Re: [projectvrm] Why we need to escape the Land of the Silos

[Bill Nelson < >]

BTW, I am really not trying to be a pain, just trying to better understand (I told you I was coming into this discussion late)

I have caught conversations that have alluded to the person cloud being a personal device in the past but never really questioned it.  

There are a lot of really smart people on this list and i am sure that you have given this more thought than i have.  My definition of a personal cloud seems a bit different, however, so I want to give the personal device concept a chance. 

Feel free to tell me to RTFM and point me to it if there is something that will help me come up to speed.  

Bill

Sent from my iPhone

On May 18, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Bill Nelson < "> > wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Drummond.  Won't the self hosting aspect make this by its very nature a limiting factor in the adoption of personal clouds?   It does require some level of technology knowledge even to install network storage at home. 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 18, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Drummond Reed < "> > wrote:

Bill, it's a fair question since a personal cloud is by definition something you control, even if it's hosted by a third-party service provider (actually, in VRM terms, I believe that would be a "fourth-party service provider").

Anyway, the simple layman's definition I would offer of "self-hosting" a personal cloud is when the owner is running it on hardware he/she personally physically controls, e.g., on their own home network. 

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Bill Nelson < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I am coming into this conversation late and I am sure that this was discussed at the IIW, but what are you referring to when you say 'self host'?    Does a person need to have their own storage array at home?   Or are you referring to people having their own Dropbox (or other cloud storage) account? 

Please enlighten this unintelligent haggard. 

Sent from  my iPhone

On May 18, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

+1. I think it's this simple: if you don't have the option to self-host it, it's not really a personal cloud.

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

The key is to make personal clouds that are truly personal — in the sense that nobody else can hack into them. If we want to put our clouds in services that are not ours, that's fine — and I am sure will be a good business. But the ability to self-host needs to be a prime requirement.

Doc

On May 18, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Dan, great stake in the ground. The issues you describe become magnified x10 when it comes to personal clouds, so as an industry we need to drive an even bigger stake in the ground on this topic -- one that will restrain governments all around the world, not just the U.S.

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Dan Blum < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I've sniffed a whiff of the same stench from here in the land of the free. Some time ago I heard about an Air Force RFP for software to create artificial "friends" for use on Facebook, probably for background investigation purposes. With friends like these...in the electronic age, we've lost much of the freedom we once had. 

Please see my blog entry The Constitution and the Cloud in which I explore these issues.

Thanks!

Dan

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

... especially the ones that allow news like this to happen:

<http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/saudi-surveillance/>