Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google's Gdrive Raises Instant Privacy Concerns

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 30, 2007 02:01 PM
from the yes-encryption-encryption-is-good dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Privacy Encryption Security
An anonymous reader writes "The rumor mill is already raging over the potential functionality and capacity for Google's online storage service we talked about earlier this week (the company says 'it makes sense' to put all its Web apps under the same umbrella). But Internet rights advocates are now crying foul over liability issues, a probable lack of encryption and a cash-cow model that could scan all your personal data for advertising keywords. From the article: "'Google would be wise to offer users an option to encrypt your information,' says Nimrod Kozlovski, a professor of Internet law at Tel Aviv University. 'It really needs to have really detailed explanations of what the legal expectations are for storing your info.'""
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Google Plans Service to Store Users' Data Online 155 comments
achillean wrote this morning with a link to the Wall Street Journal, announcing plans we've all seen coming for a while: an online data storage service from Google. Though the article doesn't come out and call the project 'gDrive' or anything like that, it does indicate the service could be available within the next few months. "Google's push underlines a shift in how businesses and consumers approach computing. They are increasingly using the Web to access applications and files stored in massive computer data centers operated by tech companies such as Salesforce.com Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Google. Such arrangements, made possible by high-speed Internet connections between homes, offices and data centers, aim to ease users' technology headaches and, in some cases, cut their costs."
Submission: Google's Gdrive Raises Instant Privacy Concerns by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google's Gdrive Raises Instant Privacy Concerns 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • you have the choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@gmaTWAINil.com minus author> on Friday November 30 2007, @02:02PM (#21536145) Journal

    You have the choice to:

    • Not use the google service
    • encrypt your data you choose to store online with them
    • use some other service

    Seriously, the issues raised are the same as with the other on-line storage services. And, this move by Google mostly integrates/consolidates what they already offer, albeit with the extension of storing any kind of data. I think it's great, I've started storing much of my data on line in various forums and I love the internet access. At your parents house and need a file? Download from the clouds. Got a special inside track on a new job and they need your resume, quick? From the clouds. Serenity now!

    If you've got data you think sensitive, encrypt it, or figure out a different way to store it. Personally, from anecdotal, but plentiful, observation, those who store their data "in"/on the internet:

    • are far less likely to lose data
    • have much more universal access to their data
    • will probably spend less overall (no upgrades to disk drives) to store their data
    • and bother me far less with support issues

    As for the screaming about Google figuring out a way to make money doing this, hwah? Kind of what running a company is about. And the more money they figure out how to make by ads makes the price point that much less for you and me, or anyone willing to trust Google. For the moment, I am. I'm assuming I'll get enough warning signs to not trust them, I'll move my data elsewhere. For now, good for Google.

    This isn't new, just big. And, from a personal standpoint, I hope it's one more ding in Microsoft's armor. The more there are alternatives to data locked up in Microsoft's products, the better chances of real competition, and ultimately progress (finally!) in technology. (sorry, had to dig... this is slashdot, right?)

    • You make a lot of good points, but remember - the guy who the quoted from a lot of the complaints... is a nimrod.

      Bad humor aside, you are right. It's not like anyone is being force to use it - it's not like anything is being changed and there are exising users - this is a new product and everything is out in the open. Like anything else network related: if it's important, don't put it on the web like a dummy.

    • For Encryption... (Score:4, Informative)

      by epiphani (254981) <epiphani@d[ ]net ['al.' in gap]> on Friday November 30 2007, @02:13PM (#21536361)
      Use truecrypt. Open, GPL, quick and easy.

      • Re:For Encryption... (Score:4, Informative)

        by cromar (1103585) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:33PM (#21536669)
        For the lazy [truecrypt.org] :)

        Looks pretty cool, but I am guessing that it couldn't be used in conjunction with gDisk. Also, "only" Windows and Linux are supported.

        • Re:For Encryption... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Mazin07 (999269) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:37PM (#21536729) Homepage
          You'd have to create a local encrypted "container" (which is a filesystem in itself), fill it with data, and then put it on your gDiskDriveSpaceBox.

          It's like storing a safe at the rental storage unit.

        • Re:For Encryption... (Score:5, Informative)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday November 30 2007, @03:26PM (#21537399) Homepage Journal
          Truecrypt is a really nice solution, not necessarily to gDrive (although it might be), but to protecting your privacy generally.

          But I suggest you get it quickly. I believe that as soon as some "killer" encryption app that is user-friendly(for non-techies) and secure comes along, we will see efforts to outlaw private, personal use of encryption.

          There's a guy named Zimmerman who can tell you just how badly the government would like to make it against the law to encrypt data or communications. And the idea that he got in trouble just because foreign countries could get hold of pgp is simply a flimsy excuse. There have already been cases where the personal use of encryption alone has been used as probably cause for the search and seizure of person and property.

          Sure, I'm a paranoid, but that doesn't change the fact that the corporate authoritarians who are running our government are engaged in a full-court press to take away our freedom and our privacy. And they are succeeding at an unprecedented rate.

          I hope one of you out there comes up with a simple app for encrypting data that works well with gDrive. And thanks, cromar, for the link to Truecrypt. I played with it a while back, but now I see that it's been improved to the point that I'm going to use it on all of my external storage.
          • Zimmerman? Was he the one that said "Privacy? Google?! Pssh!"?

            • Re:For Encryption... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday November 30 2007, @06:57PM (#21539685) Homepage Journal

              I don't quite understand how this would happen.
              I understand your feelings, jvkjvk. I didn't understand how the government would take away the right to habeas corpus, or how it could hold American citizens as "enemy combatants" or how it could eavesdrop on the entire internet. I thought for sure that someone, somewhere in Congress or surely the Supreme Court would say "wait, we have a Constitution here, that says you have to do things a certain way". I didn't realize that our system of checks and balances was a fiction or that our system was so vulnerable to a committed sociopath who wanted to bring down our system of laws (Bush or Cheney, take your pick). Even failing all of those, I was sure that our press, the watchdogs of our freedoms, would leap into the fray and scream bloody murder if someone tried to do what the Bush Administration did. Unfortunately, it seems that they've been so beaten down by being told they were too "liberal" for the last 2 decades, and corporate interests have so thoroughly enforced their ownership, that there doesn't seem to be an effective press any longer in this country. They're too big worrying about one candidate's cleavage and another candidate's haircut.

              I didn't understand how it would be possible for the government to do searches and seizures without a warrant, in lieu of a declared war, or for that matter how, so soon after Viet Nam, a massive mobilization of our troops causing thousands of American lives could be engaged without a formal declaration of war, especially in lieu of the target of that invasion having attacked the US. I didn't understand how it would be possible that we'd fight that war using corporate-led army of private mercenaries who would be above the law of any world nation. I didn't understand how it would be possible for a Presidential election to be decided by a couple of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices after they forced a state to STOP COUNTING VOTES.

              But that's where we are today. Trust me, before a woman or a black man is elected President, personal users of encryption will be considered outlaws. Hell, did you ever think that someone whose grandson used a legally available piece of software for its intended purpose could be considered an outlaw and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, having had a private squad of thugs raid her house and seize her computer?

              I could go on, but it's Friday night and this vodka/cranberry juice is starting to put me into a good mood. It's been a long week and fighting fascism is thirsty work. I pray that a lot more of you highly-skilled, technically savvy, bright people give it a try (fighting fascism, not vodka/cranberry), but until the government seizes your iPods and your Xboxes and your 42" HDTVs it probably won't happen. But then again, with the sources of cheap credit which fuel our consumer economy drying up, it just might. When it does...meet the boys on the battle front.

              Peace, citizens.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by skeeto (1138903)

      encrypt your data you choose to store online with them

      I can think of at least one interesting way to set this up using FUSE [sourceforge.net]. Once this service becomes available, someone writes a FUSE filesystem for it. Then you use encfs [sourceforge.net] to mount an encrypted filesystem on top of the mounted gdrive. Viola! Mount a gdrive locally and hide its contents from Google too.

    • One other point: What this Nimrod is suggesting is that you can't trust Google to respect the privacy of your data, but that you can trust them to encrypt it for you. I don't quite see how that works...
  • First off, if you're that concerned about your data being secure, you probably should just store it on a personal webserver and encrypt it yourself.
    That being said, I really don't see this as a major concern for Google in relation to the success of Gdrive. A large percentage of people today really don't care about whether or not their personal data is scanned an analyzed, as proven by the information people list on social networking sites like facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc.
    So the real question here is whether or not Google (and the small percentage of users that would use encryption) would benefit enough from this feature to offset the time needed to develop it and the hassles that will come along with it. I think that alot of the users wont realize that if Google encrypts their data with the password that the users provide, then there will no longer be that friendly "Forgot your password? Let us reset it for you." button. People will then be constantly complaining that they can no longer access their data if they forgot their password and had it reset (Because the data is encrypted based on their old password obviously). The only way that Google would be able to recover that data for the user is a.) by brute forcing it, or b.) by using precomputed hashes in a rainbow table format (though something tells me that Google is smart enough to use salts and this wouldn't be an option). Realistically, even Google doesn't have the resources to go around brute forcing people's passwords. This means the only real way that Google could encrypt the data would be to store their passwords as plaintext in case the user forgot it, which is really just providing security as the cost of losing alot more security. All in all I don't see the process being beneficial for Google or the users.
      • If the contents are encrypted then Google can't have the password (or else it is useless), so there is no way for them to provide you with your password. The best they can do is wipe your drive and give you a clean slate.
        • ...you are making the assumption that the gdrive would have a different password, no?

          How is gdrive any different than the current docs.google.com with a different API tacked on?

          • Re:Encryption as a double edged sword (Score:5, Informative)

            by nahdude812 (88157) * on Friday November 30 2007, @02:45PM (#21536851) Homepage
            The idea behind encryption is that even Google shouldn't be able to read your data. If Google holds both the encrypted data and the key, then it is barely different from having it stored unencrypted, but you get to keep your "Forgot the password to my data" option. If Google can't read your data (as is being suggested in the article), then it also can't give you access to it when you forget.
            • Ahh, gotcha. I was figured I'd just create a truecrypt volume/file up there, and go with that. ;)

  • No, Google does NOT need to use encryption (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:08PM (#21536255)
    Because that's not useful. If they encrypt your data for you, guess what? They have the key! If you want your data safe from them, YOU need to encrypt it. That's just how it works. If you send your data in the clear to someone else and then they encrypt it for you, that means they can get at your data. Same deal is you send them data and the encryption key as well (see AACS). The only way to give it to them, but not let them at it is for you to encrypt it yourself, and to not give them the key. Then and only then can you be assured that while they have a copy, they can't read it.

    Seriously people, get Truecrypt, it isn't hard.

    • Seriously people, get Truecrypt, it isn't hard.
      Unless you're a Mac user. No TrueCrypt there (yet). Have to use other methods.

    • If they encrypt your data for you, guess what? They have the key! If you want your data safe from them, YOU need to encrypt it.

      This is patently wrong. Why can't I supply them with a public key that they use to encrypt, but I never reveal my private key thats used to decrypt the data. I mean honestly this is what public key encryption was invented for.

      That said they dont need the key as you gave them the DATA to encrypt in the first place. So you'd have to trust them that once they encrypt it they t

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Paul Rose (771894)
        Maybe I'm just completely mising your point, but:

        This is patently wrong. Why can't I supply them with a public key that they use to encrypt,

        Because if they are doing the encryption then they have the plaintext.

        They store two copies, the text that they encrypt and allow you to read, and the plaintext that they mine for info.
        • Why do you assume they would have the plaintext? Look at Mozy for an example of what the parent commenter was talking about. You can either use their key to encrypt your data, in which case they can also decrypt it without you needing a separate key, or you can use your own encryption key and the software encrypts the data which it before it sends it to Mozy's servers. Why can't Google do the same thing?

        • If someone has the clear text at any time, or the decryption key at any time, you are implicitly trusting them with that data.

          Exactly. If you're already trusting Google to do the encryption or hang on to the key or whatever...then why bother having them encrypt it in the first place? Your privacy has already been compromised and you're already relying on Google to do what they claim they're going to do. If you are genuinely concerned about about your security/privacy then you aren't going to want to rely

  • Jesus Christ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:08PM (#21536257) Journal
    At least let Google say something on their plans first...?

    Besides, what's so special even if they'd do this? It's the norm to not encrypt mails. It's the norm to not encrypt instant messages on servers on services that provide offline messaging (Messenger, ICQ, ...). Software may send usage information to some company's servers. Game companies analyze your system to detect cheats, and could in the process find a lot of other things on it.

    As usual, when this is released, I think *gasp* that the users will just have to decide for themselves if they care for having encryption or not. They'll also be free to encrypt their data. Why the rumor mill? Just chill and take it for what it is, as with any other service. It's not like Google will force you onto it. Then I could see the fearmongering kicking in early be more motivated.
  • Disclaimer: I don't see myself being an early adopter or anything of this service, but not because of privacy.

    cash-cow model that could scan all your personal data for advertising keywords

    What, like the "disaster" that Gmail is? I'm all for Internet privacy, but get some perspective. I trust this service in the hands of Google. They've done nothing to shake that trust, and to be frankly I have good faith that they won't. They're a data miner, sure, but they have always done in the least intrusive way as possible. Get this, I even like their ads sometimes! I know, unbelievable right! So thanks for being watchdogs and all, but as of right now, Google has my trust.

    • Re:I trust Google as of now... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:15PM (#21536411) Journal
      Agreed -- Google hasn't done anything evil about their information other than by machine analyzing the data to provide relevant ads. I think the reason is simple enough... Even if they were evil enough to do anything more, they ought to have the brains to understand how damaging that would be to their brand when it's the god damn core of their business model. Managing information. I mean, I can't even see how Google would even want to do this even from a business perspective. It would just take them to be discovered having done something fishy once and they could risk losing a lot of their reputation.

        • CIA, FBI, NSA, Mossad, or whatever spy agency

          I'll have to remember to encrypt my emails the next time I plan an overthrow of the US and Israeli governments. Thanks!

          Gadzooks, where do you people come from? Email is sent in plaintext from server-to-server. If you are sending something that you don't want others to read, reconsider your choice of email or encrypt the data. Maybe terrorists are so stupid that they send each other plain-text emails like, "Hey Ahmed, lets blow up that pizza place next week!", but I doubt it.

        • Yeah, and for some reason that could never happen in other e-mail services. Never!!

          If you want failproof privacy, roll your own encryption. Period.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602)
      They've done nothing to shake that trust, and to be frankly I have good faith that they won't.

      Pretty much anyone who has ever dated has been in this situation. And yet the world is littered with broken hearts, cheating/backstabbing boyfriends/girlfriends, bitter breakups, and vicious divorce proceedings. I'm not saying one shouldn't trust people, but your a complete idiot if you think you can't get brutally hurt. At least with love the risk is worth it... what does google give you? Free webmail? Some online

  • I am so tired of hearing about this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil Kerek (1196573) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:10PM (#21536297)
    #1 - Everything on the internet is not free. Actually, nothing is truly free - there's a cost SOMEWHERE. #2 - You do not have to use G So stop getting your panties in a wad. Just because YOU don't like the idea of it, doesn't mean some of us couldn't care less and like the idea of free storage. Everyone acts like GMail is the only mail system out there or that they are being forced to use it. Don't like the ads? Don't like that Google might read your mail? DON'T USE IT. You have plenty of choices out there - it's not Google's responsiblity to provide you with free anything. Get over yourselves.

  • I do not get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:14PM (#21536373)
    When it comes to GDrive, I wonder whether anyone is being forced to use it. I doubt this is the case. If this is not the case, why not just avoid it? Shhesh?

  • Can't say I'm concerned (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yalius (1024919) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:15PM (#21536401)
    It's a free service, some will find it useful, some won't. I mean, what kind of nimrod would expect his data to be 100% perfectly private and encrypted if he's outsourcing his data retention to someone else, and then question the company storing his data for, um, storing his data in the form he transmitted it? I just don't get the OMFGism.

  • "Internet rights advocates are now crying foul" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:17PM (#21536429)
    Simple, don't use it. Seriously, google aren't in the business of simply giving stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts. They're giving things away because they think that they can generate revenue. Pretty much the only thing they get for storing your data "for free" is the data itself.

    Just like your emails: you pay them by giving data so that they can search it advertise to you. Why would anyone think that they would do anything else with more of your data.

    If you are sufficiently naive to think that a company will simply give you free online storage for no benefit to themselves, than I have a bridge to sell you. Lots of traffic, one careful owner...
  • If you got data that is so sensitive that you're worried about Google processing it for some kind of ad targeting purpose you should be worried enough to spend a few bucks and get a webhost for your data. You can get a webhost with a couple of gigs of storage and more transfer for ~10 bucks a month. What's the issue?
  • This is idiotic. Seriously. The "product" in question is a rumor. No details are confirmed about how it will work, what advertising hooks there will be, what features it will have, or whether it will ever see the light of day. You know what criticizing it at this point makes you? Not an analyst, not an expert, not a technologist. It makes you a guy with a guess and a blog.
  • I know to avoid things if it involves giving private information to Google. "Do no evil" motto or not they have already shown they can and will bend to the right political pressure (i.e. China), or the right financial pressure (i.e. focused ad targeting).

    My concern is how many people will blindly use it who don't know better. How many of those people will be ones I have to deal with? How much information about me will they be storing on G that I won't have control over? What happens when the government
  • How do any of these concerns also not apply to GMAIL. In fact there are software packages you can use to turn your gmail account into a "G Drive" already and utilize those 5+ Gigs for file storage.

  • Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Selfbain (624722) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:38PM (#21536749)
    Do they write these articles from scratch or do they have a program that just generates them from a template whenever Google makes an announcement?

  • Want another M$? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jhRisk (1055806) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:40PM (#21536769)
    Granted Google has not yet shown us they're capacity for evil (tm) the way M$ has over the years but give them a chance... they're still young. Bottom line is that the same arguments I've seen here for why it's not a big deal (ex. do this, do that or don't use them) are the very ones used for why M$'s monopoly is not so bad (ex. use Linux, do this, do that) Problem is M$'s stanglehold at this time makes those options less "adaptable" for the masses. If we knew then what we know now we would have prevent M$ from even getting there.

    But Google can do no evil, right, therefore despite this company being at that very point where we can do something before the ignorant masses consume their products in such quantities to the point where, like M$, change is difficult, we shouldn't worry about the same thing happening here, right? Yeah... right. Unfortunatley I see another monopoly coming but this time on personal information products which may not restrict our freedom of choice in the same sense as the M$ one does (eg. our ability to choose alternate technologies) but will be so valuable and so entrenched in everything that it'll be just as difficult to move away from.

    We realistically could see most people, companies and even the governments depending on Google the way we did on Blackberries. It took the RIM injunction scare of 2006 to open some eyes up since even emergency services were depending on Blackberries (sigh.) Think beyond this on Google product, their 700MHz band bidding and every isolated move they've made in the past 5 years or so. Look at all of it holistically and as much as I like them and their products I don't like where it potentially leaves us in the future.

    • Granted Google has not yet shown us they're capacity for evil [...]

      Indeed, there are no flashy Evil Capable on google's pages. MS's marketeers are clearly way ahead of them!

  • Many valid points are made here, not the least of which is that sensitive information should secured locally, not via some free web service. And of course, Google does tell you what they will and will not do with your data, as do most places like Facebook etc.

    What I'm interested to watch is how legislation, or even case law evolves as more and more information moves on-line. Will lawmakers force on-line services to encrypt customer data, or to meet minimum levels of security? Will servcies like Google
  • Part of a good security strategy is to have off-site backups of important data. So, it is better to put stuff on Google's servers than it is to risk losing it when your system crashes, don't you think? For sensitive information, encrypt before storing (or store it on google as a truecrypt volume? I haven't used the gdrive thing, but if it can be mounted, then this seems the optimal solution).

  • how could Google encrypt? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eean (177028) <slashdot.monroe@nu> on Friday November 30 2007, @03:11PM (#21537179) Homepage
    Whats the point of having Google encrypt and decrypt your info? They'll have to turn it over, decrypted, if served with papers. And wouldn't release it otherwise.

    Encryption has to happen client-side.
  • I don't know who these supposed "privacy advocates" are, but as far as I'm concerned they can go f**k themselves. If they don't trust their data on Google's servers, then don't use the service. END OF DISCUSSION.
    • You can ignore it. It's the same advice you gave.

      If there's a privacy problem, Google is not likely to tell you about it. Not everyone in the world is aware of problems with the privacy of their data. "Advocates" are the people who warn other people about those problems. Everyone should make their own informed decisions. It is ridiculous to think every possible user of GDrive would know the possible issues with it.

      That's assuming the problems will actually exist, which I'm not convinced of yet.

  • eCryptfs (Score:4, Informative)

    by omnirealm (244599) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:28PM (#21537435) Homepage
    When Google provides a Linux filesystem (either native or via FUSE), people can use eCryptfs [sf.net] to prevent Google from reading the contents of their files. eCryptfs stacks on top of other filesystems and encrypts the data.

  • I let my E-mail Provider Read All My Mail (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jon_S (15368) on Friday November 30 2007, @04:48PM (#21538343)
    This same paranoia came up when GMail came out. People all freaked out that Google was reading their mails to match up ads.

    I don't have GMail. I pay for a service (*) rather than look at ads.

    But you know what, I still let my e-mail provider read all my mails. How else does anyone think that spam filters work? You can't filter out spam without reading the e-mails.

    It's not like Eric Schmidt is there reading each message looking for the good ones.

    * service = fastmail.fm I highly recommend them.

  • Nothing specific to Google (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ozzee (612196) on Friday November 30 2007, @05:00PM (#21538551)

    There already exist drive in the sky web services. I suspect Google's gdrive is only a me-too comparable service. If we're so paranoid (which I probably am), then the game is already won by the bad guys. Case in point, over the last year, I have needed to wipe my hard drive clean four times because something went awry, just unexplicable things like network services starting to do strange things. No virus check found anything. With the guise of a Microsoft update, my computer can be surreptitiously surrendering all kinds of information against my will, we don't need a gdrive for that, it's already possible and more than likely happening to almost all who use Windows.

    I can think of a few fixes but it's probably not going to be something that will happen fast or without a fight.

    • Re:Nimrod Kozlovski (Score:4, Funny)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:55PM (#21537691) Journal
      Well hell, with a name like "Anonymous Coward" I can see why you would get picked on. My name got its share of yuks, especially since I wore coke bottle glasses* "Oh, mcgrew, you've done it again!"

      But I really felt sorry for another kid in class, Charlie Salmon.

      -mcgrew

      * Coke bottles used to be made of very thick glass back before the stone age. Mr. Magoo was a nearaly blind cartoon character who was too vain to wear his glasses and unwittingly did good in every episode. Yes, I'm a geezer. I see they brought Charlie Tuna back.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.