FWIW, I've been using syncthing [0] for some years now [1] and am very pleased. Even though my data is unavailable on the cloud from any untrusted computer (like e.g. my corporate laptop), it's synced on my "fleet".<p>I'm not sure that PrivateStorage actually adds anything to the equation?<p>EDIT> The Tahoe LAFS [2] model is more that you spread your data over multiple providers. NAS at home, several VPS providers, or what have you. It feels like RAID in the network, and it allows very precise setting of redundancy policies.<p>So syncthing actually only runs on trusted machines, whereas PrivateStorage will be able to run on both trusted (tightly managed) and untrusted machines (like a VPS in the USA).<p>[0] <a href="https://syncthing.net" rel="nofollow">https://syncthing.net</a><p>[1] <a href="https://try.popho.be/byeunison.html" rel="nofollow">https://try.popho.be/byeunison.html</a><p>[2] <a href="https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs" rel="nofollow">https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs</a>
Looks like it's not actually ready yet? PIA has a great track record, though, so this seems promising.<p>I also like this when you give them your email:<p>>> This is not a mailing list, and your email will be permanently removed after we send a one‑time notification when PrivateStorage is available to the general public.
There are a number of alternative paths in this space if you're truly focused and willing to invest a bit, but if you care about privacy enough to seek a service like this out and just want to minimize mental overhead, this seems like a good choice.<p>Tahoe-LAFS makes some impressive claims like maintaining confidentiality while running on untrusted machines. I think a lot of folks now would assert that really any machine running x86 due to Intel ME and the AMD equivalent should in fact be untrusted.<p>I'm not in a position to criticize though, this is just from a cursory glance at the summary page, and frankly I used PIA as my own VPN provider for a number of years and had only positive experiences.
So on one hand, you just need some good open source software for that, there's enough cloud and there's no reason you wouldn't choose the cheapest one if you have everything client side encrypted and can add more redundancy. On the other hand..<p>> the system runs on Tahoe-LAFS<p>that got me very interested.
Should anything truly private be stored in the cloud? I have never seen a solution that doesn't boil down to trusting someone. The claim is that the code is open source. But I don't know how I would verify that that's the actual code they are running on their servers. I also don't understand the payoff. For information that's not truly private (like your music collection) but that could possibly be data mined, then a very basic level of privacy you get from something like Dropbox should be enough, right? What does this service offer that other cloud storage providers don't offer? For information that's truly private, why would I risk it becoming eventually available to hackers by putting it somewhere in the cloud? What am I missing?
I'm curious what the pricing will be when this is opened up to the public. Some years ago when I compared encrypted online storage, I found Least Authority to be quite expensive. It still seems to be ($25 a month). [1]<p>[1]: <a href="https://leastauthority.com/" rel="nofollow">https://leastauthority.com/</a>
Very interesting, may use this, I'd still layer in a VPN, i've had leaks in the past[1].<p>[1] <a href="https://vpntoolbox.com/disabling-webrtc-browsers/" rel="nofollow">https://vpntoolbox.com/disabling-webrtc-browsers/</a>
They're calling this service S4 and not expecting to get sued into oblivion by AWS?<p>It's also not very creative. Says a lot about the maturity of their their thinking when there's such obvious naming similarity.