Skip to content

Comment on How Dropbox sacrifices user privacy for cost savings

Comments

I think most of us, if we were developing Dropbox, would have made the same decisions. De-duping at the cost of complete privacy, even in the face of law, is a sound technical and business decision for a service such as Dropbox.

When I think Dropbox, I think sharing, I think convenience, I don't think backup and security. For backup I need more space, for security I need to use my own private key (not a password that one can change/recover). Neither of these things is offered by Dropbox. And this is the reason why I never confused Dropbox with, say, CrashPlan. One is a way to share and collaborate, the other is a place to send my private key encrypted bits to.

My individual privacy is not compromised by somebody being able to say if a certain file is stored by the entirety of Dropbox user base. The other claim, that, given a court order, Dropbox can be forced to turn over your files or tell the court if you store a certain file _may_ be true, but I don't think Dropbox, the company, has ever promised that level of security.

It's far from obvious that some crusading DA can pick files and force dropbox to tell him or her who has copies of that file.

Dropbox can certainly get that information - remember, they can access all accounts.

sorry, that was my point. I use dropbox, and I knew they hashed files, but I didn't think through the implications.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.