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

161–170 of 269 posts

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#161

Post by Macha »

bigtech-1984 wrote: post #142
umvi wrote: post #124

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. 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.…

Your best bet is probably to pursue hosting in another country with better freedoms.

The best you're going to get is different freedoms. Russia might have free speech for nazis, but not for Putin critics, for example.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#162

Post by acjohnson55 »

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…

You can store your data encrypted. I use Cryptomator on top of Dropbox for keeping my personal files in the cloud and synced between systems. It works on any online storage that presents itself as a drive to your OS. You lose all of value-added functionality of the cloud storage application, though, like the web interface and the ability to share.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#163

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#164

Post by ssss11 »

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…

Yes, this!

It’s because cloud should have been just custodianship of the data in order to funnel it into their application but it was all too easy for these companies to want to profit further by prying on the data, monetising the data, curating the data and ultimately taking control away from the owner of the data.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#165

Post by vkou »

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…

Not going to happen in a world where linking to illegal content makes you legally liable for it. Instead of grousing about Google or AWS or Cloudflare, you'd be grousing about Comcast. And Cloudlfare, because they'd still be in the picture, with all the same incentives.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#166

Post by judge2020 »

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.…

Comcast already regularly cuts users off for DMCA violations, many of which are supplied automatically by bots watching torrent trackers.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/heres-what-an-ac...

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#167

Post by omoikane »

bigtech-1984 wrote: post #142
umvi wrote: post #124

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. 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.…

Your best bet is probably to pursue hosting in another country with better freedoms.

You could also declare yourself to be an independent nation and start a hosting company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HavenCo

But this is probably not your best bet.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#168

Post by dqv »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #155
dqv wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not. The GP said that it is a popular method lately and I explained that it has been happening for years. What TFA is saying is that there will be more communication about files being blocked, but it doesn't suggest to me this is a response to this kind of spam. What probably happened is a file BigCorp wanted to share was opaquely blocked so now Google feels the need to provide better communication. If Googl…

Except that’s not a real solution at all, is it? Whitelisting orgs would either be an opt-in or opt-out feature. If it’s opt-in, it won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up. If it’s opt-out, it will break sharing for 99.999% of users. These are never easy problems.

>won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up

I would. And anyone who doesn't want the spam would. Right now we send "550 Too much spam" responses to docs and sharepoint emails. I'd be happy to, as an alternative, use an interface at Google or Microsoft that let me whitelist the organizations who can send files.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#169

Post by judge2020 »

bvxhl wrote: post #75
jrockway wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the question is, if someone emails you an archive of jpg files to share on your public website, will you? Without looking at them? I think that would be crazy. When they end up being CSAM or whatever, you're the one that will go to prison for possessing them, not the person that sent them to you.

So, after Google/YouTube have been aided in growth by the safe harbor clause, they now think that site owner responsibility is not such a bad thing after all? Sounds more to me that they are pulling up the ladder to impede competitors.

It's very likely you only start getting 'requests' from 3-letter agencies asking you to scan content once you reach some large mass of hosted content, especially since the technology for even doing so is locked up, with NCMEC and Microsoft being the arbitrators for who gets to use it: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/PhotoDNA/CloudService

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#170

Post by judge2020 »

MisterTea wrote: post #110

When google said they were no longer giving way free storage I bought the cheapest 100GB google one plan for $20/yr. Last night I saw the renewal email and cancelled it. After nearly 10 years of Google usage including drive, email, and pictures (I rarely take videos) I have only ~30GB. Almost 15GB of that is in drive which is a simple "my docks" kind of backup and dumping ground. I'm moving my drive stuff to a cheap…

You might still want to backup to a different location, given VPS's aren't immune to data loss. rclone with encryption works and ensures you are the only one with access to your data.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-...

https://www.techzine.eu/news/infrastructure/57005/ovh-share-...

Post reply on HN