# Google plans to make PCs history



## jillian2 (Sep 11, 2004)

The Google Drive, or "GDrive", could kill off the desktop computer, which relies on a powerful hard drive. Instead a user's personal files and operating system could be stored on Google's own servers and accessed via the internet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/25/google-drive-gdrive-internet


----------



## jillian2 (Sep 11, 2004)

Blogger Brian Ussery has uncovered an interesting hint that the GDrive might actually exist. The Google Pack software bundle, which is for Windows users who want to use software from Google and its partners, includes a small piece of code apparently containing the GDrive's product category and description.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10153275-2.html


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Don't I need my PC to get to GDrive? 

Another fly in the ointment is the speed of broadband access... Even at 20mbit/5mbit, my access is way too slow for hard disk access, and most folks have slower speeds.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> Don't I need my PC to get to GDrive?


If you follow the idea to its logical conclusion, the answer would be no. As more and more electronic devices are networked together, any number of devices would be able to generate content or data that could be stored on and retrieved from any network accessible storage device.

Look at the movie streaming box Netflix is offering customers that will stream movies for playback directly on a TV, no PC involved.

Look at iPhones and "Crackberries" that are used to access web-based e-mail.

You get the idea. I'm heading out to lunch now and I'll post more later. 

Peace...


----------



## daniel_b2380 (Jan 31, 2003)

Y - A - A - Y - Y - Y !!!
A - L - R - I - G - H - T !!!
.
and the march of technology rolls o - o - n - n - n!!!
.
Hey! Wait a minute!
didn't i post something the other day about g-mail?
and google wanting to store everyone's medical records?
[but they are NOT subject to HIPA regs?],
to the effect that if it is on google's site,
it now BELONGS to google?
.
OH!!! maybe not such a great idea,
if followed to it's FOREGONE conclusion,
and considering too,
as in the current trend of crackers / hackers sophistication of methodologies!!!!!!!!
.
just my $0.02,
[rats, with the economy, that'll now cost me $0.27]


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

daniel_b2380 said:


> Hey! Wait a minute!
> didn't i post something the other day about g-mail?
> and google wanting to store everyone's medical records?
> [but they are NOT subject to HIPA regs?],
> ...


This is also a legitimate concern but something I think *can* be managed. Let's look at photo hosting sites as an example. Granted, a photo isn't necessarily as sensitive as a medical record but photo hosting sites are close to the kind of "public storage" we're talking about here.

I haven't heard of any photo hosting site being hacked or cracked (at least not yet) and I haven't heard of any photo hosting site claiming actual "ownership" of the photos posted there.

I think this kind of technology evolution is important and unavoidable and I don't think it can or will necessarily be bad. Data storage will be the BIGGEST issue facing us the more we rely on technology and I view this plan of Google's as another attempt at a solution to that problem.

Have you (meaning anyone) considered how much data storage you actually use?

Storage is used on each PC you might have data on (browser cache, downloads, e-mail, generated documents, multi-media files, application data, etc).

Storage is used on each server at a business you might have data on as part of doing your job (backups, transient file areas, etc).

Storage is used on servers hosting online services you use (web-based e-mail accounts, social networking sites, etc).

The more we use technology the more storage we will need for all kinds of data, some of which is directly generated by us and some of which is indirectly generated, and we'll need to figure out some way to manage, backup, and secure the data to maximize its lifespan.

What I find most interesting is as we transition to more abstract methods of data storage (like storing data "on the network"), the actual media used for the storage less and less important. Does it really matter if the song you buy from iTunes comes from a server hard drive or a solid state drive or out of some RAM cache? Nope, it doesn't.

I don't think Google will come up with the "final" solution to the storage issue but I think they will definitely be part of any solution(s) that are thought of and implemented.

Peace...


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Hell, credit card sites are being cracked, so if the information is valuable, it'll happen, just give it time.

Until we're connected 24/7, you still have the issue of getting to the data. I'm sure it'll work for some applications, but it'll be slow coming.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> Hell, credit card sites are being cracked, so if the information is valuable, it'll happen, just give it time.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the information stored through services like what Google is offering WILL be absolutely, 150% secure but the point is there is _already_ data being stored on "public access" sites that really isn't posing a problem. Google's offering won't require you to store your most critical information there, if you choose not to, but can be great for the data you do want to store there.

Credit card sites are hacked, people are getting their laptops stolen, and all other kinds of points of vulnerability are exploited all the time. As a result, the industry has responded by putting mechanisms in place to readily deal with that kind of stuff to keep your private info as secure as possible. One of my credit card accounts got compromised without my knowledge and the bank took care of it before I even knew there was an issue and informed me of the problem _after_ it had been resolved.

Data security is something being taken very seriously so I don't think we'll be in a position where _most_ people will be "stuck" in a difficult position because some site was hacked and credit card information stolen, especially if we're talking about a "high profile" site like Google would be.



> Until we're connected 24/7, you still have the issue of getting to the data. I'm sure it'll work for some applications, but it'll be slow coming.


I think we're closer to that today than ever. My cable modem internet connection is there 24x7, with say 98% uptime. If my cable internet connection goes out, I could access my online data using a mobile device, provided I was geared up to do so. If I needed access to financial data and I had no internet connection (for whatever reason), I could call the financial institution on the phone. We can't forget mobile device internet access being provided through mobile service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc). People are using their mobile devices to do all kinds of things *today* they couldn't do 2-3 years ago.

Accessing the data will always be an issue if the data isn't local. It's just a fact that not _all_ of our data will always be kept local so not _all_ of our data will always be accessible. The thing is, I don't have to store _all_ my data remotely so I can take whatever measures I deem necessary to keep my most critical data as readily accessible as possible.

Peace...


----------



## daniel_b2380 (Jan 31, 2003)

tomdkat,
i take it, by your example used, an online photo site,
you have NO intimate knowledge of the field of medical records?
or WHAT is actually in a medical record?
it's not just j doe came in today for a physical,
he was fine,
for a start, how about this:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR
.
remember this?
'implanted chip medical records'
http://www.google.com/search?num=50...=1&q='implanted+chip+medical+records'&spell=1
.
did you read, and remember, the furor over this,
when a couple companies were to begin merchandising these 'readers' to shopping centers?
[what was it called - targeted advertising???],
.
google already tracks a person online, IDENTIFIABLY,
by the cookies it sets,
by the searches you do, etc.
what's it called - TARGETED ADVERTISING!
.
'google on-line medical records storage'
http://www.google.com/search?num=50...+on-line+medical+records+storage'&btnG=Search
.
http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/77571_20080528.asp
quote:
HIPAA, the federal law that controls the release of patient records, does not govern these on-line medical records programs
.
quote:
Medical researchers hope, with a patient's consent, to mine online medical records for more expansive studies of medications, disease management or the spread of a virus. But online records storage has to build numbers before it will be of use to anyone...and industry analysts say that's at least three to five years out. 
.
even a simple thing, as was going to happen in va,
the court clerks were going to PUBLISH a persons soc sec number, etc.
when they publish land title / deed transfers,
'oh gee, we'll just make it against the law for anyone not authorised to view them,
or use any of that information in an unlawful manner'
WOW!!!
well, a young lady reporter with the times-dispatch,
raised such a hue & cry over that bs,
why publish the personally identifiable info to BEGIN with?
[at least soc sec numbers aren't published],
.
WHAT i cited in my comments in post #5 was not an OPINION,
do you actually read the eula?
your email belonging to google came out in a congressional hearing,
.
i listen to internet radio a good bit,
klad in lamath falls, or,
has been doing a lot of broadcasting about this:
as for on-line photos,
what about when a young lady, 12 - 16, or so,
posts a few pics for her boyfriend,
[puppy love we call it],
and the inevitable breakup occurs,
he shows then to a couple friends,
someone emails them to dad or mom,
well....
.
i'm not trying to say that eventually,
most info will probably be that way,
our society is becoming more transparent every day,
some parts good, i guess,
it sure is a double-edged sword,
it's just that things can get so easily abrogated,
[think - ATOMIC ENERGY],
just hope i'm not here to be a part of it,
.
have a good day, sir,


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

daniel_b2380 said:


> tomdkat,
> i take it, by your example used, an online photo site,


Actually, I don't. At least not anymore. I have used Pixhost in the past to post some photos of my home theater but I haven't used any of the current ones that many others tend to use frequently. I actually got the online photo site idea from references to such sites on this forum.



> you have NO intimate knowledge of the field of medical records?


Nope, since I've never worked in that field.



> or WHAT is actually in a medical record?


Not intimate knowledge since I haven't looked at my complete, personal medical record but I do realize it can contain some very personal and confidential information I would not want shared.



> for a start, how about this:
> Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR
> .
> remember this?
> ...


Yes, I remember those issues and I find it interesting that Google was in the "limelight" about it wanting to store medical records online while Microsoft's "HealthVault" didn't seem to be that much of an issue (at least I don't remember hearing about it in the media). I found out about "HealthVault" through one of the links in the above search result links you posted above. 

Things like the advertising issue, etc., are things that can be dealt with as this kind of change gains more momentum, if it even does. When I encounter these kinds of issues being cited as reasons why something isn't a good idea, I usually find those screaming the loudest haven't really thought through the matter as well as they possibly should. Why do I say this? Because several of the issues they cite are already existing issues with the way we do things right now, yet those issues are never raised in their arguments. I'm not pointing a finger at you, daniel, I'm just commenting on past experience. 

Case in point: you mention the issue above about court clerks publishing SSNs on land/deed titles. Have you noticed in this day and age of identity theft, the I.R.S. wants you to put your SSN on the check you send them to pay your taxes? What happens to that info when the check is processed through the system? How do I know who has or has not seen that information and what they have or have not done with it?

The point I'm making is this: this kind of evolution is unavoidable and not necessarily "bad". The issues arise in _how_ the evolution takes place. How do we control the technology evolution such that it evolves in the most appropriate manner? I've got no problem with my medical records being stored online. I've got a HUGE problem with my medical records being stored online in an insecure fashion. The reality is, I have no idea how much of my medical information is already stored on a network somewhere, if not on a network connected to the Internet. I really have no way of knowing this either.

What Google is proposing won't be the "final" or "best" solution for accessing one's data over the Internet. It probably won't be anything everyone will be required to participate in. However, it's certainly part of the evolutionary process and one I think is important.



> .
> WHAT i cited in my comments in post #5 was not an OPINION,
> do you actually read the eula?
> your email belonging to google came out in a congressional hearing,


Nope, I had not read the EULA before but I read the Terms of Service just now (more like skimmed it). I see in section 11 where Google is given a license to "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" content we, as Gmail users, upload or store in our Gmail account but in section 9 it also states Google does not take ownership of that content. So, I'm not sure Google "owns" the e-mail stored on its servers or created and managed by its members.



> i listen to internet radio a good bit,
> klad in lamath falls, or,
> has been doing a lot of broadcasting about this:
> as for on-line photos,
> ...


 "puppy love" indeed.  This is something I consider to be a "people issue". In the scenario you mention, the "Internet" didn't send out those pics, the ex-boyfriend did. If those photos were posted on an online photo site, the online photo site administrators didn't "suddenly" claim ownership of the photos and so on.

People use technology in different ways and for different things. A LOT of people feel they have some kind of "license" to use technology without restraint or consequence solely because the technology is capable of doing whatever it is they want to do or supporting whatever it is they want to do. Why this is, I have no idea.



> i'm not trying to say that eventually,
> most info will probably be that way,
> our society is becoming more transparent every day,
> some parts good, i guess,
> ...


I do agree with you, but this isn't a "technology" problem, it's a "people" problem. We've got to change the people to not abuse the technology as they sometimes do.

Peace...


----------

