- by kq4ym, Data Doctor
- 7/14/2015 8:17:45 AM
I too thought the idea sounded a bit too easy to be true for all applications. There's a down side to everything, I believe the extras involved in this one migh lead to some big limitations to where it can be used realistically.
- 7/8/2015 8:19:47 AM
@James, I agree that the first step will be a very narrowly focused application but we are moving toward a point that encryption and security are more important than ever. More of our transactions are digital, digital sources touch much more of our lives than ever and that means we need to protect those digital assets. Even if this particular process isn't the answer it is moving us in the direction that encryption doesn't have to be a one ton weight sitting on top of a database.
- 7/8/2015 8:17:22 AM
Isaac Asimov would be proud of this conversation, we're pushing technology past what we see its current constraints to be but at the same time making it more attractive to the individual. Welcome to the Cosmic AC...
- by SethBreedlove, Data Doctor
- 7/7/2015 11:50:17 PM
Sounds like we are talking about sharding the data, which is great. Even if this only means that hackers would have to hack into two databases vs. one, that still makes twice as difficult.
- by Ariella, Blogger
- 7/7/2015 10:55:37 AM
<ut I don't see teeny tiny chunks of data stored all over the globe as reality just yet. >
@SaneIT I'd agree, but i now get an even bigger vision. Why stop at earth? I can picture scattering data in space particularly for people who would consider things safer off-planet. But that's a very futuristic vision.
- by Jamescon, Editor
- 7/7/2015 10:17:16 AM
@SaneIT. I could see this leading to a lot of overhead in terms of storage, networking, and processing. In order to piece things back together you not only will need to get through the encryption but also additional header info (beyond the networking info) so you can know which original file an individual piece relates to. I suspect we're looking at very narrowly defined applications for this tech.
- 7/7/2015 8:27:30 AM
While the data doesn't HAVE to be stored in one place I get the feeling that it won't be stored in a zillion places, especially if one of those places tends to have poor latency and causes everything to come to a crawl when it's piece of data is being read/written. I can see chunks that when held in the same place make for big security issues being broken up and stored 6' away maybe a state away but I don't see teeny tiny chunks of data stored all over the globe as reality just yet. Maybe in decades to come but I also see the encryption method being used on singular databases so that there is at least some encryption done since it doesn't slow down accessing the data and that's one of the biggest reasons we don't see the data being encrypted now.
- by Phoenix, Data Doctor
- 7/6/2015 10:08:15 PM
@Ariella, This looks like a really good way to protect our data. Data privacy and protection has been one of the biggest problems facing organisations trying to store their customer data. I too wonder how this system can be implemented. It would be difficult for smaller organisations to handle a system like this. Specially if they only have a very small network.