Will Google Drive Snoop Inside Your Data? Google Needs to Be Clearer
techland.time.com
techland.time.com
If you want to store things that you would consider sensitive, dropbox, google drive, amazon, imgur, facebook, or whatever else are not the place to do it, and you shouldn't be expecting any different.
I store comics, pictures from my iPhone, and a few bits of music that I like on my dropbox. if I use gDrive, it will be the same thing.
This should be obvious.
This is true, but it shouldn't be. Ambiguous TOS's aren't helping matters. This is even more important now that companies like Google are trying to encourage people to trust their livelihoods to the cloud. They absolutely need to be as clear as possible, for their own sakes. It's odd that they allow themselves to be in a situation where their motives are questioned precisely when they're trying to get the masses comfortable with storing their lives in the cloud.
It should be, but it isn't. To techies, yes. We understand that Google/Dropbox/iCloud/CloudDriveX(tm) can and probably will use information accessed through these services. To others, though, it's just like saying some company can "read your hard drive and look at your stuff" which is unexpected and unsettling.
Normal users expect their files to be just that-their files.
Whether this is an invasion of privacy or just the new normal is up for debate.
Extreme examples: Someone is working on a gay porn script and they really don't want that script scanned or made part of any profile. They should have the right to "nofollow" that document or directory. Another person is having heated political debates over email and they want these views to, again, not be touched by the machine. They should have the ability to indicate this. Private browsing mode in browsers is what comes to mind.
This is not unlike some of the privacy issues with Facebook. I have not checked in a while but it used to be that the default was that everything was public, which is exactly the right default from the perspective of benefiting Facebook but exactly the wrong default from the perspective of protecting the user.
These issues will continue to come up with these and other companies. Hopefully, over time, we'll converge on what come to be the "ten commandments" of personal data access as a model for all to follow.
It's a little unfair to highlight how Dropbox says "You retain full ownership to your stuff" while not also pointing out that Google says the same thing, "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
Quote: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works [...]
Full text: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/
Ignoring the fact that paragraph 1 and 2 directly contradict each other, I supposed what they want to say is:
1. By default all your data belongs to us.
2. We generously narrow the scope in the TOS for some of our services.
Personally I find this inacceptable.
The default should be keep their hands off my data. If individual services need more rights then that should be in the TOS of the respective services.
I think we can agree that it would be unfair for someone to place content in Google Drive and then turn around and sue Google for copyright infringement when it is uploaded to their servers, no?
That doesn't seem intentionally vague to me. I suppose a restriction on using vacation photos in their ads would be nice... But is that really what people are concerned about? That doesn't seem very likely or threatening.
The likelihood? Small. But if it happens, you'll have Google befitting from that artist's work, and the artist less able to do so. The artist would have given away his right to sue, possibly unknowingly (because who reads TOS'?!) And of course Google won't pay him. Not because they don't want to, but because they know it'll open the floodgates of similar claims!
(and as an aside, you can most definitely sue for copyright infringement no matter what a click-through license says)
This is the terms for every Google product. If it was changed for line by line detail for every product, it would change so frequently that users could never know what was in it or agree to it. Drive hooks in with a ton of Google services, its policy would likely be hundreds of pages long if it was not "intentionally vague".
Dropbox's terms are similar, except to sound like they were not written by a lawyer.
> "We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction"
Sounds like a license to use and create derivatives to me...
In addition, this policy is directly related to "submitting content". I do not interpret that to include storing files on a storage service or sending email through a hosted email source. Submitting content needs to be defined, but it is not the same as copying a file into a storage bin. After putting an image into your Google drive, you might then submit it to Picasa, or you may even have an automated process of submitting all files in your Google drive to Picasa, but the submission of that content has to be considered a different act than just storing data on a hosted storage drive.
Everything you do is by default copyright by you in the US. When you make a copy of your own work and give it to somebody the recipient of that copy needs a license from you to describe how they are allowed to use it. If the person you give it to does not receive a license from you, then they are violating your copyright and you can sue them. This means that the second you upload a work of your own to Google, if they do not have a license to that data then they are violating your copyright -- even though you chose to upload it to them.
When you conclude that Google intended to say "By default all your data belongs to us" you are showing that you really don't understand the difference between owning a copyright and having a license. Please, stop speaking with authority about copyright issues if you do not understand them because it does not do the HN community a service.
You still own the copyright on your work and you have given Google a license to use it. That license is broad because Google (and in this case Google Docs/Drive) has a broad set of features that allow you to do lots of things with your data. When you use a feature like sharing a Google Doc with somebody, you are not doing those things -- you are asking Google to do those things with your data via HTTP requests. Google has to be a allowed to do those things legally and the license implements that. For example, Google Docs/Drive has that 'Anyone with the Link' ACL that allows anyone on the Internet to view or edit your document so of course Google needs a "worldwide license to host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works...". You or anyone else editing a document in Google Docs is creating derivative works of that original document you uploaded.
Please, understand that "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content" means just what it says. And "you give Google [...] a worldwide license [...]" is not at all contradictory with that. I've only talked about US law at this point but remember that Google has to deal with copyright in every country. A broad license like this is just a fact of offering the features Google does worldwide.
Then they couldn't receive your uploaded data. Or your email. Or your videos.
This is the overal terms for all Google products, it was exactly the same as before Drive (since their privacy policies got merged recently). Read the second to last sentence of paragraph 2:
> Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services.
The global policy is the most broad, pretty common sense. Google will read your files so you can search them, but they aren't going to start selling your content.
When you type something like "www.yahoo.com" into your browser, for instance, your request hits your Internet service provider's DNS server, which translates it into a numeric IP address. If you plug that IP address into your browser's URL bar in lieu of the web address, barring any IP tricks, you'll land on the exact same web page.
End quote.
Matt, have you ever run an http server? Did you actually try the experiment you describe? Yahoo has long required a Host name in addition to an IP address. No Host name, no dice.
Most http servers are serving differing (or the same) content for a variety of Host names. The buzzword is "virtual hosting". The person running such a server may choose to accomodate the situation where no Host name is provided, and serve you some "default" content. Or he made not. Where the web (http) is concerned, IP addresses alone will rarely suffice. The web of course is only a small part of the internet.
Also, would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "IP tricks".
I have a bigger problem with "tech journalism" like this than I do with Google Drive and other cloud storage nonsense.
$ dig yahoo.com
[ ... ]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
yahoo.com. 1153 IN A 98.139.183.24
[1] https://img.skitch.com/20120426-gdhrn9wpum12y39ifui3um37b2.j...
The bottom line is don't be stupid and assume private corporations with shareholders interests (money) at the heart of their activity, will not snoop.
If you do not want others looking at your stuff, put in a container which you actually own or can at least put a big lock on.
I wish that there was cloud storage/syncing product that catered to paranoids like some of the people on HN. What if Dropbox allowed you use your own public/private key pair for encryption. They would no longer be able to see anything you own, or use de-duplication, but I'd be willing to pay for this added service. And a web and mobile interface would still be possible, Dropbox could even keep your (encrypted) private key in your Dropbox, and then ask you to enter your passphrase to decrypt it whenever you want to access files.
I get google mail, with 6+ gigs of quota.
I can make free calls via google's email website.
I have a google phone number from GVoice. If my phone service is deactivated, I still get calls and texts and transcription. All I need then is to log in via a free wifi.
I have all my contacts saved from my phone, along with free recording and voicemail transcription.
I have a full history of what I've previously searched, along with what links I found.
I have a chat service hooked up to my email.
And now, I can back up critical files like my resume and documents on GDrive.
I also make 7.25/hr , with no benefits, nor any employee perks whatsoever. I am also a "part time employee" and in an at-will state. I had to take this job after unfortunate events. I like eating.
What google provides is something I COULD NOT pay for elsewise. If I pay with some datamining, so be it. I gladly accept that trade.
They'll only datamine a poor person. If my data (and lack of money) is good enough for Google, good on them. I would value what I'm getting at $50/month.
I have an interview tomorrow, for a tech position. The fact I can give them a phone number that "always works" is spectacular. The same goes with my email as well. Do you know what my chances are of getting a job with neither of those things?? None.
And I also value my privacy. But at this point, my privacy is approaching 0, because of free services like Google. Perhaps when (if ever) I make a decent wage, I will come back to this tradeoff.
But for now, I'm looking at this as a form of corporate welfare for poor people. I benefit. They benefit.
I'm not exactly OK when they say they can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works (...), publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."
Also, I wouldn't call my resume a "critical file". The source of the work I create (e.g. software), is a "critical file" if they can just use it however they want.
Ignore the hysterical reactions by those with an agenda. That section of the ToU explicitly applies to information that you explicitly make public (such as posting on Google+).
These are matters of law and when it comes to a court, what is clearly written down matters more than what your assumptions are.
Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause.
Which part of the agreement can you point to, to prove to the judge that Google violated your rights?
I'm sorry but when people are intentionally cherry picking incendiary parts of one ToS while intentionally ignoring those in another, that speaks to an agenda. The reporting has not been more clear.
>Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause.
"Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
This could not be clearer. The principals of intellectual property and copyright are well enshrined and are not abstract ideas. That overarching statement invalidates the ludicrous notion that Google is going to sell your script, or do anything else to monetize private content beyond the most obvious of building a profile (which is no different from Microsoft, your beloved, or Apple).
Worth pointing out that this is almost exactly false. Courts can and routinely do modify or reject clauses or whole contracts in accordance with what the parties believed they agreed to, or simply what the court believes is fair. The idea that anything written down and signed is legally binding is pure Hollywood.
Were Google to take your intellectual property without compensation, that clause (even assuming it applied) would not offer them protection.
I am _not_ a software designer. Nor do I create any sort of content that people wish to pay me for. I work as a gas station attendant right now, and have no creative endeavors lined up.
I also said I would reconsider this agreement when I make more money. But the value I receive far exceeds what value Google makes on me.
Also, for someone who is looking for work, and is aggressively looking, a resume IS is critical file.
Although, I would like to see an investigation of free services of this nature indeed helps people on their feet. I'm not sure if poor people realize what can be done to alleviate problems. (note: not saying we poor are stupid, but instead just not aware of choices)
Good luck with the job hunt! I'm in the exact same boat!
2 lines, unlimited text and phone, with free 2g data is 55$ a month. Also all "pay SMS" and other scammy services are neutered by the provider unless I explicitly allow them.
I also live at my parents, so in a pinch, I can redirect GVoice to the house landline. It's not the best of solutions, but it does work.
Be aware, you're not watching YouTube and stuff from the speed of connection. However it's awesome for emails and tethering. I can do an amazing amount of work from an eeePC (gifted) and a tethered iPhone, with google services.
The interview went awesomely well. It's for level 2 tech at a university