121–130 of 193 posts
Obviously, I could encrypt my data before putting on such a service, but that makes access less convenient.
So... which cloud storage providers do NOT scan your files and propose to remove things which violate their own sense of what data is "appropriate"? Obviously, I could encrypt my data before putting on such a service, but that makes access less convenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if in the future we'll need a "unique-inize" app that will make trivial changes to pictures and videos that change their hash and their size by a few bytes to defeat this kind of nonsense. Changing even one pixel's hue on one frame by a small amount should make the whole thing encode (depending on codec) to a different size and hash.
There are other kinds of hashes besides cryptographic hashes, which tolerate differences, e.g. you can change things around and still get the same hash. This is what Apple does (or rather did) for their cloud scanner. Then there are other non-hash methods, similar to how Shazam determines a song in a noisy room. Poles, zeros, FFTs, there are many other strategies that are fault-tolerant.
I will never forget that the Christchurch shooting video was automatically deleted from users' PRIVATE Google Drive and Dropbox - no warnings were given and no explanation was presented.
I will never forget that the Christchurch shooting video was automatically deleted from users' PRIVATE Google Drive and Dropbox - no warnings were given and no explanation was presented.
That eliminate both options for journalists and lawyers. There are professions which could have legitimate reasons for having the material and as terrible as it is, is it actually illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm sensitive as a NZer, but would you feel the same if the deleted document was a plan for a nuclear weapon etc? Though while giving a warning is clearly inappropriate, they should certainly have explained what they did.
I hear you, even though you are downvoted. Right here in the ~10 comments you have from Americans we can see the "double standards" that people adopt. There was no outrage (actually some "anti-outrage") when Apple, Google and AWS censored Parler, an app that allowed "freedom of expression". People draw the line when it affects their beliefs, in that case they say it was justified for Google, Apple and AWS to censor a…
But it's not even about Americans, I'm from France and it's the same, no one would think to remove videos about the 11/13 except to keep it off Facebook so that kids would not see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm sensitive as a NZer, but would you feel the same if the deleted document was a plan for a nuclear weapon etc? Though while giving a warning is clearly inappropriate, they should certainly have explained what they did.
> would you feel the same if the deleted document was a plan for a nuclear weapon Those two situations aren't even remotely comparable - nuclear weapon plans are straight-up illegal for individuals to own in the US, so by removing one of those, Google would be complying with federal law . The Christchurch shooting video was not illegal under any law that I'm aware of, so Google was not legally required to delete it,…
A magazine tried to publish the blueprints. The government argued all nuke related info is classified regardless of actual legal status.
The federal government dropped the case, fearing they would lose.
I will never forget that the Christchurch shooting video was automatically deleted from users' PRIVATE Google Drive and Dropbox - no warnings were given and no explanation was presented.