SurDoc Cloud Backup Offers 100GB Of Free Storage With Focus On Privacy

24 Comments

1. I’m trying to upload zip files to Surdoc(200MB each). When the progress bar indicates it’s finishing, it never ends. There’s something wrong with this service.
   Also, I tried to upload a 50MB zip file and a mkv file(100MB). It doesn’t complete and it’s not a problem with my browser since i used Opera, Firefox and Chrome.
   It only occurs in Surdoc.

2. SurDoc does not give you 100Gb of FREE space. It comes with a catch 90Gb of documents only and 10Gb of other files.After that it will not upload any other type of file e.g *.zip, *.tar. I would rather use the Chinese stoarge space (I have no SuperSecret files) justwant to off load my ROm files ,Rooting files that I have amassed over the years.

3. Thanks for the suggestion… I wonder why my speed connection goes down when I’d upload a file to SurDoc? I mean that while uploading a file to this specific site my downloading speed goes from 4.9 MB to 200 kb…!!!! (this does not happen with other services like MEGA or MediaFire) Thanks for your answers!!!

4. Bob Ramsey wrote: 100 gigs of storage is not a huge amount at all these days.
   MY RESPONSE: Why do so many who post in places like this seem to have missed or flunked the lesson in elementary school wherein they learned to categorize? 100GB is a huge amount of CLOUD storage. What’s possible connectable to one’s local computer has not one single thing to do with anything on this webpage. Please don’t mix apples and oranges, and then use it to challenge others’ completely both reasonable and accurate assertions.

   Everything else you wrote completely ignores that we’re talking about CLOUD storage, here, not locally-attached drives. That said, you’re right about locally-attached drive space being inexpensive… though a RAID array is hardly what most individuals need. External, USB-attached, 2TB to 3TB drives of 5400 to 7200 RPM cost less than $100; the former, on sale, often less than $50. Though I — who still has, on hard drive, data from the 1980s, and a pushing-40-year IT career — have multiple such 2TB drives attached to my home server, most individuals could purchase just one for $69 to $89 and it would be all the external/backup storage they could possibly need in a lifetime.

   By using something like Tonido’s software, or OwnCloud; plus one’s own domain name and something like DynDNS (or any of a number of other similarly-interesting stragegies), one can have one’s own cloud, accessible from anywhere on the planet, at any time (as long as one’s home Internet connection is up, and one’s home electricity hasn’t failed), right on one’s desk… for as little as a grand total of only around a hundred bucks, one-time cost, including the 2TB hard drive.

   And I could go on and on. It needn’t be complicated; it should simply not be using SurDoc… in part, because of the Chinese connection.

   __________________________________
   Gregg L. DesElms
   Napa, California USA
   gregg at greggdeselms dot com

   Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
   Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • You wrote:

     By using something like Tonido’s software, or OwnCloud; plus one’s own
     domain name and something like DynDNS (or any of a number of other
     similarly-interesting stragegies), one can have one’s own cloud,
     accessible from anywhere on the planet, at any time (as long as one’s
     home Internet connection is up, and one’s home electricity hasn’t
     failed), right on one’s desk… for as little as a grand total of only
     around a hundred bucks, one-time cost, including the 2TB hard drive.
     —

     Exactly. And why you think this company or any other wouldn’t do exactly the same thing for the same price, I have no idea. No one is putting free accounts on the overly hyped and overly expensive server class drives with NAS or SAN. They are in it to make a buck, so for free accounts just keep slapping cheap, commodity drives into a raid 5 array that you can grow dynamically. When they become a paying customer you can move the files to something that’s backed up and a little more robust.

     But the whole thing is just a prettied up version of rsync.

   • Bob, I’m not sure what is your issue with me, here; or what you mean by your “why you think” statement. My only issue with you was your assertion that 100GB of storage is not a huge amount. Locally, no, it isn’t; but my point which could not have possibly been more clear was that 100GB is a huge amount if it’s cloud storage. Few, if any, providers are giving away 100GB of free storage. That was my point.

     For some reason, though, you just can’t stop trying to make a completely unrelated (and, therefore, irrelevant) point of how cheap is locally-attached storage. Yes, it is. I agree. I even cited how one could create one’s own cloud storage exceedingly cheaply because of it. We’re in agreement, here.

     Re-focus your attention, please, on the CLOUD storage aspect of this entire discussion. That’s what we’re all talking about, here; not locally-attached storage.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

5. What a fxxking joke that only Chinese are hackers but not the the fxxking Americans!

   • Guest wrote: What a fxxking joke that only Chinese are hackers but not the the fxxking Americans!

     MY RESPONSE: No one said that only Chinese are hackers. There were, and remain, more hackers in the US than in any other country. You missed the most salient part of my point…

     …that China’s hacking is government sponsored. Yes, the US spies, too, as the Edward Snowden and NSA debacle clearly illustrates; but information gleaned from US governmental spying does not end-up being used to commercially benefit any private parties, as information gleaned from Chinese spying does. Remember that while Huawei is a private company, the line between it and the Chinese government is virtually non-existent; and it is the Chinese government that is behind such things as, for example, the problem of counterfeit wine showing-up in European and American auction houses.

     The NSA is not a commercially criminal enterprise. The Chinese government is.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • Except it has been shown that all of the major technology companies sell user data to the NSA. US corporations are just as much puppets of their government as Chinese corporations.

   • ARNO WROTE: Except it has been shown that all of the major technology companies sell user data to the NSA. US corporations are just as much puppets of their government as Chinese corporations.

     MY RESPONSE: That is categorically untrue. You have misread and/or misheard/misviewed (and so now, clearly, misunderstand) the recent NSA-related news stories; as well as you’ve missed the precision with which I wrote what I’ve here written. Moreover, you clearly fail to understand the US system, either because you live in the US, but never bothered; or you don’t live in the US, and so are misinformed/propagandized.

     These are areas in which I have extraordinary expertise. If you’re going to deign to debate me, come prepared, and bother to actually be good at it. What you’ve written, here, to which I’m now responding, is reckless, misinformed, and tacit evidence of your sloppiness of thought.

     __________________________________

     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • Obviously you aren’t nearly as informed as you think you are. Go read up on PRISM and how the NSA paid some of the largest technology companies millions to institute the very programme which has given the United States government convenient access to user data.

     Only after the information regarding PRISM became public did those companies attempt to initiate their ostentatious “transparency” policies. Had that information never been divulged, you can bet that they wouldn’t have uttered a word and would have remained content on selling out their users.

   • KJ WROTE: Obviously you aren’t nearly as informed as you think you are.

     MY RESPONSE: Read precisely what Arno alleged… precisely. What he alleged, precisely as written, is categorically untrue. Period. Moreover, it has nothing to do with what the comments beneath the article at the top of the page are supposed to be about. We’re getting off-topic.

     KJ WROTE: Go read up on PRISM and how the NSA paid some of the largest technology companies millions to institute the very programme which has given the United States government convenient access to user data. Only after the information regarding PRISM became public did those companies attempt to initiate their ostentatious “transparency” policies. Had that information never been divulged, you can bet that they wouldn’t have uttered a word and would have remained content on selling out their users.

     MY RESPONE: Oh, fortheloveofgod, do you really think I don’t know everything there is to know about PRISM? C’mon! You have a simplistic both view and understanding of what, precisely, was the pressure on such as AT&T, for example, who early (in post 9/11 years) agreed to allow the NSA access to its systems. Once you fully understand the kind of power that the Patriot Act gave to the Hitleresquely-named “Department of Homeland Security,” and the secret courts issuing warrants without anyone having the power to move to quash, then and only then can you fully grasp the degree to which no company had a choice; making the money payoff/blood money… conscience money… money to make it look like a civil transaction and not the agreement under duress that it was.

     I’m not saying the corporations’ hands were clean. Far from it. A pox on all their houses! I’m simply saying that not a single one of them wanted to be subjected to accusations of treason such as Snowden has endured; but now that he has, and said corporations are seeing that he’s getting public support and calls are being made to reign-in the NSA, it’s finally easy for them to make their “ostentatious transparency” policies, and to call for the NSA’s reduction in power, influence and the ability to bully.

     The thing is, though, that the NSA has not one single thing to do with what we’re talking about, here, and that’s whether or not it’s wise to entrust one’s data to the Chinese. Whether or not the NSA is a bunch o’ schmucks is an entirely different and unrelated matter.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • And Gregg i agree with you totally. Sure all goverments spie it’s how it work’s. But the Chinese do it for reason’s we do not. Why just give them what they are looking for. We Americans and other countries have almost sold are soul’s to there cheap products in are greed. They want Private tech and info from are corporations not just Military info goverment info. We seem to have go nutt’s if are goverment collects info of any type. but they rob us blind every chance they get .They Make knock offs or steal the data for military purpose . Its amazing alone how some of there Military equipment alone look like knock offs from are own.

6. I’m sorry, but my cynical American suspicion meter’s needle is pegged by this. Whenever’s something seems too good to be true (100GB of storage for free is a HUGE amount… almost too good to be true), it probably is.

   In this case, SurDoc’s Chinese connections are too huge a red flag. The Chinese are constantly trying to break-in to US corporate firewalls, and has devoted an entire military team doing it full-time, in shifts, around the clock. Additionally, one of its biggest phone makers, Huawei, is notorious for its cyber spying; and I could cite dozens of other similar examples.

   Were I wanting to see American secrets, I’d offer a whopping 100GB of free cloud backup space, too. In the process, I’d learn thousands and thousands of Americans’ commonly-used passwords, as well as the contents of their document and other files. With a little luck, someone whose files actually contain something important would be stored on my servers.

   It is no accident, I’ll bet, that only 5GB of the 100GB may be such as .ZIP files, which are inherently harder to crack-open through simple automated procedures because of their pseudo-encryption via the mere act of zipping, potentially compounded by password protection.

   No, sorry… not interested. No American should be. I wouldn’t put my personal or professional data on SurDoc’s servers — and especially not give it one of my commonly-used passwords (or certainly not one I’ve used anywhere else, or which could give hints thereto) — on a bet! Not even if it offered 100TB of free storage space!

   A little cynical discernment is in order: not merely called for, but SCREAMED for!

   My advice: Stay away.

   __________________________________
   Gregg L. DesElms
   Napa, California USA
   gregg at greggdeselms dot com

   Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
   Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • Be that as it may, do you even have 100GB worth of interesting data for any government? Right now, we shove it up NSA’s butt big time, so sharing some of the hard cracking effort done by those “secret” organizations — where ever they may roam and under which ever flag they sail — is only fair, wouldn’t you think? Being cynical and such. You don’t really need to use a backup service to offer most of your privacy in data to such organizations. The commonly used passwords of Americans have repeatedly been published in many places since the early 80’s (when accessing really interesting research data was still quite interesting), however passwords these days are of rather little concerns when it comes to accessing data. The question regarding breaching an individual’s privacy is often governed by economic reasoning of opportunity costs and capital investment.

     “Indeed in general I hold that there is nothing truer than happiness, and nothing happier and sweeter than truth.” — Leibnitz

   • –
     MOREAKI WROTE: …do you even have 100GB worth of interesting data for any government?

     MY RESPONSE: In high school, you learned the difference between quality and quantity, right? How much “interesting data” do you think it takes in order for the breach of it to become a problem? Everything I could possibly need to clean-out your bank account may be contained in a text file of fewer than 100 bytes (100 characters)… which is a fraction of the 100GB of storage in question that’s so small that the first significant digit of its percentage is several positions to the right of the decimal point. The contents of a single file may contain everything needed to cause an entire lifetime of ruin. That you make the quantity argument cogently attests to your cluelessness regarding this matter.

     Another key problem with the assertion of your question (some questions are really just statements with question marks at the end, as is the case with yours) is how it so nicely borders on and dovetails with the classic right-winged, conservative, (Insani)Tea-Party-esque, Republican privacy-rights-ignoring argument that if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the problem with your privacy being violated? It’s a ridiculous and nonsensical argument which fundamentally fails every logical litmus test, including that of every US federal court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). As it turns out, I have somewhat MORE than 100GB of data which would be interestesting to any number of governments; but that’s not the point. The point is that even if I didn’t, I have the right to keep it private and known only to me. Your Republican slip is showing.

     The third (but far from the final) key problem with your assertion as masked by your having torturously put it in the form of a question is the problem of fiduciary responsibility… a foreign concept, I realize, for most bereft-of-integrity Republicans. No matter how much of the 100GB of storage might be occupied by my own private data; and no matter how much such cluelessness as yours might ignorantly and wrongly suggest, as you below suggest, that privacy is an illusion and so there’s no point in our trying to maintain it (yet another classic bit of Republican apologia to justify violating it), if only one tiny bit of what’s on my computer that’s backed-up to SurDoc’s 100GB of storage space contains the private data of others entrusted to my care, then I’ve violated my fiduciary responsibility. With such a glaring lack of understanding of the importance — nay, imperative — of that, I sure hope that nothing you do in life requires fiduciary sensibility… or even integrity, since you seem to have neither.

     MOREAKI WROTE: Right now, we shove it up NSA’s butt big time, so sharing some of the hard cracking effort done by those “secret” organizations — where ever they may roam and under which ever flag they sail — is only fair, wouldn’t you think? Being cynical and such.

     MY RESPONSE: Assuming I completely understand it (since precisely how you worded it contains some inherent ambiguity), I don’t even know where to BEGIN with such ridiculousness! Because the NSA misbehaves, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? Please tell me that’s not what you’re saying. Mygod.

     MOREAKI WROTE: You don’t really need to use a backup service to offer most of your privacy in data to such organizations. The commonly used passwords of Americans have repeatedly been published in many places since the early 80’s (when accessing really interesting research data was still quite interesting), however passwords these days are of rather little concerns when it comes to accessing data.

     MY RESPONSE: I’ve been an IT professional involved in all manner of high-tech pursuits for pushing 40 years. Your now knowing that, do you really think that at least MY password strategy in life suffers from such infirmity? Moreover (and far worse), your suggestion, then, is that everyone just give-up? Have you fallen on your head too many times in life, fortheloveofgod? Er… oh, yeah… you’re a Republican. That explains it. Nothing should be private as far as you guys are concened.

     MOREAKI WROTE: The question regarding breaching an individual’s privacy is often governed by economic reasoning of opportunity costs and capital investment.

     MY RESPONSE: Agreed, though not for the reason you just wrote… more on that in a moment. Nevertheless, that observation and point of yours is the whole reason I earler suggested that no one should make it easier and cheaper for the Chinese government to look at their private data by delivering it up to it through the use of SurDoc; and hence, further, what I meant by my observation (and what I concomitatntly suggest it means) that SurDoc limits to only 5% of its whopping 100GB of “free” (if you don’t consider the less-easily-quantifiable cost of having your privacy violated) storage what it calls “special” files (such as executables and .ZIP files) which are not easily opened and read by automated means. By making 95% of the 100GB usable by only files which are easily opened and read by automated (and, therefore, least costly) means, SurDoc is making flesh your very posit. What part of that was not painfully clear in my earlier words?

     However, as I’m coming to realize is normative about what you write, there’s a larger issue suggested by it: your classic Republican apologia that privacy concerns are largely non-issues because the cost of violating privacy usually dictates that most won’t bother to do it. That, of course, is ridiculous, as evidenced by that most who engage in it are pimply-faced 14-year-olds who do it for sport, to prove their hacking skills and impress their hacker friends on hacker websites. What you don’t know about security would fill a book.

     How curious, in light of your words’ evidencing a glaring lack of rational thinking, that your “signature” quotes Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a 17th century rationalist. Then again, he spoke from both sides of his mouth regarding that (and most Republicans do, too, it’s worthy of note), considering his leaning more, in reality, toward a kind of scholasticism which values prior definitions and first principles over empirical evidence…

     …pretty much as you’ve done, here. No surprise, then, I guess.

     If you’re wondering why my overall response, here, seems irritated and perhaps a little unkind, it began with the insufferable arrogance of your inherently insulting “do you even have 100GB worth of interesting data for any government?” At that point, it was gloves off.

     Then, again, I tend to be naturally pretty gloves off whenever it’s clear that I’m dealing with a clueless, privacy-ignoring, civil-rights-diminishing, willing-to-harm-people-with-their-policies Republican.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

     –

   • Oh nooez the chinez will steal my documents? What will I every do?

     So if a company has a Chinese connection we shouldn’t use their services? Well we might as well stop shopping… everywhere.

     Funny you should claim that the Chinese would steal your data when you have no evidence of that and when the NSA has been proven to steal data from everyone, even other countries. It has been proven that they are a criminal organization, they have committed treason. Not a single piece of evidence suggesting this company has any connection to the Chinese government. Its all pointless speculation with you, isn’t it?

     So you go on with your conspiracy theory’s and I’ll enjoy my 100GB of free storage 🙂

   • TO: NoReligion

     It’s always entertaining to read the easy-to-write-in-anonymity words of the cowardly who hide behind pseudonyms and online handles. I, on the other hand, post everything under my real and full name, and was so doing on the Internet even in the early ’80s… a dozen years before its worldwide web component came into being. I, unlike you, stand responsible for my words both online and off. I leave to you to figure out which of us the world will find more inherently credible.

     Knowing that I must stand responsible for my words in all aspects of my life, do you really think I would be so irresponsible as to suggest something with no basis, whatsoever? Develop some research skills. It’s all there, if you first know how to dig and, second, know how to interpret what you find. Based on what you consider “research” in your various hatred-of-Christians-as-sport postings, I’m dubious.

     So, here, let me give you at least the tiny beginnings of a hint, just to get you started.

     h t t p : / / b i t . l y / 1 g Q Q u c I (a PDF file; remove the spaces)

     I won’t hold my breath for that you’ll know what to do with it, though.

     Remember, as you learn things (assuming you even do), not to project onto the Chinese your having-lived-in-a-free-country values and enculturation; and the seeming logical (to you, at least) flow of relationships that said values impose upon your intuition, and therefore cause you to be misled (as you’ve already demonstrated you are) with respect to a country that disappears those whom it considers a threat, and must be publicly shamed into treating its people with simple human both dignity and decency.

     Enjoy your 100GB of free storage, indeed. When you find yourself second-guessing putting anything on it that you wouldn’t want the Chinese government to read, think of me. You won’t admit it, of course, but you, me and God will all know.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • So here you are criticising this service over privacy concerns only to hold someone in contempt because they value their privacy.

     I’m sorry, but credibility is established with what you say and do right now, not with irrelevant bluster about what you might have done in the past. It is certainly not helping your credibility that you resort to ad hominem and posturing to try to make your point.

     Now I do happen to believe that no government in the world is particularly trustworthy when it comes to information gathering and I may even agree with a few of your sentiments, but that does not excuse your behaviour here.

   • KJ WROTE: So here you are criticising this service over privacy concerns only to hold someone in contempt because they value their privacy.

     MY RESPONSE: What a tortured analysis. All privacy is not created equal; and my calling-out was (and remains) about who’s likely to be more credible based on who stands up and is counted by his real identity, and who cowardly hides behind a handle… sort of like you, too, are doing. I simply leave to the reader to figure it out.

     KJ WROTE: I’m sorry, but credibility is established with what you say and do right now, not with irrelevant bluster about what you might have done in the past. It is certainly not helping your credibility that you resort to ad hominem and posturing to try to make your point.

     MY RESPONSE: Your assessment of my credibility, here, is what’s irrelevant; and the ad hominem began with NoReligion’s words, not mine. Hold him responsible for that, and you’ll then, and only then, have my attention.

     KJ WROTE: Now I do happen to believe that no government in the world is particularly trustworthy when it comes to information gathering and I may even agree with a few of your sentiments, but that does not excuse your behaviour here.

     MY RESPONSE: I’m sorry… did I somehow convey that I thought any “excuse” was needed? Nothing I’ve here written needs to be excused. I stand by every word. The part of it to which you refer with which you may agree (or disagree, for that matter… either way is fine) is that upon which you should be concentrating and/or commenting. Please don’t waste your time, or mine, on form-over-content concerns. If you have a point which speaks to the points, then make it. Otherwise, how I make mine is mine, alone, to decide.

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • Obviously misinformed conspiracy nut is misinformed.

     Its obvious you don’t know the first thing you’re talking about.

     But please continue on this tangent, its incredibly fun to watch your insanity unfurl. 😀

   • This is hilarious, lol. Your insanity cannot be overstated.

     “oh nooz, the Chinese, they will steal your homework”

     No one wants your 4th grade science report (duh).

     Please either accept that you need desperate help, or move your insanity elsewhere. It would be better for everyone.

   • So, then, I was right: TLDR, eh?

     __________________________________
     Gregg L. DesElms
     Napa, California USA
     gregg at greggdeselms dot com

     Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
     Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

   • Nah, it was more like, your insanity might be contagious.

     This has been fun watching your sub come to your own crazy juices, but I have an actual life to get to. The last word is yours, I know how much it means to you 🙂