Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

curiousrat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#51

Post by huhtenberg »

aresant wrote: post #31

If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox. Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.

TC volume needs to be unmounted in order for gDrive/Dropbox to be able to sync it. For that you need to close all apps that are currently using any files on that volume. That's not exactly easy-breezy. In fact, it's a major pain in the ass, so - no, this is not a practical option.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#52

Post by xtrimsky_ »

curveship wrote: post #33
CWuestefeld wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right, but that doesn't prevent them from using those same rights for other purposes (much like TSA searches being used to find drugs rather than terrorism). If Google really means it, and wants it to be clear, they could put it right into the TOS: "Google may do X, when it does so in order to provide feature Y".

Doesn't this part of the TOS say exactly that?: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Let's say Mark Zuck. wants to use Google Drive, and upload all Facebook code on it. Using this TOS, it allows Google to go through the Facebook code, and use it to improve Google+.

As a programmer that uses Dropbox to backup all my code, I find this a little bit scary.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#53

Post by brudgers »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
brudgers wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Furthermore, Google could, like dropbox, limit their use of your data to providing or improving the services they provide you. Spam filtering and syncing resonably fall in that category.

> That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Google just recently went through a unification of their disparate privacy policies, terms of service, etc. I also don't see why Google wouldn't want to add services to Drive down the road...

Unification of Google's privacy policies was done for Google's benefit.

Furthermore, as an explanation for why these policies should apply to drive, it begs the question.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#54

Post by yesbabyyes »

sixothree wrote: post #41
capo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If they are to enable you to share a document you need to give them license to do so. If they are to create copies of the files across datacenters and employ OCR on images and use that to improve their algorithms, they need to inlucde that in their terms of service to avoid getting sued.

"use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works[...], communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." That's very different from what you are describing.

I'm not so sure about that. Use, host, store, reproduce are no-brainers. Modify and create derivative works are for thumbnails, OCRing, converting to other formats for displaying. The rest are for sharing with friends, or the world, right?

Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#55

Post by ajross »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #50
ajross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, the difference seems to be almost exclusively wording. Both licenses grant very broad powers to the service to redistribute (Google is guilty only of enumerating them more fully, where Dropbox simply claims "all the permissions we need"). Both providers include language that they will only do this in order "to provide the service", but neither enumerates exactly what that means. Does anyone see anything speci…

What people are noticing is perceived intent. Dropbox is clear what their intent is. Google is less clear. People like clarity, especially ewhen dealing with personal items.

Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."

I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is nicer about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the rights they reserve seem less scary.

But really, I think this is a giant kerfuffle over nothing (fueled in no small part by the "Dropbox is on the HN team" feeling here). These licenses look almost 100% equivalent to me.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#56

Post by ceejayoz »

brudgers wrote: post #53
ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Google just recently went through a unification of their disparate privacy policies, terms of service, etc. I also don't see why Google wouldn't want to add services to Drive down the road...

Unification of Google's privacy policies was done for Google's benefit. Furthermore, as an explanation for why these policies should apply to drive, it begs the question.

There's a significant benefit to users from having fewer policies applying to Google's many services.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#57

Post by jlarocco »

ceejayoz wrote: post #48
RandallBrown wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, Google's terms imply an intention to use my data for certain things that I don't want them to, like promoting the service.

A blog post saying "We have 20 petabytes of data in Google Drive" would be promoting the service with your data. Lawyers are always going to argue for the vaguest terms possible in situations like this.

Under Google's TOS they can promote their service by posting my pictures in advertisements on other pages, under the title, "Look what other people are storing on Google Drive."

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#58

Post by toddmorey »

stuartmemo wrote: post #6

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...

No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting.

Look, I get it: the chances of Google acting on these rights are small and the PR backlash for abuse would be brutal. But this is a great example of a legal department _far_ overreaching in their corporate protection efforts.

I really want to use GDrive, but even if the odds of abuse are unimaginable, I really hate that they make me sign a contract that makes me out to be a functional idiot. "Sign away all your legal rights--it's okay because you can trust us."

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#59

Post by yesbabyyes »

xtrimsky_ wrote: post #52
curveship wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this part of the TOS say exactly that?: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Let's say Mark Zuck. wants to use Google Drive, and upload all Facebook code on it. Using this TOS, it allows Google to go through the Facebook code, and use it to improve Google+. As a programmer that uses Dropbox to backup all my code, I find this a little bit scary.

If you are concerned with storing your code on a service, perhaps you shouldn't store your code on that service?

The way I see it, they could go through your code and use your secret sauce, in secret. Now, with these TOS, let's say they are in the clear, legally. Now weigh the punishment Dropbox would receive for breaching your copyright, vs the punishment they would receive for using their users'/customers' data immorally, for their own gain.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#60

Post by AmazingMe »

stuartmemo wrote: post #6

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...

How come dropbox, skydrive don't need such perpetual blanket permission to provide exactly same service.
Post reply on HN