5 ms·

I see this as a double-edged sword. 1. It makes sense that Google wants to stop apps from abusing their storage platform. There are a lot of projects that abus

I see this as a double-edged sword. 1. It makes sense that Google wants to stop apps from abusing their storage platform. There are a lot of projects that abuse the data storage capacity. There was that one app that converted files to Base64 or something and was storing files that way as email text. Obviously not cool. However, Google needs to be explicitly clear on expectations and throw some people-power behind the reviews, since many are being denied by (seemingly) some automated process. 2. The second issue I see is that it will encourage less secure methods of using these apps. SMSBackup+ in particular is discussing the possibility of moving to "App Passwords" to bypass 2FA and provide the app access it needs to upload and store the data. Issue being, App Passwords are incredibly fragile, they provide near-unfettered access to IMAP and other account features with no auditing. Caveat emptor and all that. I think SMSBackup+, specifically, has a bit of a gray line as SMS messages can technically be sent via email and vice versa, (among other similarities). It's a shame that Google is becoming so draconian about their data storage uses.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lordpankake 7y ago
I doubt this has anything to do with my Unlimited Drive storage thing. Google are doing this to stop API consumers from storing user data on their own, presumably less safe than Google's, servers. I agree with that decision completely.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Just read it again. To me, it reads like this: Google is going to prevent users from storing users' data elsewhere. As if it's Google's data, not users'. Though with the free tier this as well may in fact be the case :-/
  - nicholosophy 7y ago
    There's that aspect. I also imagine there is the other side where the third party has crap data security. End users figure that their data is safe with Google and may not consider that there is a third party with their various levels of security. I can see Google copping a lot of heat should Company X have a data leak and that data was originally gathered from a users Google data store, whether it is justified or not.
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    If a 3rd party gets breached with Gmail-sourced data, the headline isn't going to be "No Name plugin breached". It's going to be "Gmail data breached".
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Presumably less secure is not the issue. Buried in the fine print of many of these tools that save you money or do other things with your account is explicit permission to share / distribute / use your data in lots of ways. It's explicitly not secure. These scam apps trade off being inside the protected platforms, so users expand their trust assuming (incorrectly) that a third party app will treat their data well. "This is how scammers are now abusing Google Calendar to pillage your data" "Gmail app developers have been reading your emails" The headlines are ALREADY happening. Why should google risk their brand so some grow fast and break things startup can create the next cambridge analytica scandal? They are one big CA type scandal away from being looked at as the next facebook (not a good look).
baroffoos 7y ago
How can you abuse storage? You get n gb of storage on your account. Why does it matter what you store on it or what tools you use to utilize it?
- ddalex 7y ago
  Some things such as google docs text documents do not count towards your quota - so people converted data to base64 and uploaded that as docs to get free storage - bit of a dick move if you ask me, as it forces google to take steps like this one and kill the goodness for the rest of us
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Google offered unlimited storage of private documents and people used it. I see nothing wrong with that. If this became an issue then goggle should have set limits or made it count to your google account storage. There is no point offering "Unlimited storage" and then stop people from using it.
    - sdenton4 7y ago
      I went to a restaurant that offered free refills last week. I brought a 50 gallon barrel with me, and then took home a whole barrel of soda... (Or, in other words, somehow all sense of fair play and decorum go out the window once we're anonymous on the internet. And this is why we can't have nice things.)
      - air7 7y ago
        That's in interesting point. It's not so much that the sense of fair play is lost, but that it changes. Somehow, we lose track of the human factor when we don't see it and focus solely on "logic" or our own self interests. In this example "unlimited", which actually means "unlimited within reason" works perfectly well (even though it isn't well-defined) in a human setting. We naturally and instinctively understand that people don't mean "take as many as you want" or "make yourself at home" literally. But on the internet, if it's a data/storage plan, we might get angry at anything less than infinity, because logically > "There is no point offering Unlimited storage and then stop people from using it." I see this also apply to our "moral ease-of-use" for adblockers/paywall bypassers/torrents etc.
nullwasamistake 7y ago
Security is the go-to excuse for taking away control from users these days. For those that run Gmail on their own domain this makes 0 sense. They have control over the whole domain, restricting access to Gmail does nothing for security
- londons_explore 7y ago
  If you're a paid Google apps customer, these restrictions don't apply.
CPLX 7y ago
> However, Google needs to be explicitly clear on expectations and throw some people-power behind... lol

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lordpankake 7y ago

I doubt this has anything to do with my Unlimited Drive storage thing. Google are doing this to stop API consumers from storing user data on their own, presumably less safe than Google's, servers. I agree with that decision completely.

nine_k 7y ago
Just read it again. To me, it reads like this: Google is going to prevent users from storing users' data elsewhere. As if it's Google's data, not users'. Though with the free tier this as well may in fact be the case :-/
- nicholosophy 7y ago
  There's that aspect. I also imagine there is the other side where the third party has crap data security. End users figure that their data is safe with Google and may not consider that there is a third party with their various levels of security. I can see Google copping a lot of heat should Company X have a data leak and that data was originally gathered from a users Google data store, whether it is justified or not.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  If a 3rd party gets breached with Gmail-sourced data, the headline isn't going to be "No Name plugin breached". It's going to be "Gmail data breached".
privateSFacct 7y ago
Presumably less secure is not the issue. Buried in the fine print of many of these tools that save you money or do other things with your account is explicit permission to share / distribute / use your data in lots of ways. It's explicitly not secure. These scam apps trade off being inside the protected platforms, so users expand their trust assuming (incorrectly) that a third party app will treat their data well. "This is how scammers are now abusing Google Calendar to pillage your data" "Gmail app developers have been reading your emails" The headlines are ALREADY happening. Why should google risk their brand so some grow fast and break things startup can create the next cambridge analytica scandal? They are one big CA type scandal away from being looked at as the next facebook (not a good look).

baroffoos 7y ago

How can you abuse storage? You get n gb of storage on your account. Why does it matter what you store on it or what tools you use to utilize it?

ddalex 7y ago
Some things such as google docs text documents do not count towards your quota - so people converted data to base64 and uploaded that as docs to get free storage - bit of a dick move if you ask me, as it forces google to take steps like this one and kill the goodness for the rest of us
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Google offered unlimited storage of private documents and people used it. I see nothing wrong with that. If this became an issue then goggle should have set limits or made it count to your google account storage. There is no point offering "Unlimited storage" and then stop people from using it.
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    I went to a restaurant that offered free refills last week. I brought a 50 gallon barrel with me, and then took home a whole barrel of soda... (Or, in other words, somehow all sense of fair play and decorum go out the window once we're anonymous on the internet. And this is why we can't have nice things.)
    - air7 7y ago
      That's in interesting point. It's not so much that the sense of fair play is lost, but that it changes. Somehow, we lose track of the human factor when we don't see it and focus solely on "logic" or our own self interests. In this example "unlimited", which actually means "unlimited within reason" works perfectly well (even though it isn't well-defined) in a human setting. We naturally and instinctively understand that people don't mean "take as many as you want" or "make yourself at home" literally. But on the internet, if it's a data/storage plan, we might get angry at anything less than infinity, because logically > "There is no point offering Unlimited storage and then stop people from using it." I see this also apply to our "moral ease-of-use" for adblockers/paywall bypassers/torrents etc.

nullwasamistake 7y ago

Security is the go-to excuse for taking away control from users these days. For those that run Gmail on their own domain this makes 0 sense. They have control over the whole domain, restricting access to Gmail does nothing for security

londons_explore 7y ago
If you're a paid Google apps customer, these restrictions don't apply.

CPLX 7y ago

> However, Google needs to be explicitly clear on expectations and throw some people-power behind... lol