Security: Storj vs Dropbox, Google Drive, Apple iCloud

Millard

Member
Staff member
10+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
The security of Dropbox has been criticized by some people including NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden:

In a recent interview with The Guardian, Snowden called Dropbox a "targeted, wannabe PRISM partner" that is "very hostile to privacy."

Snowden also isn't happy about Dropbox's decision in April to add former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to its Board of Directors. Snowden called Rice "probably the most anti-privacy official you can imagine."

Snowden said Rice was one of several people overseeing the Stellar Wind program. Stellar Wind allowed the NSA to collect some U.S. email records and Internet use for nearly 10 years following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Rice was also a proponent of warrantless wiretapping, a fact which helped inspire a grassroots campaign calling on people to "Drop Dropbox" unless the company removed Rice from its board. Dropbox CEO Drew Houston publicly supported Rice's appointment to the board in an open letter published shortly after the Drop Dropbox campaign began.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2455215/edward-snowden-dropbox-is-hostile-to-privacy.html
 
Storj analyzed TOS of Dropbox, Apple iCloud and Google Drive

First up we have iCloud, the Apple solution to store user content on the cloud. Scrolling down to the appropriate section, we find this:

Access to Your Account and Content​
Apple reserves the right to take steps Apple believes are reasonably necessary or appropriate to enforce and/or verify compliance with any part of this Agreement. You acknowledge and agree that Apple may, without liability to you, access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or a third party, as Apple believes is reasonably necessary or appropriate, if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law. [1]

Apple hereby states that it is allowed to take unknown “steps” if there is any suspicion about content from a user that violates its Terms of Service, if it is required by law, or if security or technical issues arise from it.

If we take a look at Dropbox’s Terms of Service, we will reach this point:

Your Stuff & Your Permissions​
We need your permission to do things like hosting Your Stuff, backing it up, and sharing it when you ask us to. Our Services also provide you with features like photo thumbnails, document previews, email organization, easy sorting, editing, sharing and searching. These and other features may require our systems to access, store and scan Your Stuff. You give us permission to do those things, and this permission extends to trusted third parties we work with. [2]

Similar to its iCloud competitor, Drobpox needs to access and scan your uploaded files and asserts the right to share its data with third parties. However, it does not state when your files need to be accessed.

The most unsettling statement can be found on Google Drive’s Terms of Service:

Your Content in our Services​
Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). [3]

This section gives them the right to basically do anything with your information and files and share them with undisclosed third parties and the law, even after you stop using their services.

After reviewing how these centralized companies can make use of anyone’s uploaded files on their systems, it becomes clear that many individuals and entities can have access to your data. It is possible that your files can be misused and/or stolen under certain circumstances.

Source: http://blog.storj.io/post/88868121983/personal-security-in-the-cloud
 
Storj Vs. Dropbox: Why Decentralized Storage Is The Future

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/15490/storj-vs-dropbox-decentralized-storage-future/

Security In an interview with The Guardian, Edward Snowden called Dropbox a “targeted wannabe PRISM partner” that is “very hostile to privacy.” With Storj, client-side encryption would ensure that files are secure.

Blockchain Storj wants to use multiple blockchains to store metadata as a sort of directory for where files are stored and how much redundancy they have. Once the blockchains are too large, they’ll use Merkle tree configurations to speed up this process, similar to how Bitcoin SPV wallets work.

Speed I asked Storj’s founder Shawn Wilkinson about the expected speed of the network once scaled to expectation. “Compare Dropbox and any peer-to-peer network. At scale, peer-to-peer networks will blow any centralized service out of the water. My goal is maximum throughput, so fast that your internet connection is the bottleneck not the network because at the base we have rewarded transfer.”
 
Online cloud storage data is not protected by the fourth amendment:

A couple months ago, a New York judge ruled that US search warrants applied to digital information even if they were stored overseas. The decision came about as part of an effort to dig up a Microsoft user's account information stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft responded to the ruling and challenged it, stating that the government's longstanding views of digital content on foreign servers are wrong, and that the protections applied to physical materials should be extended to digital content. In briefs filed last week, however, the US government countered. It states that according to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), content stored online simply do not have the same Fourth Amendment protections as physical data

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/14/fourth-amendment-online-data/

http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/25/us-judge-search-warrant-overseas/
 

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top