I will never forget that the Christchurch shooting video was automatically deleted from users' PRIVATE Google Drive and Dropbox - no warnings were given and no explanation was presented.
Then there are other non-hash methods, similar to how Shazam determines a song in a noisy room. Poles, zeros, FFTs, there are many other strategies that are fault-tolerant.
This will cause their storage requirement to explode. However, if the goal is only to prevent public sharing of content in contravention of the user agreement then I'm surprised it took them this long to implement this.
As for size, you can always tar/encrypt its dir and include dummy files to modify its size.
I wish the future is a NAS that is simple, fault tolerant ( Bit-Flip protection, Error Correction, Drive Redundancy ) and extremely affordable. That is something the Apple Time Capsule should have been.
Right now I cant even get a 2x 2.5" 2TB HDD and a NAS enclosure for under $200 RSP. I was hoping Kobol would be it someday. But chip shortage and many other things had them canceled the project.
I do have a couple of NetApps for mission critical stuff; and one of my customers runs an Isilon which I have to support; for almost every workload that can tolerate a few minutes of planned downtime per month, the Synology wins bigly as long as you have knowledgeable IT staff.
And no, you don’t want an Isilon or a NetApp if you don’t have knowledgeable IT staff around - you want a synology (or to get better IT)
You can get comparatively much more for much less if you look carefully at the used market and spend some time building it for yourself. My 5 bays home NAS cost me just a bit over €130, excluding disks of course: €46 for a SUPERMICRO X7SPA-L mainboard and €88 for a Ultron RPS19-G3380 case, power supply included. All purchased from ebay sellers. I already had the memory modules plus an additional slow SATA controller I use for a non RAID disk, so had to buy only the disks locally. It runs XigmaNAS and has been rock solid with multiple 1 year+ uptimes interrupted only for maintenance or disk upgrades.
Does it work? Mostly. Can it be tricked? Yes.
Not encrypted (at rest and in transit) => not private.
There are no exceptions.
> These files will be flagged to their owner and restricted automatically, which means they can no longer be shared with other people, and access will be withdrawn from everyone but the owner.
I'm trying to confirm this comment:
> They removed it after they began using GIFCT to ‘prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms.’ All hashed versions of that video was removed from user accounts.
> Page 16 : https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocument...
If a judge said that owning that video was probable cause or whatever, they could produce every user who used to have that file.
On an aside, such a setup is also a layer of defense-in-depth protection against a certain, uncommon class of bugs.
I do work for Google, but don't, in any way, speak for the company. All of the above information can be found on the internet, eg. https://www.quora.com/Does-Google-really-delete-the-account-... about Google accounts themselves.
If you are dealing with case data, you should be have those policies reviewed carefully, and should likely be encrypting before storing anywhere anyway.
I say should because I almost never see case data stored to standard.
Page 16 : https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocument...
Am I missing something here?
Though while giving a warning is clearly inappropriate, they should certainly have explained what they did.
If it is not shared with anyone, why should a cloud provider get to decide what I can and can't store?
I want to be able to use that storage as an extension of my local hard drives/SSD's with the ease of use of accessing it between different devices. I still consider it my data.
That those bits and bytes happen to represent a document for a nuclear weapon shouldn't matter.
Now if you were to ask if I believe people should store a video of the Christchurch shooter? No, I full-heartedly believe its kind of sick that someone would want to store/archive that, but I don't want a cloud provider making that decision.
It seems like eventually the law will have to change so that these companies have to start treating users like tenants rather than serfs.
When primary sources are not available to the public then lies have the same footing as truth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/14...
Stimme Koreas is now gone too.
You can get a rough idea of what is needed from Wikipedia. They are simpler machines than a automobile engine, at least in the sense that there are fewer parts involved.
As far as encryptions and data go I just echo that "not your drive, not your data" remains true and that encryption is not going to stop a cloud provider from deleting your encrypted content. Feels like I've been saying this for 10 years now (I have) but I truly do not believe cloud use is the future for computing. Drives and mass storage are always getting cheaper.
Those two situations aren't even remotely comparable - nuclear weapon plans are straight-up illegal for individuals to own in the US, so by removing one of those, Google would be complying with federal law.
The Christchurch shooting video was not illegal under any law that I'm aware of, so Google was not legally required to delete it, and it was a primary source for a historical event, so Google shouldn't have deleted it, especially not from users' private drives that they weren't sharing (as then you can't even claim that they were spreading extremist material).
A magazine tried to publish the blueprints. The government argued all nuke related info is classified regardless of actual legal status.
The federal government dropped the case, fearing they would lose.
They didn’t want political pressure to stop it.
In this case, people could have had the video because they agreed with the shooter, to using it to show people how horrible terror really is.
Regardless, I fully support peoples right to have videos of terrible events.
People draw the line when it affects their beliefs, in that case they say it was justified for Google, Apple and AWS to censor an application that potentially can be misused. But they get outraged at the thought of removing a video of a massacre, and also they outrage at the thought of limiting their access to tools that are made for the main sole purpose of killing people.
Go figure!
But it's not even about Americans, I'm from France and it's the same, no one would think to remove videos about the 11/13 except to keep it off Facebook so that kids would not see it.
But at the same time there are abominations of pure evil that should never exist, not even for "historical interest".
Somewhere in the middle there's a line.
It's entirely reasonable to handle that differently from someone's personal data storage.
It is like arguing against capital punishment using Ted Bundy's case as example. Generally that works the other way with most people and that's the kind of person they enthusiastically support the state murdering.
Similarly the reaction of most people to Google removing that video is going to be "good" and you're going to have a very uphill battle convincing them otherwise, and you're probably going to lose.
If you talk about university researchers that study pornography and Google nuking their research or their ability to share their research with other institutions, you'd probably make more headway.
It is only on a site like HN where the most upvoted commment is "OMG they deleted practically the worst video imaginable from a mass shooting incident can you believe those fascists?" and everyone votes it up to the top.
The HN echo chamber bubble is real.
Let the law work - possession of illegal material should be enforced by the police, not by a corporation that the user cannot hold accountable.