p2pnet - rss feed: Google wants data — OUR data
p2pnet news | Product News:- Hooray Hooray and Wowee!
Do No Evil Google is offering us a new way to store our files.
On its hard drives!
[Thinks. wouldn’t that be like the fox promising to keep an eye on the chickens’ eggs? Nahhhh]
The Wall Street Journal is calling it a strategy which could, “accelerate a shift to Web-based computing and intensify the Internet company’s competition with Microsoft Corp”.
Of course, it’s not a strategy: it’s an acquisition plan. And what it would really do is: put all kinds of priceless personal and private data anyone with any sense would want to closely protect into the hands of a huge corporate entity that’s only interested in $$$.
“Google is preparing a service that would let users store on its computers essentially all of the files they might keep on their personal-computer hard drives - such as word-processing documents, digital music, video clips and images, say people familiar with the matter,” says the story, going on:
“It could be released as early as a few months from now, one of the people said.”
My stuff on a centralised computing system run by a Google?
I don’t think so.
JN
Share with >>> 
Also See:
Wall Street Journal - Google Plans Service to Store Users’ Data, November, 2007
November 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Jon, that is why then invented encryption :). Personally I prefer the open source Axcrypt (Windows Reliant)
http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/
When you encrypt your files with a 40 digit password with 128 bit encryption, even google would take a while to break through that.
I do forsee this as a possible use on the file sharing scene however. Mostly as a rapidshare alternative. Time will tell.
Liam
November 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Encryption is not 100% secure. It’s 99% secure to store sensitive data on a machine that NEVER connects to the Internet. The 1% is when someone breaks into your house and steals your computer.
If you become reliant on this service Google can start charging money for it or jack up the price. Don’t pay, your data is gone, like blackmail. If this horrible idea becomes ultra popular in the future most people might stop using hard drives. Then you’re stuck with this. That could get expensive.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I don’t see the point for that. If google think I am going to store my stuff on their HD they are delusional.
I did not even used 5% of my 500gb local HD on my system incluiding all the software and I am storing my personal stuff on my 4gb memory stick that I paid only 30$. I really don’t understand the point!
November 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I would have to argue your point about how secure a non-windows encryption was (for instance Axcrypt or TrueCrypt). Even if someone stole my encrypted files, and attached 20 supercomputers to cracking my .axx encrypted excel file, it would take more than any of our lifetimes to break the encryption.
It goes back to one of the general rules of hacking… If you can make it it impossible to break in 17 hours, you are probably safe. That being because police will not normally spend more than 2 work days performing forensic evidence on a machine. To implement encryption that won’t be cracked in a lifetime more than fulfills that requirement, even taking into account that every 18 months computer power doubles.
I’d read up on the details next time if I were you,
Cheers!
Liam
November 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I google you, it said you were a big fat liar, and we shouldn’t believe anything you say. It also said it was safe and good to give google your data.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I will store data on Google’s hard drives. However the data I store will be what I WANT them to see. This data will include such things as inflated projections on next quarter’s profits, fake account info to see who is sharing Google’s data, links to websites that I want to be indexed, fake information on my competitors, and any other data I think that will be useful (to me) for Google to have. Yes, these are interesting times.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I would advise those who don’t believe me to look at the following:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/archive/index.php/t-9648.html
An excerpt:
“Could you provide proof that AES-128 has not been bruteforced?”
-> Well, since you ask the question in that way, yes, I pretty much believe I can. You specifically say “bruteforced”, not “broken”. Bruteforce means just that - i.e. try all possible key combinations until you hit the right one. With AES-128 you have 2^128 tries to go before you are sure to find the right key. Let’s theorize a bruteforce cracker, chugging along at 1THz, and that it is capable of trying one key every cycle (this is a pretty neat machine by the way, if you find one, let me know… ;-). Now, one 1THz (that’s a thousand GHz) means that it can try 10^12 keys every second. This is about 2^40 keys every second. Ok, this means that we have 2^(128-40) = 2^88 seconds to go, to try search the entire key space. In one year, there are just under 2^22 seconds. This means we need 2^(88-22) = 2^66 years to search the full key space. Now, 2^66 is a pretty long time… All right, let’s be massively parallell here. Let’s build 1 billion of these cracker suckers. 1 billion is 10^9 which is approximately equal to 2^30. So, now we only have to wait 2^(66-30) = 2^36 years to search the full space! Ok, let’s settle for just 1% chance, or let’s say 1/128 chance of finding the right key, then we only have to wait 2^(36-7) = 2^29 years! Don’t hold your breath (that’s about 500 million years).
Cheers!
Liam
November 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
@liam
If the police can’t get into you’re encrypted hard drive, the jury will presume you’re guilty. :p
November 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Holding data like that on centralized networks isn’t new. It is a good way of moving files around between different places like FTP, only easier for newbs.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
@rez
you’re assuming there’s nothing worse on liam’s drive than whatever he’s being charged with.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“Of course, it’s not a strategy: it’s an acquisition plan. And what it would really do is: put all kinds of priceless personal and private data anyone with any sense would want to closely protect into the hands of a huge corporate entity that’s only interested in $$$.”
This hate campaign against Google is getting quite tiring.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
@ everyone
. Also more likely than not, they’d try to get the password out of someone via social engineering or torture if it was a matter of “national security”. But then again, having files the government didn’t have access to might somehow finger that person as a terrorist, and then they’d be allowed to do whatever they wanted anyway right?
I don’t remember saying that I had anything confidential stored on my computer. Only that if I had something confidential, it’d be encrypted
Liam
November 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Funny thing happens to “uncrackable” technology. EVENTUALLY it gets cracked. I trust open source more than proprietary stuff but it CAN’T be perfect forever. They just haven’t found out how YET.