I think Bitcasa is on the right track with privacy and security I just think that some of their promises are a little over-the-top. While I don’t really have a problem with that sort of particularized discovery, I could easily imagine Bitcasa having to build tools to allow parties like the RIAA to upload MP3s to see who has a copy, if ordered by a court. That information would then be open to discovery. A court could certainly order Party A to give Document C to Bitcasa, which Bitcasa would upload, and its systems would instantly know how many other copies of Document C exist on the server, who owns it, when it was uploaded, etc. Party A says that Party B stole Document C and stored it on Bitcasa’s cloud. For example, let’s say that two parties are in a dispute. Presumably Bitcasa won’t share your content with law enforcement because it can’t share it with law enforcement. “To be clear, aside from the rare exceptions we identify in our Privacy Policy, no matter how the Services change, we won’t share your content with others, including law enforcement, for any purpose unless you direct us to.” Although I still have to worry about securing my Bitcasa username and password.įrom a privacy perspective, Bitcasa has the right idea, though I think their privacy representations are a little over-the-top: This means that I’m much more likely to store sensitive documents on Bitcasa. In contrast to Dropbox, Bitcasa doesn’t know that it’s a Bieber MP3 they just know it’s the same file. This way, instead of storing 5,000 copies of Bieber’s latest hit, they can save space by storing just one and linking it to 5,000 accounts. ![]() This means that Bitcasa doesn’t actually know the contents of your files, but can still know if your file matches a file that has already been uploaded. They’ve got the right idea about privacyįrom my understanding, Bitcasa encrypts your files using a hash of the file itself as a key (please correct me if I’m way off base). So the idea of paying $100 per year for unlimited storage makes sense to me.Īlthough I understand how Bitcasa offers “infinite” storage, I don’t quite understand how Bitcasa’s business model intends to deal with enterprise clients who will want to store Petabytes per month, assuming they have the bandwidth. But I am willing to pay for ever-increasing storage needs every year, especially if I can free up local hard drive space for other needs. Even if I theoretically purchased “unlimited” space from Dropbox, I would still be limitied to the size of my local hard drive, since Dropbox only syncs local drives and does not provide additional cloud storage.Ĭonsequently, I’m not willing to pay a recurring fee for static storage every year. I want a safe backup for family photos and videos, even though I’m not going to access them on a daily basis. But the remaining 1% of my files take up terabytes of hard drive space. These files tend to be relatively small, and I can easily fit them within my 11.5GB Dropbox allotment. I’ve found that the 99% of the files I need to access and share on a regular basis are primarily office documents-Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Yes, I know that I’m also paying for near universal access to my files, but that value proposition just doesn’t hold water for me. But the idea of paying for the same storage again and again just doesn’t appeal to me. I’ve got somewhere around 11.5GB of free space, which I use to back up sync and share. That’s why I’m an avid user of the free version of Dropbox. ![]() Once I purchase a hard drive, I shouldn’t have to buy it again next year. Paying for the same hard drive every year doesn’t make senseįirst, let me tell you why I find Bitcasa’s model so appealing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |