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

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#61

Post by ceejayoz »

jlarocco wrote: post #57
ceejayoz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example.

TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#62

Post by krupan »

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.

Or just use something like spideroak (with which I have no affiliation), which encrypts everything on your device before uploading it to their servers.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#63

Post by Xuzz »

toddmorey wrote: post #58
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 protect…

If you share a public link, maybe? If you use their website to stream a song to an audience?

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#64

Post by haraldk »

One thing is that the phrasing of Google's terms is more open, more importantly: I would rather like to store my files with someone that are in the business of storing files - than someone that is in the business of making "everything" searchable (for anyone?)

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#65

Post by excuse-me »

rjsamson wrote: post #17
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...

Exactly. The same FUD was being spread around a while back regarding google's terms as related to photo sharing on G+. Google needs these rights to provide certain features...

Was it Facebook that used someone's photo of themselves in an advert - claiming that it fell under "we can use your images for any purpose" ?

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#66

Post by AJ007 »

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."

Perhaps Google will "publicly perform" your private photo album in Times Square for the purpose of "promoting" their Services.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#67

Post by rjsamson »

excuse-me wrote: post #65
rjsamson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The same FUD was being spread around a while back regarding google's terms as related to photo sharing on G+. Google needs these rights to provide certain features...

Was it Facebook that used someone's photo of themselves in an advert - claiming that it fell under "we can use your images for any purpose" ?

That sounds about right. I'm not intimately familiar with FB's terms of use - I'm not sure if there is some differentiation between how they can use your other content and how they can use your profile / profile photo, etc. I haven't heard of Google doing anything like that though, but then their advertising model is a bit different.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#68

Post by ctdonath »

yesbabyyes wrote: post #54
sixothree wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google isn't (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image (even every snapshot just in case some text may be discerned), etc. to feed back into their grand ads-placed-via-data-mining profit center - it's just what they do; they may not do it (yet) in any way revealing private details, but they're sure not providing all these free services and tools out of sheer good will.

You're thinking in terms of what reasonable uses the terms apply to. The problem is what UNreasonable uses are allowed by those who consent to those terms. Publish the entire private works (at least those docs stored on Google Drive) of yesbabyyes in a collectable volume? you agreed to it...

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#69

Post by whackberry »

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...

> Complete FUD.

Care to provide backup to this claim? Privacy issues and property rights on Google services seem very real to me.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#70

Post by whackberry »

ceejayoz wrote: post #12

Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in. http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867

> Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's,

Yes but Dropbox doesn't have the reach and amount of data gathering power Google has. Google is actively monitoring hundreds to thousands of personal data gathering systems, whereas Dropbox is only a cloud storage system. There IMO lies the difference.

Post reply on HN