| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Warning about ChromeOS Thread poster: Lesley Clarke
|
|---|
| to have everything everywhere | Dec 20, 2010 |
Michal Glowacki wrote:
I don't feel the need to have everything everywhere.
I do. I guess it's a personal preference thing.
| | | | Laurent KRAULAND (X) 
France
Local time: 20:27
French to German
+ ...
| Then again... | Dec 21, 2010 |
mediamatrix wrote:
… against ‘prying eyes’, at least as far as our clients’ documents are concerned, resides in the fact that those documents are, for the most part, of no interest whatsoever to intruders.
it is not up to us to decide what may or may not be of interest to intruders.
One of the main principles of espionage is to compile ALL available data and then to sort them to extract the essential/relevant information from them.
[Modifié le 2010-12-21 20:57 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:27
French to English
+ ...
| "Safety in numbers" argument | Dec 21, 2010 |
Michal Glowacki wrote:
I don't rate my ability to secure my machine better than Google. What I do rate higher is my low-key profile. Of course, everyone can be a victim of a hacker, let it be a 13-year-old kid who's just bored or a professional hacker looking for something to sell. But let's face it, what are the odds of you personally being a victim of a seriously motivated hacker? And what are the odds of Google being that victim? Just by being Google they are prone to being attacked 10000 more often.
This essentially boils down to "there's safety in numbers". I think the argument ends up being the same whether you mean "there's lots of personal computers on the Internet: what's the chance of it beng my specific 'low profile' computer that the serious hacker targets" and "there's petabytes of data on Google's servers: if Google were hacked, what's the likelihood that it'll be specifically my 'low profile' data that the Chinese government/hacker decide to steal?".
Michal Glowacki wrote:
Also, another argument: of course servers now are getting better and better. But what if someone really switches off the servers for having a bad hair day and you urgently need access to your cloud? I don't think I'd like to give up that remaining control (or illusion of it) I have.
Well, it could always happen, but the odds are probably no worse than the odds of you getting a severe power outage/network outage/other things you can't control with your local machine.
| | | | Michal Glowacki
Poland
Local time: 20:27
Member (2010)
English to Polish
+ ...
| Still not crazy | Dec 21, 2010 |
I do. I guess it's a personal preference thing.
It is personal, but it's also the fact that I can carry a flash drive which may have up to 16 GB of data on it, I can have a netbook, I can have a portable HDD. Obviously it's a tad less convenient but then again - I don't need that internet access which is necessary with a cloud.
| | |
|
|
|
opolt
Germany
Local time: 20:27
English to German
+ ...
| A topical article | Feb 18, 2011 |
As a postscript to what I have said earlier in the thread, I would like to mention an article in the current online edition of the German weekly Die Zeit, about the pitfalls and dangers of cloud computing:
http://www.zeit.de/2011/08/Cloud-Computing?page=1
They mention the story of the German website radio.de, which due to an error in Google's own payment ... See more As a postscript to what I have said earlier in the thread, I would like to mention an article in the current online edition of the German weekly Die Zeit, about the pitfalls and dangers of cloud computing:
http://www.zeit.de/2011/08/Cloud-Computing?page=1
They mention the story of the German website radio.de, which due to an error in Google's own payment system (resulting in non-payment of some fees), was cut off from the Google cloud without notice. Desperately they tried to reach Google's Dublin office on the phone, and when that turned out impossible(!), they used the email form on Google's website, which was also unsuccessful at first. The whole thing was about a few hundred Euros, but resulted in a total 48-hour blackout for the company ...
The article also quotes the data protection ombudsman of Schleswig-Holstein as stating that "there is no data protection there [in the US] to speak of", that the best contract cannot protect you from the US Administration's extensive access rights to such data, and that ultimately, legal responsibility always remains with the (German) company affected.
Die Zeit also quotes the head of IT at Conergy (a German renewables company), who characterises cloud computing as the most lawyer-prone area he has experienced.
There you have it: as the clouds mostly operate on an international basis, they're likely outside of your jurisdiction; in case of failure or interruption of service, you might not have any legal recourse whatsoever. And the providers of cloud services know this; otherwise they wouldn't treat their clients in such a lousy way. So why as translators should we take any chances with our few gigabytes of data, which are so easily stored and duplicated these days? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Warning about ChromeOS | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
