I can encrypt anything and store it in anything that provides storage. Why are people acting like "end to end encryption" is a feature you need a cloud service to provide to you. Rather the opposite - it's really something you can only do yourself.
The closest I've found is VeraCrypt, which is near the edge of what I'd call layperson-friendly. But if you store a VeraCrypt drive on the cloud, you'll need to re-upload the entire encrypted file--usually quite large--every time you change anything at all. That's a _lot_ of bandwidth, and likely to be quite slow to sync.
Obviously the majority of the population needs to elect better leaders, or failing that, be out in the streets over this. But they aren't. They don't care and there lies the real problem.
In the extremely unlikely event that I'm compelled to by a judge, yes. Or if someone chooses to beat me with five dollar wrench, of course. And even then A) it can't happen without my knowledge and B) I have the option of refusing and bearing the consequences.
I didn't say it solves every problem, just that it's the only way to have proper end-to-end encryption.
This seems like a job for a truecrypt style system. Either you do it at a file-level, or you have it split into (say) 10MB file chunks, and if you want to access a certain file you have an encrypted local db that acts as a magic decoder ring ("file test.csv is spread across CLOUD1.DB CLOUD3443.DB CLOUD132.DB").
Combine that with steganography (Enter real_password, and test.csv is a list of bank accounts, enter fake_password, and test.csv is a list of apple store locations, enter random_password, and it decodes junk). Maybe combine that with multiple layers of passwords (one ring to rule them all, except certain files).
Obviously, you'd want to steganographize the decoder ring as well.
