11–20 of 47 posts
If you want to store things that you would consider sensitive, dropbox, google drive, amazon, imgur, facebook, or whatever else are not the place to do it, and you shouldn't be expecting any different.
I store comics, pictures from my iPhone, and a few bits of music that I like on my dropbox. if I use gDrive, it will be the same thing.
This should be obvious.
I agree they should be clearer -- as should the vast majority of companies storing data on behalf of consumers -- but this is being blown out of proportion. It's a little unfair to highlight how Dropbox says "You retain full ownership to your stuff" while not also pointing out that Google says the same thing, "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belon…
Google then proceeds to say the exact opposite in the next paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png Quote: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works [...] Full text: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/ Ignoring the fact that paragraph 1 and 2 directly contradict each other,…
Everything you do is by default copyright by you in the US. When you make a copy of your own work and give it to somebody the recipient of that copy needs a license from you to describe how they are allowed to use it. If the person you give it to does not receive a license from you, then they are violating your copyright and you can sue them. This means that the second you upload a work of your own to Google, if they do not have a license to that data then they are violating your copyright -- even though you chose to upload it to them.
When you conclude that Google intended to say "By default all your data belongs to us" you are showing that you really don't understand the difference between owning a copyright and having a license. Please, stop speaking with authority about copyright issues if you do not understand them because it does not do the HN community a service.
You still own the copyright on your work and you have given Google a license to use it. That license is broad because Google (and in this case Google Docs/Drive) has a broad set of features that allow you to do lots of things with your data. When you use a feature like sharing a Google Doc with somebody, you are not doing those things -- you are asking Google to do those things with your data via HTTP requests. Google has to be a allowed to do those things legally and the license implements that. For example, Google Docs/Drive has that 'Anyone with the Link' ACL that allows anyone on the Internet to view or edit your document so of course Google needs a "worldwide license to host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works...". You or anyone else editing a document in Google Docs is creating derivative works of that original document you uploaded.
Please, understand that "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content" means just what it says. And "you give Google [...] a worldwide license [...]" is not at all contradictory with that. I've only talked about US law at this point but remember that Google has to deal with copyright in every country. A broad license like this is just a fact of offering the features Google does worldwide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no contradiction; you are confusing ownership and licensing. You are still the owner of your content, but of course you have to grant Google permission to use it! How else would it be legal to operate Google Drive and store things on your behalf? I think we can agree that it would be unfair for someone to place content in Google Drive and then turn around and sue Google for copyright infringement when it is…
The problem is that it's not clear the license to "use, create derivatives, etc" is solely for the purpose of providing you access to your data worldwide. Using, say, your vacation photos in an advertisement seems within the scope of the TOS. Google could be clearer if they chose to be. I believe it is intentionally vague.
That doesn't seem intentionally vague to me. I suppose a restriction on using vacation photos in their ads would be nice... But is that really what people are concerned about? That doesn't seem very likely or threatening.
I agree they should be clearer -- as should the vast majority of companies storing data on behalf of consumers -- but this is being blown out of proportion. It's a little unfair to highlight how Dropbox says "You retain full ownership to your stuff" while not also pointing out that Google says the same thing, "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belon…
Google then proceeds to say the exact opposite in the next paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png Quote: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works [...] Full text: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/ Ignoring the fact that paragraph 1 and 2 directly contradict each other,…
Then they couldn't receive your uploaded data. Or your email. Or your videos.
This is the overal terms for all Google products, it was exactly the same as before Drive (since their privacy policies got merged recently). Read the second to last sentence of paragraph 2:
> Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services.
The global policy is the most broad, pretty common sense. Google will read your files so you can search them, but they aren't going to start selling your content.
I expect to be given lots of ads for encryption related offers soon.
I wish that there was cloud storage/syncing product that catered to paranoids like some of the people on HN. What if Dropbox allowed you use your own public/private key pair for encryption. They would no longer be able to see anything you own, or use de-duplication, but I'd be willing to pay for this added service. And a web and mobile interface would still be possible, Dropbox could even keep your (encrypted) private key in your Dropbox, and then ask you to enter your passphrase to decrypt it whenever you want to access files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no contradiction; you are confusing ownership and licensing. You are still the owner of your content, but of course you have to grant Google permission to use it! How else would it be legal to operate Google Drive and store things on your behalf? I think we can agree that it would be unfair for someone to place content in Google Drive and then turn around and sue Google for copyright infringement when it is…
The problem is that it's not clear the license to "use, create derivatives, etc" is solely for the purpose of providing you access to your data worldwide. Using, say, your vacation photos in an advertisement seems within the scope of the TOS. Google could be clearer if they chose to be. I believe it is intentionally vague.
This is the terms for every Google product. If it was changed for line by line detail for every product, it would change so frequently that users could never know what was in it or agree to it. Drive hooks in with a ton of Google services, its policy would likely be hundreds of pages long if it was not "intentionally vague".
Dropbox's terms are similar, except to sound like they were not written by a lawyer.
> "We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction"
Sounds like a license to use and create derivatives to me...
I get google mail, with 6+ gigs of quota.
I can make free calls via google's email website.
I have a google phone number from GVoice. If my phone service is deactivated, I still get calls and texts and transcription. All I need then is to log in via a free wifi.
I have all my contacts saved from my phone, along with free recording and voicemail transcription.
I have a full history of what I've previously searched, along with what links I found.
I have a chat service hooked up to my email.
And now, I can back up critical files like my resume and documents on GDrive.
I also make 7.25/hr , with no benefits, nor any employee perks whatsoever. I am also a "part time employee" and in an at-will state. I had to take this job after unfortunate events. I like eating.
What google provides is something I COULD NOT pay for elsewise. If I pay with some datamining, so be it. I gladly accept that trade.
They'll only datamine a poor person. If my data (and lack of money) is good enough for Google, good on them. I would value what I'm getting at $50/month.
Extreme examples: Someone is working on a gay porn script and they really don't want that script scanned or made part of any profile. They should have the right to "nofollow" that document or directory. Another person is having heated political debates over email and they want these views to, again, not be touched by the machine. They should have the ability to indicate this. Private browsing mode in browsers is what comes to mind.
This is not unlike some of the privacy issues with Facebook. I have not checked in a while but it used to be that the default was that everything was public, which is exactly the right default from the perspective of benefiting Facebook but exactly the wrong default from the perspective of protecting the user.
These issues will continue to come up with these and other companies. Hopefully, over time, we'll converge on what come to be the "ten commandments" of personal data access as a model for all to follow.