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

221–230 of 269 posts

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#221

Post by jodrellblank »

Kerbonut wrote: post #139
jodrellblank wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Apple's CSAM would scan your offline photos. " No it wouldn't. It would only scan photos you upload to their cloud. "This feature only impacts users who have chosen to use iCloud Photos to store their photos. It does not impact users who have not chosen to use iCloud Photos. There is no impact to any other on-device data." and "Does this mean Apple is going to scan all the photos stored on my iPhone? No. By desig…

You are spreading misinformation. I don’t know if on purpose or ignorance. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-sexual-abuse-scans-apple-... They were very much planning to scan all photos on the device independent of iCloud. It was going to be another phase of the rollout. It was going to be in iOS 15.x and they backpedaled.

I am spreading information from the people who designed and built it on purpose to counteract the clickbait sky-is-falling misinformation.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#222

Post by erklik »

GeekyBear wrote: post #74
dharmaturtle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Apple's CSAM would scan your offline photos. Apple's plan was to to scan photos that you uploaded to iCloud, only. Even that plan was canceled. Google, however, still does scan everything in your account and has been doing so for the past decade. For instance, this article from 2014: >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston susp…

> Apple's plan was to to scan photos that you uploaded to iCloud, only. Even that plan was canceled.

The massive difference being that they would scan photos on my device. Not on the cloud. On my local device. How is that people consider that better?

The important bit is that Google does not currently have any capability to scan stuff on my phone. This is good. It's my stuff. They have no right to look at my stuff.

Apple proposed to implement tech that could scan stuff on my device, with a promise that they'll only do it when I am uploading stuff. Wait a few years, and some pressure from Authorotarian Government/Corporate Overlords and now the promise is just a promise that they can be easily removed and we can scan all stuff to make sure you're not stealing "content"/spreading "propoganda".

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#223

Post by EGreg »

tomschlick wrote: post #40
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…

"The AI has determined it has done nothing wrong and as punishment has deleted 50% of your files. Do not make that mistake again."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#224

Post by kerneloftruth »

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.

You're right. That's been my argument against trusting "the cloud" (i.e. somebody else who actually own the computers on which you place all your precious trade secrets and personal business) for the past 15 years...ESPECIALLY when there is no clear agreement or customer/vendor relationship, and they're doing it for "free".

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#225

Post by max48 »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #60

Honestly surprised they weren't forced to do this earlier, Google likely already hashes files for deduplication or integrity checks, making it rather trivial to keep a database of known pirated movie hashes. Obviously it can be easily defeated with encryption / changing the metadata, but it's so easy to implement I'm shocked they didn't do it earlier. Google drive is commonly used for a backup of media or even a host…

They have been doing it since at least 2017. I noticed it on my account with Game of Thrones episode and when I googled it at the time, it was a known issue. They didn't warn you like they do for virus, the files simply wouldn't show up when people opened the shared folder.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#226

Post by ggm »

The join over {IPR theft, AI, censorship and "think of the children"} is a strong reinforcing superset of all of the motivations here.

CSAM opened the door to a conversation but we're a long way down the road to cloud backed storage being a gatekeeper not just a storage space. In my cloud or on my device, it's being looked at.

What's missing is arbitration via neutral mediator. The contracts are written to favour the provider. Automated reasoning of your breach and the abysmal restitution process is bad, but we're also a lot further down that road than people think. The "help by public shaming" here is not a solution at scale.

I pay for Google "one" and my hope is that excluding frank breach of the terms, paying them gives me one small extra edge in the "why did that happen and how do we fix it" space. I have found with ad spend, being a customer changes the relationship compared to free service. So.. there's hope. Probably misplaced.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#227

Post by hiptobecubic »

javajosh wrote: post #217
ehsankia wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you plan on prosecuting random people on the other side of the world that are sending garbage from a bot net? I can't even fathom the amount of money this would take to do reliably. Even if you did manage to find the person, you need the other government to actually _do_ something about it. It seems pretty intractable to me, given the scale.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#228

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

alkonaut wrote: post #184
qnsi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive. TBH I'm surprised they havent started earlier

So basically: piracy, spam or anything you'd get into legal trouble for doing on your own hardware, Google restricts on their hardware. I can't really see how that's surprising or strange.

If they're using content ID then they're also flagging legitimate fair use without providing a counternotice procedure.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#230

Post by johnhowardstein »

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.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN