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

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#121

Post by AmazingMe »

yohui wrote: post #92
AmazingMe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From stuartmemo's comment, which you replied to: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... > The Verge: "Is Google Drive worse for privacy than iCloud, Skydrive, and Dropbox?" Short answer: no.

reading the article mentioned Skydrive: (GRANT ALL)..."posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service"

GDrive: (GRANT ALL)..."the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Services vs. Service, Promoting vs providing

will showing book drafts being created by me on Google Books is promoting/improving there service, yep. Google may not do so ever, but you have to trust them instead of being on TOS.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#122

Post by notatoad »

ctdonath wrote: post #30
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...

Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. Remember that recent flap about iOS apps uploading users' entire Contacts list for non-relevant uses? hey, users gave permission for the apps to access that data without explicit limits; same idea, same concerns.

note that google also has a privacy policy in addition to a TOS. Most of the hypothetical horrible things that people are assuming the TOS allows google to do with your data are forbidden by their privacy policy.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#123

Post by cube13 »

smeg wrote: post #113
cube13 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. They actually don't. Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them. Dropbox actually does not state specifically what rights Dropbox needs to provide the services, and as such, could claim that you're granting all of the rights that Google has granted and more. This does not include ful…

>Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them They sure do. It just turns out one of these rights is that they can use your content for promotional purposes (advertising?). Dropbox may not have such a detailed TOS, but they are clear on one thing: whatever rights you do grant them are solely for the provision of the service to you.

The problem is that Dropbox may, at their sole discretion, decide that providing ads is part of "the Service". Under their TOS, they could do that without changing it.

Realistically, Dropbox won't ever do that. But the key thing here is that Dropbox's TOS does not explicitly state exactly what rights they believe they need to operate with.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#124

Post by vitalysh »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #74
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?

You can try using http://www.boxcryptor.com/, up to 2gb free, it encrypts separate files and not entire volume.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#125

Post by yesbabyyes »

smeg wrote: post #114
yesbabyyes wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions. And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I regret that we have to have these far reaching policies and agreements filled with lega…

> Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. It doesn't say that anywhere. The Privacy Policy covers "What information we collect and why we collect it.". In other words, the PP is about information they collect about you using the service, not stuff you upload to Drive. Think IP addresses, cookies, log-on times etc. > Even without that, th…

> It doesn't say that anywhere. The Privacy Policy covers "What information we collect and why we collect it.". In other words, the PP is about information they collect about you using the service, not stuff you upload to Drive. Think IP addresses, cookies, log-on times etc.

I'm not so sure about that:

  We collect information in two ways:

  - Information you give us. [...]
  - Information we get from your use of our services. [...]

  [...]

  We will ask for your consent before using information for a
  purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy.
> So your saying that TOS don't matter and we shouldn't read or analyse them because we trust Google wont do anything untoward?

Of course we should. And when we've read them, we should realize that if we want to use such services, we need to assign the provider certain rights to the content. Otherwise, the services couldn't exist. I'm just saying that I think the social contract is actually stronger, so the fallout from bad behavior would be worse punishment than the slaps on the wrist the US government would give. Of course, you don't have to agree with that, it's my belief.

> So we are we even having this discussion in the first place then?

Why indeed. Perhaps because more people have read lazy analyses such as the one linked, than honest analyses such as the one by The Verge (or even, gasp, read the whole actual TOS and made their on analysis), which several people has linked to in the comments. I suggest you read it.

Edit: Formatting, more nuanced language.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#126

Post by mlreed328 »

tdenkinger wrote: post #111
dkarl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article posted here on HN cheats by including an important sentence from the DropBox TOS and sneakily omitting the corresponding sentence from the Google TOS. DropBox: You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. 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.

Those sentences do not say the same thing. Most worrying: "promoting" in the Google terms.

"solely" is a pretty important word in "solely to provide the Services".

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#127

Post by user24 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #85
user24 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not make the ToS incremental so you agree as-and-when you use the relevant part of the service. Click share "Do you authorise Google to share this document yada-yada", done. Most users will only consume part of the service, why should they have to agree to 100%?

I really don't want a dialog box with an "I agree" checkbox every time I make a minor action in a web interface.

Not every time, just the first time.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#128

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
jlarocco wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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. Being extremely specific in TOSes tends to lead to lots and lots of revisions as you discover unexpected cases. As a user, I'd prefer a TOS that's a little more broad instead of having to monitor it every five minutes for tweaks. > Dropbox's TOS seems pretty…

While they reserve the right to change it I'd like to see such a massive change of intent stand up to a lawsuit.
Post reply on HN