4 ms·

Here's my wishlist: 1. OS and platform agnostic 2. Easy to use 3. High storage at least on the paid version 4. Secure 5. and above all, an unequivocal guar

Here's my wishlist: 1. OS and platform agnostic 2. Easy to use 3. High storage at least on the paid version 4. Secure 5. and above all, an unequivocal guarantee from Google that they won't "peek" into my files just to show ads on gmail or search based off this info, even in the free version.

ender7 14y ago
Unless you do client-side encryption (which is impractical unless you want to manually sync your encryption key between your devices), they can't ever issue such a guarantee. Even if Google promised to never examine your data, it could still be subpoenaed.
markokocic 14y ago
Take a look at Ayala, it matches all your points except it isn't Google.
- markokocic 14y ago
  I wanted to write Wuala. That's what you get when you have autocorrect enabled on Android phone.
lallysingh 14y ago
Considered rsync.net? I was pretty happy with them, but got burdened enough with slow-uplink home networks to have to drop them as my backup provider.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  Rsync.net always looked cool but is way too expensive at .80c/gb. I can use duplicity and do incremental backups to S3 and encrypt with gpg all in one command for much cheaper.
  - toomuchtodo 14y ago
    https://nimbus.io/ https://nimbus.io/ Almost public release, and $0.06/GB.
FaceKicker 14y ago
> 5. and above all, an unequivocal guarantee from Google that they won't "peek" into my files just to show ads on gmail or search based off this info, even in the free version. Just wondering - why does it bother people to have algorithms reading your files? If you're not encrypting the files yourself, then at some point a Google computer has to "read" your file even just to save it to the database. Is there some point where the algorithm reaches a certain level of complexity (presumably the Google ad ranking algorithm is quite complex) that you feel like it's similar to a human looking at your files?

ender7 14y ago

Unless you do client-side encryption (which is impractical unless you want to manually sync your encryption key between your devices), they can't ever issue such a guarantee. Even if Google promised to never examine your data, it could still be subpoenaed.

markokocic 14y ago

Take a look at Ayala, it matches all your points except it isn't Google.

markokocic 14y ago
I wanted to write Wuala. That's what you get when you have autocorrect enabled on Android phone.

lallysingh 14y ago

Considered rsync.net? I was pretty happy with them, but got burdened enough with slow-uplink home networks to have to drop them as my backup provider.

res0nat0r 14y ago
Rsync.net always looked cool but is way too expensive at .80c/gb. I can use duplicity and do incremental backups to S3 and encrypt with gpg all in one command for much cheaper.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  https://nimbus.io/ https://nimbus.io/ Almost public release, and $0.06/GB.

FaceKicker 14y ago

> 5. and above all, an unequivocal guarantee from Google that they won't "peek" into my files just to show ads on gmail or search based off this info, even in the free version. Just wondering - why does it bother people to have algorithms reading your files? If you're not encrypting the files yourself, then at some point a Google computer has to "read" your file even just to save it to the database. Is there some point where the algorithm reaches a certain level of complexity (presumably the Google ad ranking algorithm is quite complex) that you feel like it's similar to a human looking at your files?