411–420 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
G employee. If you are using G to store anything important and if you do not have an offline backup or some other redundancy please reconsider.
Agreed. Cloudsync is a car superior product and supports every cloud service ever and full encryption. https://cloudsync.bdrive.com/
I'm curious if "has locked my account" means just Google Drive, or if he also lost Gmail, Android functionality, Chrome profiles, Adwords, YouTube, YouTubeTV, purchased movies and tv shows, Fitbit, Nest, sites where he used federated login (DoorDash, Uber, etc). I see, for example, his YouTube channel is up, but it's associated with 'team@armouredarchives.com', and not the personal gmail account he posted in the link…
I have wondered what locked account actually means in context of the mail and its configuration being "active". E.g. I have setup email forwarding in my Gmail so that I always get a copy at another address. When my account is locked, I know I can't connect to Gmail but what happens to the above "workflow"? Does Gmail stop receiving messages / forwarding rules no longer work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If google really thinks he is a terrorist, which apparently they did, why on earth would they allow him to use gmail or android? It makes sense they would lock him out of everything possible. What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. They should not be in the position where they can even find out who is a terrorist.
> What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. Without reading into the details, I don't think that google arbitrarily examines all user files on Google Drive (and please correct me if I am wrong, but that's what I remember since the last time this discussion was had). Google only examines files that were shared with other users or were made accessible to others through a shareable lin…
in your analogy the grocery store also has a gun shop next door they own, you're in the grocery store and they decide that you are buying something to poison someone so they don't let you, you go next door to the gun shop where they say 'hey, customer 2214 potential murderer of course you can buy the gun!' You buy the gun and go kill the person you were intending to kill.
When the law gets involved the company owning the grocery store and gun store will find it has a lot of liability.
Basically anything where you think the law will get involved and have to make a determination will mean you will have to shut down all services.
Notice the law getting involved banning is of course different than the you were an asshole banning.
on edit: I of course think it's ridiculous that this account got banned, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument put forward here about wait for the law to make determination just isn't going to fly in any situation, and think about it if someone was a terrorist, got banned in service X but used service Y to coordinate their big attack that killed thousands would you really be sitting here saying service Y was right not to ban them? Maybe you would, but the law and general public opinion probably wouldn't.
> The added grievance to this is that my drive also included my own personal family photos and my current book on the subject I mean, how many times does this need to come up for people to learn the lesson? If you are storing your data with a third party, and you do not have an iron legal contract with this third party, then that third party can and will do whatever it wants with your data, including locking you out…
How’s Synology NAS? Safe local storage or can they back door in and fuck with your data?
A few months ago, I decided to migrate to my new laptop by restoring a backup from the old one , just as a way to test the DS216j backups. I found:
a) I was on an old backup solution of them, and they had migrated to something new. I had a hard time to find the old backup software's installer to do the restore.
b) The old backup was good enough to restore individual files, but had no real way to do a full restore. It seems they thought I'd click on each individual file, even if there are hundreds of thousands in my home folder. I believe there was an option for zipping a folder, but it just timed out.
c) Their site had great documentation for telling me about how to do backups, but I could not find anything for the I-urgently-need-a-full-restore use case. Maybe I overlooked it, or their new software is better documented.
Now all the data was safely on the NAS, and I think I could scrape it out with a few days work, but none of the above would be fun to find out in the middle of an emergency. I've since thrown their backup software out and replaced it with a custom rsync to the NAS. At least I know how to deal with that when the full cow farm production hits the turbofan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in the meantime before a human can check it, you think google will be completely without liability if they flag someone as a terrorist but let them continue on with their business, even aiding them with all of google services?
They most certainly should be, because an automated Google system having "flagged" a user as "a terrorist" means nothing in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, they should not in any way be without liability for wrongly suspending a user's account just because their automated system unjustifiably "flagged" them.
A legal team of 1,000+ at google is betting that you're wrong. I have a feeling they came to a pretty logical decision that liability of aiding someone flagged of terrorist activity is greater than liability of shutting down someone to whom you owe nothing.
Google Drive is not a backup of your data. We need to help people get to know this - I keep telling this to friends all the time, hardly anyone listens.
161 comment yelling at either google or the guy for XYZ and here I am just wondering if the bloke got his tank photos back
It looks like this happened yesterday, and he says in the link that it normally takes 2 days to investigate and respond. This is an unfortunate incident, but IMO hardly as egregious as other commenters are making it out to be. A false positive for literal videos of terrorist vehicles does not seem at all unreasonable, and yet HN has given it less than 24 hours to be resolved before blasting it to the top of the front…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying the Red Cross should not be allowed to give free sandwiches to homeless people if they are made of baloney and government cheese. It's unprofessional! Either use premium meats and cheeses and artisanal bread, or don't give them any sandwiches at all.
No, its like saying they should not be allowed to serve expired food and let x% of people end up sick. They should either serve safe to eat food or no food at all.
moot point anyways, as google is not (yet) in the business of essential services. they can hand out literal shit and it's totally fine.