The Trouble with Cloud Networks

First let me say, that I'm a huge proponent of federalist principles. When it comes to computers and networks, decentralizing is the way to go. Centralized data collection are just a terrible idea. The more data is being stored at 1 location, to more vulnerable to attacks of any kind that becomes and it puts user data and user privacy at a huge risk. Besides that having user documents stored centralized means in essence, that a government or a single company basically controls those documents. That's a huge danger to free speech. That way critical content can be suppressed with a few mouse clicks. For that reason alone I'm absolutely against centralized cloud networks. With that being said, there's another layer to that issue: Once I hand over my documents to a cloud network, I have no real control over it. I don't know which company employee accesses, catalogs, reports it to authorities, hands over my private user data to authorities with me ever being told so and I don't know how many redundant versions of my content exist. Even if I remove the content the doesn't remove the redundant versions of the content. I'm not talking about search results...I'm talking about a redundant copy of the content on a backup server. In order to have all redundant copies removed I need a court order. But even with that court order I can't be entirely sure that all redundant copies have actually been removed. On top of that with cloud networks there's always the question of the content copyright. That is still pretty much a grey area. Some TOS spell out the copyright very detailed, many are quite vague on that subject and then there are those, where the process of uploading content voids your copyright to that content and hands it over to the owner of the cloud network.
With all that being said, could networks do have their benefits especially for national and multi-national corporations. For the majority of the private end-user could networks are just a bad idea. The security if user data and user privacy can't be guaranteed. Besides that, this is the 21st century and centralized networks are no longer necessary for the private end-user. We have the technology and the equipment to make user data that is stored at point A available at point B.
There was a time when private websites needed the computing power and bandwidth of server farms and cloud networks. That's something that now doesn't apply in the same way. Most bandwidth intensive content like video is being stored on cloud networks anyway. Through the process of embedding the bandwidth requirements of private websites have greatly been reduced. Since the bandwidth demand of private websites has greatly been reduced and the fact that a lot of computer users have broadband connections anyway, that starts to make shared hosting accounts more and more obsolete. The average computer user has to option to easily host the static part of his own website locally. Hosting your website locally has a number of benefits: The yearly expense of a website is about $ 50 to $ 60 cheaper than if you have to pay a shared hosting account. While it is true, that you will sacrifice some website up-time, you gain complete control over your content. There is no need to upload content to a distant server, since that all happens on your computer. If someone has a problem with your content, they can't just simply have your account suspended. Since you host your own content the only thing someone could do is to have your DNS service suspended. The only thing you have to do is to change the DNS provider and your site is up and running again in a matter of hours. That decentralized thinking is exactly what guarantees the freedom of speech.
I do admit the setup of your personal website will involve a little more work, than when doing it via a shared hosting account. But if I consider that with a little bit of additional work I save at least 2/3 of my yearly website expenses and gain full control over my content, the choice to host my website myself is a rather easy one. Depending on your internet providers bandwidth limits you might even be able to deploy push-technology for 3rd party devices.
So how does my website now measure up to the above:
When I set up my website originally bandwidth limitations forced me to go with a shared hosting account. I was never really happy with that solution. For that reason there was always a redundant copy of my entire website stored on my computer. My Blog is part of a could network environment. The main advantage is a added convenience. But of course I have to accept all the negative aspects about the could network environment. For that reason a redundant copy of my Blog is being stored on my computer. My video content is also part of a cloud network and therefore all video content has a redundant copy on my computer. If I had to I could deploy my entire web-content from redundant copies within a matter of hours.
Of course I was never really happy with that solution. Since I will be moving to Europe in a couple of month and I know that I have a broadband internet connection there, I will eventually host my personal website myself and get rid of my shared hosting account. The Video solution and the Blog will stay the same. Redundant Video and Blog Content will be part of the website, but will be exempt from being published (just a precautionary measure). Haven't made up my mind yet, if all website content will be publicly accessible or if certain content will by PIN-protected. The URL is most likely going to stay the same, but I will definitely consider changing my DNS host. Considering the circus Amazon produced with WikkiLeaks and considering, that my faith in US-based DNS-hosts, in actually doing their job, is non-existent...I will probably end up changing my DNS-host.