Mega

[z929669]

You all should get signed up with Mega. They share our philosophy and prejudice against meddling eyes and agendas ... not to mention 50 GB of free clooud space Since it is web based, it is not as convenient as DropBox in terms of quickly saving an image to share via link, but this can still be done with a simple upload beforehand.

[stoppingby4now]

I'm avoiding Mega. It's a Megaupload waiting to happen all over again, and who gives away 50GB of free space? I'm very leery about trusting them.

[z929669]

I think you are wrong on that ... have you snooped around their site?

[stoppingby4now]

I think you are wrong on that ... have you snooped around their site?

For starters, encrypting information to claim plausible deniability doesn't work. The only thing going for them on that front is being located in the Netherlands...for now.

 

Kim Dotcom knew what he was engaging in with Megaupload as a pirate haven. But I'm sorry, I don't blindly trust anything written on a website, and there is enough skepticism to make me wary.

[z929669]

New Zealand ... and accountable only to New Zealand jurisdiction.

 

Nevertheless, I think they are different. 50 Gb attracts new users and quickly gets their name out there. They will be servicing busninesses (or larger endeavors) for profit. Have you snooped around their site?

 

What do you have to hide anyway? Do you think DropBox, Google Drive and other cloud services are safe for some reason? It seems strange that you would deny any potential use of Mega unless you were considering storage of highly sensitive information ... o_O

 

Interested in Monty's take ... I think it is great for file storage.

[stoppingby4now]

My bad, wrong country, you get the point.

 

Use of any online service requires an evaluation and acceptance of risk. It's not about storing sensitive information for me, it's about history, and it's all kinds of shady with Kim Dotcom. Throw in an unprecedented free 50GB of storage, and it's enough to make me more wary. The only reason I would need that kind of storage is for selective backups of my computer, and that isn't going to happen regardless of the vendor. I'm not a realist like you when it comes to the internet.

[deathneko11]

My 2cents? I just upload the odd file to mediafire. As far as pictures? I'm still looking for that site that fits. Have been using photobucket but meh, would like to find something more user friendly if possible.

 

And I'm staying out of ya'lls argument, mind me of a cat hissing at a growling dog :p

[stoppingby4now]

We go back and forth all the time, but it's more like Zues vs Thor. :P

[deathneko11]

Think I'll step back into my nice warm kitty bed before the storm here gets my fur wet...

[TechAngel85]

Debate aside, there is no earthly reason I would need that much online storage space. If it's backups, then I'd buy a terabyte (or two) hard drive and keep those backups nice and secure in my own home and possession. Not having a PC interface for syncing files is old school when it comes to online storage nowadays anyway. I'll be sticking to Google Drive which has more than enough storage for me, has desktop syncing, is synced with all my other Google services (email, calendar, etc) and has the level of privacy that I'm comfortable with. Google has had some issues with personal data in the regard of ads and serving ads in the past and also of grabbing WiFi information from resident homes (those were idiots that left their wifi unsecured anyway...that's a separate debate entirely); however, I generally trust Google services.

[MontyMM]

It all depends on what you want. If you need the highest level of security for information, then I would only have trust in data that is locally encrypted with open source standards. Once encrypted, it then shouldn't matter where it is hosted online. However, if you make incremental changes to the encrypted file stored online, an attacker could theoretically use those differential changes to gain enough information about the encryption to make breaking it viable.

 

This sort of security concern might seem extreme, but as a member of Liberty, and considering the treatment of journalists and their sources (see Glen Greenwald and his partner), I'm afraid it's not quite so academic anymore. In the end, though, all encryption is vulnerable to rubber hose cryptography.

 

The advantage of Mega, I think, is that it seems unlikely to be making its money from the routine harvesting of user data. I would use for casual data sharing, just because I have a general preference for privacy, and I think that it is important for the industry to see that we're not apathetic about being exploited in that way.

[z929669]

We go back and forth all the time' date=' but it's more like Zues vs Thor. :P[/quote']

Wait a minute ... those are not equal combatants ... I assume you must regard me as Zeus then ... ?

---

It all depends on what you want. If you need the highest level of security for information' date=' then I would only have trust in data that is locally encrypted with open source standards. Once encrypted, it then shouldn't matter where it is hosted online. However, if you make incremental changes to the encrypted file stored online, an attacker could theoretically use those differential changes to gain enough information about the encryption to make breaking it viable.

 

This sort of security concern might seem extreme, but as a member of Liberty, and considering the treatment of journalists and their sources (see Glen Greenwald and his partner), I'm afraid it's not quite so academic anymore. In the end, though, all encryption is vulnerable to rubber hose cryptography.

 

The advantage of Mega, I think, is that it seems unlikely to be making its money from the routine harvesting of user data. I would use for casual data sharing, just because I have a general preference for privacy, and I think that it is important for the industry to see that we're not apathetic about being exploited in that way.

[/quote']

A refreshing attitude yet again ;)

 

I have no problem with Kim Dotcom. Maybe he is s scumbag, but maybe he isn't ... I honestly don't know. What I can say, however, is that I applaud any anarchist that defies Time Warner and Sony and the like. I applaud his kind for infringing on the "rights" of corporate beasts that we allow to monopolize and profit on *bought* information. I personally subscribe to the ideal that everything should be free of copyright ( ) and that all goods and services should be bartered or given freely.