5 ms·

I don't know why Dropbox is catching so much flak for this when the TOS were standard stuff you see pretty much anywhere. ex: http://www.google.com/accounts/TO

by itg 15y ago

I don't know why Dropbox is catching so much flak for this when the TOS were standard stuff you see pretty much anywhere. ex: http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS “By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.” “You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.”

jinushaun 15y ago
Hating on Dropbox seems to be the flavour of the week on the intarwebs it seems. Fascinating to see how easily geeks fall prey to basic thought manipulation by the media. Aren't we supposed to be smarter than the average bear?
- alanthonyc 15y ago
  I've recommended Dropbox to a number of personal friends throughout the past couple of years. When the first security incident (Dropbox employees being able to read files when they said they couldn't) came up a couple of months ago, one of my friends emailed me to ask what the deal was with this company. He doesn't know them from HN. He only knows them from me. In my circle, I'm the one responsible for Dropbox. When the password incident came up a couple of weeks ago, I was on guard and emailed my friends proactively before they found out about it via news sites. I don't bash on Dropbox because: - they have a great product - security is hard - startups are hard - they are a yc company But I think it's fair to say that: - they made mistakes - they handled the initial mistakes poorly - they are now working to address any issues, but... - ...every subsequent action is therefore under more scrutiny In summary, there is no thought manipulation by the media. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned from this, but being dismissive of it is the exact wrong thing.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I think people bash on them because they are so widely used, and they have messed up twice, both times very publicly. I love their service and continue to use it, but I am not impressed with their track record about security issues. Security is probably the biggest reason people will avoid offsite storage of their data.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  They've made multiple mistakes, and handled the fallout of those mistakes badly. "Hating" is a term used by people who want to trivialise legitimate concerns.
- dskhatri 15y ago
  You've mirrored my thoughts, and quite succinctly. However, I feel that it's not the media that is the seed of the manipulation but other geeks (through their blogs or comments on news.yc). Remember, the media lurks on sites like news.yc, picking up and amplifying trends for mass-market consumption. It's what makes News.YC so special, if not a little dangerous.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  What if it's not manipulation? What if it's passive "infection" with a meme? People are much less in control of what they think, than they think. So to speak.
wmf 15y ago
Because people don't remember stuff that happened over a month ago.
djackson 15y ago
From the same page: "Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist)."
- alain94040 15y ago
  That clause is by definition perfectly useless, because of its preample: "other than set forth in Section 11". So it does nothing to limit the license granted in section 11. It's just eye candy. Now, if you could define clearly for me what "in connection with" in section 11 means: use such Content in connection with the provision of those services Does "in connection with" include the need to make money on that free service by selling that content to a third-party? Where does the connection start and stop?
jewlsmcnabb 15y ago
b/c they were advertising a "safe" way to store your files and they seem to suggest in that advertising that nobody but you can view the contents of your files stored on dropbox. however, that is not the case...hence the flak. is also a universal TOS that pretty much says "we can do whatever the fuck we want." doesn't make false/misleading advertising legal. besides, the TOS you linked to is a universal one...any "Additional Terms" will override them and are usually more specific. for example, http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms.html http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms.html

by itg 15y ago

jinushaun 15y ago

Hating on Dropbox seems to be the flavour of the week on the intarwebs it seems. Fascinating to see how easily geeks fall prey to basic thought manipulation by the media. Aren't we supposed to be smarter than the average bear?

alanthonyc 15y ago
I've recommended Dropbox to a number of personal friends throughout the past couple of years. When the first security incident (Dropbox employees being able to read files when they said they couldn't) came up a couple of months ago, one of my friends emailed me to ask what the deal was with this company. He doesn't know them from HN. He only knows them from me. In my circle, I'm the one responsible for Dropbox. When the password incident came up a couple of weeks ago, I was on guard and emailed my friends proactively before they found out about it via news sites. I don't bash on Dropbox because: - they have a great product - security is hard - startups are hard - they are a yc company But I think it's fair to say that: - they made mistakes - they handled the initial mistakes poorly - they are now working to address any issues, but... - ...every subsequent action is therefore under more scrutiny In summary, there is no thought manipulation by the media. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned from this, but being dismissive of it is the exact wrong thing.
joejohnson 15y ago
I think people bash on them because they are so widely used, and they have messed up twice, both times very publicly. I love their service and continue to use it, but I am not impressed with their track record about security issues. Security is probably the biggest reason people will avoid offsite storage of their data.
mike-cardwell 15y ago
They've made multiple mistakes, and handled the fallout of those mistakes badly. "Hating" is a term used by people who want to trivialise legitimate concerns.
dskhatri 15y ago
You've mirrored my thoughts, and quite succinctly. However, I feel that it's not the media that is the seed of the manipulation but other geeks (through their blogs or comments on news.yc). Remember, the media lurks on sites like news.yc, picking up and amplifying trends for mass-market consumption. It's what makes News.YC so special, if not a little dangerous.
Florin_Andrei 15y ago
What if it's not manipulation? What if it's passive "infection" with a meme? People are much less in control of what they think, than they think. So to speak.

wmf 15y ago

Because people don't remember stuff that happened over a month ago.

djackson 15y ago

From the same page: "Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist)."

alain94040 15y ago
That clause is by definition perfectly useless, because of its preample: "other than set forth in Section 11". So it does nothing to limit the license granted in section 11. It's just eye candy. Now, if you could define clearly for me what "in connection with" in section 11 means: use such Content in connection with the provision of those services Does "in connection with" include the need to make money on that free service by selling that content to a third-party? Where does the connection start and stop?

jewlsmcnabb 15y ago

b/c they were advertising a "safe" way to store your files and they seem to suggest in that advertising that nobody but you can view the contents of your files stored on dropbox. however, that is not the case...hence the flak. is also a universal TOS that pretty much says "we can do whatever the fuck we want." doesn't make false/misleading advertising legal. besides, the TOS you linked to is a universal one...any "Additional Terms" will override them and are usually more specific. for example, http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms.html http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms.html