← Back to context

Comment by ipnon

6 months ago

Don't you think there is a market for people who want services that have provable privacy even if it costs 1,000 times more? It's not as big a segment as Dropbox but I imagine it's there.

FHE solves privacy-from-compute-provider and doesn't affect any other privacy risks of the services. The trivial way to get privacy from the compute provider is to run that compute yourself - we delegate compute to cloud services for various reasonable efficiency and convenience reasons, but a 1000-fold less efficient cloud service usually isn't competitive with just getting a local device that can do that.

???

For the equivalent of $500 in credit you could self host the entire thing!

  • You're not joking. If you're like most people and have only a few TiB of data in total, self hosting on a NAS or spare PC is very viable. There are even products for non-technical people to set this up (e.g. software bundled with a NAS). The main barrier is having an ISP with a sufficient level of service.

    • Sure, hardware is cheap.

      However if you actually follow the 3-2-1 rule with your backups, then you need to include a piece of real estate in your calculation as well, which ain’t cheap.

      9 replies →

    • But if you have a lot of data, self hosting is still cheaper.

      Its always gonna be cheaper because you don't have the cloud provider's profit margin, which can be quite high.

      6 replies →

  • The statements made in the linked description of this cannot be true, such as Google not being able to read what you sent them and not being able to read what they responded with.

    Having privacy is a reasonable goal, but VPNs and SSL/TLS provide enough for most, and at some point your also just making yourself a target for someone with the power to undo your privacy and watch you more closely- why else would you go through the trouble unless you were to be hiding something? It’s the same story with Tor, VPN services, etc.- those can be compromised at will. Not to say you shouldn’t use them if you need to have some level of security functionally, but no one with adequate experience believes in absolute security.

    • > The statements made in the linked description of this cannot be true, such as Google not being able to read what you sent them and not being able to read what they responded with.

      The beautiful thing is: they are :-)

      4 replies →

If we are talking 1000x more latency, that is a pretty hard sell.

Something that normally takes 30 seconds now takes over 8 hours.

  • Its like, python can be 400 times slower than C++, but people still use it.

    • If Python devs/users had to actually use all pure Python libraries, no C bindings or Rust bindings, no RPC to binaries written in faster languages, it would get dropped for a ton of use cases, absolutely including its most prominent ones (machine learning, bioinformatics, numeric analysis, etc.).

      1 reply →

    • Yeah, because people use python when it doesn't matter and c++ when it does (including implicitly by calling modules that are backed by c implementations).

      That is not an option with FHE. You have to go all in.

      2 replies →

    • For compute, which is a small part of things computers do. Many things are I/O and network bound.

      I’m not at all a fan of Python, but perf is the least of my concerns with it.

there is, it's called governments. however this technology is so slow that using it in mission critical systems (think communication / coordinates during warfare) that it is not feasible IMO.

the parent post is right, confidential compute is really what we've got.

Honestly, no? Unless you get everyone using said services, then a market that is only viable to people trying to hide bad behavior becomes the place you look for people doing bad things?

This is a large part of why you have to convince people to hide things even if "they have nothing to hide."

For most this would mean only specially treating a subset of all the sensitive data they have.