Google Drive--Even More Evil

In article <fmoore->,
Fred Moore <> wrote:

> In article
> <lybanon->,
> Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:
>
> > In article <fmoore->,
> > Fred Moore <> wrote:
> >
> > > Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know
> > > it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit
> > > of information it can compile about you.
> > >
> > > In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched
> > > Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and
> > > Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> >
> > 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
> > needed.
>
> If, Matthew, you mean the two occurrences of 'it's' in the second quoted
> paragraph, you are absolutely correct. Should have been 'its'. My bad.
> Haste makes waste. Thanks for your substantive contribution to the
> discussion.

Reminds me of something that's been attributed to every dead scholar in
history (see note), when some author sent him a manuscript to read:
"Thank you for sending me your book; I shall waste no time in reading
it."

Note to see: I've seen it attributed to Disraeli, Oscar Wilde,
Churchill, and Ben Johnson.
--

.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

In article <s3hn69->, Paul Sture <>
wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, Fred Moore wrote:
>
> > Use ANY Google service at your peril.
> >
> > You have been warned!
>
> But are they any worse than the rest?

For brevity, I didn't quote the Dropbox TOS from the CNET article in my
original post. Here it is:

"Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with
information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together,
"your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim
any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to
your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that
are needed to run the Services, as explained below."

'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!', but I like the tone of
that. Unless they completely contradict it somewhere else in their TOS,
why isn't that good, binding insurance?

To also respond to Bread's point that Wuala doesn't have encryption keys
so it can't respond to government demands for info, that's certainly a
plus. However, I never put ANYTHING on a Fog service which I don't mind
seeing on the front page of the New York Times (or Fox Lies), unless I
have encrypted it myself with AES256 so it's not available. In other
words, my password backup list is well encrypted and unavailable to
prying eyes on Dropbox. Other miscellaneous docs are not, but I still
don't want to give away any rights to the Fog storage provider. With
Dropbox's TOS, I don't.

(Fog is a cloud which hasn't entirely gotten off the ground.)

Fred Moore <> wrote:

> For brevity, I didn't quote the Dropbox TOS from the CNET article in my
> original post. Here it is:
>
> "Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with
> information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together,
> "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim
> any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to
> your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that
> are needed to run the Services, as explained below."
>
> 'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!', but I like the tone of
> that. Unless they completely contradict it somewhere else in their TOS,
> why isn't that good, binding insurance?

In particular, I note that the dropbox terms specifically limit their
use to things "needed to run the Services." That's the kind of stuff I
*want* them to be able to do - else I wouldn't be using the services.

On the other hand, the Google Drive terms include allowing Google to use
your stuff to promote their services. That's a whole different ball game
and could cover darn near anything.

I accidentally read one article about this issue on, as Fred accurately
calls it, "Fox Lies". (Clicked a link without noticing that was where it
went to). It had a comment that the competing services all had simillar
terms, but that comment seemed to completely paper over the differences,
mentioning only the parts that supported the point (as typical). That
bit about use for promoting the service is a pretty big difference to
me.

Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

In article <1kj5jdc.c860iyk68pmoN%>,
ure (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
> granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
> of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
> little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.

Note that Google tried this before with the introduction of Picasa IIRC.
I in fact posted that by the terms of that TOS, Google could sell the
photo of your cute 7-month-old granddaughter to a Chinese manufacturer
which could be put it on a product ending up in Wal-Mart. Now whether
there is a real risk to the child in this, I can't say; but what
responsible parent or grandparent would agree to this? And certainly not
without a substantial royalty payment to the child's college fund.

In article <fmoore->,
Fred Moore <> wrote:

> In article <1kj5jdc.c860iyk68pmoN%>,
> ure (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
> > granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
> > of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
> > little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.
>
> Note that Google tried this before with the introduction of Picasa IIRC.
> I in fact posted that by the terms of that TOS, Google could sell the
> photo of your cute 7-month-old granddaughter to a Chinese manufacturer
> which could be put it on a product ending up in Wal-Mart. Now whether
> there is a real risk to the child in this, I can't say; but what
> responsible parent or grandparent would agree to this? And certainly not
> without a substantial royalty payment to the child's college fund.

I agree with you.

Someone will shirley come along and <whiney_voice> That's a worst-case
scenario </whiney_voice> to which I would reply <superior_smug_tone>
Getting shot in the neck by a drunken 16-year-old crack-head with a 25
acp is a worst-case scenario too. That's why we have laws banning
crystal meths, 25 calibre pistols (where I live), and under-age drinking
</superior_smug_tone>

That said, I've set up my Drive account; I'll see how it works.
--

.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

On 04-26-2012 10:41, Bread wrote:
> Wuala -- which, unlike the rest of them, does not have the ability to
> access or read your files because they don't have your encryption key.

They're _probably_ on the level, but is their app open source?
Or has anyone verified with non-Wuala code that the encryption
actually does depend on the key you supposedly don't give them?

If you use that key with their app to decrypt your files, it's
possible for the app to send them the key.

i doubt that would happen, but it's possible.

--
Wes Groleau

There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

On 04-26-2012 10:03, Warren Oates wrote:
> Matthew Lybanon<> wrote:
>>
>> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
>>
>> 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
>> needed.
>
> The passive voice should never be used.

It's OK to end a sentence with. A preposition.

--
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
— Clarence Darrow

In article <jnclhp$nce$>,
Wes Groleau <Groleau+> wrote:

> On 04-26-2012 10:03, Warren Oates wrote:
> > Matthew Lybanon<> wrote:
> >>
> >> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> >>
> >> 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
> >> needed.
> >
> > The passive voice should never be used.
>
> It's OK to end a sentence with. A preposition.

This is pedantry up with which I will NOT put!

--
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you
handy.
--Red Green

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:25:06 -0500, Matthew Lybanon wrote:

> In article <fmoore->,
> Fred Moore <> wrote:
>
>> Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know
>> it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit
>> of information it can compile about you.
>>
>> In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched
>> Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox
>> and Microsoft's SkyDrive.
>>
>>
> ...
>
> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
>
> 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
^^^^
> needed.

<snigger>One of Murphy's Usenet rules kicks in again:

"Any Usenet post which points out grammar or spelling mistakes in a
previous post will contain grammar or spelling mistakes in the
correction."


--
Paul Sture

In article <5ngq69->, Paul Sture <>
wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:25:06 -0500, Matthew Lybanon wrote:
>
> > In article <fmoore->,
> > Fred Moore <> wrote:
> >
> >> Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know
> >> it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit
> >> of information it can compile about you.
> >>
> >> In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched
> >> Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox
> >> and Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> >>
> >>
> > ...
> >
> > RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> >
> > 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
> ^^^^
> > needed.
>
> <snigger>One of Murphy's Usenet rules kicks in again:
>
> "Any Usenet post which points out grammar or spelling mistakes in a
> previous post will contain grammar or spelling mistakes in the
> correction."

I'm pretty sure he did it on purpose, for ironic reasons. Notice that
the second clause has the reverse mistake.

--
Barry Margolin,
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***