Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

workspaceupdates.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 269 posts

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#121

Post by zuminator »

kingcharles wrote: post #111
ugjka wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you actually own the copyrighted content or have permission to have it?

This is an issue that none of the cloud providers have solved. I had 250,000 CD rips from various record labels at one point. I had full authorization from them, but it looks like I'm a massive pirate.

It should look like you're a massive pirate -- if you have hundreds of people downloading those CD rips from your Gdrive. If you're the only one accessing your own files, it shouldn't matter how many rips you have. Don't know how it works in practice.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#122

Post by archhn »

jeffbee wrote: post #78
archhn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panic is people's fear of the Iron Heel[1]. For most of us, the systems we depend on are controlled by other people. In this chaotic political climate, when these systems start closing in on us, or restricting us in new ways, there's no way of knowing where the tightening will end. Some are incredibly insulated and have no worries about the kind of world we're living in, but others are constantly on edge and feel…

The only basis we have for panic here is that reading skills and critical thinking are in dangerously short supply among commenters here, who collectively believe themselves to be smart and independent thinkers despite all available evidence.

Big tech has been rolling out censorship all over the place lately. People suspect that ulterior political motives are causing Google to do this. I don't think mistrusting the motives of Google means that the people here lack "reading skills and critical thinking."

One of the terms included in its abuse policies is "hate speech." This is an extraordinarily ambiguous word which can virtually apply to any speech that is critical of anything. It is a term that has come to be known, by some of us, as a tool the political left uses to censor dissent. For example, saying that a man is a man and a woman is a woman can be considered hate speech against the trans community.

This move is part of a larger trend. Some people see it. Others don't.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#123

Post by jeffbee »

archhn wrote: post #122
jeffbee wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only basis we have for panic here is that reading skills and critical thinking are in dangerously short supply among commenters here, who collectively believe themselves to be smart and independent thinkers despite all available evidence.

Big tech has been rolling out censorship all over the place lately. People suspect that ulterior political motives are causing Google to do this. I don't think mistrusting the motives of Google means that the people here lack "reading skills and critical thinking." One of the terms included in its abuse policies is "hate speech." This is an extraordinarily ambiguous word which can virtually apply to any speech that i…

9/10 with one demerit for omitting the compulsory "wake up, sheeple".

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#124

Post by umvi »

RIMR wrote: post #114
makecheck wrote: post #106

We need “dumb” infrastructure again, that you can simply pay for with few strings attached, where the provider cannot fiddle with things at all, leaving enforcement to other authorities. We build roads; yes, those roads might be used to transport stolen goods but the road builder doesn’t get to sit there and inspect every vehicle (and accuse the wrong people sometimes and ban them from driving). It’s just so damned c…

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

> That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud.

Can you though? I would consider AWS "in the cloud" yet they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally[0]. Same with Cloudflare[1].

So it seems even infrastructure-level cloud offerings are prone to moral arbitration. Hosting on your own hardware is the only option, but even then... I don't see any reason twitter mobs couldn't pressure Comcast or whoever is connecting your hardware to the internet to cut you off.

[0] https://telecoms.com/508138/aws-banning-of-parler-exposes-th...

[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#125

Post by archhn »

thisiscorrect wrote: post #115
archhn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panic is people's fear of the Iron Heel[1]. For most of us, the systems we depend on are controlled by other people. In this chaotic political climate, when these systems start closing in on us, or restricting us in new ways, there's no way of knowing where the tightening will end. Some are incredibly insulated and have no worries about the kind of world we're living in, but others are constantly on edge and feel…

What indication is there that any new restrictions are being placed on a user's content? The blog post from Google only mentions the change of sending email notifications to users.

It has something to do with their "abuse program:" https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?hl=en. I can't find a date on this, but I assume that this article is about the implementation of this program.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#126

Post by jgalt212 »

dharmaturtle wrote: post #29
anshumankmr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But seriously how long is it before Google implements a hashing algorithm (not too dissimilar from Apple's) to check if a user has not uploaded content with a copyright on it and taking some form of action on the user. This feels like a slippery slope to be on.

Apple's CSAM would scan your offline photos. Google scanning photos you upload to their cloud seems fine to me. Not a slippery slope.

But the default is to upload. On my phone, I had upload off, and then it got turned on again (not by me). The same thing happened with Google Assistant. I had it off, but then it mysteriously tried to start assisting me again.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#127

Post by kypro »

RIMR wrote: post #114
makecheck wrote: post #106

We need “dumb” infrastructure again, that you can simply pay for with few strings attached, where the provider cannot fiddle with things at all, leaving enforcement to other authorities. We build roads; yes, those roads might be used to transport stolen goods but the road builder doesn’t get to sit there and inspect every vehicle (and accuse the wrong people sometimes and ban them from driving). It’s just so damned c…

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

You say this as if it is easy or inexpensive to do well... If it was why would the service even exist in the first place? Surely everyone would just do it themselves.

I also don't think you would be arguing that people bothered about WhatsApp or iOS tracking them should just create their own messaging app or mobile OS. The vast majority of software is not just difficult do yourself, but almost completely infeasible. In fact it's hard to even think of any software I use regularly which I as a experienced software engineer could easily build myself, let alone an average user concerned about this stuff...

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#128

Post by Manheim »

jsnell wrote: post #86
Manheim wrote: post #46

This is deeply disturbing news. It is already a problem that people get their Google accounts closed without any explanation from Google and with no response from Google when they try to contact them. A story about Elin Killie Martinsen, a Norwegian journalist and writer who lost access to her book manuscripts this way, was recently run in the national newspaper Aftenposten ( https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/8Qj1l…

The only thing that changed was that there's now a notification sent to the user if the sharing of a file is restricted. Why is that deeply disturbing news? Seems like a strict improvement in usability.

What is disturbing is the reason they give for why they will do it. One thing is if the drive is specifically used for cyber attacks and other malicious operations over the internet, but they refer to these rules; https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 and they are extensive to say the least. On top of that this is yet another move from Google to declare their rights to control your content and access to it if you use their service.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#129

Post by spc476 »

jhgb wrote: post #105
anshumankmr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, VeVo can say that no one can keep MP3 records if it isn't hosted on iTunes, YouTube Music or Spotify etc

In my country that would be almost certainly illegal. Not even copyright holders can tell you what you can do with your personal copies of copyrighted works, short of distributing them to someone else. By law they're explicitly prevented from doing that.

The cloud is "someone else".

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#130

Post by sieabahlpark »

umvi wrote: post #124
RIMR wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

> That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Can you though? I would consider AWS "in the cloud" yet they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally[0]. Same with Cloudflare[1]. So it seems even infrastructure-level cloud offerings are prone to moral arbitration. Hosting on your own hardware is the only option, but even then.…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN