The cloud: in-depth analysis of its benefits and dangers

As in the rest of the economy, trade relies less and less on the development of products and the development of services is becoming increasingly important. One of the phenomena of Web 2.0 is the emergence of "cloud computing", which allows users to run applications hosted on a server, as well as save their personal files on it.

Cloud computing

In this type of computing, everything that a computer system can offer is offered as a service, so that users can access the services available "in the Internet cloud" without knowledge (or, at least without being experts) in management of the resources they use. According to the IEEE Computer Society, it is a paradigm in which information is permanently stored on servers on the Internet and sent to temporary client caches, which includes desktops, leisure centers, laptops, etc. This is because, although the capabilities of PCs have improved substantially, much of their power is wasted, as they are general-purpose machines.

Cloud computing is a concept that incorporates software as a service, as in Web 2.0 and other recent concepts, also known as technology trends, which have in common that they rely on the Internet to meet the computing needs of users.

As examples of Cloud Computing, Amazon EC2, Google Apps, eyeOS, Microsoft Azure and Ubuntu One can be highlighted, which provide common online business applications accessible from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.

Services

• Proven Web Services Integration. By its nature, Cloud Computing technology can be integrated much more easily and quickly with the rest of the applications, whether they are developed internally or externally.
• Provision of services worldwide. Cloud computing infrastructures provide greater adaptability, complete disaster recovery, and minimized downtime.
• A 100% Cloud Computing infrastructure no need to install any hardware. The beauty of Cloud Computing technology is its simplicity… and the fact that it requires much less investment to get started.
• Faster and with less risk implementation. Applications in Cloud Computing technology will be available in a matter of weeks or months, even with a considerable level of customization or integration.
• Allows you to backup valuable information. In case the user has suffered a problem with their computer (it was stolen, infected by a virus, or they simply do not have access to it at this time) they can access their information instantly, from any other computer, anywhere of the world you are in.
• Sharing information is very easy. Thanks to the cloud, users can create documents simultaneously and collaboratively using Google Docs or any similar solution. They can, in turn, share files using DropBox or Ubuntu One and the like.
• Increased levels of security throughout. Administrators and users alike can stop spyware and viruses originating from the web before they infiltrate your private network and compromise or disable computers, among other features. On the other hand, if we take into account that 60% of company information is found in unprotected systems; that 1 in 10 notebooks is stolen 10 months after its purchase; and that 60% of the owners of pendrives say they have lost the device, it is logical that it is better that the information is kept in the cloud and not within a physical computer.
• Automatic updates that don't negatively impact IT resources. If we upgrade to the latest version of the app, we will be forced to spend time and resources (which we don't have) re-creating our customizations and integrations. Cloud computing technology does not force you to decide between updating and keeping your work, because those customizations and integrations are automatically preserved during the update.

An introduction to the dangers of the cloud: who does the server serve?

Richard M. Stallman, the father of the "free software" movement, asks this question in a very interesting article published in the boston review.

Digital technology can give you freedom; but it can also take it away. The first threat to our freedom when using a computer came from "proprietary software": software that users cannot control simply because its "creator" and absolute owner (a company like Apple or Microsoft) controls it. The user only has a "license" for its use, always under certain very specific conditions, and generally does not have access to its source code, nor can they modify or distribute copies of it. The "owner", on the other hand, can take advantage of this unfair power by inserting malicious features into their programs, such as spyware, back doors, and DRM.

The solution to this problem is to develop "free software" and reject "proprietary software." Free software is one that includes the 4 essential freedoms: (0) being able to run the program as you want, (1) being able to study and change the source code as you want, (2) being able to distribute copies of the original version, and ( 3) be able to redistribute copies of modified versions.

With free software, users can regain control over their computer. Proprietary software still exists, but there are free alternatives that allow many people to live well without it.

However, we now face a new threat to our control over the computer: software as a service. According to Stallman, we should condemn this as well.

The main problem of "cloud computing"

Software as a service (SaaS) implies that someone stores on a server a program that allows users to perform certain computational tasks - edit spreadsheets, translate texts, manage emails, etc. - inviting users to use it. Users send their information to the server, it performs the requested task, and finally sends the results to the user.

These servers take even more control away from users than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically purchased an executable file but not its source code. This makes it difficult for programmers to study the source code, so it is not possible to know for sure what the program really does and it is very difficult to modify it to suit the needs of the user.

With SaaS, users do not even receive an executable file: it is hosted on the server, where users cannot see or access it. Therefore, it is impossible for them to know what they are really doing and they eliminate any possibility that they can change it..

What's more, SaaS leads to harmful consequences equivalent to the malicious features often found in proprietary software. For example, some proprietary programs are "spyware": the program sends information about the user's activities, tastes and preferences to an unknown location. An example of this is Microsoft Windows, which sends information on user activities to Microsoft. Windows Media Player and RealPlayer report everything that users play.

Unlike proprietary software, SaaS does not require "stealth" code to obtain user information. Instead, users must submit information so that they can use those programs.. This has the same effect as spyware: the server gets our information. You get it without any extra effort, due to the nature of SaaS.

Some proprietary programs can "mistreat" users through remote control of their computers. For example, Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can force changes to any software installed on that machine. Amazon's Kindle e-book reader has a back door that Amazon used in 2009 to remotely erase all copies of Orwell's "1984" and "Farm Rebellion" that users had legally purchased from Amazon.

The SaaS gives the server operator incredible power to change the software used and "fiddle" with the information that the user submitted. Again, no special code is required to do this.

In short, for Stallman, the SaaS is equivalent to a huge spyware and a back door big like a house, giving full control to the server operator in an unfair way for the user.

Getting clean: the dangers of SaaS are many

Here are some of the reasons why there are people who think that SaaS limits the freedom of users and makes them dependent on the service provider.

• By not physically owning the storage devices for their data, users leave the responsibility for data storage and its control in the hands of the provider. That is, cloud computing endangers the freedoms of users, because they leave their privacy and personal data in the hands of third parties. Nobody knows what companies do with that information. Google, for example, tracks our search history and with it builds a profile that it then uses to bring users advertising that is interesting to them. In this way, they earn more money (because users click on advertising more) and, according to them, they provide a better service to users since they reduce the "visual pollution" produced by irrelevant advertising.
• By not having access to the source code or executable file, it is impossible for the user to know what it does really the program. These "bad" things SaaS does need not have been maliciously thought or designed; quite the contrary, sometimes they arise with the intention of helping the user. One case I've heard of recently is DropBox. If one usually uploads files from the Desktop, for example, DropBox will upload, without the user knowing, all the files hosted in that folder. The intention is good, it deduces that the user saves important files in that folder and helps him to make a backup of them in a "transparent" way, but it really scares that this will happen without the user knowing anything.
• It is only possible to use the applications and services that the provider is willing to offer. Thus, the London Times compares cloud computing with the centralized systems of the 50s and 60s, in which users connected via "dumb" terminals to central computers. Generally, users were not free to install new applications, and needed administrator approval to perform certain tasks. In short, both freedom and creativity were limited. The Times argues that cloud computing is a return to that era.
• The service provider decides to update and modify the service without the consent of the users. This is often beneficial by improving software security. However, it can also be harmful in cases where it removes features and functionality that the user needs. Overnight, the user has to go out and find a tool to replace the previous one and to help him with his work.
• Security risk. As long as all user data is stored on a server, not only will they not be able to control what security measures must be carried out to protect them (these decisions will be made by the company that offers the service), but, if they are evaded, such measures, will put an unimaginable amount of information at the intruder's fingertips. In a word, there would be much greater incentives for hackers to infiltrate these servers as they could thus access information for millions of users… all in one fell swoop. There is a myth that users are stupid and do not know how to protect themselves properly from viruses and malware, while companies do know what they are doing. Ultimately, it's part of your job, right? If they don't do it right, people leave. Well, various pieces of news in recent years confirm that this is merely a myth: there was hardly a major company that was not hacked (Hotmail, Google, Facebook, etc.).
• It does not integrate people, it segregates them. What about those who don't have the money to pay for broadband internet connections? Well, they are totally outside the cloud and, if their use becomes widespread, they could not use any software, since everything would be "web-based".
• Cloud computing is simply a Trap designed to force more people to purchase proprietary, locked systems that will cost them more and more as time goes on. At best, users will have access to "minor versions" of the full software, which will obviously be paid.

Would creating "free" SaaS be the solution?

I found it interesting to end this post with a Richard Stallman's controversial reflection. According to him, creating "free" SaaS does not solve the problem.

Many of the people who support free software development assume that the SaaS problem will be solved by developing free software for servers. For the sake of server operators, these programs better be free; if they are owners, their developers (who are not always the ones who actually operate the server) would have power over the server. This is unfair to the operator, and does not help users.

But if the programs on the server were free, that does not protect users from the effects of SaaS. They give freedom to the server operator, not the end users.

Making the source code of these programs available can benefit the community: users with the necessary knowledge can build a new server, even by changing the original software. But none of those servers would allow the user to have control over what the program does, unless it is their own server. Saas always subjects users to the whim of the server operator and the only remedy in that case is not to use SaaS.

What do you think, is Stallman right or can we accuse him of "extremism"? I believe that this time I bank ...