6 ms·

Just curious here, but why are people outraged over this? They clearly violated Google's policy, and there were repercussions. Those rules are there to protect

Just curious here, but why are people outraged over this? They clearly violated Google's policy, and there were repercussions. Those rules are there to protect Google; perhaps their only legal recourse to cover themselves after a rule violation is to suspend the account?

addicted 10y ago
What if your landlord cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have 3 guests visit and stay with you this month, instead of the 2 allowed by the lease? Would that be okay with you? And that wouldn't even be as bad as this, because a lease is a far more legally applicable document unlike TOS's which no one reads. Further, at least your violation there is related to your apartment. The TOS being violated here was for a hardware device that isn't the service being disrupted. And the worst part is that the act that was in violation is one that governments want to encourage, to the point that owners are protected from being sued. Since Google can't attack them the ordinary way, they are using their leverage on those users with their other products to prevent them from conducting this act. This whole thing is terrible in many ways.
- relics443 10y ago
  A. Landlords can most certainly terminate your lease because of that. They can't throw you out immediately because of tenant protection laws, and they have to let you get your belongings once you're evicted. B. ToS are just as legally binding as a lease (provided they are presented in the right manner, which is how Google presents them). No one cares of you actually read them or not. As soon as you check the box that said you read and agree to them, you're legally bound to follow them. C. No one ever said that repercussions have to match the violation. As I said, perhaps suspending the account is the only way Google can comply or protect themselves legally. D. Google has no interest in attacking anyone. They simply follow the protocol they set for this occurrence. The common denominator here seems to be that people are getting outraged that they can't break the rules and get away with it.
  - Hnrobert42 10y ago
    Are you seriously trying to argue the current ToS situation is reasonable? Seriously?
    - relics443 10y ago
      I'm telling you a fact. A ToS is legally binding. Outrage, and wishing it weren't so won't change that.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        Actually, many aren't. Many Terms of Service agreements or EULAs are looked at quite critically today because of the fact that companies reasonably expect that nobody has read them. Sensible provisions tend to be upheld, unfair ones... aren't always. If I install an app, and buried in it's EULA is a requirement that I become their indentured servant, it isn't enforceable.
      - Asooka 10y ago
        5¢ have been deposited to your Google Wallet.
- tw04 10y ago
  What if your "landlord" (and by landlord I mean your buddy who is letting you stay in his apartment complex free of charge other than making you read through the occasional newspaper flier) cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have a raging house party that encompassed the entire 20th floor of his building. None of those apartments were occupied so you just broke down the doors and let people run wild. They destroyed pretty much every apartment on the floor. Would you expect that to happen? Would you want a lot of sympathy from other people because he just cut you off without prior warning? No? The whole thing is terrible only in the way that people like this and the dealer who buy up products that are high in demand and low in supply are the scum of the earth. They provide absolutely no value to the supply chain and make life more difficult for honest buyers.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Equating "life more difficult" with "destroying apartments" is silly.
    - tw04 10y ago
      Equating "copy of my data" with "my housing situation" is even more silly. Google isn't TAKING anything from you by locking the account, they are simply destroying what should be one of many COPIES of your data.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Sorry, but you misread that, the housing situation comes into play by way of gmail also being a mailing receipt address and key for many locks.
        tw04 10y ago
        This would be the equivalent of you putting your key in a mailbox on the corner that you don't own, free of use, with no guarantees around it being there at any point in time. One day you go to grab your key and it's gone. Who's at fault? Google LITERALLY tells you in the TOS that you both don't own any content served up by their platform, and that they may suspend you at any time they choose. >We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct. >Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. If that's where you're storing your "key" - you should probably re-evaluate your personal storage policies.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Presumably the argument would be "because otherwise the landlord accepts legal responsibility". Which means that if your apartment burns down with 3 guests in it he not only is not covered by fire insurance (that contractually puts occupancy limits because of legal demands on them), but actually has to pay for the ambulance and medical costs because "he created an unsafe situation". So "why would people complain" ... it's a matter of perspective and maybe ideology. I would say the other reaction is easier : make sure you have 5 google accounts. One is email and you DO NOT use it for anything even remotely business related.
morganvachon 10y ago
Only speaking for myself, but I'm put off because Google is punishing its users with a digital death sentence because they sold a phone that was originally bought from Google at full retail price. Yes, it's against the service agreement for the Fi phone service, but at most Google should only be allowed to suspend the user's Fi account, not irretrievably delete their entire Google identity. It's retaliation and punishment, and it shouldn't be legal. Basically, Google is claiming that these folks paid full retail price for a device they don't actually get to own, as they apparently don't have a resale right to it. That's a load of horseshit as far as I'm concerned. All of that said, this is a perfect example of why you should diversify your online services and always, always have an offline backup.
- relics443 10y ago
  It's not retaliation or punishment. It's process. At the end of the day, rules were broken. If you can't handle the repercussions then don't break the rules. Pretty simple.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Yes, Google is within their rights, but that doesn't change that this is a dick move. Personally this is just the impetus I needed to leave gmail.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    In most concepts of justice there is the idea of proportional punishment. For example it would not be considered just to cut off someone's foot when they are caught speeding. Yes, they broke a rule, but the punishment is a huge overreaction. Google now has so many services, that so many people use for so many things (at Google's encouragement!) that cutting off everything for a minor violation of purchase terms seems like an unfair overreaction. And it's bad business. I am most definitely going to think twice before putting data into Google now. In order to grow, Google needs its users to trust it. This seems like a gross violation of that trust.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    The problem is that the customers broke the rules of their Google Fi service. I wouldn't be as upset if Google just suspended that one service (though I maintain that Google should not be allowed to do anything in retaliation for a customer exercising their right to resell a full retail purchase). However, Google is not only suspending their phone service, they are deleting the user's entire Google account. For some people that goes all the way back to 2004 when Gmail started. That's a hell of a slap in the face, and they are doing it without warning nor chance for appeal. Even if you agree with Google's stance on this, you must realize that this is horribly negative publicity for them, right? There are people (myself included) who are immediately seeking alternative services and planning to drop Google altogether because of this. It's highly disturbing that they would so casually drop the hammer.
Mithaldu 10y ago
They could've contacted people with a warning first. Act like actual humans. A company acting like a pure machine towards humans is not acceptable. Besides that: Google is digitally killing people here for doing something whose damage to Google is not obvious to a layperson, and honestly not even obvious to me.
- relics443 10y ago
  Perhaps they needed to suspend the account immediately to cover themselves legally? Besides most things at Google are automated. It's likely that a human didn't actually press the button that suspended the accounts.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    I don't care about technical justifications, i was talking about morality and humanity. Google is still a company composed of humans, but a few people in there seem to lack a certain amount humanity. Please do keep in mind: They digitally killed people here in something that looks like pure and petty spite from Google. Some of these people might have relied on their gmail account for their livelihood. (Think remote freelancers, etc.) You can also look at it like this: The punishment is wildly out of proportion to the crime.
    - Asooka 10y ago
      Even if Google is staffed by humans (it is), they have to act in-line with their job description. So long as their internal policies are the way they are, Google the company will lack humanity. And you can't change the internal policies because that's against shareholder interests.

addicted 10y ago

What if your landlord cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have 3 guests visit and stay with you this month, instead of the 2 allowed by the lease? Would that be okay with you? And that wouldn't even be as bad as this, because a lease is a far more legally applicable document unlike TOS's which no one reads. Further, at least your violation there is related to your apartment. The TOS being violated here was for a hardware device that isn't the service being disrupted. And the worst part is that the act that was in violation is one that governments want to encourage, to the point that owners are protected from being sued. Since Google can't attack them the ordinary way, they are using their leverage on those users with their other products to prevent them from conducting this act. This whole thing is terrible in many ways.

relics443 10y ago
A. Landlords can most certainly terminate your lease because of that. They can't throw you out immediately because of tenant protection laws, and they have to let you get your belongings once you're evicted. B. ToS are just as legally binding as a lease (provided they are presented in the right manner, which is how Google presents them). No one cares of you actually read them or not. As soon as you check the box that said you read and agree to them, you're legally bound to follow them. C. No one ever said that repercussions have to match the violation. As I said, perhaps suspending the account is the only way Google can comply or protect themselves legally. D. Google has no interest in attacking anyone. They simply follow the protocol they set for this occurrence. The common denominator here seems to be that people are getting outraged that they can't break the rules and get away with it.
- Hnrobert42 10y ago
  Are you seriously trying to argue the current ToS situation is reasonable? Seriously?
  - relics443 10y ago
    I'm telling you a fact. A ToS is legally binding. Outrage, and wishing it weren't so won't change that.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Actually, many aren't. Many Terms of Service agreements or EULAs are looked at quite critically today because of the fact that companies reasonably expect that nobody has read them. Sensible provisions tend to be upheld, unfair ones... aren't always. If I install an app, and buried in it's EULA is a requirement that I become their indentured servant, it isn't enforceable.
    - Asooka 10y ago
      5¢ have been deposited to your Google Wallet.
tw04 10y ago
What if your "landlord" (and by landlord I mean your buddy who is letting you stay in his apartment complex free of charge other than making you read through the occasional newspaper flier) cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have a raging house party that encompassed the entire 20th floor of his building. None of those apartments were occupied so you just broke down the doors and let people run wild. They destroyed pretty much every apartment on the floor. Would you expect that to happen? Would you want a lot of sympathy from other people because he just cut you off without prior warning? No? The whole thing is terrible only in the way that people like this and the dealer who buy up products that are high in demand and low in supply are the scum of the earth. They provide absolutely no value to the supply chain and make life more difficult for honest buyers.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Equating "life more difficult" with "destroying apartments" is silly.
  - tw04 10y ago
    Equating "copy of my data" with "my housing situation" is even more silly. Google isn't TAKING anything from you by locking the account, they are simply destroying what should be one of many COPIES of your data.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Sorry, but you misread that, the housing situation comes into play by way of gmail also being a mailing receipt address and key for many locks.
      - tw04 10y ago
        This would be the equivalent of you putting your key in a mailbox on the corner that you don't own, free of use, with no guarantees around it being there at any point in time. One day you go to grab your key and it's gone. Who's at fault? Google LITERALLY tells you in the TOS that you both don't own any content served up by their platform, and that they may suspend you at any time they choose. >We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct. >Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. If that's where you're storing your "key" - you should probably re-evaluate your personal storage policies.
candiodari 10y ago
Presumably the argument would be "because otherwise the landlord accepts legal responsibility". Which means that if your apartment burns down with 3 guests in it he not only is not covered by fire insurance (that contractually puts occupancy limits because of legal demands on them), but actually has to pay for the ambulance and medical costs because "he created an unsafe situation". So "why would people complain" ... it's a matter of perspective and maybe ideology. I would say the other reaction is easier : make sure you have 5 google accounts. One is email and you DO NOT use it for anything even remotely business related.

morganvachon 10y ago

Only speaking for myself, but I'm put off because Google is punishing its users with a digital death sentence because they sold a phone that was originally bought from Google at full retail price. Yes, it's against the service agreement for the Fi phone service, but at most Google should only be allowed to suspend the user's Fi account, not irretrievably delete their entire Google identity. It's retaliation and punishment, and it shouldn't be legal. Basically, Google is claiming that these folks paid full retail price for a device they don't actually get to own, as they apparently don't have a resale right to it. That's a load of horseshit as far as I'm concerned. All of that said, this is a perfect example of why you should diversify your online services and always, always have an offline backup.

relics443 10y ago
It's not retaliation or punishment. It's process. At the end of the day, rules were broken. If you can't handle the repercussions then don't break the rules. Pretty simple.
- wyager 10y ago
  Yes, Google is within their rights, but that doesn't change that this is a dick move. Personally this is just the impetus I needed to leave gmail.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  In most concepts of justice there is the idea of proportional punishment. For example it would not be considered just to cut off someone's foot when they are caught speeding. Yes, they broke a rule, but the punishment is a huge overreaction. Google now has so many services, that so many people use for so many things (at Google's encouragement!) that cutting off everything for a minor violation of purchase terms seems like an unfair overreaction. And it's bad business. I am most definitely going to think twice before putting data into Google now. In order to grow, Google needs its users to trust it. This seems like a gross violation of that trust.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  The problem is that the customers broke the rules of their Google Fi service. I wouldn't be as upset if Google just suspended that one service (though I maintain that Google should not be allowed to do anything in retaliation for a customer exercising their right to resell a full retail purchase). However, Google is not only suspending their phone service, they are deleting the user's entire Google account. For some people that goes all the way back to 2004 when Gmail started. That's a hell of a slap in the face, and they are doing it without warning nor chance for appeal. Even if you agree with Google's stance on this, you must realize that this is horribly negative publicity for them, right? There are people (myself included) who are immediately seeking alternative services and planning to drop Google altogether because of this. It's highly disturbing that they would so casually drop the hammer.

Mithaldu 10y ago

They could've contacted people with a warning first. Act like actual humans. A company acting like a pure machine towards humans is not acceptable. Besides that: Google is digitally killing people here for doing something whose damage to Google is not obvious to a layperson, and honestly not even obvious to me.

relics443 10y ago
Perhaps they needed to suspend the account immediately to cover themselves legally? Besides most things at Google are automated. It's likely that a human didn't actually press the button that suspended the accounts.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  I don't care about technical justifications, i was talking about morality and humanity. Google is still a company composed of humans, but a few people in there seem to lack a certain amount humanity. Please do keep in mind: They digitally killed people here in something that looks like pure and petty spite from Google. Some of these people might have relied on their gmail account for their livelihood. (Think remote freelancers, etc.) You can also look at it like this: The punishment is wildly out of proportion to the crime.
  - Asooka 10y ago
    Even if Google is staffed by humans (it is), they have to act in-line with their job description. So long as their internal policies are the way they are, Google the company will lack humanity. And you can't change the internal policies because that's against shareholder interests.