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

201–210 of 269 posts

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#201

Post by ehsankia »

Manheim wrote: post #135
Manheim wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

sorry, maybe I misread your question. Did you mean to say that they already did this without any notice to users, and the only change now is that they will start to send notifications when they do?

Yes, this is not new. People have abused Drive to host illegal content and spam for years. They have been silently banned and removed. The fact that you rarely hear about it shows that they actually have a fairly low false-positive rate.

The only change now is that the file gets unshared, you get a notification, and can try to dispute the claim. This is a strict improvement.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#202

Post by quitit »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #189
ncann wrote: post #10

I believe this may be due to the popular spamming method lately which is tagging people into a Google Docs and share it so everyone receives a notification (the spam message). It works better than regular email spam since apparently Gmail doesn't treat Google Docs notification email as spam (at least not as often).

The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible So it's probably a combination of things, including piracy. They're not forbidding people from storing or retrieving the files, just not allowing anyone to publicly host whatever they want on Google…

I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities.

Of course this point of view is silly - Google have done very well to make users the product. A win:win scenario for those which couldn't afford the pay-for equivalents, but their ceaseless ability to kill useful services proved that they were never benevolent, nor a charity.

The internet has grown up, and so has the ability to scan masses of data for liabilities - Google's change here is not controversial or unexpected, and realistically if people have a problem with the many problems with US copyright laws they need to pick up their pens, change who they vote for and vote with their wallet.

As for the implementation I think it's pretty fair - they aren't stopping the user from their 'backups', they're just preventing their hardware and bandwidth being used as a piracy BBS.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#203

Post by ehsankia »

archhn wrote: post #125
thisiscorrect wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's snapshots going back to 2014:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141222190112/https://support.g...

Again, none of this is new. People have been abusing Drive to host illegal file for years, and have been getting banned for it. The only change is that now you get a notification and can dispute it. It's a strict improvement.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#204

Post by StreamBright »

remus wrote: post #119
StreamBright wrote: post #20

Meaning Google has access to all of the files stored on Google Drive, including and not limited to: - your business secrets - GDPR data that you legitimately have This is exactly why I do not use Google Drive for anything business critical.

Is that a surprise to anyone? It's literally a service where you upload your data directly to their servers. Businesses have contracts with other businesses to protect them against particular kinds of abuse of this data (e.g. google stealing business secrets, or leaking personal data as defined by GDPR) and google sticks to these because businesses would lost trust very quickly if they didn't respect the contracts th…

It is a giant surprise to many managing directors and other people who are not that technical.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#205

Post by bayindirh »

quitit wrote: post #202
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible So it's probably a combination of things, including piracy. They're not forbidding people from storing or retrieving the files, just not allowing anyone to publicly host whatever they want on Google…

I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities. Of course this point of view is silly - Google…

I'm using internet since the simpler, lawless period. Yes, I miss the excitement of a new Netscape Navigator release, or using some new tool, and just being able to explore anything and everything.

OTOH, I welcome this change. Instead of losing my access or getting a strike on my account, I'd rather have my file merely flagged and stopped being shared (not that I share a lot).

I think service providers should be more transparent about problems they see with the users' accounts, so users can take appropriate actions. Of course there can be other mechanisms to prevent abuse, or lawful intercept (which is another can of worms that I want to leave it at the top shelf for now).

So, I've read a Google blog without bad feelings for once. That's good.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#206

Post by jimkri »

Based on the comments I thought it was about pirated content. But it seems focused on the spamming issues. It also looks like they have been focusing on document sharing with the new look that shows Guests and Members in Workspace.

- I wonder how long it would take for your Workspace account to get shutdown if you have 10 users sending mass document invitation? - If a file is blocked from sharing, can i duplicate and re-share?

Does anyone use the service MEGA?

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#207

Post by marcodiego »

jeffbee wrote: post #65
marcodiego wrote: post #42

We need a distributed volunteer backed free replacement. Is IPFS or gnunet ready for that yet?

Right, we need to trade a vanishingly small probability that anti-abuse systems at Google will flag your school photos as Al Qaeda propaganda for the much higher probability that your files hosted on an elaborate scheme operated mostly by 4chan users will be unavailable due to widespread malfunction, malice, and capriciousness.

No. We have to replace a service with incentives which are not always on the user side with something that is a distributed volunteer backed free replacement.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#209

Post by userbinator »

willk wrote: post #107
brutal_chaos_ wrote: post #101

Perhaps one should encrypt files before uploading to cloud services. Sure it destroys the possibility of webview for your data, but then you don't have to worry about situations like this.

Unless they decide that encrypted files violate their TOS.

That's what steganography is for.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#210

Post by mattlondon »

Vespasian wrote: post #71
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…

I wonder whether we will see something similar to public utilities in the web. Companies like Google would be required to provide a basic service to basically everyone and are required to go through a court before suspending accounts (or maybe just some core features). On one hand it would enshrine their position in the market, on the other hand it would remove some of their ability to make arbitrary decisions with n…

Why would they need to go to court to shut you off?

At least in the UK utilities such as electric or gas only need to go to court to get a warrant to access your property to physically disconnect you - I do not believe the court process is about the disconnection itself, but rather the physical access to your home to physically cut you off.

For a digital service they'd just cut you off without needing a warrant to access your home.

But anyway, public utilities need to be paid for - I can't imagine people being too pleased to suddenly need to start paying for things like email or search (Google or otherwise).

Post reply on HN