I'm also non-technical and I do see the value for the customer, BUT it's very obvious there are issues here. Dropbox claims their service is secure and privacy preserving. Quote from their website:"All files you store in Dropbox are private. Other people can't see and open those files unless you purposely share links to files or share folders with others." Funnily enough in the next sentence already they somewhat water this down again, saying dropbox employees do access your files "on rare occasions", for example "when necessary to ensure that our systems and features are working as designed (e.g., debugging performance issues, making sure that our search functionality is returning relevant results, developing image search functionality, refining content suggestions, etc.)"
Yes, it's possible to do such indexing. They can also start running facial recognition software like Facebook does. What's going to happening next with all the data they collect? Doesn't take a pessimistic coder to know, any layperson should be able to figure this out.
Sure, it's fair to be concerned about that, but is it necessary to focus so much on that?
A company builds a new feature, it's useful, and even more they write a detailed article about how they built it. Isn't it fair to appreciate that and discuss the approach?
I get it, there are some issues with Dropbox, etc. but must every article about some company feature have a majority of comments talk about how they liked them better in the past, how they wanna stop using it, how environmentally problematic some of the company products are, and the likes? I think there's also a time and place to discuss those (e.g. on comments for an article about the business practices, or some medium opinion piece), but I'd prefer on submissions like this one we focus on the content at hand, and maybe have a single comment thread only dedicated to tangential issues about the company.
EDIT: TBF, I don't actually see that much unrelated negativity in this comment section.
Granted, I appreciate them explaining and properly disclosing it. So to be clear my criticism isn't Dropbox specific but this also goes for other cloud storage providers. That said just because others do the same (or even worse) doesn't make it any better. The loss of privacy and rights is one of the biggest issues in tech these days. I wouldn't even be that opposed to it if the business model would at least recognize the users as content creators and pay them for the value they add, but the way it is now we provide all the value and the shareholders reap the rewards. Humans have become a commodity, like cattle. Our private data is the milk, and they're milking us dry like no tomorrow.
Sure, it's fair to be concerned about that, but is it necessary to focus so much on that?
Yes.
Third Party Doctrine says that anyone who stores information with third parties has no legal expectation of privacy. Technically, law enforcement can request the person's data without the person's consent or even knowledge.
Combine that with most people's phones automatically upload the pictures and videos they take.
Combine those with this analysis and law enforcement can start fishing expeditions with little to no effort.
The only thing standing between individuals and law enforcement having deep access to much of our information is the kindness of the tech companies holding the information. Great.
Comments
I'm also non-technical and I do see the value for the customer, BUT it's very obvious there are issues here. Dropbox claims their service is secure and privacy preserving. Quote from their website:"All files you store in Dropbox are private. Other people can't see and open those files unless you purposely share links to files or share folders with others." Funnily enough in the next sentence already they somewhat water this down again, saying dropbox employees do access your files "on rare occasions", for example "when necessary to ensure that our systems and features are working as designed (e.g., debugging performance issues, making sure that our search functionality is returning relevant results, developing image search functionality, refining content suggestions, etc.)"
Yes, it's possible to do such indexing. They can also start running facial recognition software like Facebook does. What's going to happening next with all the data they collect? Doesn't take a pessimistic coder to know, any layperson should be able to figure this out.
Sure, it's fair to be concerned about that, but is it necessary to focus so much on that?
A company builds a new feature, it's useful, and even more they write a detailed article about how they built it. Isn't it fair to appreciate that and discuss the approach?
I get it, there are some issues with Dropbox, etc. but must every article about some company feature have a majority of comments talk about how they liked them better in the past, how they wanna stop using it, how environmentally problematic some of the company products are, and the likes? I think there's also a time and place to discuss those (e.g. on comments for an article about the business practices, or some medium opinion piece), but I'd prefer on submissions like this one we focus on the content at hand, and maybe have a single comment thread only dedicated to tangential issues about the company.
EDIT: TBF, I don't actually see that much unrelated negativity in this comment section.
Granted, I appreciate them explaining and properly disclosing it. So to be clear my criticism isn't Dropbox specific but this also goes for other cloud storage providers. That said just because others do the same (or even worse) doesn't make it any better. The loss of privacy and rights is one of the biggest issues in tech these days. I wouldn't even be that opposed to it if the business model would at least recognize the users as content creators and pay them for the value they add, but the way it is now we provide all the value and the shareholders reap the rewards. Humans have become a commodity, like cattle. Our private data is the milk, and they're milking us dry like no tomorrow.
Yes.
Third Party Doctrine says that anyone who stores information with third parties has no legal expectation of privacy. Technically, law enforcement can request the person's data without the person's consent or even knowledge.
Combine that with most people's phones automatically upload the pictures and videos they take.
Combine those with this analysis and law enforcement can start fishing expeditions with little to no effort.
The only thing standing between individuals and law enforcement having deep access to much of our information is the kindness of the tech companies holding the information. Great.