tomlukeyw...@fastmail.co.uk wrote:
now that i think about it i guess there is nothing bad about using Googles online storage if you encrypt all your files.
The data describing one's uploads (when were transfers made, how large were the transfers, what IP addresses were involved in the transfer, etc.) could be quite revealing in the way that the distinction between "metadata" and "data" can be a bogus distinction with regard to someone's privacy.
With regard to software freedom: Is it possible to use the functionality of these third-party storage systems without running non-free software?
I imagine that the organizations involved (Google, Microsoft, Box, etc.) each have a considerable interest in getting their useds[1] to run non-free code. The non-free code implements the spying. Hence I imagine it's not hard to get people who aren't accustomed to thinking about software freedom or privacy to lose both by setting up the service so valuable functionality is unavailable to the public service API. One could use the service to a limited degree with exclusively free software but the parts that make the service truly worth using require giving up far more than these organizations will fully admit to (and the terms can change with each update of this non-free code). For instance, uploading and downloading files works via the API, but editing permissions, or getting a URI to point anyone to a file/directory one intends to share requires using the website which means running the non-free Javascript, or requires running an application.
If non-free code is required to use any part of the service, any integration with the service can be reasonably seen as a come-on for users to run the non-free code to fully use the service.
[1] This term "useds" used in the same way Stallman puts it in his most recent talks to speak of users who have been used by a service proprietor.
