181–190 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Embrace. Integrate Office with it. Extend. Buy DropBox. Extinguish. Merge DropBox with OneDrive. Wow didn't expect this comment to bring on the downvotes.
For. The. Love. Of. God. Stop meta-commenting on your own downvotes. Don't interject the scoring system into the discussion. It makes you look like a child. An idiot child.
Hey Folks. Thomas from IDrive. Just wanted to point out that we offer private key encryption to our users. That means no one, not even Condoleezza Rice, can access your data except you.
But what happens if I lose my key? Is my data inaccessible forever after?
We know that much of the world relies on a combination of
Dropbox and Microsoft Office to get work done. In fact,
Dropbox is home to over 35 billion Office documents,
spreadsheets, and presentations.
We know that much of the world relies on a combination of Dropbox and Microsoft Office to get work done. In fact, Dropbox is home to over 35 billion Office documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. See, you already lost me as a customer by highlighting the level of access you have into your customer's private data, and your willingness to exploit it for commercial gain.
We know that much of the world relies on a combination of Dropbox and Microsoft Office to get work done. In fact, Dropbox is home to over 35 billion Office documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. See, you already lost me as a customer by highlighting the level of access you have into your customer's private data, and your willingness to exploit it for commercial gain.
How could they run their service without this access?
I stopped using Dropbox after the whole Condoleezza Rice thing and have been using a mix of Google Drive and OneDrive and I must say I like them a lot better. They do the same (and more if you use other Google Apps) and prices are cheaper. Are there any benefits to using Dropbox? Are there any other real alternatives you could recommend to give them a try?.
That's so silly. Condi Rice is no worse than Zuckerberg or the Google people. If anyone thinks that Google or Facebook are somehow bastions of personal privacy, you're delusional. Condi Rice is actually an honorable person. I may disagree with her, but I don't have any doubts about her integrity -- contrasted with Google and Facebook. As to your question about alternatives, I am starting to use Apple's iCloud Drive.…
Being involved in the gov't that started the terror scare and almost dragging my country in a disastrous war is quite something different than trying to nudge me into signing up for Google+. Torture, honorable, seriously??!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No they couldn't Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so. Facebook and Google do this explicitly already: they use your images and written content, which you presumably have the original copyright on, to sell their products and services (customized ads and the like). They haven't done it with Stross' novel yet, but the legal issues are the same. http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/11/you-make-ads-b…
> Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so. No you didn't. Like I said, they explicitly say you retain copyright control. That trumps any implied loss of copyright control.
That sounds like it should be limiting but a new service can be "giving away copies of stuff we found in peoples gdrives". Would everyone hate Google for that, yes; would that break their ToS, no.
You retain copyright control, means they can't sell [other] licenses and such like actions - but you already gave them and their associates free use [wrt copyright] of your works stored on their systems. They don't need more rights to publish, modify, reproduce, etc., etc..
Indeed they can even effective sub-license by selling the right to be one of "those we work with", then the license you agree to also applies to that other company.
Such ToS enable evil to be done.
It is difficult to construct a ToS that allows the company to do everything it needs to without enabling this sort of thing. They don't want to leave the option you can sue them for copyright infringement if, for example, they share your copyright avatar image with a company that's using an embedded comment system or such like activities.
One can of course encrypt data before sending it to a cloud storage company.
I stopped using Dropbox after the whole Condoleezza Rice thing and have been using a mix of Google Drive and OneDrive and I must say I like them a lot better. They do the same (and more if you use other Google Apps) and prices are cheaper. Are there any benefits to using Dropbox? Are there any other real alternatives you could recommend to give them a try?.
archived storage on physical media you own
it's science
That's the end of my half-troll/half-serious response.
I stopped using Dropbox after the whole Condoleezza Rice thing and have been using a mix of Google Drive and OneDrive and I must say I like them a lot better. They do the same (and more if you use other Google Apps) and prices are cheaper. Are there any benefits to using Dropbox? Are there any other real alternatives you could recommend to give them a try?.
I stopped using Dropbox ... and have been using a mix of Google Drive and OneDrive and I must say I like them a lot better. For a somewhat less platform-independent definition of better. Neither of those has Linux-clients, which for some people is a no-go. Which means I'll stick to Dropbox for a good while more.
Even saying that I'm still occasionally let down by how much of a power drain it is. Even wrote a utility to manage it (shameless plug) https://github.com/joaomsa/powermonius
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so. No you didn't. Like I said, they explicitly say you retain copyright control. That trumps any implied loss of copyright control.
The quoted license: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." That sounds like it should be limiting but a new service can be "giving away copies of stuff we found in peoples gdrives". Would everyone hate Google for that, yes; would that break their ToS, no. You retain copyright control, means they can't sell [other…
> You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Whatever anything else says in the ToS, this wins. Explicit statements always trump implications in contracts. You take that to court, show the judge, and you're on your way to dinner with your winnings later that very same day.
This ToS is not capable of Evil in the way you say. Period.