91–100 of 125 posts
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Encryption won't help you, since a judge will simply throw you in jail for contempt until you cough up the key or give them a copy of the decrypted data. Honestly, in this hostile government environment, if you have something worth protecting you need to have a "dead man switch" on your data. Unless you take an action every few days (which you can't if in jail) then your data gets deleted.
I may be misreading this, but I think there's a big difference between "being readily accessible to the NSA" and "taking a judge to make it available."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run linux into Dropbox. It's tedious having to manually select/enter files without the dragging the others get. There's language Dropbox API modules that automate this too.
Dropbox has an official Linux-client. I think the poster was complaining about the fact that there are no jottacloud-client for Linux. Which for me too is a show-stopper. In that regard Owncloud[1] looks like a better option, but that again lacks mobile clients. [1] http://owncloud.org/sync-clients/
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
I have to agree. The user needs control over their encryption. Taking advantage of Norway's laws is fine, until the day that those laws go sour on you.
Sure, if the government was going after someone like Steve Muller (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/04/gsm-researcher/) you'd want him to be able to keep his stuff from prying eyes.
What about a Suadi National accused of plotting terror attacks in NYC? Would you want the same laws applied to him? Or would you want to able to force someone like this to de-crypt their files in order to stop an attack?
I really don't know what the right answer is, but sometimes laws intended to keep us safe, also give shelter to bad guys.
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
A provider can give you all the assurances in the world, but the real assurance is using your own encryption with your own best practice and controlling the data store as it exists on the providers filesystem.
This is why it's important to give users a raw, open filesystem that they can manipulate any way they see fit, and not a fancy, highly abstracted backing store with a pretty GUI on the front.
Without a substantive commitment to open standards and open platforms, this is just a PR move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dropbox has an official Linux-client. I think the poster was complaining about the fact that there are no jottacloud-client for Linux. Which for me too is a show-stopper. In that regard Owncloud[1] looks like a better option, but that again lacks mobile clients. [1] http://owncloud.org/sync-clients/
Owncloud does have mobile clients. I'm using the Android version and it works fine. https://owncloud.com/products/mobileapps
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your understanding is false. A sole stockholder (for example, the parent of an independent subsidiary), always has control, even if not by specific direction. They can, after all, fire the entire board, and elect a new one that will direct the company to do what they want. Not to mention in most cases, parent companies do in fact, maintain control over subsidiaries (IE they are not independent subsidiaries), and thus…
The way company law is set up in Norway, you cant as a board member do anything else than what is best for the company you are board member in. Doing something different would mean you could be held responsible. They could fire the board, but the next board have the same rules to go by.
If you want to have data storage that's secure from the NSA then you are going to need to do client side encryption. Moving your data to a company/country that promises not to access it isn't going to cut it.
Yes. If you want your data to be secure, secure it yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reading of that is that you aren't allowed to redistribute any modifications or use it for anything other than accessing the tarsnap service. So not really open source software in any sense that I understand. [NB My comments is not intended as a criticism of tarsnap or Colin's licensing policy - he wrote it so, in my book, he can license it any way he wants.]
It's open source, allright. Free Software is the term you are looking for.