81–90 of 279 posts
It is well known that if Google bans your account it will ban any "related" account and that includes your immediate family including your spouse, parents, children and your official job/startup. I never understood this bizarre behaviour from Google. My colleagues got a taste of it when they shared their laptop and one of them had a banned account. It was a defence project and the work computers were not allowed to h…
Based on the frequency with which this sort of post gets significant traction it's pretty clear that no one at Google gives a crap about this issue. I find it hard to imagine that people in Google are unaware of this problem. I often wonder if this has happened to people with more clout who have managed to pull strings to get it sorted, or if Google have just got lucky and managed to avoid hitting someone who might a…
I still think some congress person needs to pass a consumer rights bill that forces companies like this to disclose the exact reason and data relating the account termination. The excuse of security practices should not come before consumer rights. Frankly, we would ALL also be safer if the decision had to be made based on conduct on that specific service and could not include anything outside that service. There is…
I still think some congress person needs to pass a consumer rights bill that forces companies like this to disclose the exact reason and data relating the account termination. The excuse of security practices should not come before consumer rights. Frankly, we would ALL also be safer if the decision had to be made based on conduct on that specific service and could not include anything outside that service. There is…
problems: 1. How exactly do propose a bill to limit a company in how they use their property and enforce use of that property by an end user? 2. Bad actors out number good actors with honest accidents at over 1 million to one and obviously disclosing gives unequal advantage to the bad actors and harms the one accident good actor.
Is this a trick question? The same way all the other bills have been written. Most service providers have laws limiting how they can use their property in providing services. Banks, hotels, nightclubs, stadiums, taxis, etc.
Google recently flagged downloads of my app as a malware for no reason whatsoever. It's a B2B software used in companies worldwide since 2005, digitally signed, virus checked, not a freeware with some stange business model. Nothing even remotely shady. As good as it gets when we're talking about downloadable stuff. When download gets flagged Chrome will block the download, but that's not all - Firefox is using Google…
It's a private company. If you don't like it, just build your own app store, phone, account management, email provider, search engine, web browser, ISP, payment processor, banking system, currency, DNS provider, registrar, colo facility, machines, chip fab, silicon wafers, electrons, and universe. Geez, don't be lazy.
It is well known that if Google bans your account it will ban any "related" account and that includes your immediate family including your spouse, parents, children and your official job/startup. I never understood this bizarre behaviour from Google. My colleagues got a taste of it when they shared their laptop and one of them had a banned account. It was a defence project and the work computers were not allowed to h…
[deleted]
Based on the frequency with which this sort of post gets significant traction it's pretty clear that no one at Google gives a crap about this issue. I find it hard to imagine that people in Google are unaware of this problem. I often wonder if this has happened to people with more clout who have managed to pull strings to get it sorted, or if Google have just got lucky and managed to avoid hitting someone who might a…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of legal issues would prevent Google actually providing some information on the reason for the ban, of prevent it actually engaging in any kind of useful communication? My issue with these bans is not the bans themselves, but the Kafkaesc process in which you are supposed to argue why you think their decision is wrong without knowing what they based the decision on.
I'm not in a position to comment about what sorts of legal issues there might be. But Google is hardly the only company that hands down bans with scant explanation. It's endemic. I've actually not heard of a large company that gives detailed explanations in these sorts of situations. That leads me to believe there is a good reason for avoiding such explanations, since I would expect some variation in company behavior…
Does GDPR not give the author some rights? I'm in no way an expert in this area, but multiple seem to apply to this situation, but the most important ones here seems would seem to be the "right to explanation" to know how such a decision was made, a "right to rectification" to correct any data which is incorrect, and (given the magnitude of the impact) a right to avoid automated decision-making (though article 22 says this applies to decisions with a "legal effect"; does this qualify?).
And if GDPR doesn't apply for some reason ... why not?