Instead, after a strong introduction, you switched over to discussing these "Potential Flaws", which are no different than those facing every cloud storage vendor. It seems strange to write an attack-piece on this new player, rather than on the industry as a whole.
1. Bitcasa can kick/cancel abusive or uneconomic accounts. Preventing them rejoining is tricky, but no harder for Bitcasa than any other internet service (from some tiny 10-user internet forum via Dropbox right through to Amazon), so why single them out?
2. "any provider of this service could be legally responsible" (my emphasis) is just weasel words.
3. Bitcasa can tell whether I have a particular file, but (at least in the general case) can't tell whether I'm licensed or authorised to have that copy.
4. See 1.
(Also, the "convergent encryption" link is broken.)
2. I am not a lawyer, but part of this post is to focus on the viability of the model. What I hope to come out of this is discussion on ways to reduce the legal exposure a company has in this privacy-centric model.
3. That is true but that isn't how copyright lawsuits generally work. For example, if you own a CD and they get you downloading something from bittorrent you'd have to argue that point in court. Even if you did nothing wrong that is more exposure than "client side encryption" would lead most people to believe.
I agree it is strong, though I wouldn't call it an attack piece. I will gladly update this as more information surfaces but I believe my assumptions are plainly explained and are likely to be true. The reason for my focus on them is they did many things exactly how I would have wanted them to, but it is dangerous to advertise a certain level of encryption that is generally understood and then provide something that has a variety of subtle flaws. I'll add an update to clarify #1 as that is important.
Edit: Convergent encryption link is fixed in the post (thanks for the tip)
I can't find the section that demonstrates either assertion.
if you own a CD and they get you downloading something from bittorrent you'd have to argue that point in court
Actually, bittorrent court cases typically focus on the uploading aspect (remember that on bittorrent, downloaders are also uploaders) at least partly because it is much easier to prove that someone doesn't have publishing rights.
It's also not clear if you're aware of the DMCA.
Anyway, I won't implement that plan because I assume it is not in the interest of that company.
Isn't it what Backblaze has been offering for a few years now for half that price? I cannot say I'm particularly excited.
