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

221–230 of 464 posts

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

#221

Post by vidarh »

spicybright wrote: post #143
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…

That's ridiculous. Storing social security numbers is necessary for lots of businesses. Imagine your filing cabinet not letting you file employment forms with a SS# on them. It's the sticky note password problem all over again...

Not just that, but official US government websites publish plenty of data with SSNs of dead people in them. For my genealogy research I have plenty of SSNs sitting around for relatives to emigrated to the US because they've happened to show up in searches.

E.g. here[1] is one of Ancestry's many catalogs based on US government data dumps that even allows you to explicitly search by SSN.

So even if one were to argue that SSNs of living people shouldn't be in GSuite, and there may be many good arguments for that, there are vast quantities of SSNs out there that are explicitly and openly shared by the government. If Google starts blocking me from accessing any of my files with notes about family history, I'll be pissed off.

I guess it's time to move off Google Docs too (I've largely left Gmail)

[1] https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/60901/

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

#222

Post by easrng »

foxfluff wrote: post #76
landemva wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The surface is larger than just copyright and includes anything the government can enforce in the name of protecting or preventing ... [children, terrorists, money laundering]. Lobbyists wondering why not slip this into appropriations bill and make MS put this in desktop.

It's also larger than that; I believe one of the biggest threats to freedom today is complexity. That's why people are so bitter at Mozilla for example, and perhaps to a lesser degree systemd. But it applies to a lot of stuff, for example everyone who complains about GPU drivers on Linux (or "Linux is not there yet" in general) complains because they feel powerless to fix the issues. I'm glad AMD is doing their part…

Google blocking browsers is understandable, they're trying to stop apps from implementing Sign In with Google in a webview because that's a security issue. (Apps could steal passwords or non-oauth session information) Some actual browsers (mostly built around those same webview tools) got caught up in the blocks too. If they were blocking everything except Chrome, that'd be a different story, but they're not.

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

#223

Post by shmerl »

otterley wrote: post #219
shmerl wrote: post #109

Copyright was always bizarre in the sense that any information can be expressed as numbers. So why are some numbers more copyrightable? Also reminds me this ("Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes"): https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theoni...

Any novel can be expressed as a sequence of alphabetical characters. So why are these copyrightable?

Exactly the question you should wonder about. So translating in to abstract form, different numbers have different legal application :)

Illegal numbers anyone?

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

#224

Post by vidarh »

withinboredom wrote: post #155
jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long until cloud providers are forced to scan block devices, so you can't even self-host a file erroneously flagged by the ML? (Actually, how long until this is integrated with the "security engine" in CPUs, so you can't even hide with encryption? Everyone is talking about on-device voice-recognition and CSAM recognition, but no doubt the copyright lobby is going to push hard for this as well.)

I have an email from myself to myself sent in 2007 in GMail. I can't open the attachment because "it is malicious." It doesn't, just a schematic, but there's no way to tell GMail to let me download it anyway.

Have you tried downloading it via IMAP?

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

#225

Post by johannes1234321 »

jrockway wrote: post #199
bl4ckneon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean someone copyrighted binary? :p I guess that mean that this comment and everything digital is copyrighted.

Technically any creative work you author is copyrighted, so your comment was copyrighted anyway. Whether or not large tech companies will punish people for infringing upon your copyright is yet to be determined.

I don't know about US lawy but in German law there is a requirement on some originality. ("Schöpfungshöhe") The barrier is low, but a 1 certainly doesn't receive the protection.

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

#226

Post by bob1029 »

driverdan wrote: post #151
spicybright wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Storing social security numbers is necessary for lots of businesses. Imagine your filing cabinet not letting you file employment forms with a SS# on them. It's the sticky note password problem all over again...

> That's ridiculous. Storing social security numbers is necessary for lots of businesses. They should absolutely not be stored in a GSuite document. SSNs should be treated more securely than credit card numbers.

> SSNs should be treated more securely than credit card numbers.

I disagree. Both SSNs and credit card numbers should be treated with equal consideration.

Establishing arbitrary classes of PII protection based upon perceived severity of compromise is a bad strategy. In the market we work in, you either get this 100% right or you don't get it right at all. There is no happy middle-ground when you are selling software to banks or other such organizations. No one is interested in "mostly" correct when it comes to PII they are responsible for protecting.

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

#227

Post by C19is20 »

bonzini wrote: post #162
driverdan wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's ridiculous. Storing social security numbers is necessary for lots of businesses. They should absolutely not be stored in a GSuite document. SSNs should be treated more securely than credit card numbers.

Which is a problem of its own, since they're effectively usernames. Secure usernames that have no corresponding password is already an oxymoron; that's what credit card numbers used to be, hence the introduction of the CVV, 3DSecure and so on; but at least a credit card can be blocked with relative ease. But SSNs are secure unchangeable usernames, which makes even less sense. Do any countries other than the US have s…

Italy: https://ilmiocf.it lets you generate your equivalent of an ssn (fiscal code). And, yes...if you know someone's very basic details you have the number.

For US viewers, enter 'stati uniti' as 'comune di nascita'.

Use deepl.com for the bit at the bottom.

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

#228

Post by CJefferson »

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…

Turns out Google also hates 500, 174, 833, 285 and 302 (from generating files from -1000 to 1000).

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

#229

Post by reincarnate0x14 »

tyingq wrote: post #200
mooman219 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like those files are marked as public. Does it trigger for you on files not being shared?

I didn't try that. I marked them public because I assumed that's what triggers the scan.

AFAIK the copyright scan only happens on files shared from certain types of Drive accounts, the assumption presumably being that while Google doesn't know or care if you have rights to possess data, they can be reasonably sure you wouldn't be using Drive links as the means of distributing many well-known files (video, music, software, mostly) if you had rights to do so.

How far Artificial Stupidity runs into the weeds from that basically sound beginning appears to be "still farther."

FYI Drive also does scans (configurable on business accounts) for data such as likely accidental PII disclosures on shared data, and anti-malware checks on at least Windows and Mac executables, installers, and dmgs.

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

#230

Post by 015a »

spicybright wrote: post #143
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…

That's ridiculous. Storing social security numbers is necessary for lots of businesses. Imagine your filing cabinet not letting you file employment forms with a SS# on them. It's the sticky note password problem all over again...

This isn't some default thing on G-Suite; its the DLP setting which enterprises can elect to toggle on, if they pay for the most expensive G-Suite plan. It also, afaik, only applies to shared files.

It does not work, in such a myriad of ways that I'd be blown away if it wasn't just some summer intern's project three years ago and it hasn't been touched since. But it does check boxes for audits. And enterprises don't care about actual security, they just want to check boxes for audits.

Post reply on HN