Calming The Cloud Storage Storm

 Computing  No Responses »
May 022012
 

One of the cool things about “the cloud” is that there are numerous different companies all offering cloud-based storage of one kind or another. You can even get quite a bit of storage for free, and different solutions offer different cool solutions – such as Dropbox where my phone is configured to automatically send photos up to it. And there are plenty of other solutions out there :-

  • Box
  • Google Drive (of course you may already be using Google Docs which means you essentially have storage related to that).
  • SkyDrive (although for some mysterious reason, Microsoft doesn’t supply a Linux client)
  • iCloud
  • Wuala
  • SpiderOak
  • Ubuntu One – which despite the name, isn’t just for Ubuntu!
  • And in a note for myself, there’s also SparkleShare which is essentially a DropBox client to talk to your own servers.
Undoubtedly there are a whole ton more, but I think I’ve gotten the “big names” covered. The best strategy is of course to find the one whose client works with all the platforms you use (phone, PC, laptop, etc.), comes with the most free storage, and the cost of getting more storage is the least (in decreasing order of importance). Of course in the real world, you are likely to end up with more than one – simply because it’s tempting to look at the next “new thing” or because you want more cheap storage, or simply because other people insist you use service X.

Now if you use multiple cloud-storage solutions, you have a bit of a problem – different clients offering different functionality, different amounts of storage available, and remembering what you put on which “cloud-disk”. Plus of course there is the interesting problem of security – different providers provide different levels of privacy and operate in different jurisdictions where different laws apply.

Different Clients

Different clients work in different ways with different features. For instance, for a Linux user :-

  1. The Dropbox client seems to work pretty well, but it doesn’t appear in a list of filesystems (i.e. when you type df) so you can’t instantly see how much space is still available, etc. At least not in the standard way.
  2. Box(.net) lacks a Linux client, so you have to hack something together. Perfectly possible for more geeky users, but even for us there is the danger that a hackish solution may suddenly stop working mysteriously. Or rather that is more likely.
  3. Ubuntu One doesn’t seem to work via a filesystem interface at all.
  4. And that seems to be the same with SpiderOak.
It may be different for Windows users (I’m too lazy to check – if anyone wants to submit details, please go ahead), but I doubt it.

Whilst cloud storage providers may offer additional features to differentiate their product, they are all essentially the same as a removable hard disk, usb memory stick, or some other kind of removable storage. Whilst the additional features are very welcome, why should we have to learn a new way of managing storage just because it is out there in the cloud ?

Privacy

There is a great deal of paranoia about storing private data in the cloud with the assumption that creepy organisations such as Google will do something nasty with the data. Well maybe, but the likelihood of Google being that interested in an individual’s data is a little unlikely. Of  course just because the cryptogeeks are a little paranoid does not mean they are completely wrong – there are privacy issues involved.

Firstly, Google could be looking at your data to determine things about you that would be of interest to advertisers – to present targeted adverts at you. Which at best can be a little weird.

Next we like to believe that the laws of our country will protect us from someone picking through our personal data. That someone could be the company supplying the storage, or it could be the government in the country where the storage is hosted. That would probably be fine if the storage was restricted to one location where we could be sure that the government protected us, but where is the storage located?

Much of the time the storage is located in foreign jurisdictions where there is no guarantee that any kind of privacy will be respected – especially if a foreign government takes an interest in your data. Don’t forget the laws of say the USA are not designed to protect citizens of any EU country (or visa-versa). There are of course agreements such as the EU Safe Harbour agreement, but it is possible that it does not offer as much protection as assumed – it is not really intended for private individuals choosing to put their own personal data into foreign jurisdictions.

Probably most of us do not have to worry about this sort of thing (although we can choose to), but some may have to be cautious about this sort of thing. Some of us deal with personal data about third parties – sometimes very personal data – and need to consider whether storing such data in the cloud is being appropriately responsible about the data privacy. For example, a contractor who stores information about their clients should be taking actions to ensure that data is not accidentally leaked (or hacked and published).

The easy answer to this problem is to assume that cloud storage is not safe for sensitive personal data, because there is a simple solution to the problem that still allows the cloud to be used. Use encryption such as TrueCrypt to ensure that even if the cloud leaks your data, it is still encrypted with a method that is not known to the cloud provider.

Store It Twice!

There have been occasions where storage providers have removed access to storage either permanently or temporarily – such as the Megauploads site. Whilst it is perhaps unlikely, it is possible for a cloud service provider to disappear and for the customers to lose their data – even if the cloud provider claims that there is some protection against this sort of thing happening. But it could happen, so it is sensible to ensure that if you store data in the cloud, that you should ensure that you have copies of that data elsewhere.

 

The Political Grand Prix

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Apr 222012
 

Today’s Grand Prix in Bahrain is mired in controversy because of the race going ahead when the political protesters want it cancelled. Those associated with Formula 1 are claiming that the race should go ahead because it is totally separate from the political issues in Bahrain.

That is one point of view. Although it is more in the nature of wishful thinking – perfectly understandable as the Formula 1 organisers who undertook to race in Bahrain are hardly responsible for what is happening there on the political scene.

The protesters claim that the race going ahead legitimises the Bahrain regime by adding international credibility.

That is another point of view with rather more weight to it.

But it could well be wrong – it may well be that having the race go ahead brings more attention to the political instability in Bahrain. Most normal people may well not have been aware of the political trouble in Bahrain; at least not recently. By having the race go ahead, the amount of coverage of the political issues has gone up through the roof. Whilst cancelling the race would have increased the coverage slightly, it is likely that it would have resulted in nowhere near as much coverage as we are seeing.

Knowing The Lord’s Prayer

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Apr 032012
 

A few days ago now, a report came out indicating that today only 50% of children know the Lord’s Prayer off by heart whereas in 1972 the rate was 90%. Shock horror!

Before worrying about whether this matters or not, does this survey actually say what we think it does ? In 1972, there was a far greater expectation for children to memorise things and that is less so now. Ignoring whether this is good or bad, it may well be that children in 1972 would claim to know the Lord’s Prayer when they didn’t quite. And children today are perhaps less likely to exaggerate their knowledge.

As an example (although I’m long past the age where I can claim to be a child), I’m not likely to claim I know the Lord’s Prayer off by heart, but if I find myself in the sort of surroundings where the Lord’s Prayer is solemnly chanted, the words are likely to come back to me.

And does it matter ?

Well, a child who goes to church to plead with their god is going to pick it up pretty quickly anyway (at least if it’s a christian church of the persuasion that believes in the Lord’s Prayer), so there is no worry about that point.

As to establishing the cultural tradition of the UK, it seems to me that knowing the Lord’s Prayer is less important than knowing Beowulf or Gray’s Elegy yet how many people know either off by heart ? Or have even read it ? Being aware of (and having read) all three is much more important than having memorised any.

Panic Petrol Buying Causes Injuries ?

 General, Media, Politics  No Responses »
Mar 312012
 

No of course it doesn’t.

Despite the claims of the media who like to imply that the government is to blame for the injury of someone who tried decanting petrol in her kitchen. However stupid the government advice was, they did not suggest people keep petrol in their kitchen in inappropriate containers. They explicitly mentioned “jerry cans” – being the generic name for appropriate petrol containers.

To steal a title from Pink Floyd, what is to blame here is a “momentary lapse of reason” by the woman herself. It is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone – not so much general stupidity, but a temporary ability to disregard the stupidity of some action. We all have been known to do it – you, me, and that daft bloke down the street.

Try to claim otherwise and I’ll laugh at you.

And sometimes that stupidity can have drastic consequences.

It is possible that the government’s rather stupid advise to top up cars and jerry cans has led to an increase in stupid and nasty accidents, but that is no reason to blame the government for accidents. If the government has to avoid issuing advice on matters involving dangerous substances because of the potential for accidents, we need an alternative “government” who will issue such advise.

Of course what the government is responsible for is issuing advise that encouraged panic buying. They obviously paid so little attention to the potential for panic buying that you have to suspect whether it was deliberate – did they want fuel shortages in the middle of the working week rather than during the Easter weekend ? Did they want people blaming the Unite union for causing woes?

Probably not. Even though the “scheme” backfired, the conspiracy theory would credit the government with too much in the way of brains to be possibly true. When issuing advice in such matters the government needs to :-

  1. Get the timing right so that if there is panic buying, it occurs at the least damaging time. Easter (despite the pain of not being able to go away) is better than in the middle of the week.
  2. Phrase advice so that panic buying is less likely.
  3. Point out that diesel or petrol are dangerous substances where a “momentary lapse of reason” can have drastic consequences.

Zimmerman To Face Arrest …

 Politics  No Responses »
Mar 242012
 

Or at least he should.

In a bizarre and alarming incident illustrating the stupidity of the US attitude to guns and gun law, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in “self defence”. And then the police took his word at face value, and did not arrest him.

There a whole bunch of really strange about this issue :-

  1. Zimmerman was apparently running around as a self-appointed “neighbourhood” watch guard. Now I’m not sure what the attitude towards people like that is in the US, but I would label such a person as a “vigilante” and say that his behaviour is a clear indication of his lack of fitness to carry a gun. That’s not to criticise real neighbourhood watch volunteers – just that someone who runs around who is not part of such an organisation but acts as though he is.
  2. He wasn’t arrested. Whatever the legal situation is, it seems to me that anyone who kills someone – even a policeman who kills the neighbourhood serial killer in the act – should be arrested. Killing someone is always wrong; it may sometimes be less wrong than the alternative, but there’s no getting around the fact that killing someone is always wrong.
  3. The self-defence argument is interesting because it is entirely possible that Treyvon Martin could also quite legitimately make a self-defence claim if he had killed George Zimmerman. After all from his point of view, he was followed and then apparent confronted by this “strange man” when he was going about his legitimate business. Perfectly entitled to some self-defence there.
  4. The whole self-defence argument is a little weak though – it has been implied that in Florida killing is perfectly legal if the perpetrator believes it was necessary for his or her self-defence. Where is the “reasonable” in that ? To illustrate this, I might believe it is necessary for my self-defence to kill you because I’m unhinged – that does not make it reasonable however. Of course the sensible way of testing the self-defence argument is through the old-fashioned method of letting juries decide using their common sense.
On that last point, it only seems to be unreasonable to let a jury decide if Zimmerman acted in self-defence because our present legal systems grind away so slowly. Ignoring the issue of time, it seems perfectly sensible to put Zimmerman on trial to let a community of his peers determine if he acted in self-defence … or not.
 Older Entries  Newer Entries