If you think your data "in the cloud" (which is just a way of saying "on other people's physical systems") is safe from theft, breakage or some foreign government agency pulling the plug, you haven't been paying much attention to reality lately.

And by "lately" I mean the past decade.

Don't get me wrong, I like the convenience of "the cloud". It's especially helpful in synchronizing all the data that I have on cheap and abundant storage on various devices.

We can have both. Why advocate giving up the one option that makes you independent from third party interference (or simply a lack of connectivity)?

We are talking about the future. In the future your data might be more safe in the cloud than on your own device, just like your money is more safe in a bank than in your wallet. It's possible.

Backup device manufaturers are really missing out on big bucks by not making a small NAS that downloads all you cloud data. Give it access to Google/Dropbox/Flickr etc an have it silently back everything up.

I hope they've thought of this and I've just missed it. They won't be able to sell USB based backup drives for much longer.

IOMega used to make a NAS with support for foldershare (the dropbox predecessor that was sold to Microsoft). That was 6 years ago - before it's time I'd guess.

The device 'Time Machine' by Apple does exactly that.

No it doesn't, it backsup your Macs over wifi, and that's all it does. It won't access web services, which is they key point I was trying to make. The Time Capsule, and all home backup devices I can name, make the soon-to-be-outdated assumption that your data exists on a hard drive you own.

Well more elaborately your mac can access all web services and download all data which can then be wirelessly backed up by the time machine.

For example my Dropbox folder is automatically synced on my mac which is then automatically backed up by the time machine.

Wouldn’t login sniffing on these supposedly dumb machines be a greater concern? Murders are more common within families after all.

While the I/O from those plugged-in devices could still be sniffed, including what appears on a screen, at least you could encrypt your communication when using a portable device.

> I log in to my cloud desktop using whatever dumb machine is available, and off I go.

Unfortunately there is no way to verify that that machine is actually "dumb". Fundamentally this is because modern computation and storage are microscopic phenomena. Even today we take it as an act of faith that our freshly produced electronics only do what the manufacturers say - and this is an ongoing problem for US defense contractors that outsource component manufacture to China.

This problem is also experienced by travelers who expect a "dumb browser" at the internet cafe, when in fact they are being key logged.

> What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?

There are a few, such as statefulness that is maintained even without network connectivity. But the big one is that, presumably, "your" device is more trustworthy than a dumb terminal because, at the very least, you haven't acted to subvert your own security (although even this is often not the case).

If consumer networks were as reliable as roads and the electricity grid, why would I bother giving my data to someone so they can put it in a datacenter?.

The future I would like best is a device on the end of my home internet connection.

I could authenticate myself to other online services against it.

It could be a node in a social network (much like diaspora) where I can control all my own data.

It could have access to a NAS at home, allowing me to stream my favourite music and movies to wherever I happen to be.

In the future, with resilient enough networks, the datacenter will be distributed.

You described exactly what the people at http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ are trying to do.

It's still in an early state of development but you may join the mailinglist or read the wiki ( http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox ) if you are interested in this topic.

This is a great hardware startup. Sell rack boxes that can be installed by an electrician next to the power in/telephone in and get rid of those under featured consumer routers.

Hmmmmmm.... I'll sell you one for £500 a year, replaced regularly and managed?

I was thinking more of a Raspberry Pi, though obviously combining this device with the router does make sense.

Seriously? Why not combine into the NAS?

I could see a NAS needing to be upgraded more often than this device.

If the software and feature set were stable and mature enough then I can't see you needing to upgrade it very often.

Why not carry the dumb terminal in your pocket and drop it into a monitor and charging station at a client's, a cafe, a friend's, etc? That way you have local access to things that should be local (I don't always have Internet access on my phone here in Michigan, but I still want to listen to music), but cloud access as well? Phones are pretty well tied to the Internet these days anyway.

These two futures don't have to be mutually exclusive, and I'd argue we'll see them both on the same device at the same time.

Control, security, trust. Even if I got rid of all other computers, I'd still have a phone.

More and more I want to fully control my data on my terms. Maybe I'd be fine paying a service (linode?) to host my fully encrypted data in the cloud, but Google? Facebook? No thanks.

Whats to say the data isnt in the cloud? I expect that the future of computing has a few layers.

1. Device (basically CPU) - this could be your phone or something similar

2. Storage local cache on your "Device" but sync'd with the cloud in case of it getting lost or damaged

3. Input. Lets face it, we all enjoy a good keyboard and mouse...if you're on the go touch screen does the job but I'll never write a document from one (unless I am super desperate)

> What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?

Security.

Do you store all your money at home or do you have some in bank? There's no reason why some big entity couldn't guarantee that the data you put in will get back to you whatever happens to company holding your data. If you mean security as in privacy, then there are cryptographically safe methods on preventing that.

I think the crucial difference here is the number of entities I have to trust. People can generally do a bit of research on a bank before they join one, if a bank really sucks you can switch, and if a bank seriously defrauds you then you know whodunit and can pursue legal recourse. By contrast if I'm using a supposedly dumb terminal provided by some random cafe then there's absolutely no way to prevent them from seeing everything I do [1], or from inserting arbitrary commands into any service I use. And if I use the provided computers at many locations, as you suggest, there's probably no way for me to figure out who it was that screwed me.

[1] You say "cryptography". I say "Analog hole".

I'm not talking about tomorrow but rather distant future. The banks evolved somehow. Now it is really hard to "become" a bank. There are very strict regulations in place. If a bank goes bankrupt the personal savings are still guaranteed to be paid off. So this is just a matter of making some regulations and establishing proper hierarchy.

And about security as in privacy. I don't know what future holds. Perhaps you'd be implanted a token that you can use for accessing the data which can't be faked or copied. Who knows. I just wouldn't rule out the possibility of a "cloud world" completely.

Even with strong crypto, if you're typing in your passphrase on a "dumb" machine that someone else owns and controls, you're risking the entirety of your security on how trustworthy (and security-competent) the owner of that machine is. No thanks.

You could have a token that would work exactly as credit card. Only one token would be authorized. You cannot copy it so if you lose it, you know you lost it can be "disabled". You would then need a new one with the same key however. That key could be stored in real bank's deposit box. Hardware of the token would only allow to store the key and not read it. I mean, that's a possibility for the paranoid ones who are not happy with cell phone auth for example.

I know there's no infrastructure in place (yet) but we're talking about some kind of future, not about today. It's certainly possible though. Even secured.

two-factor auth helps?

If somebody steals your money from a bank, the bank can replace it. If somebody steals your data from the cloud, there's no way to make things ok.

It doesn't matter that someone have a copy of your properly encrypted data.

>I would like to have a desktop in the cloud, and data in the cloud

You would sacrifice your freedom and privacy for a (dubious) convenience?

>What benefits do we stand to gain from still having things run or be stored on a local machine?

So that you won't be in paralysis when internet is unavailable?

Almost every answer emphasizes security, but what about convenience? Where is your dumb terminal when you climb in the Alps and wish too take a short at Mount Blank? In a taxi will you have to log in a machine before checking your friend'a address? Where is your dumb terminal in the washroom (probably the place where smartphones are most used)?

In those cases you don't have a big display or a dock either; you just use your phone and that's fine. What I'm questioning is the value of a dock+display to access your phone versus a "cloud" device that can be accessed from anywhere (including your phone).

I'm experimenting with that, actually: https://github.com/pfraze/link