81–90 of 151 posts
I wish OS vendors weren't asleep at the wheel. This sort of service needs to be integrated into the OS. I'm sick of having an OS that doesn't include next-generation features like seamless p2p filesharing. I guess its time to make one ..
As it stands, there are an abundance of other companies doing the same thing as Dropbox which do not associate with known war criminals. This makes them more desirable business partners.
Dropbox is morally corrupt and support for them by HN users is disappointing. I wrote to Dropbox and said I wanted to cancel my account and get a pro-rated refund because of their hiring of Condoleezza Rice. Her involvement in the Iraq war and the mass surveillance of Americans is deplorable. A few days after my request my account was converted to the free version, with the limitations of the free version. I could no…
Why are you entitled to a refund? You disagree with their hiring policies? You already paid the $99 for 1 year of service. You already bought it. It's done. Your option is to cancel at renewal or not. That's my take, anyway. I also asked for a refund when Google announced their far cheaper plans for GDrive, and this just a month after I renewed. They told me the same thing -- a policy of no partial refunds. So I aske…
A) Pro-rate the cost and immediately drop down to a free tier or cancel the service
B) Disable renewal, but keep the same level of service until the renewal date.
According to OP, he was knocked down to free tier but not issued a refund. That is incredibly odd, given that he already paid for the service
Dropbox is morally corrupt and support for them by HN users is disappointing. I wrote to Dropbox and said I wanted to cancel my account and get a pro-rated refund because of their hiring of Condoleezza Rice. Her involvement in the Iraq war and the mass surveillance of Americans is deplorable. A few days after my request my account was converted to the free version, with the limitations of the free version. I could no…
Perhaps you could instead consider that not everyone shares your beliefs or principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dropbox competitors with encryption like Spideroak and Wuala Unless one doesn't really cares about security and wants encryption for the sake of having encryption, there's no way their implementations could be considered sufficient. Without audit you're just taking their word for it — which is exactly as when you take Dropbox's word that they won't peek at your data (unencrypted or possibly encrypted but one can't…
I don't know about SpiderOak but I totally trust Tarsnap. But agreed we have to trust the software companies/devs when using crypto. Not many people really trust Dropbox anymore to build client-side encryption themselves. But you could use a different program for encryption with dropbox as simple storage. That being said, you still have to trust the Dropbox binaries installed on your system as well. Security paranoia…
Well, if someone would code a Dropbox-based TAHOE-LAFS backend, I'd seriously consider really using Dropbox. (My phone came with 1-year "free" 50GB offer, so I'm using it for some completely non-private files, like my cat's photos I've publicly shared.)
I wish OS vendors weren't asleep at the wheel. This sort of service needs to be integrated into the OS. I'm sick of having an OS that doesn't include next-generation features like seamless p2p filesharing. I guess its time to make one ..
Is there a reason the old thread was killed and this up in its place? I thought the sales page contained better information than the blog post. That aside, I feel this needs to be brought up in every Dropbox thread: Get rid of Condoleezza Rice and I'll happily use your product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Dropbox does NOT encrypt your data on the client site. Alternatives would be Spideroak and Wuala or addon software like Boxcryptor. They work but not as flawlessly and user-friendly as Dropbox usually does …
I've found EncFS over Dropbox to be pretty good, retaining the best of both worlds.
In particular, an attacker having access to the ciphertext at two or more different times violates EncFS's security assumptions; undetected malicious modification of files is also feasible in this scenario.
Many encrypted filesystems do not include such a property in their design criteria - for example, XTS mode as-is is not suitable for use in this scenario either, so please also try to avoid putting TrueCrypt (et al) on Dropbox!
For a broad general example of what a system would look like which tries to address this use case more naturally and effectively (although, caveat: I have not reviewed it in great detail myself), please see Tahoe-LAFS.