[DTE]

We take privacy and security really seriously and have designed the brokering process (the part that connects you to your remote computer) to support this claim by following industry best practices.

We are still in a limited pilot program, but one of primary things we are testing is how to ensure that your computer is not compromised in any way.

We think that if we can achieve the technical goals then arguably, having a remote machine is more secure than one that someone can take from your house/car/etc.

That said, it is a really hard technical problem to manage a computer for someone without having any access to it and that is something we are designing out now.

[tux3]

That comment is really not reassuring. I'm happy that you take privacy and security very seriously, that's great to hear. However industry best practices is a little vague and 'to ensure that your computer is not compromised in any way' makes it sound like you want to do the job even the best antiviruses have trouble doing.

Furthermore I'd argue that if someone steals your machine from your house/car/etc, getting the keys to any remote machine should be trivial just by looking at the stored passwords and configuration.

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, sorry if that's the case.

[sctechie]

'Industry Best Practice' in this case amounts to 'we will hand all of your data over to the government' if required.

Abdicating responsibility for personal security to ANY 3rd party makes one less secure, period.

Now, when the government comes knocking, instead of handing over some files or access records, you'll be able turn over the user entire computer. That's the exact opposite of security to me.