"First, why would you trust anyone else to encrypt your off-site backups for you? "
Me? I wouldn't of course, but I .can see it being a service in demand. ANd he may be using something like Silent Circle's implementation for the client; which would work if he open-sourced the software and open sourcing was mentioned. I'm only guessing from the tweets what the service might be anyway...could be totally wrong. He could also be selling peer-to-peer nodes and decentralising things (and therefore offloading liability) but I don't know how you'd monetise that (unless you charged for the software; but open source was mentioned).
I did have a whom in the draft there for a little while, but decided it was entirely too pretentious for that time in the morning. I've always thought of whoms as largely optional (unless you're talking about bells tolling).
People losing copies isn't Dotcom's fault. He was stitched up unfairly (and IMO illegally). None of the identical services got hit; and at the time it wasn't even that popular for pirates because there was so much crap javascript between you and anything you wanted to do. It was a massive abuse of power and from here it looked like some sort of personal grudge match. I mean...SWAT teams on foreign soil for a fucking data storage silo? Please.