Google is coming to the cloud storage community as the search giant prepares to launch its new service soon.
Google joins Dropbox and Apple as companies who have launched cloud storage. The Wall Street Journal reports the storage will be called Drive and your data will be saved to their servers and can be accessed by any device with a WI-FI connection.
This storage device would allow users to fully incorporate their other services, Gmail and Google Docs, and store documents, pictures, and other data on Google’s server.
“If a person wants to e-mail a video from a smartphone, for instance, he can upload it to the Web through the Drive mobile app and e-mail people a link to the video rather than a bulky file,” the Journal said.
We can all understand Levie’s enthusiasm about the idea of cloud storage evolving but he must be aware his company is going up against Google, right?
While Dropbox offers members up to 2 GB free and $9.99 a month for 50 GB, Google could offer storage at a level their competitors won’t be able to match. Along with being able to save up to 1GB for free on Google Docs, they will offer free storage to businesses and consumers, only charging for large file sharing.
Unless competitors can evolve and maintain a storage device which is cost efficient and allows more GB, it looks like Google will reign supreme once again.
Michael Tidmarsh is the Assistant Community Editor for ITKnowledgeExchange.com. He can be reached at Mtidmarsh@techtarget.com.
Once again, the IT Watch Blog is packing up its bags and reading to San Francisco for RSA, one of the security industry’s largest conferences. This year, mobile device threats are front and center: As Rob Westervelt with SearchSecurity reported, one firm hopes to make a big splash by debuting a new Android-based attack. Mobile attacks are a continued focus this year not only because of new attacks but because of continuing trends: Knowledge workers continue to BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) leaving IT with less control and visibility even as more critical data is pushed out into more places.
Other hot topics this year are cloud security best practices and standard compliance issues. I’ll be covering the most interesting sessions and news right here, but SearchSecurity will also be providing special RSA 2012 coverage with the site’s editors out in force during the duration of the show.
Then I got an idea. Since Apple PR never responds to my voicemails or emails, maybe they’d respond to the guys that do have access. So I contacted several prominent Apple pundits (who shall remain nameless) that are known for their access to Apple (some of whom get replies from Apple “every time”) and I asked them to enquire about Apple’s stance on enforcing its policy on address book uploads.
And you know what? None of them would do it.
Why? They’d probably say that Apple wouldn’t comment. But someone’s got to ask if they expect Apple to reply. I mean come on! Apple’s not going to press release its shady developers that steal your contacts.
The fact of the matter is that most journos with access to Apple are afraid of losing it. They’re afraid of asking the tough questions. They’re afraid of getting blacklisted. Like me.
The post is right on one thing: Apple is a pain in the ass to get a hold of, and almost impossible to get a substantive comment out of. A bit paranoid? Possessive? Absolutely. But saying Apple has a blacklist is far from my experience: Dozens of reporters I know have tried over the years to get a comment about this or that, and almost invariably fail, whether or not their Apple coverage is positive, negative or (usually) a bit of both. Instead, Apple has a whitelist: Those reporters it chooses to give access to, while blocking off the rest of the world. It’s not retribution for aggressive reporting. It’s that the universe of people Apple cares about in media is very, very small (though probably expanding if it’s doing one-on-ones as standard practice now). Continued »
The search engine and file-sharing site, BTJunkie, is voluntarily shutting down its website following the recent shut down of MegaUpload.com and the arrest of its founder, Kim Dotcom.
BTJunkie issued a statement on their website saying goodbye to their users and proclaiming the move was voluntary. “This is the end of the line my friends. The decision does not come easy, but we’ve decided to voluntarily shut down. We’ve been fighting for years for your right to communicate, but it’s time to move on. It’s been an experience of a lifetime, we wish you all the best!”
With file-sharing sites already looking over their shoulders, BTJunkie decided enough is enough and needed to make a major change.
After seeing this, the major question becomes: How much longer will file sharing be able to last?
Several other sites have been scared off: QuickSilverScreen has shut down and FileSonic and FileServe has restricted themselves to files members have uploaded themselves.
In the recent months, we have seen illegal downloading and online piracy become an issue across the world. Leading the charge was SOPA/PIPA followed by Kim Dotcom’s arrest. It seems to me the damage has been done: File sharing sites are now on notices and much more carefully watching where they tread.
Michael Tidmarsh is the Assistant Community Editor at ITKnowledgeExchange.com. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Privacy is the forefront issue once again as Congress is preparing to attack Google over their latest changes to their privacy policies.Several lawmakers are concerned with how Google will collect a user’s data across their services.
With one simple call, the CSO of Rapid 7, HD Moore, could see into the boardrooms of law firms, pharmaceutical and oil companies, and even Goldman Sachs.
With only exploring 3% of the Internet, Moore and Mike Tuchen, found over 5,000 video conferencing unsecured systems not installed into their firewall.The result: anyone all across the world could watch and listen in to their meetings.
In an interview with the New York Times, Moore explains why video conferencing security is extremely important. “These are literally some of the world’s most important boardrooms-this is where their most critical meetings take place-and there could be silent attendees in all of them,” he said.
Why would companies set up their video conferencing this way?Moore explains it’s easier for other companies to be included in conference calls but it restricts their safety.
Imagine: a multi-national corporation having a board meeting pertaining to their projected revenue or future deals and their competitors are watching without them even noticing.
Moore explains how easy it was to break into several video conferencing systems. “Any machine that accepted a call was set to autoanswer.It was fairly easy to figure out who was vulnerable, because if they weren’t vulnerable, then they would not have picked up the call,” Moore said.
This can become a troubling problem for companies if it’s not settled quickly and quietly.Tuchen believes the safest way to secure calls is to install a ‘gatekeeper’ that connects calls outside the firewall.However, the process takes time and is usually skipped.
One would have to imagine if these two men could successfully hack into thousands of video conferencing systems, what could some of the world’s greatest hackers do?
“Any reasonably computer literate 6-year-old can try this at home,” Tuchen said.
Now companies have to ask themselves: security over access?
Michael Tidmarsh is the Assistant Community Editor at ITKnowledgeExchange.com. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
What will happen if SOPA passes through Congress?Is the FBI going to come after us?Should I shut down my whole system? If you run one of the various popular file hosting services, these might just be a few of the thoughts running through your head lately.
With Internet protests against SOPA and the arrest of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, there is no telling what will come next.
The question for file storage websites comes down to this: Do they continue to look the other way and continue to allow pirated material to be stored on their website or do they take a stand and control the content coming in? And can this currently shady underbelly of the storage world turn legit before its wiped out by legal threats?
At least some companies will continue to run their sites without fear or anxiety for now.A spokesperson for Rapidshare spoke after the Megaupload arrests,“File hosting itself is a legitimate business, so we’re not concerned or scared about the raid.”
Should they be concerned?Only time will tell but if their caught, they will have a lot of explaining to do.
Despite today’s earlier post, I loved RIM. I think the Curve was, hands down, a great piece of hardware when it came out and stood the test of time. But as much as Mike Lazaridis, RIM’s former co-CEO, was trashed for being tone deaf when it comes to PR, his successor Thorsten Heins has miles to go to catch up with him, as a new YouTube video shows:
My only theory as to why this was published is that Heins recurring insistence that a new head of marketing must be hired irked the current marketing people, but that is pure conjecture on my part.
The most unsettling Heins quotes from the video: Continued »
Looking further back, however, Heins has a track record that’s anything but Lazaridian: He introduced innovative products, bold partnerships and new form factors one after another. The only problem is, they generally were pretty terrible. Continued »
Critics are comparing the bill to the Great Firewall of China, which controls and censors the Chinese Internet.
Jordan Hahn, CEO of IT firm Silent Movement Inc., told euronews that “Both bills contain broad language which could be used to censor web content and search engines in ways similar to China’s Great Firewall. The bills themselves are so far-reaching, it is impossible to predict their potential effects upon the internet as a whole. The question I have for the American government is simply this: Is it a good idea to put restrictions upon the last bastion of American innovation?”
What would happen to technology and the Internet if SOPA is passed by Congress? Thousands of Internet sitescould be vulnerable to legal restrictions and possible shutdown.
Even though SOPA would target domain names outside the United States, many American companies have domain names registered abroad. Businesses all across the U.S. would need to monitor Internet content and user access.
The key fact to take away is SOPA will affect everyone, from major corporations to small start-up businesses.
Social media in particular could be potentially devastated by the passing of SOPA. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube would need to find a way to screen messages to filter links and pictures of pirated domains.
Technology and IT sites depend on social media to promote content and advertise online. How would companies promote and engage their online community without it?
Social media has become the focal point for where businesses, groups, and people could interact with each other. If it’s taken away, technology and the American economy would take a significant hit.
There's a lot of IT news and analysis out there. The IT Watch Blog has what matters to you, including breaking announcements, insider tips and unbiased opinions from the people who matter most: Real IT professionals.