Keep in mind,
/. is not stale news for nerds for the most part.
Have you been to Arstechnica, Phoronix, and The Register? Browse their headlines and you'll see a 12-24 hour preview of what's going to show up on
The government already has all that, they don't need to break into DropBox or OneDrive to read that stuff.
True, and the government is not my main concern with putting sensitive data, albeit encrypted, in the cloud. My main concern is that someday, the encryption might be broken. Once that happens any script kiddie with the right tools can to get to the data, and there's no sure way to remove it from the cloud.
you will be at no risk of hackers or anyone else gaining access that way
I disagree. Encryption algorithms are constantly being tested and broken, and there is great incentive for that to continue. From the NSA and other governmental entities deliberately weakening the tools we use to encrypt, to as-yet undiscovered flaws, nobody can say with 100% certainty that current encryption technology will forever be secure.
And that's the biggest problem with the cloud. Once a single copy has been posted, you no longer have a sure way to delete every copy in existence.
The FBI said they do not believe the incident is related to terrorism.
In other words, it's only terrorism when it suits our political agenda to call it that.
What happens if somebody decides to fill it with water?
One can only hope.
For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!
This. This is why IPv4 will stick around for decades to come. There is too much profit potential in it, and IPv6 costs too much money to implement.
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing