Jump to content

Leading Community for Usability, Search Engine Marketing,
Social Networking, Site Planning & Web Site Development, Since 1998


Photo

Kim Dotcom Frenzy - File Sharing Site Launch


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13016 posts
  • Twitter:https://twitter.com/kim_cre8pc
  • Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/cre8pc

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

Kim Dotcom is not impressing me. Maybe its the use of dancing girls surrounding the lone male owner who looks like he just discovered a new source of power, or the legal mess he's already in, or the BiG RED TARGET I feel his service has for hackers who want a new challenge.

He knows we have no reason to trust him but I don't see how he helped any of that with his marketing.

The Mega business plan will be a distributed model, with hundreds of companies large and small, around the world, hosting files. A hosting company can be huge or it can own just two or three servers Dotcom says—just as long as it's located outside the U.S.
"Each file will be kept with at least two different hosters, [in] at least two different locations," said Dotcom. "That's a great added benefit for us because you can work with the smallest, most unreliable [hosting] companies. It doesn't matter because they can't do anything with that data."


"You have companies like Dropbox and Google with Drive with materially similar technologies, and they are in business and they're thriving—and Mega adds encryption," he says.
But doesn't encryption add a sinister edge? After all, encryption means Mega will be like the Swiss bank of online storage services; customers could easily use the technology to hide, say, pirated movies or child porn.

Rothken responds that many technologies have dual uses, but on balance provide more public good. That's how the VCR stayed on the market, despite facilitating video piracy. The same argument applies to cloud computing as a whole, he says.



#2 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 3287 posts
  • Twitter:http://twitter.com/DonnaFontenot
  • Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/donna.d.fontenot

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:27 PM

Well, on the flip side of the coin, being able to host documents via encrypted means makes it less likely that important business documents won't get into the wrong hands. Sure, pirated stuff benefits too, but Rothken's statement isn't wrong. This is the way cloud hosting / sharing / storing really should have worked all along. It's important that people can feel somewhat confident that what they store in the cloud as secure, private documents have a real shot at actually being secure and private.

I haven't tried the new Mega service yet, but I may in the future. It has some definite benefits over the competition.

#3 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13016 posts
  • Twitter:https://twitter.com/kim_cre8pc
  • Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/cre8pc

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:31 PM

This is the way cloud hosting / sharing / storing really should have worked all along. It's important that people can feel somewhat confident that what they store in the cloud as secure, private documents have a real shot at actually being secure and private.


This is true. But I wonder how much information "needs" to go into the cloud. Will our personal medical records eventually go into a cloud? Financial?

Every time a company says they are foolproof, somebody comes along and hacks into it, grabbing all manner of information from military secrets to credit card numbers. A company like Iron Mountain here in the USA has extensive training for every employee, from the top to the mailroom, on their protocols for security because they handle sensitive information.

So I wonder how many people have access to Kim Dotcom servers and if they've tested for any weak points in the funnels. As they grow, this will be become a management issue.

Having alternatives for files, sharing and security are a good thing. I'm just leery of their claims.

#4 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 3287 posts
  • Twitter:http://twitter.com/DonnaFontenot
  • Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/donna.d.fontenot

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:46 PM

True re: all systems are vulnerable, but that refers to ALL systems. Paperwork can be swiped off someone's desk. Emails can be intercepted. People blab. I just watched a video this weekend of a news report concerning used copy machines that have loads of data on the hard drives (from police stations, insurance companies, etc.) that are routinely sold to new people. Here's the video.



So, we shouldn't run from cloud storage because of vulnerabilities...they exist everywhere. The best we can do is do our best to keep things as secure as possible.

#5 bwelford

bwelford

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 8894 posts
  • Twitter:http://twitter.com/BWelford
  • Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/bwelford

Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:09 PM

I must admit I can never hear the name without being suspicious. According to Wikipedia,

Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz on 21 January 1974, also known as Kimble and Kim Tim Jim Vestor) is a German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur.

Edited by bwelford, 21 January 2013 - 02:10 PM.


#6 EGOL

EGOL

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4577 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

I wonder how much information "needs" to go into the cloud. Will our personal medical records eventually go into a cloud? Financial?

I think that this stuff has been in the cloud or distributed across mega systems for a long time. Your medical information begins it's journey at your doctor's office, some gets transmitted to insurance companies, some to pharmacies, then out to transcriptionists in the Philippines and back to and editor in the USA for quality control, your blood sample goes out to at least one laboratory, you have a second doctor who needs that data and it is shipped to a new office. Copies of your data from one office visit end up in four different states and multiple continents within 48 hours. All of this is biz as usual across unsecured connections.

When google voice came out I got one of their telephone numbers. It used to be a fax number at a physicians office. I have been called hundreds of times from fax machines at various doctor's offices and hospitals. I look up the number of who is calling me... see it is medical offices and call them to say... Hey, you are calling the wrong number. You don't want to send that data to me. One hospital has called me at least a hundred times. I've called them several times to inform them, then a few times to really give them crap for not getting my number out of their systems.

Edited by EGOL, 21 January 2013 - 06:32 PM.


#7 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13016 posts
  • Twitter:https://twitter.com/kim_cre8pc
  • Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/cre8pc

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:57 PM

EGOL. Blech. Oh well, will watch and see how this Kim Dotcom thing rolls. Branding isn't hitting me in the right place is all....

#8 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1858 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:42 AM

This is quite timely as I was just reading in Hacker2600 (available on a Kindle near you) about advances being made by RSA security experts in this field. Turns out the earlier reports about private and public keys being absolutely secure were wrong. The answer was to store sections of the keys on servers and then at the point of descryption have a piece of the key sent to a server for comparison, only a piece not all of it. Thus, at this time, making it impossible to know what the file is.

So by doing this there Kim knows that it is virtually impossible to decipher exactly what is being shared, and if you don't know what is being shared then you can't prove a host is hosting it I imagine.

#9 bobbb

bobbb

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1429 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

Turns out the earlier reports about private and public keys being absolutely secure were wrong

I think we have known this to be incorrect for a while, especially if there is a back-door, but sufficiently secure to make it not worthwhile to break if it will take 10 years or so to decrypt.

I am sure Data of the USS Enterprise will be able to break it. -_-

But which article in which issue are you referring to.

Edited by bobbb, 22 January 2013 - 10:32 AM.


#10 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1858 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:24 PM

Most recent issue




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users