Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 464 posts

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#201

Post by notyourwork »

fsflover wrote: post #127
notyourwork wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think dread is a bit over dramatic. I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Some products in the Google domain are heading that way but I don't dread Google I treat them as a business with respect to my coupling to them on a case by case basis. I used to be a Google first, now I am one to look at all options and decide if its worth coupling something else in my life to Google. In many cases its not worth it…

> I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Concerning the maps, try https://openstreetmap.org Concerning the GMail, see this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054

Thanks for sharing but I wasn't really trying to debate whether I do or do not find utility in these. I do and I'm fine using them. I'm also aware of the alternatives, I use Apple maps from time to time, I use DDG on occasion. Neither is of consequence to the premise in my original post.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#202

Post by notyourwork »

matheweis wrote: post #104
notyourwork wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think dread is a bit over dramatic. I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Some products in the Google domain are heading that way but I don't dread Google I treat them as a business with respect to my coupling to them on a case by case basis. I used to be a Google first, now I am one to look at all options and decide if its worth coupling something else in my life to Google. In many cases its not worth it…

> I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Give it time... There are a lot of people feeling that dread about “gmail” now. Have you seen the recent threads about GSuite Legacy? Small businesses and families suddenly need to cough up hundreds of dollars per year or figure out how to migrate away from a product that originally marketed itself as free forever.

Sure, maybe they will and maybe they won't. Personally, I'll be happy to pay for it and have considered over the last few months a migration plan away to a paid subscription. It's just not on top of my todo list. If Google started asking me to pay, I'd pay because they have provided this service and its pretty darn good if you ask me. How much I'd pay is an open question.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#203

Post by panarky »

ldoughty wrote: post #188
jsymolon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SSNs should be treated ... As someone who dealt with identity theft, SSN should only be collected if contact with the SSA is needed. I.E. payment of social security benefits. Any and ALL other "ID", nope. Use some other number.

"I'm sorry, we can't put you in the system without it.. it wont let us".... I always omit SSN, but often can't get away with it.

My dentist said I couldn't leave the SSN field blank so I filled in 867-53-0909.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#205

Post by OneLeggedCat »

tyingq wrote: post #15

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…

Just tested this myself. Got the same results as you while using different file names.

Difficult to believe that Google has become so internally dysfunctional that it hasn't fixed this technical embarrassment twenty hours after first being being seen, and then five hours after being reported on front page of Hacker News.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#206

Post by aspenmayer »

Arnavion wrote: post #116
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #13

I experienced something similar building an internal tool on GSuite. I had a large file with sequences of 9 digit numbers specific to our use-case, all tied to names of people (employees). Whelp, at one point the tool I was working on stopped working, and it was flagged as apparently containing social security numbers (which I suppose matched the character length). Whelp, on the admin panel, you can get a report of t…

This is another case for only pushing encrypted files to storage hosts, unless it's against Google Drive's TOS or something. Has anyone tried it? Did Google complain?

If you don’t know about this feature of rclone, you’re in for a treat! Combined with unionfs or mergerfs, or the builtin union function, you can have cached local decrypted mounts of locally encrypted remote mounted directories on gdrive, mirrored to a local folder.

https://rclone.org/crypt/

https://rclone.org/union/

Edit: there is also the (sorta abandoned, or finished/complete depending on your pov) plexdrive project, which does a bit of Plex server specific opinionated stuff and mounts gdrive read only, but which may help with reducing API quota usage according to some reports. I’ve never had any issues with the quotas that I’m aware of, but I did have to tune my settings a fair bit to get it dialed in on a somewhat memory constrained vps.

https://github.com/plexdrive/plexdrive

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#207

Post by panarky »

Qub3d wrote: post #136

Always operate under the assumption that iCloud (Apple), Microsoft and Google will delete any/all of your data, with no notice, and for no reason. Because they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes. Not your computer, not your data etc. ( https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/ )

> they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes

Do you have an example of Google explicitly reserving the right to delete any/all data with no notice and for no reason?

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#208

Post by ncmncm »

SR2Z wrote: post #112
matheusmoreira wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is fundamentally a monopoly on data. The very name implies that you can restrict who can copy data, how many copies can be made. Copying data is among the most basic, fundamental computer operations. Therefore all computers are inherently capable of violating copyright, they merely need to be instructed to do so. It's the 21st century and copyright is absolute nonsense. Computers make it seem absurd by triv…

> It's the 21st century and copyright is absolute nonsense. This is an awful, terrible take. We know that intellectual property is much more artificial than pretty much every other type of property right, but we still want governments to enforce copyright and other IP law because it's a good way to make sure that people have a financial incentive to be creative or do R&D. Copyright needs reform (and many types of DRM…

Copyright is spelled out in the US Constitution as distinct from property, for clear and well-justified reasons.

Every move to make copyright more like property makes copyright less useful for its designated purposes, and more a drain on the public interest. But copyright holders are continually pressing courts and legislators to try make copyright law subservient to property law, and succeeding, incrementally, so case law on copyright has become hard to distinguish from property law. Nowadays copyright lawyers even call themselves "Intellectual Property" lawyers, deliberately trying to obscure the difference.

The consequence is that Copyright, which was once a benefit for the public interest, is now a benefit only for entrenched media companies. Eliminating it would once have been taking away from the public. Now, eliminating it would benefit the public. But, since copyright is now a matter of international treaty, we no longer have, even in principle, the power to eliminate it: treaties override the Constitution.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#209

Post by aspenmayer »

xcjs wrote: post #121
Arnavion wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another case for only pushing encrypted files to storage hosts, unless it's against Google Drive's TOS or something. Has anyone tried it? Did Google complain?

I have an Enterprise Gsuite account with 50 TB of encrypted data for around 5 years (this was of course prior to the rebranding). I've had no complaints from Google so far.

You use rclone, or another stack? I’m always trying new tools in this space.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#210

Post by Qub3d »

panarky wrote: post #207
Qub3d wrote: post #136

Always operate under the assumption that iCloud (Apple), Microsoft and Google will delete any/all of your data, with no notice, and for no reason. Because they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes. Not your computer, not your data etc. ( https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/ )

> they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes Do you have an example of Google explicitly reserving the right to delete any/all data with no notice and for no reason?

https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14762

Note the wording "we reasonably believe". There is nothing objective about this.

Additionally: https://policies.google.com/terms#toc-removing

> Removing your content

> If any of your content (1) breaches these terms, service-specific additional terms or policies, (2) violates applicable law, or (3) could harm our users, third parties, or Google, then we reserve the right to take down some or all of that content in accordance with applicable law.

Finally, buried 3 links deep in the Terms[0], we can find a list of some of what Google considers valid under this clause. A lot of it makes sense (clearly illegal things) some of it is subjective ("misleading content"). If you feel comfortable all of your data could never be interpreted by anyone as falling under any of these categories, be my guest, use GDrive.

[0]: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505

Post reply on HN