs

[collinstocks]

I wonder if this will be as good as gmailfs.

I hope so. The only time I ever used gmailfs, it froze nautilus. Then again, nautilus doesn't play well with the FUSE userland filesystem infrastructure, unfortunately. It seems that at least one of the calls nautilus makes to the fs is blocking, and thus requires low latency; something that FUSE does not seem to provide.

Re:Gmailfs

[PuercoPop]

There should be a 'righteous indignation' mod in the spirit of the one the greatest warrios of israel, Judas Macabee!

Re:Gmailfs

[skeeto]

Eh, I have found it to be horrendesly slow and quite unreliable, as the files I put in frequently come back out differently.

Re:Gmailfs

[ChienAndalu]

I have heard Google frowns upon this and that accounts that use this are being removed.

gdrive.com

[dmomo]

Taken right now by a web design firm. Curious how long they stay there for.

Re:gdrive.com

[erikdotla]

So, someone has chrome.com too, no guarantee Google will even be interested.

Whoever owns gdrive.com would be wise to offer a backup service though :)

Re:gdrive.com

[LiENUS]

Gmail doesn't use Gmail.com.

It doesnt?

Domain Name: GMAIL.COM
Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com/
Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM

Weird. Did you perhaps mean gmail doesn't exclusively use gmail.com?

Re:gdrive.com

[verbatim_verbose]

Then how do you suppose that email sent to user@gmail.com gets to the Google account? Someone just kindly forwards it?

Re:gdrive.com

[skroops]

What do you mean gmail doesn't use gmail.com?

Re:gdrive.com

[thetoadwarrior]

Yes it does and it then takes you to mail.google.com

Re:gdrive.com

[jaydoubleyou1969]

Might have something to do with this.

Re:gdrive.com

[Simetrical]

The grandparent presumably means that gmail.com ends up redirecting you to mail.google.com when you actually log in. This is necessary for cookies to work across all Google sites smoothly: google.com sites can only set or read cookies for google.com or appropriate subdomains thereof, not other domains like gmail.com. If you really use different domains, you need to do something goofy like include content from all your other domains as images/iframes/etc. whenever a user logs in -- Wikipedia does this, logging you into all other Wikimedia sites by including cookie-setting scripts from each other domain as an image.

How relevant this point is to the great-grandparent is debatable, though.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

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.

Hmm

[lunartik]

Well that sucks for Google.

GMail File Shell extension

[flogger]

I've been using the GMail Drive Shell Extansion for quite a while now. Google must have liked it as well.

Re:GMail File Shell extension

[The MAZZTer]

Have you used it recently? That hasn't worked for me in months. I assume some change to GMail broke it a while ago and it hasn't been fixed.

Re:GMail File Shell extension

[flogger]

Recently? Sure have. I use it twice a day at least. Used it just now. Every couple of months, google changes something. Just check http://www.viksoe.dk/code/gmail.htm and an update is usually there the next day. I have a drive mapped to it on work machines. Nice stuff.

Enough with the evil Google routine

[Enderandrew]

How did you get modded informative?

When Bush was talking about wanting search data for all US citizens, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL handed it over without even really being asked. Google refused, and said they would not hand over any search data unless they were forced to do so by a court of law. Google has also since decided to anonymize their logs sooner and increase their privacy policies.

The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency was one case in Brazil, when they were forced to do so by a court, and even then, they didn't do it immediately when they were first ordered to do so. And that case was when Google had evidence on a child porn ring who distributed child porn via Orkut.

So please, explain to me how can you justify statements with no basis on fact?

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If your business is information, wouldn't you resist being asked to hand over valuable merchandise for free?

I don't know if that is google's motive or not; but it should be remembered that protecting user privacy and reserving data for paying customers look pretty similar; but differ in important respects.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[cperciva]

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.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[Colonel Korn]

How did you get modded informative?

When Bush was talking about wanting search data for all US citizens, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL handed it over without even really being asked. Google refused, and said they would not hand over any search data unless they were forced to do so by a court of law. Google has also since decided to anonymize their logs sooner and increase their privacy policies.

The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency was one case in Brazil, when they were forced to do so by a court, and even then, they didn't do it immediately when they were first ordered to do so. And that case was when Google had evidence on a child porn ring who distributed child porn via Orkut.

So please, explain to me how can you justify statements with no basis on fact?

Hey, make up a story with no basis in fact and get modded informative. Good deal! If you knew people who run things at Google you might have a different opinion. And hey, with their recent reduction in log retention time (after repeated warnings to do so by the EU), they're only holding data for what, twice as long as Yahoo?

Here's how you use gdrive, if you want to use it: encrypt.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[cperciva]

Google would have a very good argument against handing over data.

Google might have very good reasons to not want to hand over data, but under the PATRIOT act Google doesn't have the option of saying "sorry, we don't feel like giving you that data".

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[MushMouth]

Do you really think that google isn't completely filled with agents from various intelligence agencies? The NSA gets whatever they want. The truth of the matter is that google refused to provide a simple list of queries, what they claimed at the time was that to protect business methods, nothing more. Fanboys of google claimed it was to protect your privacy, google NEVER claimed that to be the case, you would think, if it were the case that they were "protecting your privacy" they would have spoken clearly of doing just that. They never once did, that speaks much louder of why they did this, and the likelihood that they are supplying similar data elsewhere.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[Enderandrew]

Assuming that the NSA has Google's IP logs is a bit paranoid.

It doesn't make sense for the NSA to dedicate resources to infiltrate Google and steal IP logs that they can't use in court as evidence, unless you are thinking of some scheme of the NSA stealing logs from Google to use to track down foreign terrorists.

In this scenario, the NSA would not be focused on my MP3 collection, and this paranoia is unwarranted. Furthermore, if this were the case, the US would be MUCH more effective at fighting terrorism. They aren't.

When we first rolled into Iraq, we first bombed communication towers. Three weeks later we bombed TV stations, saying that insurgents immediately adapted to hiding coded messages on normal TV programming. Then insurgents just moved to the web. And most every US military commander and technology pundit will tell you that insurgents in caves have been beating the US when it comes to utilizing the internet for military purposes.

If they had access to all of Google's data, they'd know much more than they do.

Lastly, I've routinely maintained (in this very thread even) that Google's entire business model is dependent on privacy. Thusly, their protection of privacy coincides with their pursuit of profit.

That is precisely why I trust them to protect my privacy. They wouldn't have a company otherwise.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[slasho81]

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.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[linhares]

Braziian dude here. One court ordered youtube down because of some video concerning local celebrity "cicarelli", an acress, doing something interesting under the waters in a beach in Spain. Google disregarded everything but the court order, and soon the video, though taken down, was up again on the nets remixes.

Brazilian justice--, soup opera's actress--, & Google youtube++, just as things should be.

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[thetoadwarrior]

By your logic the other companies are worse yet. Look at the stuff we know Yahoo, MS did hand over. How much more could there have been especially when the government knows they'll roll over easily?

Re:Enough with the evil Google routine

[cperciva]

I didn't say that Yahoo and Microsoft were any better than Google. I wouldn't trust any of them with my data.

How do they make money from this?

[elucido]

Sure this is very useful, but whats in it for Google?

Re:How do they make money from this?

[Korin43]

More information about you? Plus, they can.

Re:How do they make money from this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they can!

Re:How do they make money from this?

[Idiomatick]

street cred? Personally I think its just to make competitors cry since nobody else is in a position to be able to attempt this.

Re:How do they make money from this?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Amazon is. All they'd have to do is turn on some sort of free access to S3.

So is anyone else with money to throw at S3 -- just put a nice web frontend in front of it...

Re:How do they make money from this?

[SanityInAnarchy]

If I mount it with encfs, what information do they have about me?

Re:How do they make money from this?

[TheRaven64]

Same thing that's in it for social networking sites. You upload a file on your computer, go to a friend's house, and use it on theirs. This tells Google who your friends are. Data mining whatever you upload tells them what kind of thing you both might want to buy. Use it from a university or a library computer and they can tie the searches you do there to your personal search history and as a bonus tell that you go to a given university or regularly visit a specific library.

All of these things make it easier to target you for advertising.

Re:How do they make money from this?

[Gentlewhisper]

> If I mount it with encfs, what information do they have about me?

Your favourite password phase as well?

Re:How do they make money from this?

[kjllmn]

1. They don't need to know that, yet. 2. Google: "If we build it, they will come." 3. Google is here to organize the world's information. 4. Mission statement first, money second!

Re:How do they make money from this?

[hobbit]

Data mining whatever you upload tells them what kind of thing you both might want to buy.

Why would you ever buy porn when you can get so much of it for free?

Re:How do they make money from this?

[ZerdZerd]

Giving you personalized ads depending on your por... I mean files.

Re:How do they make money from this?

[RichiH]

Are you aware of how decryption works? Why would an option to a local mount be propagated back to the server? Why would you even use an option in fstab and not enter the passphrase interactively?

Re:Sounds Good.

[The MAZZTer]

Even if the RIAA somehow gains access to your directory listings?

GDrive slogan!

[Korbeau]

GDrive! A hard-disk governments and corporate businesses can finally google on!

Just use truecrypt or some other encryption.

[elucido]

The feds aren't going to be able to decrypt all that stuff. And they certainly don't care to.
It's simple, encrypt all your files BEFORE you back them up on GDrive. Encrypt all your porn with AES256 or Serpent.

Use the longest most random passphrase you possibly can come up with, or better yet don't use a passphrase at all.
By the time the feds crack your encryption scheme, you'll be dead anyway. And unless you are a terrorist, they aren't going to torture you to get you to hand over the keys.

Re:Just use truecrypt or some other encryption.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And unless they think you are a terrorist, they aren't going to torture you to get you to hand over the keys.

FTFY.

Ads and Encryption

[Adrian Lopez]

How will they make money with this service? Will they charge a subscription fee or will it be supported via ads like most of their services? If it's going to be ad-supported, that probably means encrypted files will not be permitted [Ever try to send a fully encrypted RAR file through GMail? You can't.], which doesn't sit too well with me.

Re:Ads and Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

I email encrypted files through gmail almost every day.

Re:Ads and Encryption

[Adrian Lopez]

Try emailing a RAR files that's encrypted in such a manner that filenames aren't visible. It won't let you.

Re:Ads and Encryption

[mr_stinky_britches]

Can't you just rename it to .rar.somethingelse? I know that will work for binaries..

Re:Ads and Encryption

[Inda]

You're doing something wrong with your RARs then. I send 15-20mb RARs files to my mother regularly through Gmail (we both have accounts). I encrypt the filenames too if that's any help.

Re:Ads and Encryption

[thuerrsch]

I just tried it, i.e. sent an e-mail with an attached encrypted rar archive (with file names encrypted too) from my gmail account to another non-Google mail account of mine. No problem at all, the message arrived within seconds with the attachment fully intact.

So where do you get your information? Or are you just trying to spread some FUD here?

Re:Ads and Encryption

[jesset77]

Ever try to send a fully encrypted RAR file through GMail? You can't.

Mod parent down "false gossip" :(

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

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?

Furthermore, even if the RIAA saw my massive MP3 collection, I do have CDs to justify most of it, and I'm not distributing copies to other people. They don't have anything on me.

Re:Sounds Good.

[osu-neko]

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...

not announced - CANCELLED

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no announcement of any kind because this is a project from 2007 that has been cancelled. Whatever code you found in Google Pack is also from that time.

Re:Sounds Good.

[argux]

Furthermore, even if the RIAA saw my massive MP3 collection, I do have CDs to justify most of it, and I'm not distributing copies to other people. They don't have anything on me.

Shyeah!, like that's ever been an impediment.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

Unreasonable search and seizure. It is in the Constitution. Given that I don't distribute, and haven't even broken the law, and that Google hasn't shown any willingness to work with the RIAA, even if the RIAA wanted to go after me for no apparent reason, they'd need probable cause with sufficient evidence that I broke the law, which I didn't.

Again, I'm not worried.

If you used your Gdrive and gave the entire world access, and used that to distribute, and the RIAA got wind of it, and have evidence to subpeona ip logs, well that is a different story.

So don't be stupid and use Gdrive to distribute pirated content to the known world.

Re:Sounds Good.

[InlawBiker]

They should be watched, that's for sure.

Q: Why is GDrive any different from any other online storage service?

A: It's pretty much the same, but integrated with Google's other services too!

Q: Hey, isn't that Microsoft's line?

A: Nothing to see here! Move along!

Re:Sounds Good.

[Dan541]

Will it be encrypted?

If so I expect encryption will soon be outlawed, yes it's ok for Amazon to do it but as soon as Google does it new legislation is needed.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Dan541]

But it's not stored on the users local machine. I don't posess what isn't in my possession.

Android?

[bloobamator]

I tried to RTFA but it's slashdotted. How do I hook this cool new Gdrive into my Android apps that I'd like to write? It seems it would be really nice to be able to store an app's content on the web instead of on the PDA, where space is rather limited.

I understand that it is accessible via http, so I'm guessing that I simply broadcast an intent for the browser and it returns the file? But if it's an actual filesystem then how would I mount a drive on it via Android?

Re:where do you store your data

[BiggerIsBetter]

in the clowns.

USB keys would fit.

The Google service I'm still waiting for ...

[damn_registrars]

When will google do free web hosting? Sure they have the blogging tools but an actual google-hosted web page would be cool, something like damn-registrars.google.com would be neat. Of course they'd need to figure out some way to keep it from deteriorating into the detritus that was the final days of geocities, but that shouldn't be that hard of an obstacle for them to overcome.

Why would I want this, you might ask? Because google still hasn't indexed my website at home, several months after I filled out the form to request that they do so. If my website was hosted by google, and resided on google hardware and storage, they would presumably index my page a little quicker.

Re:The Google service I'm still waiting for ...

[maelstrom]

http://pages.google.com/

Re:The Google service I'm still waiting for ...

[VolkerLanz]

Because google still hasn't indexed my website at home, several months after I filled out the form to request that they do so.

That form has been rumored to be rather useless anyway in the past (sorry, no references at hand just now). Get your website linked to by sites with high page rank and Googlebot will be there in no time.

If my website was hosted by google, and resided on google hardware and storage, they would presumably index my page a little quicker.

Why? Googlebot isn't visiting sites sooner that are less hops away, or does it? ;-)

Missing feature

[BiggerIsBetter]

Remote (reliable) storage is neat, but what I really need is that plus... A transparent way to download small chunks and checksum, ala BitTorrent, and probably distributed so this "cloud" data doesn't need to be rerouted through one point. There - I said it: Google should use their cloud to provide a BT content hosting service.

Reason for this is that network hardware reliability is not to be taken for granted... I've learned this the hard way. BT handles this quite effectively.

Re:Missing feature

[Chang]

Amazon S3 has the ability to do this. The issue is you pay per request so it could add up if you do something significant with it.

Re:Sounds Good.

[FooAtWFU]

Q: Hey, isn't that Microsoft's line?

A: Unlike Microsoft, our products don't generally suck all that much.

Re:Sounds Good.

[MightyYar]

The RIAA can tell whether I own a song legally or not just by looking at a google directory listing? Wow, that IS scary! :)

Re:Sounds Good.

[solafide]

You obviously missed that the 4th Amendment was repealed recently.

thanks but no thanks

[Eil]

Given Google's "all your data are belong to us" attitude, I'd rather stick to my own self-engineered remote storage solution.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

A Constitutional Amendment was not passed revoking those rights, and thusly I would with great confidence fight in court that I still have them.

As for your link, it is weak sauce. An office of the law operated correctly, followed correct procedure, and made an arrest properly. Yet the article insists doing so, everyone agrees the criminal's rights were violated.

How does that make sense? The officer was given bad information about a warrant. If the officer lied about a warrant intentionally to search a person they had no right to, then there is a case here. That isn't the situation.

The article suggests that rights can't be violated period, and while I'm all for the Bill of Rights being held as absolute, the 4th Amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure.

The warrant expired, which the officer did not know about. The officer was acting reasonably given that they thought there was a current warrant, and proceeded to make an arrest.

You think that proves you no longer have Constitutional rights?

Re:Sounds Good.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Better:

http://www.arg0.net/encfs

More likely that they'll be able to analyze it, but also more likely to be decently efficient. I suppose we'll have to see how it's actually implemented...

Re:Sounds Good.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

If I were an officer on the other end of the phone, given this case, what reason would I have to ever tell the truth about the status of a warrant again? In fact, any officer could then conduct any search of anyone they wanted, simply by finding someone eg their partner who would not tell them the accurate contents of a warrant.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

Because any obvious repeat abuse wouldn't be seen as an accident in court.

Great for Rapidshare users, I guess

[svunt]

I've used GmailFS on my ubuntu system, and GMail Drive on my Windows system, but at the end of the day, a 32GB thumb drive kicks the shit out of either, and I dare say the same will apply to GDrive. Nice idea, but bandwidth is still an issue for a lot of people, and storing files on the internet is only going to help me reach my monthly quota faster.

I can see this becoming a popular filesharing tool; I can see myself and some online friends sharing a google account for the sake of making a free high-speed dump to replace private FTP sites, Rapidshare links etc.

Re:Great for Rapidshare users, I guess

[Angostura]

It's not an either-or.

I use an off-site 'cloud' backup service. I also have automated archiving to an external firewire drive. I don;t trust either of them. But together, they're a pretty sound combination.

Re:Will they allow encryption?

[mr_stinky_britches]

Do you think it's possible that they might be betting on the fact that the vast majority of users will not bother to go to the trouble of setting up encryption with this service, or not bother encrypting all their files?

Re:Will they allow encryption?

[J Isaksson]

3) You have to store encrypted data individually for each user. Most user won't fill their GDrive with their own unique data, most data will already be uploaded by someone else. This means the service can, if the checksum already exists on the server, skip both the upload and the storage of the file, it'll just add a reference to the existing one.

Money saved right there, and won't work with individually encrypted data. (and yes, it can be "abused", a hacked client could add a reference to a file you don't actually have - yet - if you know the checksum, so perfect for distribution of your "photo collection")

Never saw it coming...

[adh0c]

*Cough*googlegrid*cough*

Re:Will they allow encryption?

[GodKingAmit]

A few objections

1) All those issues you identify exist with gmail but gmail doesn't block encrypted emails (it just gives you ads for PGP)

2) Your compression argument is bs. The files taking up the most space are going to be music, video and image files, none of which compress very well.

3) How would they know your data is encrypted? Just put it all in an mkv container or something and voilla, it looks like video.

GDesktop + GDrive ?

[nwogoldberg99]

I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard for them to integrate the service with Google Desktop. The two could upload your files while indexing your hard drive.

don't forget a drive lol, or rapidshare, or ...

[ImYourVirus]

Not sure google-analytics gets to much info from me, I have it blocked. ;D

Still at any rate short of anything you *have* to log into to use or store favorites or whatever, if you're that paranoid you could always use proxies and the like...

Pricing

[CopaceticOpus]

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.

Re:Pricing

[dargaud]

You, sir, are absolutely right. When S3 came out, I thought "that's what I need". But then I only wanted to backup about 1Tb of images: bandwidth, one way and one time, about 1Tb. Then a few extra Gb every month. I did the same price evaluation as you and decided to purchase a couple 1Tb drive instead !

I'm sure google or S3 already have access to 4Gb prototypes from Maxtor & Co at much better prices than I'll ever do (I'm sure they even get paid to test them), so why is S3 so expensive ? It can't be electricity: have a script determine the least used files and put them in dormant drives, then put them to sleep. Done. In 10s the data can be available again, which is absolutely A-OK by me.

Re:Pricing

[JustNilt]

The online resources are giving you off-site storage, redundancy and (most importantly) convenience. To get redundancy with externals, you'd need to make 2 backups then alternate them periodically or use a software RAID that'd do them at the same time, requiring both drives for any backup. To get "proper" off-site storage, you'd need to go to the hassle of transporting the backup media hither and yon. Gnerally, you want a safe place to store the data so you end up with a safe deposit box or something along those lines. That's a cost, albeit minimal.

The real kicker, though, is the convenience factor. With online backup, you no longer have to transport the media and it should be available on many machines all at once, essentially. The other major issue for some businesses is that during transport, the data is subject to loss via theft. This is aleviated as well with online backups, so long as they're encrypted. Granted, offline media should likewise be encrypted but we know how often that happens, right?

The cost of something like S3 is properly compared to enterprise level backup systems. It's not so bad when you look at it from that perspective. Since most home users (aka consumers) don't need all the extra redundancy, etc, the cost compared to a couple of external TB drives doesn't make sense. That's when something like Mozy makes a lot more sense.

Now, the Gdrive isn't just for backup, either. It's essentially giving you a mapped network drive on any device you happen to have. Anyone that's worked at an enterprise with this should see the major benefit of that service. There's going to be a speed issue compared to a USB drive of some kind if you're using it to transfer ISOs or MPGs but for Word docs and such, I'd bet it's minimal.

Re:Sounds Good.

[rdnetto]

I think the better question is whether the RIAA will try to sue Google over this service. After all, haven't they previously sued other companies which provided digital music lockers?

GDriveBy?

[Briareos]

Anyone else read that as Google's perpetually beta "drive by" project that turns Google Earth into GTA Google Earth?

np: Move D & Benjamin Brunn - Love The One You're With (Songs From The Beehive)

Re:Sounds Good.

[petermgreen]

Unreasonable search and seizure. It is in the Constitution.
Afaict the current free services from google make no gaurantees that your data will stay in your own country of origin. I don't imagine this one will be any different.

Reliable storage

[loufoque]

Does this mean they won't delete all my content on a whim if they think it contains illegally hosted copyrighted material?

I have no use for that.

[Barryke]

Rather host my own files..

Re:Sounds Good.

[kjllmn]

Anything you own can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

Re:Sounds Good.

[brabo_sd]

Erm. I believe uploading an mp3 to any location IS regarded as distribution. Please correct me if I'm wrong ;-) brabo.

Next step...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...is a virus that does a low-level formatting of your GDrive.

If you encrypt.

[nurb432]

And keep local backups it might be ok to use for the sake convenience while on the road.

Still, a large USB flash keeps you in 100% control.

Internal Tool?

[nurb432]

Ya know, it could just be a internal tool as well and never meant for the general public.

Re:Sounds Good.

[ciderVisor]

TrueCrypt always comes to mind, perhaps with the hidden volume feature.

I think using TrueCrypt would be useful but that it'd be a mistake to use the hidden volume. If you have older versions of the encrypted volume (and Google certainly would !), you could tell which parts of the volume had been altered since the last update. If you see some stuff at 'the bottom' of the volume, you can tell that you've changed something in the primary volume. However, if there are changes to 'the top' of your volume, and no changes in-between, then that'd be a pretty strong indicator that you were using a hidden volume. Plausible deniability goes out the window at that point.

Of course, no-one would be able to read the contents of either volume without the password, but there are various means of obtaining that.

PS: Ads and Encryption

[thuerrsch]

I forgot to mention that I access my gmail account with Thunderbird and never used the web interface. Maybe that's what makes the difference?

Re:PS: Ads and Encryption

[Adrian Lopez]

OK. I just sent an encrypted RAR with encrypted filenames over GMail's web interface and it did not complain. Google must have changed its policy. I recall encountering the problem while trying to send an EXE file to a coworker. GMail wouldn't let me send an executable, so I tried sending the EXE inside an encrypted RAR file and it still wouldn't let me.

Re:PS: Ads and Encryption

[RegularFry]

I think this is more to do with Google not wanting GMail to be used as a software (and potentially trojan) distribution system. They block (at least) .exe's, .zip's and .rar's, but not .7z's, so that's what I use.

Re:Sounds Good.

[bestalexguy]

With an official Google-made product in place it'll take little time for someone to come up with a convenient encryption/decryption layer.

Warez

[ChienAndalu]

I wonder if and how they fight against this service turning into a Rapidshare-like Warez haven.

I think there isn't much they can do about it when people upload encrypted .rar files.

Re:Gmailfs, !GMILFs

[jpyeck]

Given the general "porn" theme active here, did anyone else read this as "GMILFs"?

You forgot China

[swillden]

The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency was one case in Brazil, when they were forced to do so by a court

Google also handed over information about a dissident in China, no court order required.

Re:You forgot China

[Enderandrew]

That was Yahoo, not Google.

Try searching in any search engine of your choice. You'll find no story of Google doing so because they haven't.

Google, now that you mention it, was the only company to fight China's censorship policies on search results. And when they eventually caved to Chinese law (if they didn't censor search results, they weren't allowed to do business in China, and Google said they'd rather have an in road in China and fight for free speech than have no in road at all).

So Google complied with Chinese law to search results, but they are the only company to put on the page "These search results have been censored."

Google is the one company fighting for your rights, and yet everyone wants to label them as evil.

Re:You forgot China

[swillden]

That was Yahoo, not Google.

I was pretty sure Google did, too, but I'll concede the point.

Google is the one company fighting for your rights, and yet everyone wants to label them as evil.

I agree. I also applaud their fight to allow on-line distribution of books. That's not to say they don't bear watching, of course, because companies are not monolithic entities. Their decisions are made by individuals, whose goals may diverge. The way to keep companies with non-evil leadership from doing evil things is to call them on it every time they even step near the edge, so the leadership is made aware of what their underlings are doing and forced to consider the potential evil ramifications.

I also consider myself a devoted patriot of my country, and think the highest form of patriotism is constructive criticism. If you love something, do what you can to improve it.

Hm

[GregNorc]

I can give all my data to be perused by google's advertising spider and handed over to the government if the DO so much sneezes in Google's direction...

Or for about two hundred fifty bucks I can pop a couple 1TB hard drives in an old linux box and have my own remotely accessible RAID server.

Decisions, decisions...

All your base are belong to us

[Iowan41]

Please fork over your hard drives now so that Homeland Security can make sure you aren't a terrorist (for any given value attributed in the future to variable "terrorist") and evaluate your political, religious and sexual proclivities.

Setting yourself up for a fall

[AZRainman]

Seems to me most people ignore the fact that data theft is major problem, whereas GDrive will make a juicy target for all malcontents and snoops.

McAfee: Data Theft Results in Trillion-Dollar Losses

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

Not if that location isn't shared. The RIAA has tried to fight in court that putting your music in a Shared folder for a P2P app is "making available for distribution" even if they didn't have proof that the people in question actually distributed.

They kept losing the making available cases.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Regardless, owning MP3s isn't illegal. It is illegal to make copies and distribute pirated copies to other people.

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

Well, if I held a terrorist manifesto in my GDrive, that might be a concern that a foreign government might storm into Google's data centers, demand to randomly see my GDrive, and then distribute that information on me.

Yet, if I was tried in an American court, that information still wouldn't be allowed as admissible evidence.

But I'm talking about MP3s and digital photos. And most of the rest of the world really doesn't seem to care about copyright infringement so much when you can buy pirate copies in stores.

And while Google has not specifically promised to keep Gdrive data in the US, they are building a massive new data storage center about 10 miles from me for an unannounced project (ahem, Gdrive) so I'm pretty sure I know where they are going to be storing the data.

Will they prohibit encrypted content?

[mi]

The only reason for Google to do this is to be able to study, what people are archiving and to be able to present them with valuable unobtrusive advertisements. Later. An encrypted file is no good for such purpose, and when people start doing so in earnest (we will, wouldn't we?) Google will attempt to limit the file types to the "known extensions" (.mp3, .doc, .txt).

At best, people uploading encrypted data (especially those savvy enough to name the files .txt) will be viewed with the same contempt, the advertisers have for AdBlock users...

Re:Sounds Good.

[Enderandrew]

It is a generic file locker, not a digital music locker. And has the RIAA won a case on a music locker service? I don't see how they would unless the music locker service could easily be shared and searched, and that the company intentionally created a service to copy and distribute pirated works.

Re:Saturated - mining encrypted data?

[DotDotSlashDot]

Doesn't anybody encrypt things they store in public places? I use NSA facilities for write-only archives. If my data is genuinely important, they will flag it and notify me. Could anything be more convenient?

Re:Gmailfs, !GMILFs

[hobbit]

Oedipus, is that you?

Re:Sounds Good.

[dargaud]

some digital photos I don't wnat to lose isn't like some secret, private data I'm terrified they will analyze.

I do. I lost my home backup drive on my way to work one day (I store it there). It fell off my improperly closed backpack (?). It was promptly replaced, but 1Tb of (sometimes very) personal pics could come back and haunt me and my SO as I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to figure out who the owner is... In a similar way with gFS, the day they run the script FindUnderagePics.sh, what's your recourse if she's really more than 18 (I swear !) ?

Re:Sounds Good.

[dargaud]

I have no reason to suspect Google would not do precisely that, if ordered to by the courts

I have no doubt that they pay their hard drives significantly less than I do, but _my_ images stay on _my_ disk with _my_ encryption key. This way, the day the RIAA/MPAA/porn police comes at my door, it's _my_ choice to reveal or not what's on my disk. I just wish there was an emergency wipe password in TrueCrypt that would just create an empty filesystem with a lone 'fuck you' file.

I don't want to leave this choice in the hands of a company, whoever they are.

Privacy Concerns?

[malevolentjelly]

If you want a couple gigabytes of online storage for free that's got a multi-platform client for regular syncing, you can already have it:

https://spideroak.com/

At least these guys encrypt your data instead of processing and farming it for marketing data and advertising cues. Ugh. What part of our lives aren't we going to hand over to google?

Trust Truecrypt?

[swb]

I don't know whether a GDrive service would easily be usable (eg, removable disk type drive mapping on PCs), but wouldn't you just naturally put a Truecrypt volume onto whatever GDrive had to offer? Would you ever consider putting unencrypted files on it?

plus ça change...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I think the appropriate saying here is "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

A good 25 years ago some of the cs students at University of Waterloo found it hard to complete programming assignments with the very limited storage allocation each unix account was given. So they took to emailing themselves files in order to use the mbox as temporary file storage. The department finally did something to prevent it but I can't recall what at the moment.

The future is EPIC.

[MsGeek]

And Google is managing to accomplish it without Amazon.

They won't prohibit encrypted content.

[John Hasler]

There is no reason for them to do so, because the number of users who will encrypt will be too small to matter.

Not a Rapidshare replacement!

[bornagainpenguin]

Not unless some way can be made to assure users no one can steal everything with a simle password change, which has been seen before in the past...

--bornagainpenguin

Mod parent insightful, not funny!

[bornagainpenguin]

Google's moves in China have shown how far they are willing to go to play ball in those markets (not that it has worked in their favor before) and this represents a dangerous new grounds for privacy concerns to fester in!

--bornagainpenguin

Shares?

[IonOtter]

Well, you can already share access to your calendar and GoogleDocs, and probably more services I'm unaware of.

I wonder if you'll be able to designate email addresses/people that can access your Gdrive without having to give them your personal password?

If that's the way it's going to work, then the RIAA/MPAA just might crap themselves to death.

Re:Will they allow encryption?

[Adam Hazzlebank]

The first stage of any decent encryption algorithm should be to compress the data. Compressing data remove redundant information that could be used in cryptanalysis.

There are possibly economies of scale if you compress large amount of data in a single block, but it shouldn't be more than a few percent and probably not worth it for the associated hit in access time. If you ban encrypted data from this reason you should also ban compressed data (so no uploading jpegs or most anything else).

petaprogrammer...

[lpq]

As long as he doesn't support petafiles, he'll be just fine...

Re:Sounds Good.

[brabo_sd]

what do you know! thanks for the info Enderandrew ;-)

"Unintentionally" my foot!

[Arancaytar]

Google has "leaked" info about GDrive so often that very soon they'll need to find a way to get their "leaks" aired on national TV to get more coverage than they already have.

Nice marketing strategy, though.

(Also, note that out of "Email", "Calendar", "Browser" and "World Domination", Google has proved rumors correct at least three for four now.)

Re:Sounds Good.

[Arancaytar]

Meh, there's nothing wrong with encrypting the important stuff before uploading.

Sure, you won't be able to full-text search in encrypted files, but he who exchanges essential security for temporary convenience deserves neither. :P

Now you've done it

[Wyck]

By posting these excerpts, you just redistributed part of their source code without displaying the appropriate copyright notice in tact. You've violated the license agreement.