If I needed a secure place to store data, Google would probably be about the most secure place I could think of. Especially since they have enabled encryption company wide internally. After Snowden's revelations, Google got real serious about making sure that even the NSA could not walk in and take whatever they wanted anymore.
Ah but, do not their terms and conditions allow them, to sell any of your data to anyone who'll pay for it so you can be bombarded with targetted advertising? Microsoft are also into that big time in Windows 10 if you aren't careful in the setup process.
I'm don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that when a security agency asks for permission to do something, they've already been doing it for as long as it's been possible. The request sometimes coincides when a planned new law to prevent certain actions rears its head.
The cloud is not safe and nothing is private any more, either in it or outside. Just my £/$0.02.
It's not actually free if you read the terms in their entirety...
Example: A fictitious television commercial that states "Free 100%" at the rate of typical speech, only to say thereafter "warning, this product may cause a stroke or heart attack [insert legal bull****]... product results may vary and you're locked into a contract with us forever-and-ever BFF... [insert more crap]" like a chipmunk high on meth.
Nothing is free. Someone has to put in the effort to make something, and if someone ever tells you that something is free, then, the first thing you should always ask is "how're you going to **** me over?" Linux? Free (usually). Services? No way, buddy. This is just one example. Tom's Hardware, for instance, may have content that's free to read, but there're advertisements. So, is it really free? Not entirely.
That's nice, but it doesn't obviate the fact that this website "runs on ads." You can't assume that everyone has a proper HOSTS file -- oh wait, I do too! It's not about the client-side aspect; rather, it's about the server-side. My statement that "nothing is free" still stands. As for the relatively low percentage of people who understand how to undermine the primary revenue of this website (and other similar websites), the fact remains that a much greater percentage of people are still affected by the ads (and rightfully so). The point? That you can be cheeky all you like; if it weren't for the fact that I'm Packers fan myself, I'd tell you off... but, you get "+cred" anyway for your attempt at humor.
They may TRY to serve me ads, but I do like not seeing them.
I know what I want to buy.
I research things sometimes for months before I pull the trigger.
I have never been one that was influenced by ads.
I do not need them.
I do not want them.
So I block them.
True you may not need them heck i'd wadger 99% of all ads don't do diddly in influencing people to buy their overpriced products. But it's less of an issue about ads more so about privacy/intrusion. I mean it's great ms and all the other big corps care enough to give me my daily dousage of bloatware, that may or may not coincide with what i want. But how did they get that information. Me and the rest of the population didn't agree to letting them take as much information from my searching/spending habits voluntarily? Sure you can argue is it really that bad the a corporation knows you're into some kinky pink unicorn costumes. No, not necessarily, but it's the intrusive way they go around getting that information. I mean if you wanted everyone to know what you do in your private time it wouldn't be private time no? Point is sets a precedent blah blah unicorns blah blah stuff. Blah.