Google Drive--Even More Evil

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Fred Moore, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    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.

    Just one hitch:
    ANYTHING YOU SAVE TO GOOGLE'S CLOUD, GOOGLE CLAIMS *IT*OWNS*!!!

    From Google Drive's terms of service (TOS):
    "Your Content in our Services: When you upload or otherwise submit
    content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a
    worldwide licence to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create
    derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations
    or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our
    Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and
    distribute such content...

    "...This licence continues even if you stop using our Services..."

    All your data are belong to US!

    Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain
    ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that
    content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!?

    What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?

    More details here:

    <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-goog
    le-drive/>

    Use ANY Google service at your peril.

    You have been warned!

    --
    The problem with Crapitalism is there is an infinite supply
    of vicious, greedy bastards demanding everything for themselves
    and happy to let everyone else pay the price.
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fred Moore

    Warren Oates Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    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.


    Jeezus, Fred, Jolly Roger is going to have to kill-file you now.
    --

    .... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
     
    Warren Oates, Apr 25, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fred Moore

    JF Mezei Guest

    Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
    other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
    might go with them.
     
    JF Mezei, Apr 25, 2012
    #3
  4. Fred Moore

    Bread Guest

    On 2012-04-25 17:44:56 +0000, JF Mezei said:

    > Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
    > other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
    > might go with them.


    Dropbox, Wuala, Box.net to start with.

    And many apps, both desktop and iOS, are "aware" of these services and
    either deal with them directly or are enable to use them through the
    normal filesystem. (In particular, Dropbox just syncs from a folder in
    your local filesystem, so you don't need any specific "cloud awareness"
    on the part of applications on the desktop. Wuala *can* do that, or
    can work purely cloud-like).

    None of them, however, take care of syncing my iCal and AddressBook
    information, which I'll really miss. I have one machine which cannot
    go beyond Snow Leopard and I'm not planning on retiring it soon. I was
    hoping for a long time that Apple would relent and enable some of the
    iCloud syncing for SL (and there were screen shots a long time ago from
    some dev build of SL which showed some iCloud stuff, but apparently
    they decided never to release that stuff).

    I'll miss the MobileMe galleries, too, but there are plenty of suitable
    substitutes (including, again, Dropbox and Wuala, both of which enable
    you to share photo galleries synced up to your local filesystem)

    I'm a little skeptical of GDrive, and appreciate Fred sharing the
    rather unpleasant terms of service.

    With Wuala, not only do they make no claims on your data, but they
    cannot even decrypt it.
     
    Bread, Apr 25, 2012
    #4
  5. Fred Moore

    Paul Sture Guest

    On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:44:56 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

    > Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
    > other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
    > might go with them.


    Wuala have just announced that they've bumped their free storage to 5GB.

    Allegedly to celebrate the third birthday of joining forces with Lacie.

    Wuala does require Java though, so if you are avoiding that product for
    whatever reason, Wuala isn't for you.

    --
    Paul Sture
     
    Paul Sture, Apr 25, 2012
    #5
  6. Fred Moore

    Paul Sture Guest

    On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, 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.
    >
    > Just one hitch:
    > ANYTHING YOU SAVE TO GOOGLE'S CLOUD, GOOGLE CLAIMS *IT*OWNS*!!!
    >
    > From Google Drive's terms of service (TOS): "Your Content in our
    > Services: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services,
    > you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide licence to use,
    > host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those
    > resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make
    > so that your content works better with our Services), communicate,
    > publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such
    > content...
    >
    > "...This licence continues even if you stop using our Services..."
    >
    > All your data are belong to US!
    >
    > Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain
    > ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that
    > content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!?
    >
    > What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?
    >
    > More details here:
    >
    > <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-

    goog
    > le-drive/>
    >
    > Use ANY Google service at your peril.
    >
    > You have been warned!


    But are they any worse than the rest?

    From Ars Technica:

    <http://bit.ly/IevpHq>
    ----------------------
    Google Drive files can end up in ads, even though you still own them

    When Ars spoke to the Electronic Frontier Foundation about Google Drive's
    terms of service, the EFF found little about them that was more
    suspicious than in any other similar cloud service. But Rebecca Jeschke,
    EFF's media relations director and digital rights analyst, paused over
    one phrase: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited
    purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to
    develop new ones." Promoting?
    -----------------------

    Also see that article's comments.

    --
    Paul Sture
     
    Paul Sture, Apr 26, 2012
    #6
  7. In article <-september.org>,
    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.
     
    Matthew Lybanon, Apr 26, 2012
    #7
  8. Fred Moore

    Warren Oates Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:

    > In article <-september.org>,
    > 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.


    The passive voice should never be used.
    --

    .... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
     
    Warren Oates, Apr 26, 2012
    #8
  9. Fred Moore

    Bread Guest

    On 2012-04-26 09:29:00 +0000, Paul Sture said:

    > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, Fred Moore wrote:
    >> Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain
    >> ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that
    >> content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!?
    >>
    >> What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?
    >>
    >> More details here:
    >>
    >> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-

    > goog
    >> le-drive/>
    >>

    >
    > But are they any worse than the rest?


    Maybe.
    >
    > From Ars Technica:
    >
    > <http://bit.ly/IevpHq>
    > ----------------------
    > Google Drive files can end up in ads, even though you still own them


    Note that that article discusses Dropbox, iCloud, Microsoft SkyDrive,
    and Google Drive but does not address 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. (Though all bets are probably off
    for anything you put into Wuala into a "public" area, such as their
    photo file sharing section).

    All the rest retain a key to unencrypt your data for "your" (and their)
    convenience - which has advantages - it can allow them to do things
    like make it easier for third party apps to access/use your data, set
    up a web page for you to be able to get at your data without a local
    app, etc etc. But it also means that, for example, if they are told to
    comply with law enforcement and turn your data over, they can turn it
    over unencrypted. Wuala also has to turn over data to law enforcement
    if asked - but since they don't have your keys, at most they can turn
    over your encrypted files. And if they have a security breach (like
    DropBox had a while back) nobody's going to get at your unencrypted
    files.

    At least that's all my understanding of it. I use both Dropbox and
    Wuala -- for different things. Dropbox definitely has much less
    obtrusive integration both into my filesystem and into all the apps,
    especially iOS ones, which can work with it. But the personal content
    either goes into Wuala or into encrypted files on Dropbox (ie.
    1Password uses Dropbox, but the datafile it keeps up there is encrypted
    by 1Password, not Dropbox).
     
    Bread, Apr 26, 2012
    #9
  10. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:

    > In article <-september.org>,
    > 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.
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 26, 2012
    #10
  11. Fred Moore

    Warren Oates Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    Fred Moore <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <-september.org>,
    > > 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
     
    Warren Oates, Apr 26, 2012
    #11
  12. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    In article <>, 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, Apr 26, 2012
    #12
  13. 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
     
    Richard Maine, Apr 26, 2012
    #13
  14. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    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.
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 26, 2012
    #14
  15. Fred Moore

    Warren Oates Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    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
     
    Warren Oates, Apr 26, 2012
    #15
  16. Fred Moore

    Wes Groleau Guest

    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.
     
    Wes Groleau, Apr 27, 2012
    #16
  17. Fred Moore

    Wes Groleau Guest

    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
     
    Wes Groleau, Apr 27, 2012
    #17
  18. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    In article <jnclhp$nce$>,
    Wes 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
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 27, 2012
    #18
  19. Fred Moore

    Paul Sture Guest

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

    > In article <-september.org>,
    > 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
     
    Paul Sture, Apr 27, 2012
    #19
  20. In article <>, Paul Sture <>
    wrote:

    > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:25:06 -0500, Matthew Lybanon wrote:
    >
    > > In article <-september.org>,
    > > 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 ***
     
    Barry Margolin, Apr 27, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nom
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,860
  2. Nom
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
  3. Harlan Osier
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
    Harlan Osier
    Jul 11, 2004
  4. Tide of Innocense

    My evil Gateway... need help...

    Tide of Innocense, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: Gateway
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    475
    Ben Myers
    Dec 8, 2003
  5. Aly
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
Loading...

Share This Page