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

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#71

Post by nooop »

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...

Yet, with those rights, Google are able to (worldwide) ; create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"?

In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#72

Post by abraham »

ctdonath wrote: post #68
yesbabyyes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users.

This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#73

Post by NelsonMinar »

If I understand Google's ToS right, you are giving them a license to do pretty much anything with the data you upload to Drive. For instance, if you backup your git repo to Drive, Google's engineers have a license to take your source code and incorporate it into their own products. Now of course Google's not actually going to do that. So why not make the license say that?

Google is using a generic ToS for all their products, but it's not appropriate to products that host valuable intellectual property.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#74

Post by recoiledsnake »

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.

So if you want to change one bit, the whole freaking volume has to be uploaded again?

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#75

Post by j_s »

ghoul2 wrote: post #43
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.

I have found quite a few people recommend this, and never understood the point - if all you want is a "cloud" backup of your opaque data, simply use tarsnap. cheap, easy, brilliant piece of engineering. Or heck, use backblaze with their unlimited storage plan! The trouble with building a truecrypt volume inside GDrive/Dropbox etc is that this makes the data completely opaque to the service. You give up all integratio…

The price is right!

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#76

Post by NelsonMinar »

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

Yeah, and Dropbox fixed it after public complaint. It's amazing to me Google would launch with a license with the same problem.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#77

Post by nooop »

ajross wrote: post #55
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What isn't clear in "promoting" the Services?

Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#78

Post by waterlesscloud »

ctdonath wrote: post #68
yesbabyyes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's extremely likely that Google will search your personal data for ad targeting purposes. It's what their entire company exists to do.

The only way I'd believe they won't do it is if they VERY publicly state that they won't in completely unequivocal terms such that they'll be held liable if they do.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#79

Post by jlarocco »

ceejayoz wrote: post #61
jlarocco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is.

"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."

Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#80

Post by nbm »

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" ?

I suspect you are misremembering either a real story about an advertiser using someone's photo without permission or rumours based on it that occasionally become popular.

An advertiser once, against the FB terms of service, used a user's profile picture in their advertising. The advertiser was banned from the platform. Here's a news story that might jog your memory on this: http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/

Post reply on HN