They're utopians, who naturally believe that their model is the best. So everyone should be forced to adopt it.

"We're from Google, and we're here to help".

But will they store Hu Jin-tao's personal files? Or those of Hugo Chavez? And if they did, would they 'allow' the CIA to hack them?

And if they stored, say, John McCain's personal files, would they leak them to the NYT?

Here's hoping Google crashes to about $5 a share.

No kidding, I wouldn't trust Google with my personal data even if I did have anything to hide. Sheesh, the nerve of these people.

"Inadvertently"--yeah, right. The point is to show that they're thinking BIG.

Insert obligatory crack about Google's "understanding" with the ChiComs here...

With all of our documents and thoughts on their network, combined with their zippy "search algorithms," how long would it be before it became "self-aware" and launch an attack on Redmond?

Kidding aside, this leak doesn't make them look very good.

This would not be compulsory. Consumers can choose whether to use a central storage location for their data and negotiate privacy terms as well as price. If those terms are breached they can sue for damages or take their business elsewhere. It is totally different from socialism.

Google was indeed founded by leftist utopians. So were Apple, Cisco and Netscape, btw. The core tech of big tech companies often comes from academic roots where leftism prevails. Microsoft appears to be an exception. Not sure about Paul Allen, but Gates supposedly endorsed Bush. Of course, they dropped out of academia a lot earlier than the rest of these guys.

Not sure about Bob Metcalf (ethernet, 3com) but Vint Cerf (one of the 'fathers of the internet') was an Al Gore backer. Bill Joy (Unix, Java) is a huge lefty. The list goes on.

JAB is right, the rest of you are jumping at illusionary shadows by inventing coercion where there is none. You assume that only Google could / would do this for no apparent reason. In fact, I think AOL is also working on something along these lines. It does offer a lot of value to the customer. If nothing else, they never have to copy files from one computer to another when they upgrade. A lot of people would pay a lot for that.

Moveover, this is hardly the first time this has been suggested. There was in fact an entire industry about doing this for businesses that boomed, plateaued and died already.

Just think of it as a bigger and better place to park your pr0n, downloaded mp3s and pirated copy of WIndows XP.

And just wait for the Feds to impound a rack or two or twenty because it contains evidence.

How much data do these people have?

With Gotomypc.com, and an external 80 GB hard drive being given away when one opens a bank account, and double DVD-RW's with monster capacity and jump drives that fit on a keychain that can hold 2 GB, why is anyone concerned about switching computers or storing data somewhere in the ethernet? Why is anyone looking to Google (or anyone else) to hold onto their data? Am I missing something here?

WalMart has 80 GB HD's on sale for about $79. Externals! Connect them via Firewire or USB 2...for that price, you could buy three or four of them and have redundant backups...

Google's plans would last only as long as their first well-publicized security breach, since there are a lot of files, documents, data and (ahem) other items that individuals and businesses want kept private. A universal data storage site would just be too irresistable for hackers not to try and break into.

JAB, AOG - I'm not worried about coercion. I'm just predicting that this business model will fail, just like the earlier "light client" computing initiative that AOG mentions. Very few people will put their data on Google servers, and it will be a money-losing business line for them.

Isn't the idea that once ultra high-speed wireless internet connections become common (even ubiquitous) that it will now make sense for people to be able to access all the computational ability that they now have with their home desktop also in their car, their handheld device, etc.? Then you wouldn't need a hard drive at home (or anywhere else) at all--google would do it for you. This would certainly have the advantage that you wouldn't have to worry about your personal hard drive melting down. The disadvantages are that this could never be secure, and most people don't need or want this sort of mobile computational ability.

Also note that the Google founders were computer scientists, and perhaps their immersion in that mechanistic world carries over to their conception of economics and human behavior.

I'll second all those above that worry about security breaches. Shoot, a target as big as that would be irresistable to the bad guys.

All corporations are centrally planned. Read what JP Morgan wrote, this archetypical capitalist hated the free market. So did most of the Gilded Age industrialists. US Steel, Standard Oil, AT&T, IBM - all capitalist monopolies. Microsoft could be included on that list too in terms of OS.

Are you saying that JP Morgan was a leftist?

The free market does not insure any one corporation will do things best. It simply allows anyone to try doing it better. And if the big corporation screws up, there'll be another who can pick up from their failures.