Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#211

Post by ravenstine » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:01 AM UTC

chippiewill wrote: post #34

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.

Google already scans for CSAM on stuff uploaded to drive. The idea that they'd start using it for copyrighted material is a spurious claim considering they've made no indication of doing so in the past.

Aren't you forgetting that Google already practices this with YouTube? The idea they'd apply it to Google Drive doesn't seem particularly spurious to me. It might end up not being true, but what exactly is farfetched about this?

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#212

Post by ravenstine » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:09 AM UTC

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.

lol at all the downvoting.

You're totally right. Depending on one's standards and expertise, yes, there are alternatives to the mainstream dumping grounds for your files.

The most basic is to just store files on external drives. This is what I do because, most of the time, I'm not actively sharing or using all my photos and downloads. I've scattered them between drives for well over a decade and only had a problem when one of my magnetic drives began to fail, but I ended up not losing anything. Even if I lost all my photos and stuff I really wouldn't care that much. That's why I can't be arsed to trust The Google or Zuckerborg or whomever with my files or using Dropbox. I'm more likely to wake up one day to be hard locked out of all my Google accounts than to lose anything meaningful because of physical on-premises storage.

There's also network drives, and plenty of off-the-shelf ones exist. My parents have one and it's exactly what you'd think; a device with a ton of storage that's accessible through a Dropbox-like web interface.

And if you're really geeky, you can hack together a way to shove files into S3 or whatever storage service of choice.

Yes, the average person won't have the motivation or wherewithal to do anything besides my first option, but that's really the kind of thing you'll always get by being average.

And obviously those who believe they need all the bells and whistles of Dropbox or Google Drive may also believe there are no practical alternatives outside of Silicon Valley Big Tech, in which case it's entirely up to them how comfortable they are with that. Personally, I would rather rely on services as little as possible.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#213

Post by ruined » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

artificial wrote: post #37

slg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive Is anyone surprised by that? Every file sharing tool will invariable be used to share pirated and worse material until the people behind that tool show a willingness to stop that behavior. It is practically a universal law of the internet.

Is it really a service if it doesn’t facilitate infringement?

i was about to suggest that copyright enforcement as a service doesn't but no, really, they do their own special kind of infringement

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#214

Post by Vespasian » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #210

Vespasian wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Maybe a court isn't needed, but strict effective regulation is in my opinion.

That would probably involve payment but not prevent others from entering the market.

Where I am located there is one designated electricity provider who must service everyone (and is usually more expensive). People are free to switch if they want.

I feel like the free market is not doing particularly well in basic digital services like file storage or communication. While there is some competition on price, all providers reserve themselves the right to cut you off for no reason at all without due process. Their rules are intransparent and are inforced by dependent employees.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#215

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:40 AM UTC

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).

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#216

Post by johncolanduoni » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:44 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #185

md_ wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's just imprecision on the part of noted tech news outlet CBS. Apple clearly documented that this was only for iCloud uploaded photos, and indeed the technical description makes clear that this is only designed to work with uploaded photos: https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni... .

Apple clearly said they scan the photos on your phone not in your cloud account. They say it is designed to work with iCloud photos and they are processed / scanned on your photo before they are uploaded to the cloud. Not sure why they would need to do that. It does open up your phone for scanning and uses beyond what they initially layout.

I think the ostensible goal was privacy preservation for photos whose perceptual hashes don’t match (i.e. most photos), which would never need to be uploaded without end to end encryption. But I agree it puts them within striking distance of scanning fully offline photos, even if the initial implementation doesn’t.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#217

Post by javajosh » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:52 AM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #199

duskwuff wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly: Google Forms being used for phishing, Google Calendar invite spam... I've even heard of Google Photos being used for spam (by "sharing" photos, or by posting photos with text as the target of a spam campaign). Spammers ruin everything.

They truly do. And it doesn't even have to be many spammers, it only really takes one person to ruin a free service. I've had plenty of personal projects I had to shut down due to some random person who just decided to hammer my servers for no reasons. I block the IP or IP block and they get more. I put Captcha (HN always complains about it but this is why it's often needed...), and users (who pay nothing) complain t…

If that's true then I'd expect there to be personalized and well-funded counter-measures, for tracking and prosecution coordination with local law-enforcement and court system. Considering that one service could be worth many millions, and that can be destroyed by one person, it would make sense to spend the money.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#218

Post by Namidairo » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 12:57 AM UTC

unilynx wrote: post #172

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been using password protected archives to get around pirated content restrictions since forever.

Does Google even have to look at the content? I assume most pirated content will also have a massive number of anonymous downloads, and shouldn't that trigger some fair-usage clause somewhere ?

They already rate limit popular files that match these patterns.

They don't actually block the file though, and there were (and still are) ways around the rate limit. (Which presumably they knew about to some extent, given you now cannot make copies of said files.)

They could easily start taking action on obvious copyright violations using Drive, but it's unlikely they would want to, unless actually mandated to legally.

I'm not sure what they would do about massive encrypted collections that have been rcloned onto their servers though. Aside from "please stop breaking our de-duplication".

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#219

Post by denysvitali » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

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).

As someone who suffered (and complained a lot) about this issue, I kind of fail to understand how this could possibly help fight the spam.

This seems to be more related to DMCA violations to be honest.

Anyways, my spam issue stopped around two months ago. After I complained to Google for those spammy tags with multiple examples forwarded and multiple cases opened, they seem to have solved the issue (or added me to some sort of mention exclude list lol)

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#220

Post by busymom0 » Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 1:35 AM UTC

Kaze404 wrote: post #136

mikece wrote: post #2

Google says you can request a review if you believe something should not have been flagged as a ToS violation but no mention is given to any rights you have. To me this reads as "You can request whatever you want but it might not mean anything in reality.": https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2463328 Conversely, the information for how to report what you perceive as a ToS violation is far more complete: https://su…

Considering their history with falsely-flagged videos on YouTube, I assume this to be "you can ask for a review but we're not gonna do anything about it lol".

Not just YouTube, even play store developers who get their apps removed arbitrarily are left with talking to a robot instead of a human unless they can create enough social media storm to get some media attention and then google might finally review it.