How 'The Cloud' Eats Away at Your Online Privacy (Video)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How 'The Cloud' Eats Away at Your Online Privacy (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on Friday March 20, 2015 @07:51AM from the it-seems-the-network-is-the-computer-after-all dept.

Tom Henderson, Principal Researcher at ExtremeLabs Inc., is not a cloud fan. He is a staunch privacy advocate, and this is the root of his distrust of companies that store your data in their memories instead of yours. You can get an idea of his (dis)like of vague cloud privacy protections and foggy vendor service agreements from the fact that his Network World columnn is called Thumping the Clouds. We called Tom specifically to ask him about a column entry titled The downside to mass data storage in the cloud.

Today's video covers only part of what Tom had to say about cloud privacy and information security, but it's still an earful and a half. His last few lines are priceless. Watch and listen, or at least read the transcript, and you'll see what we mean.

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 07:55 · Score: 0

Like there is an upside.
1. Re:The downside? by duck_rifted · 2015-03-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody could melt my PC and my code would be safe. Startups can serve their sites and application data from the cloud without having to invest in expensive server farms. When the robots that manage social media websites get confused by a stalker's reports and consequently won't even let you post pictures of yourself or your own family, the cloud is the only option you have left to protect digital memories.
  
  I don't like it. I don't like that the safety of our data, from the perspective of security and persistence, are entrusted to faceless businesses. But we were already subject to that massive vulnerability before cloud computing. Imagine how devastating it would be if your email service suddenly shut down and you didn't have enough time to update people and move data. These businesses hold our entire lives in the palms of their hands, and there's nothing to do about it except to disconnect permanently.
  
  But to say that the cloud is useless is simply wrong. Most dangerous things are useful. Technology is always a healing staff on one end and a blade on the other. Did you ever finish Deus Ex: Human Revolution? Did you pay attention to the ending? Most of the part of humanity that influences our progress has already chosen to side with Sarif.
2. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  >Somebody could melt my PC and my code would be safe. Startups can serve their sites and application data from the cloud without having to invest in expensive server farms.
  A real fully virtualized server runs about $20 a month and falling. For $10 you can get one that's paravirtualized, which kind of sucks since you can't encrypt the entire boot process. For that price, you'll have enough space leftover to make backups of your code and photos in case your PC melts.
  I still can't figure out the value of "the cloud". If your startup is hurting so bad $20 is going to break the bank, you're not ready.
3. Re:The downside? by Sarten-X · 2015-03-20 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  The upside is that my problems are now someone else's problems.
  I no longer need to manage my long-term backups for my team's projects. They go off to a cloud provider, and if we really need something, we can get it back, and I don't have to worry about keeping tapes or disks around, and I don't have to be the one going through the library to find some old media. Data is encrypted prior to archival, so privacy isn't really a big deal.
  I no longer have to worry about constant availability. If my local servers go down for a few minutes, maybe a user will notice. If they're down for an hour, I'll probably get an annoyed email, but I will get that email because our constant-availability services are hosted elsewhere.
  Now, I do still have local servers to manage. I do still keep a decent number of nines, and I do still make my nightly backups, but I don't need to be managing every aspect of every problem. I can push that responsibility elsewhere, and make my workload more manageable without bringing on significantly more risk.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  If someone else owns the server and you're renting it, that certainly sounds like "the cloud" to me (or, at least it can have similar drawbacks in terms of privacy and data ownership).
5. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Your code wouldn't be safe: It would not be worse than before someone melted your PC (does that happen a lot where you live?), but it would still be beyond your control. I guess that's OK if your code isn't important.
  "Server farms" aren't expensive, and very few startups really need more than a handful of servers anyway. The cleaning lady costs more.
  You can host your pictures on a hardware investment of less than $50 using an internet connection that you already have. It isn't any more complicated than hosting "in the cloud". OMG to the notion that social media websites are your goto solution for "protecting digital memories".
  If my email provider shut down, I guess I'd have to find a new one and point my domain at their servers. Not that I expect them to go away: They exist since quite a while before the turn of the millennium. You haven't heard of them. Still, no data would be lost. You make backups of your own data, don't you?
6. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't as bad as I'd feared. Long ago, I had AT&T DSL. One month, I sent in my payment only to find that AT&T accepted the payment, cashed it, issued me a refund check, and then charged me a late fee because the refund put my account in the red. Needless to say, I was pissed and refused to pay the late fee. After receiving verbal assurances that the account was 'held' so it wouldn't be terminated, it was terminated the next day. I found, after working out the issue with finance, that when the account was closed, my email addresses were lost forever.
  That's when I learned 1) it's not as bad as you think it is, as long as you have your passwords for all the services you use.
  2) If you don't remember those passwords because you don't use the services much at all, then it's not a big loss if you lose those accounts.
  3) Do not put a dependency on a local ISP on your online accounts. Now I register things under a gmail account. Nothing is registered to my current ISP. You wouldn't want to have to change all those accounts when you switch providers, would you?
  Posting as AC because Slashdot is broken today and doesn't think I'm logged in, even when I am.
7. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's right. Now you don't have to worry about your personal data getting sold off to other companies, your files being kept hostage the next time the cloud services decide to increase their prices, and llegal searches of your stuff happening incidentally, because it's stored on a common system where terrorists hang out.
  There is a downside to the convenience of letting companies do everything for you. If you don't see it, then you're not "grown up" enough, I guess.
8. Re:The downside? by MobSwatter · 2015-03-20 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Since the advent of Windows Server 10 which promotes use of cloud storage through integration there is some benefit to it in terms of redundancy, however there is a pretty nasty down side, the 'cloud' serves as an example of a high valued target for Tommy 10 year old script kiddy hidden behind likely only one layer of admin security. In essence the cloud violates the first rule of security, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Then there is the government that is walking the edge of going bankrupt since 1971 and floating on credit ever since that is always looking for ways to make money with hungry corporations looking for marketing data, then there is the aspect of corruption within government doing the same only with a bit more visibility than your average Joe to find targets and way more stingy about it.
  I never did like the idea of the cloud simply over rule number one, and there is no way in hell I'd point any type of authentication towards the cloud in hopes of maintaining security of the checkpoint.
9. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  I work at a large law firm. Ironically a client of ours that is in the business of providing cloud services, gave us specific instructions that none of their legal matter business with us (email, documents, discovery, etc) could be stored or passed through a cloud service. It all has to remain on prem (our private cloud). We have got that request from a lot of our clients. We can usually negotiate specific exceptions and terms for backups and archive data but it has to be encrypted prior to transit with keys that we control and stay that way while at rest while in the cloud. That really only allows us to use the cloud for storage, not compute where the data would have to be unencrypted to be used and manipulated by servers in the cloud.
10. Re:The downside? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-21 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Because the moment something has any downsides what so ever it should be avoided like the plague, right? If so, I hope you don't use a computer to store any data of value what so ever, thieves might steal your hard-drive! Better to inscribe our most important pieces of data onto rocks so large no thief could carry them.
  There's a downside to ANYTHING that increases convenience - driving a car is easier than walking but you lose out on exercise, eating fast food is easier than cooking but you lose out on potential nutrition and, yes, using the cloud is easier than local storage in some cases, but you lose out on protection and privacy.
  Should you drive a car somewhere that's a 5 minute walk away, or eat a Big Mac every day? Probably not, just as it's probably not a good idea to store your customer's data and credit card details in a plain text document on a cloud operated by a shady, no-name start up company. But on the other hand sometimes you need to travel across two states for business, at which point going by car and grabbing a burger along the way suddenly makes a lot more sense, like wise, there will be times when the cloud is far more useful than storing something locally - it's all situation dependent.
  Like I said before, everything has it's downsides but sometimes the upsides far outweigh them and, frankly, you don't know nearly enough about the other guy's set up to pass judgement over his decision. Acting like you know better in a situation like this is one of the least "grown up" things you could do. Maybe you need to spend a little less time worrying about other people's privacy and focus a little more on yourself.
11. Re:The downside? by Sarten-X · 2015-03-21 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  The paranoia's adorable, but here in the real world, everything I do is a balance between risk and reward.
  Sure, our data could be sold off, but that's what contract lawyers are for, just like any other business deal. Sure, I risk a malevolent company holding my data hostage, but even at increased prices, it's still cheaper than handling the data myself. Sure, I could be using the same rack a terrorist uses, but he could also be renting office space in the same building we use.
  My company could, of course, buy its own building, own its own servers, manage all of its own data, and run all of its own processing... and then promptly go bankrupt, because the cost to do that is too high for the extremely limited benefit.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

a) everyone on Slashdot knows that "cloud" and "your privacy" are contradictory
b) hint, people not on Slashdot won't see the article, so posting it is irrelevant
c) video articles suck balls, nobody wants to hear some dork talk when they could read the piece in 1/4 of the time
1. Re:Another worthless video article by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-20 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  a) everyone on Slashdot knows that "cloud" and "your privacy" are contradictory
  Unless they know about encryption.
2. Re:Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  At least include a transcript so I can either a) read the "article" like normal, b) skim the transcript to decide if it's something I want to watch.
  Also when I'm in the mood to read, I want to read. When I want to watch video, I go to Youtube. If I need to be quiet in whatever environment I'm sitting in, I won't watch a video. Finally, I can read faster than someone can talk and skim text faster than skimming a video.
3. Re:Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  There *is* a transcript. And autoplay is gone. These two facts invalidate your complaint.
  Funny that I posted 3 videos in a row with no transcripts and saw no complaints about missing transcripts. Put one up *with* a transcript, and here's a complaint about no transcript!
  I love working on Slashdot.
4. Re:Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's me (robin/roblimo) trying something. I seem to be an AC myself when I use my new login. Interesting.
5. Re:Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  c) video articles suck balls, nobody wants to hear some dork talk when they could read the piece in 1/4 of the time
  Let's get Haselton to give a video submission!
6. Re:Another worthless video article by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wonderful - I had missed the "Hide/Show Transcript" link. Normally, article text is included inline without expanding it. Am I right?
7. Re:Another worthless video article by Roblimo · 2015-03-20 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  They've always been show/hide on videos, which are the only type of content that needs them. :)
  So you know: Like many other Slashdot denizens, I read many times faster than people talk, so I often prefer transcripts to videos myself.
No way! The cloud lets you can do THIS! by Morpeth · 2015-03-20 08:01 · Score: 1

http://arstechnica.com/informa... /sarcasm

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:05 · Score: 1

... it's already become entrenched. Facebook, Steam, MMO's, F2P, etc. The only way to put this back in the box would be to take over these companies and I simply don't see that happening. Technology has advanced to the point that corporations will share everything as long as it makes them a buck and they've gotten too used to having exact information about everything. The market is totally transparent to companies. Who you are, where you live, etc. Because you have to provide them with things like your credit card information.
Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:07 · Score: 0

Does Slashdot use any such cloud services that may be collecting info about the people using this site? If so, can we have more information about how our details are being tracked using the cloud?
1. Re:Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot IS a cloud service. The term "cloud" is meaningless.
2. Re: Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Is Anonymous Coward a cloud service? All I know is that it's somewhere out there in cyberspace, interacting with Slashdot.
3. Re:Does Slashdot use the cloud? by diamondmagic · 2015-03-20 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Nowadays there's nothing it can't mean, but I originally understood it to mean "Virtual machine hosted on lots of identical nodes with no guarantee of uptime for any one node" -- as opposed to a mainframe, or time-shared machine.
  Then it sort of became "Use the Internet to store things normally kept on your computer, have your content on all your devices." Well, ok, but that's what the Web is.
  Then it was existing, long-established companies just rebranding their service without any change. "Cloud email!" Um, wat.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
4. Re: Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Is "Yipppppeeeeee!!!!" posting a cloud service?
5. Re:Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Nowadays there's nothing it can't mean, but I originally understood it to mean "Virtual machine hosted on lots of identical nodes with no guarantee of uptime for any one node" -- as opposed to a mainframe, or time-shared machine.
  Yes.
  
  Then it sort of became "Use the Internet to store things normally kept on your computer, have your content on all your devices." Well, ok, but that's what the Web is.
  Which is the same way of saying "software services running on 'virtual machines hosted on lots of identical nodes with no guarantee of uptime for any one node.'"
  Take Dropbox as an example of "cloud storage" - what 'virtual machine' is your data hosted on? "Cloud" abstracts away the individual machines completely, and focuses on the services provided: dropbox provides you a "cloud" service by making use of the hardware-oriented definition of cloud you 'originally' worked with - they run their service across giant farms of those virtual machines.
6. Re: Does Slashdot use the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  In the Cloud, the AC stands for "Another Coward"
Today's Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Old man yells at cloud
1. Re:Today's Headline by Enry · 2015-03-20 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  clod yells at cloud
2. Re:Today's Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Old man yells at cloud
  Sounds like a Neil Young song. But ... what has "old" got to do with it? Couldn't we do with a few more younguns also yelling at cloud? Or are they too busy sucking up whatever the framework du jour is before it goes out of fashion next week? (Remember Ruby on Rails? Already out of fashion.)
3. Re:Today's Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  Old man yells at cloud...
  ...Get off my damn lawn!!!
My own private cloud by BobSwi · 2015-03-20 08:12 · Score: 1

ownCloud 8 on my Raspberry Pi is working just fine for me.
1. Re:My own private cloud by Rich0 · 2015-03-20 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  ownCloud 8 on my Raspberry Pi is working just fine for me.
  If only. It is lacking most of the features of Gmail/Google Docs/Google Play/Google Music.
  I'd really love to have open-source alternatives to the cloud. The problem is that the best anybody seems to come up with are X11 apps plus some kind of dropbox synchronizer or something. If it doesn't work entirely from a browser, then it is a non-starter.
2. Re:My own private cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  Try Cozy then.
3. Re:My own private cloud by Wootery · 2015-03-20 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Neat. I don't think it has a word-processor though.
4. Re:My own private cloud by Rich0 · 2015-03-21 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Try Cozy then.
  Thanks. It looks a bit better than some of the options out there, but it is still missing email and documents (word processing, spreadsheets, presentations). So, it is hardly a google apps replacement, but certainly it is going in the right direction.
The Google Plus logo by Roman+Mamedov · 2015-03-20 08:15 · Score: 4, Funny

The Google Plus logo in the corner gives this video a special kind of hilarity.
1. Re:The Google Plus logo by Roblimo · 2015-03-20 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Believe me, both Tom (a friend *and* a /. reader) and I are 100% aware of the irony.
Tell us something new by Enry · 2015-03-20 08:15 · Score: 1

Been hearing this argument for years. It's still valid, but comes down to how much you care. I store my music with Amazon, but that's mostly because I want to have access to it everywhere. My CDs were ripped years ago and exist on my home server and Amazon and Google. I use Amazon and Google, but if something happens to either of those, I still have my originals. It's more likely that my home RAID array will eat itself before Amazon or Google get corrupted.
1. Re:Tell us something new by postbigbang · 2015-03-20 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  They're *your* assets, CDs, pics, but also the personal bits about your identity. What's your identity worth?
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:17 · Score: 1

Old man yells at cloud.
Thank you, Tom Henderson by itzly · 2015-03-20 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Your facial features, voice and speech patterns have now been included in the cloud databases. Thank you for your cooperation.
Proper usage by Earthquake+Retrofit · 2015-03-20 08:32 · Score: 1

If private data is defined as what you don't want others to see and public data is defined as what you want others to see, which is appropriate for the cloud? Seems easy to me: if you need to keep secrets, keep it off the internet. And you might think about how easy security is if you only use your powers for good not evil.

--
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 08:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have a raspberry pi that I use to host a personal website. It is just for me and a couple friends and it associates a free subdomain with my home dynamic IP.
I have access to my home movie and music library anywhere, can remote into my home systems whenever I want from my phone, and can host any file I want on line without having to give it to a third party.
That's the trick. Remove the third party.
Is it more expensive to self host? Not really. I want these things stored locally anyway. So I just link my local drives to the pi. So self hosting cost me about 25 dollars... total and done.
The only thing I use the cloud for is offsite backups and only of a few critical things.
Beyond that, why involve a third party?

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:More people should self host by Rich0 · 2015-03-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  I have access to my home movie and music library anywhere, can remote into my home systems whenever I want from my phone, and can host any file I want on line without having to give it to a third party.
  There is a lot more to the cloud than a page full of links behind .htaccess or whatever.
  I'd love to self-host, but I don't see any FOSS options that are equivalent to the likes of Gmail or Google Docs or Google Music. There are some web-based email applications, but they're pretty weak. I've yet to find one that lets me archive/delete/spam an email with a single keystroke.
2. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Name a feature you want and it exists. I grant the listings are often poorly organized but what do you expect from FOSS? They're almost always poorly organized.
  You get good at searching through that stuff. You learn the terms. And it all comes into focus.
  What you want to do is archive, delete, or send to spam on a single keystroke?
  That's more a matter of the email client itself than the server. I suppose you're looking for a good webmail client?
  Not a fan of them personally. Email clients simply do a better job than the crap that approximates one in a website.
  But I'm sure you could find a good webmail client that is FOSS if you wanted. It isn't a big deal.
  Still.. I wouldn't bother. The email clients that don't bother going through websites are always faster. Even than gmail. A proper email client donkey stomps gmails webclient and always has.
  A feature I think is really important for example is auto sorting of email as well as "triggers" that do certain things automatically when some emails come in.
  For example, I get a text message on my phone when some of my automated systems send an email to my address with certain trigger phrases in it. The home client checks the box every few minutes. When it gets that message, it puts the message in a special folder and then triggers a script that also sends a text message to my phone.
  The vast majority of mail that arrives at my email accounts is automatically sorted. I can receive hundreds of mails in a day and know what I got that matters in about 5 seconds.
  And that is entirely independent of the server.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
3. Re:More people should self host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  1. Running a server is against the TOS of many consumer ISPs. They don't want the traffic and they want you to support their corporate overlord cloud hosters.
  2. What if you want high traffic to your home web page? You'll need load balancing, a global CDN, backups etc. That means a Big Hoster. And your consumer ISP will spit the dummy when they see your traffic.
4. Re:More people should self host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  So, to sum up your points:
  "Dear Everybody Else,
  You are so stupid. Don't you know that if you just stopped having these foolish needs and wishes for functionality that I don't want, then you wouldn't have these problems? Also, it helps if you live and breathe computer knowledge like me, and don't waste your time on pesky pursuits such as relationships, personal hygiene, and things that make you go outdoors.
  Sincerely,
  A. Neckbeard, Esq."
  Is that about the extent of it?
5. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, more like "Google announces policy that only effects lazy and or ignorant people"
  Don't care.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
6. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Personal web traffic is typically so low that no one will notice.
  If you have high enough traffic that you need that much bandwidth then I don't see how you're going to get free cloud service that covers that volume.
  Yes, if you're doing youtube videos or something then fine... but really what else is going to matter?
  I self host everything that is private. Anything that isn't self hosted doesn't matter to me. They can sniff those panties all day.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
7. Re:More people should self host by Rich0 · 2015-03-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Name a feature you want and it exists...What you want to do is archive, delete, or send to spam on a single keystroke?...I suppose you're looking for a good webmail client?...But I'm sure you could find a good webmail client that is FOSS if you wanted.
  So, obviously you've never looked for them. I have. The best options right now are Roundcube and Squirrelmail, or the less-FOSS Zimbra. None of them let you archive/delete/spam email with a single keystroke, and I don't think any of them support tag-based email either. That function in Gmail lets me blast through an inbox in about a minute or two, has an offline cached client for Android, and works in a browser.
  
  A proper email client donkey stomps gmails webclient and always has.
  And it won't work on a Chromebook or a mobile device with only a browser.
  
  The vast majority of mail that arrives at my email accounts is automatically sorted. I can receive hundreds of mails in a day and know what I got that matters in about 5 seconds...And that is entirely independent of the server.
  If you're doing it on a client, then it is useless when you're not using that particular client. That's the whole point of the cloud - you're not tied to one client. MAYBE I could get by with a curses-based email client over a terminal, but giving up a GUI seems like a poor move anytime after around 1990.
  My email is all sorted as well, typically in more than one way since I'm using tags. Stuff I follow goes in the inbox, stuff I browse more by group doesn't go into the inbox.
8. Re:More people should self host by radarskiy · 2015-03-20 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Remove the third party"
  You ran point-to-point network links to everyone who want to get to your website? Impressive!
9. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm familiar with them, I just don't use them because email clients are superior.
  As to not working on a chromebox... why would I use such a thing. They're trash. I can get a laptop for the same money that can run real software. The only value of the chrome box is that it is arbitarily limited in its ability. And I can get the same effect by installing a Kiosk GUI ontop of windows or linux. So there's no point to the chromeboxes. I've looked at them a few times and that anyone buys them can only be attributed to ignorance.
  As to smartphones that don't have email clients... there is no such thing. Any smartphone either android or iOS or blackberry has email clients.
  As to doing it on a client not being useful elsewhere, wrong. I use IMAP boxes which means the desktop client sorts the email on the email server which any other system passively profits from.
  I know what I'm doing, thanks.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
10. Re:More people should self host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  So anything that won't work on a Chromebook is out? Well, then you are already a Google fanboy and should keep using your beloved cloud. The whole point is to stay AWAY from the cloud and being tracked. You can't do that if you elect to use a fucking tracking device anyway.
11. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-20 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be obtuse
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
12. Re:More people should self host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  I have a raspberry pi that I use to host a personal website. It is just for me and a couple friends and it associates a free subdomain with my home dynamic IP.
  You need to get laid.
13. Re:More people should self host by Rich0 · 2015-03-21 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I've looked at them a few times and that anyone buys them can only be attributed to ignorance.
  I already own one and am thinking about buying another. Given a standard laptop I could build my own, but it would be a royal PITA and missing most of the features I care about (secure boot, transparent encryption, trivial re-provisioning, automated updates, etc). I'll probably run a distro in a chroot on the side as well, though I try not to use them too much since those are a pain to re-provision and the whole point of something like a chromebook is to not need to be running backups/etc.
  It is a bit arrogant to say that anybody who buys one must be ignorant. They simply have different values than you do.
  
  I know what I'm doing, thanks.
  I never claimed that you didn't. You've found something that apparently meets your own requirements. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet mine. Most of your post has basically suggested that I must be an idiot for having the requirements that I do. You're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be amazed about how little I care about what it is in this case. :)
14. Re:More people should self host by Rich0 · 2015-03-21 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  So anything that won't work on a Chromebook is out? Well, then you are already a Google fanboy and should keep using your beloved cloud. The whole point is to stay AWAY from the cloud and being tracked. You can't do that if you elect to use a fucking tracking device anyway.
  There is no reason that a Chromebook needs Google to run. If there were an FOSS alternative to the services google provides (including authentications/etc) you could just as easily build chromiumos to use those, and self-host those services. I'd certainly being doing that if it were available.
  It isn't like I profit from Google having my personal data. They just provide a better level of service than the alternatives. That is more an indictment of the state of FOSS than anything else - the level of service Google provides is not actually all that high. If somebody managed to hack into my Google account I'd be stuck re-creating everything from backups/etc which are a pain to maintain, because it is almost impossible to get customer service from Google.
  Oh, and as far as being tracked goes - they'll be doing that whether you use the cloud or not. :)
15. Re:More people should self host by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2015-03-21 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  How did you get the subdomain to point to a home dynamic IP? Mine changes every day or so, do you ping the pi or have the pi ping a webserver and update it or something?
16. Re:More people should self host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-21 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for the transcript.
  Is there any way you can make the hide/show transcript link show up in the NON-desktop view on Android? Using Firefox...
  Thanks!
17. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-21 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Look up a category of products called "Dynamic DNS".. the concept is that your router or your home server pings a third party every ten minutes. That associates a subdomain on their system with your current IP. You can this service for free. It doesn't really cost them anything.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
18. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-22 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Be more specific.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
19. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-22 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because ignorance and incompetence is sexy, right?
  Its people like you that herald the idiocracy.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
20. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-22 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  The intent is not to offend but to be honest.
  As to getting those features on a laptop... if you have very specific requirements you could set it up once and then ghost the image. There after, the only thing you'd have to do is manage some drivers if you installed it on a new machine.
  Explain to me the utility of Secure Boot? When you say transparent encryption, what do you mean? What reprovisioning are you doing on a chrome book? Most OS's have automated updates.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
21. Re:More people should self host by Rich0 · 2015-03-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Explain to me the utility of Secure Boot?
  Secure boot ensures that only the software I want on the device is actually present on the device, precluding the ability of a rootkit/etc to be intruding on it (unless that rootkit is housed in the firmware, which I'll grant is a problem). I would prefer if Chromebooks allowed the use of secure boot with a different set of keys - I believe you're stuck with it either on with Google's keys or off.
  
  When you say transparent encryption, what do you mean?
  I mean that the user data on the drive is encrypted using a strong key (ie not just a hash of a simple-to-remember password). Having the password to log in is necessary to decrypt the data, but not sufficient. If you were to obtain an encrypted image of the drive and the owner's password, you would not be able to decrypt the image without physical possession of the actual computer. If the computer were re-provisioned since you obtained the image and password, then you wouldn't be able to decrypt the backup at all, since the TPM would be re-initialized.
  All of this works without any user intervention or configuration.
  
  What reprovisioning are you doing on a chrome book? Most OS's have automated updates.
  If I mess something up (such as playing around with stuff in chroots or whatever) I can just wipe the thing back to factory condition in about 15min, log in, and all by settings are restored despite not having made any effort to maintain my own backups. The whole point of using the cloud is that you don't store anything of value on the local machine - just cached state for offline use/etc.
22. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-23 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  In regards to rootkits, I think the real issue with them is when they get in the firmware and then lock the firmware.
  I believe apple products were shown to have a vulnerability where a rootkit could get into the firmware and then write lock the firmware.
  My only real worry with nonsense like this is that it can't be fixed. I'm not so worried about rootkits unless I can't get rid of them. So long as the firmware can't be writelocked BY the firmware... I'm happy. Ideally some sort of hardware button override during boot to get access to the firmware in the event that we do want a write locking feature if only to prevent rootkits from intruding.
  As to secureboot, from what I can see, windows 10 has it. So there you go.
  As to transparent encryption, I can think of a few products that do this actually. I mean... you have to install and configure them but then they just do what you want. I'm not a fan of full drive encryption because I've seen that go horribly wrong especially on the system drive. But encrypting partitions with your data is reasonable. My email, documents, finance information, firefox profile, etc is all on an encrypted partition.
  I suppose it isn't transparent in my case because I do prompt to mount and unmount that partition but I actually like that. My machine loads without a password when it is turned on. I don't want a thief to reformat my drive. I want it to be super easy for him to use my machine so that the tracking apps I installed can be accessed by ME. Using those apps, I MIGHT be able to track the person that stole my machine and possibly recover it. But if I can't... they won't get my data.
  As to backing up on the cloud. I don't really trust the cloud with my backups. I push all my data at a home file server.
  Once every six months, my system drive is ghosted to the file server. And my critical files are updated every day. I don't just overwrite the old download. I use a GFS backup script that maintains versions of my files going back a month. Grandfather backs up once a month. Father backs up every 7 days. Son backs up every day and three copies are permitted in that case. If I don't catch a corruption that is over three days old, then the Father has to catch it from 7 days back. And if that isn't sufficient then the grandfather from a month ago gets it.
  I do some other tricky things with my back ups. The files on the file server are duplicated to two external drives and there are error codes up the whazoo if there is a problem such as drive having problems or being unplugged. And those errors are sent to my phone as a text message and to my email.
  I haven't had to tweak the system for years really. It just works. But if I need to make a change... the whole thing is just a script so I can really change anything about it.
  I like having control.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
23. Re:More people should self host by Blaskowicz · 2015-03-28 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure you have a fine and awesome solution but most people only ever used webmail. Can check e-mail from any place, without having to (at worst) ask for the root or admin password so you can install and configure your beloved mail client.
24. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-28 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be silly, every smartphone comes with a built in mail client.
  This is a stupid conversation. You're not being honest and I have no patience for incompetent deceit.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
25. Re:More people should self host by Blaskowicz · 2015-03-29 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Smartphone, what's that?
  A computer without a keyboard, without security updates, without battery life, with a high recurring fee to access the network and that wants you to sign up to a google account. I'll pass, it's too immature for me.
26. Re:More people should self host by Karmashock · 2015-03-29 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  This discussion is tedious. I've led a mule to water and you are far too stubborn to drink it.
  So I'm done. Whatever dude.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Cloud-to-Butt browser extension pays off again by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:15 · Score: 0

Making my crappy afternoon a little brighter
No sh*t... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 10:07 · Score: 0

Seriously, who the hell ever thought the cloud was more secure than local ?
mp4 please by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 11:56 · Score: 0

If you want people to visit your web site then you must provide more than antiquated adobe flash player. Wake up ... it is 2015!
1. Re:mp4 please by Roblimo · 2015-03-20 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't notice the change in /. videos to HTML5? Really?
The problem isn't cloud technology itself. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 11:59 · Score: 0

Open source cloud technology with strong encryption where you control the cloud server sidesteps all of the privacy concerns.
1. Re:The problem isn't cloud technology itself. by gnupun · 2015-03-20 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  And how do you know the binary code running on the server was generated using exactly the same open source code you have been provided with? IOW, the code could be modified without the customer knowing about privacy breaches. Don't be so naive when it comes to security.
alexwiremesh.com by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 15:32 · Score: 0

That's the trick. Remove the third party.
Is it more expensive to self host? Not really. I want these things stored locally anyway. So I just link my local drives to the pi. So self hosting cost me about 25 dollars... total and done.
The only thing I use the cloud for is offsite backups and only of a few critical things.
fiberglass mesh
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-21 01:31 · Score: 0

I thought that Slasdot was run by young hacktivist hipsters. Slashdot bears more reminiscence with 60'ies political anti nuclear protesters, turned against the internet? WOW - I like this place even more now.
Maybe because I too belong to the latter category.
Transcript by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-21 03:35 · Score: 0

Thank you for the transcript.
Is there any way to make the hide/show link show up on NON-desktop view on Android? Using Giregox....
Thanks!
Volume Control? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-22 17:59 · Score: 0

Seriously, why is it so difficult to put a volume control on your videos?
Volume control? by PhillipNolan · 2015-03-23 13:31 · Score: 1

why do these videos start at 11 and have no visible volume control? My ears work fine thank you. I don't need max volume.