Slashdot Mirror
Google Unofficially Announces GDrive By Leaked Code
An anonymous reader writes "Google has unofficially announced the GDrive by source code. In an in-direct way, Google has publicly advertised the new, much-anticipated online storage drive called the GDrive. If you take a look at the source code of some javascript within the Google Pack, you will clearly see the GDrive referenced. The code categorizes the GDrive as an 'Online file backup and storage' device. It also provides the following descriptions; 'GDrive provides reliable storage for all of your files, including photos, music and documents' and 'GDrive allows you to access your files from anywhere, anytime, and from any device — be it from your desktop, web browser or cellular phone.'"
Finally, somewhere to back up all of my important porn!
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.
Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
Seriously, who didn't see this coming at least four years ago? I'm glad it's finally closer to "official" but really, not a surprise in the slightest.
put the what in the where?
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.
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.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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?
"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.
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?
Where's the "post to an FTP site and let the world mirror it" option? Linus will feel left out!
My blog
Have a backup. Just like with any storage.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Only debug code.
I'd guess the code must be commented out since the service in question doesn't exist. So if this code were to try to connect to it, it would hang. Right?
So it's non-executing code. Which means that maybe it's a leftover from some meeting where they thought they would offer this service but changed their minds since then.
How many times have you been fooled by reading outdated comments?
Believe it when it launches. Inferring Google's direction from reading code comments is clever, but perhaps a bit too clever.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I wonder if this will be as good as gmailfs.
Taken right now by a web design firm. Curious how long they stay there for.
What do you mean 'when'? Google has already openly stated that mining is part of their business model for GMail.. Why would GDrive be any different. If I was to use it, I think I would take ten minutes to write a script that encrypts the files first. I'd even go so far as to mangle the filenames and keep track of the original names locally. With that in mind, what the heck, GDrive could be good for small uses here and there if it's free.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
My MP3 collection and some digital photos I don't wnat to lose isn't like some secret, private data I'm terrified they will analyze.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Well that sucks for Google.
No, at no time whatsoever will you ever have access to the files you store on gdrive. In fact, gdrive is really just a counter attached to /dev/null
Will it have backup abilities? WTF? You either uploaded a file to it, thus implying you had access to it, enabling you to back it up. Or you can download the file from it, thus implying you have access to it, enabling you to back it up.
I've been using the GMail Drive Shell Extansion for quite a while now. Google must have liked it as well.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
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?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Sure this is very useful, but whats in it for Google?
Google isn't a new company. They've been around a while and have a positive track record. They're fairly transparent. Microsoft and Apple have had fairly negative track records for ages.
Please explain to me your assumption that Google will change against all reason their company strategy to emulate their competitors that they constantly try to differentiate themselves from?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
GDrive! A hard-disk governments and corporate businesses can finally google on!
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 :}
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
I have no reason to suspect Google would not do precisely that, if ordered to by the courts (after the inevitable, expensive appeals are finally exhausted). Much as I like cyberpunk sci-fi, I don't see Google declaring itself an extraterritorial sovereign entity no longer subject to national laws any time soon...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
don't think big trusted names can't fold. and if it happens, how will you get this data? i would advise extreme caution on what you use this for.
Is there any form of data storage that doesn't beg for advice like this?
- Hard drives fail.
- CDRs deteroriate.
- USB may not be around forever.
I mean, I appreciate the suggestion and all, but it's like there's a story about being able to purchase a flying car and me advising that you get insurance for it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
http://pages.google.com/
The more you know, the less you understand.
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.
Given Google's "all your data are belong to us" attitude, I'd rather stick to my own self-engineered remote storage solution.
Blood oaths are great theater, but that doesn't stop someone from bringing in an iPod and slurping files in other companies. I'm sure if the stakes are high enough, a competitor of a firm that uses a cloud computing storage system can find someone who has access to the machines with the stored data they can compromise. It doesn't have to be bribes either... the employee (or one of his/her family members) could have a dirty secret that the competitor can use as blackmail to coerce them into compromising data. Finally, if the employee has access and is an I-9 worker, even their home country can tell them to do an inside job, or face loss of citizenship and not being allowed back to their home nation once the I-9 contract expires.
This is not to belittle Google or its employees and the job they do. In fact they do a superb job. However, businesses need to pack their own encryption parachute when using a cloud. A breach can come from sources nobody has ever thought of.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?