Cloud Computing: The End of Privacy?

[CuttingEdge100]

I'd like to hear your opinions on cloud computing and it's implications on privacy, as computations that would normally be carried out on the computer would be carried out on remote servers and such, which could be potentially easier to intercept remotely.

CuttingEdge100

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't see *any* implications on privacy. Unless you're suggesting that hackers might get ahold of your address book or photos if you have them synched via MobileMe or whatever. Has that ever happened?

 

[Mr. B]

I don't think cloud computing is a game-changer on the privacy front. In general, I don't think "the cloud" is going to catch on in a big way anytime soon. The loss of control over your data is rather disconcerting. With the price per gigabyte continuing to drop, I don't see any reason for local storage to fall out of favor within the next couple decades. When internet speeds in the US catch up with what Korea and Japan ISPs offer, off-site backup could become much more popular though.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't think cloud computing is a game-changer on the privacy front. In general, I don't think "the cloud" is going to catch on in a big way anytime soon. The loss of control over your data is rather disconcerting. With the price per gigabyte continuing to drop, I don't see any reason for local storage to fall out of favor within the next couple decades. When internet speeds in the US catch up with what Korea and Japan ISPs offer, off-site backup could become much more popular though.

Local storage of things like email, contacts, and schedules doesn't make much sense. That's really where the cloud excels. I would agree that using it for everything else is overkill, though. Most people do not need to access their documents, music, etc. from absolutely anywhere.

 

[Lindley]

I went to a presentation a while back at Carnegie Mellon about a new concept: Not only would your documents be stored on a remote server, but so would your system state. Essentially, you'd be able to put your home machine to sleep, drive to work, and have your desktop waiting for you exactly as you left it at home.

I recall thinking it was an interesting idea, but questioning the need for it. Especially since transmitting the contents of an entire address space over a network would take quite a bit of bandwidth.

 

[TheBrew]

Well, wouldn't it be like a Remote Desktop connection?

 

[Sheep]

Years ago, I'm sure people claimed that credit and debit cards were the end of privacy. I mean, there was a gigantic paper trail documenting everything you purchased using a card--the horror!

That said, I think cloud computing has its place, but it's not the be-all, end-all that some companies are hyping it up to be. Cloud computing definitely saved my butt this weekend when I nuked my phone and was conveniently able to re-download all my contacts and apps with zero problems. But for things like expensive video games or mission critical software or projects? We're not there yet, not by a long shot, nevermind the privacy issues.

 

[Lindley]

Well, wouldn't it be like a Remote Desktop connection?

Except faster, since you aren't working over a network most of the time.

 

[FordSVT]

Some companies are hyping this to death, but there are certain kinds of information people are just NOT going to want to keep "in the cloud". Some people take it a step further and claim the future is basically a keyboard and a monitor and everything else, hardware and software included, will be kept off site for you to access "when you want". The argument is that computing power, storage capacity and network capacity frees us from having to have our personal computers do all the heavy lifting. On the contrary, in the near future when you can knit a 5Ghz processor with WiFi and a Terabyte flash card into your sweater for $25, why NOT do the computing and storage locally?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's talk that Apple will introduce a 'cloud' service for iTunes so that when you buy video files, like TV shows or movies, you won't have to set aside a huge chunk of storage space at home.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Well, wouldn't it be like a Remote Desktop connection?

Except faster, since you aren't working over a network most of the time.

Was there actually a demo of this technology, or is it just conceptual? I can't imagine it's at all efficient to dump gigabytes of memory state across a network. I could see it being feasible if it was a system you virtually never rebooted. You sync up once between each local PC and the central server, and then transmit memory deltas back and forth, which should be much smaller in increments.

Short of having fiber from end-to-end, though, I don't see it being fast enough to be acceptable to most people.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I can't imagine it's at all efficient to dump gigabytes of memory state across a network. I could see it being feasible if it was a system you virtually never rebooted.

With most users, they *don't* ever reboot, at least not with Mac OS X - which, as a Unix derivative, is designed to be left on all the time.

 

[Lindley]

Well, wouldn't it be like a Remote Desktop connection?

Except faster, since you aren't working over a network most of the time.

Was there actually a demo of this technology, or is it just conceptual? I can't imagine it's at all efficient to dump gigabytes of memory state across a network. I could see it being feasible if it was a system you virtually never rebooted. You sync up once between each local PC and the central server, and then transmit memory deltas back and forth, which should be much smaller in increments.

I think it was an actual demo. They lured in students by saying they wanted to give them a free laptop, and then they did the presentation and explained they were doing a test of this technology and wanted volunteers.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Except faster, since you aren't working over a network most of the time.

Was there actually a demo of this technology, or is it just conceptual? I can't imagine it's at all efficient to dump gigabytes of memory state across a network. I could see it being feasible if it was a system you virtually never rebooted. You sync up once between each local PC and the central server, and then transmit memory deltas back and forth, which should be much smaller in increments.

I think it was an actual demo. They lured in students by saying they wanted to give them a free laptop, and then they did the presentation and explained they were doing a test of this technology and wanted volunteers.

Huh. I wonder how it actually works.

 

[Lindley]

Keep in mind this was about 6 years ago.

 

[Marc]

I think there's still one major obstacle to cloud computing and that's bandwith and data allowances.

At present in the U.S data is cheap (becasue most of it what goes around the net originates in the U.S), bandwidth for the vast majority is limited to ADSL2+ (24Mbps) and cable. I know there's stuff like T1s but they generally cost.

Yes Fibre is gradually starting to take off in FTTH (such as FIOS) which is starting a 100Mbps but can easliy be ramped up.

Places like Japan and South Korea have Fibre pretty much everywhere and not sure on their data costs.

Australia has just begun the role on a major fibre optic network but it's data costs are high because Australian carriers get pinged for data costs in both directions which isn't generally the case.

Until these isses are sorted clouding computer is never going to be that viable.

But at the moment it's just another IT religious argument.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

I went to a presentation a while back at Carnegie Mellon about a new concept: Not only would your documents be stored on a remote server, but so would your system state. Essentially, you'd be able to put your home machine to sleep, drive to work, and have your desktop waiting for you exactly as you left it at home.

Which makes it possible to know what a person was doing in every detail on their computer without a keystroke logger

I recall thinking it was an interesting idea, but questioning the need for it. Especially since transmitting the contents of an entire address space over a network would take quite a bit of bandwidth.

I don't think it's necessary

 

[Lindley]

Which makes it possible to know what a person was doing in every detail on their computer without a keystroke logger

Leave it to you to twist any given idea into a potential threat to your privacy. I'm sure encryption would be used.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I went to a presentation a while back at Carnegie Mellon about a new concept: Not only would your documents be stored on a remote server, but so would your system state. Essentially, you'd be able to put your home machine to sleep, drive to work, and have your desktop waiting for you exactly as you left it at home.

I recall thinking it was an interesting idea, but questioning the need for it. Especially since transmitting the contents of an entire address space over a network would take quite a bit of bandwidth.

You can do this now (sort of) with Mac OS X, it's called "Back to my Mac".