People tend to "trust" big corporates, as silly as this may sound, of course...
They will tend to trust big organized monsters to keep their data safe, instead of trusting a home user like you and me, that could be potentially a hacker
But in any case, most users are not so concerned about the "freedom" we're looking for, so this alternative to those services should be a better choice, otherwise, we can just keep using the existing services.
But I like the idea, and I think it's doable, again, not without a little hassle, someone needs to manage it, some server needs to control and coordinate the communications.
That's why I think we don't need to reinvent the wheel, services like sneer or friendica are already using this same principle so why make yet another one if we already have one that's doing it fine?
____________________________________________________________
I'm an FSF member - Help us support software freedom! Join us!On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak
<rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
Dnia środa, 25 lipca 2012 o 13:50:30 Ziv Leyes napisał(a):
> Those ideas about hardware sharing like SETI@Home sounds great!
> The only problem is that for a social network I don't believe many
> users would like to know their pictures and personal data is
> sitting in someone's private home PC and that this info may get
> hacked and leaked very easily.
...but yet they're okay with their private data sitting on servers of
huge corporations with agendas that are potentially dangerous to those
same people, built around snooping, sniffing and censorship? ;)
> Let's say the data is very well protected and there is impossible
> for a regular user to make use of it, something like containing only
> varied chunks of info that are not related to each other and no info
> can be gathered from those chunks unless you have access to all the
> rest of the chunks that make a whole piece of info.
Yes, that's a solution I was thinking about. This plus redundancy -
every chunk sitting in many different places at the same time.
> You will still need some sort of server that will rule them all,
> some place to host a domain, and run a server, the one that knows
> how and where from to bring the chunks of info needed to retrieve
> and display the user with the info they're requesting, so who's
> gonna pay for it?
Look at TOR. Think .onion domains - domains within TOR. There is no
particular technical reason why such "darkweb" domains must sit in a
single place rather than in many places.
Access to non-public information would have to be based on assymetric
cryptography. Access to public information could work just like
magnet:// and torrent:// links today.
--
Pozdrawiam
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania