22 ms·
Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS
- mikece 5y agoGoogle says you can request a review if you believe something should not have been flagged as a ToS violation but no mention is given to any rights you have. To me this reads as "You can request whatever you want but it might not mean anything in reality.": https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2463328 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2463328 Conversely, the information for how to report what you perceive as a ToS violation is far more complete: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2463296 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2463296
- RankingMember 5y agoThe "but you can request a review!" handwaving all these massive tech platforms use to assuage concerns about heavy-handed (and coldly automated) policy application is really long overdue for serious consumer protection regulation.
- howdydoo 5y agoI like to imagine the AI spits out a line like this: > Should we ban this user? YES Then you request a review, and the support person double-checks that the output really does say "YES" and not "NO". Then they tell you they reviewed their decision.
- unilynx 5y agoGDPR art 22 might protect against this (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/). I wonder if someone has already tried to invoke it against a Google/FB/.. ban hammer.
- hsod 5y agoI used to work at a big co on system like this. The appeal button sent your job for another review. Obviously it doesn’t cost anything to click a button so almost everyone did it. Appeal jobs were split into tiers based on customer size and higher tiers were worked first. Big enough customers got the white glove treatment from their account manager. Small customers could linger for months in the queue, but could usually get the decision reversed if they tried hard enough
- throw_m239339 5y agoStill waiting for my request about my adsense ban for violating not a single ToS to be processed. 15 years. And I'd like my money back, plus interest as well.
- tomschlick 5y ago"The AI has determined it has done nothing wrong and as punishment has deleted 50% of your files. Do not make that mistake again."
- EGreg 5y agohttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw
- rexreed 5y agoI'm starting to change the way I'm sharing YouTube links to avoid continuing to feed that beast. I replace with the Invidious yewtu.be link. So for example, the above is: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw. De-Google Detox.
- Kaze404 5y agoConsidering their history with falsely-flagged videos on YouTube, I assume this to be "you can ask for a review but we're not gonna do anything about it lol".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- busymom0 5y agoNot just YouTube, even play store developers who get their apps removed arbitrarily are left with talking to a robot instead of a human unless they can create enough social media storm to get some media attention and then google might finally review it.
- bastardoperator 5y agoRequest a review from Google? Real human intervention? That's cute... but we know how this actually goes with them.
- edge17 5y agoGoogle doesn't exactly have a great reputation for customer support.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cft 5y agoNext is email, including ML attachment policing
- imchillyb 5y agoIf you're not using your own backup solution on your own hardware, located on your own property, you're failing IT 101. Any cloud service can change their Terms of Service without notice, and those changes are almost always detrimental to customers. Seriously, move your saved data in-house. Cloud drives are for ignorant consumers.
- notfed 5y agoIf you're using your own hardware on your own property you're probably failing resiliency 101.
- baybal2 5y agoIf you use anything on a commercial basis with Google, go to small claims court without hesitation, and pull the answer from them rather than keep paying them to lawyertroll you on your own money. Depending on your jurisdiction, small claim courts can actually shut down the binding arbitration clause. In Canada, Google had a long history of losing by defaults in small claims
- jasonjayr 5y agoIf you do this though; be prepared to lose access to everything you have in Google.
- hobs 5y agoYep - here's how to download your Google data https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190?hl=en
- notyourday 5y ago> If you use anything on a commercial basis with Google, go to small claims court without hesitation, and pull the answer from them rather than keep paying them to lawyertroll you on your own money. And be blacklisted from using Google products and services.
- coffeefirst 5y agoYeah... We should probably have an anti-retaliation law for cloud services like we do for landlords and employers.
- RegnisGnaw 5y agoNote that you can still access your files, they are not blocking that or restricting that. Its the sharing that's blocked.
- Goronmon 5y agoYeah, to me this makes this kind of a non-issue. Because I always assumed that any cloud provider like this would be capable and willing to block sharing of files based on their policies.
- anshumankmr 5y agoBut seriously how long is it before Google implements a hashing algorithm (not too dissimilar from Apple's) to check if a user has not uploaded content with a copyright on it and taking some form of action on the user. This feels like a slippery slope to be on.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThey have been doing this since forever. Years ago if you tried to upload obviously pirated movie mp4s (like the most popular torrent for a given major release) it would error out.
- ugjka 5y agoWhat if you actually own the copyrighted content or have permission to have it?
- anshumankmr 5y agoOf course, that is an edge case which Google would need to figure out and perhaps, one of the many reasons they haven't done it.
- rurp 5y agoSadly I expect that Google will "handle" those edge cases the same way they handle similar issues on Youtube: have a lot of false positives and tell users to pound sand, except for cases where the outrage goes viral.
- semenko 5y agoI don't quite grasp the panic about this: my impression is Google currently restricts ToS violations from sharing (your own access is retained). The only change here is end-users will be explicitly notified (and can theoretically contest the decision).
- archhn 5y agoThe panic is people's fear of the Iron Heel[1]. For most of us, the systems we depend on are controlled by other people. In this chaotic political climate, when these systems start closing in on us, or restricting us in new ways, there's no way of knowing where the tightening will end. Some are incredibly insulated and have no worries about the kind of world we're living in, but others are constantly on edge and feel that we're sleepwalking into a dystopian nightmare. That's what this "panic" is about. [1]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm
- jeffbee 5y agoThe only basis we have for panic here is that reading skills and critical thinking are in dangerously short supply among commenters here, who collectively believe themselves to be smart and independent thinkers despite all available evidence.
- archhn 5y agoBig tech has been rolling out censorship all over the place lately. People suspect that ulterior political motives are causing Google to do this. I don't think mistrusting the motives of Google means that the people here lack "reading skills and critical thinking." One of the terms included in its abuse policies is "hate speech." This is an extraordinarily ambiguous word which can virtually apply to any speech that is critical of anything. It is a term that has come to be known, by some of us, as a tool the political left uses to censor dissent. For example, saying that a man is a man and a woman is a woman can be considered hate speech against the trans community. This move is part of a larger trend. Some people see it. Others don't.
- ncann 5y agoI believe this may be due to the popular spamming method lately which is tagging people into a Google Docs and share it so everyone receives a notification (the spam message). It works better than regular email spam since apparently Gmail doesn't treat Google Docs notification email as spam (at least not as often).
- qnsi 5y agothere is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive. TBH I'm surprised they havent started earlier
- ncann 5y agoPeople have used Google Drive for sharing pirated stuffs since forever. Google usually blocks it by restricting downloading instead of removing the file, but people kept finding out new ways to get around that, like making a copy of the file in your own drive, or selecting that file and another one to download so that Google zips up both into one zip file before downloading.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoPeople have been using password protected archives to get around pirated content restrictions since forever.
- unilynx 5y agoDoes Google even have to look at the content? I assume most pirated content will also have a massive number of anonymous downloads, and shouldn't that trigger some fair-usage clause somewhere ?
- gentleman11 5y agoSame for game mods
- 5y ago
- umvi 5y agoNote that files can be restricted not just for violating ToS, but also "program policies"[0]. This includes files that are identified as: CSAM, Circumvention, Dangerous and Illegal Activities, Harassment, Bullying, Hate Speech, Misleading Content, Spam, Violent Organizations and Movements, and more. Google further notes they "may make exceptions based on artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific considerations, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content." [0] https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505
- jsnell 5y agoDiscussed 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29593096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29593096
- mikece 5y agoI hope it's not a violation of the ToS to use a front-end like Cryptomator -- https://cryptomator.org/ https://cryptomator.org/ -- that encrypts files before uploading to Google Drive.
- StreamBright 5y agoMeaning Google has access to all of the files stored on Google Drive, including and not limited to: - your business secrets - GDPR data that you legitimately have This is exactly why I do not use Google Drive for anything business critical.
- rhmw2b 5y agoNote that client side encryption changes this https://support.google.com/a/answer/10741897?hl=en https://support.google.com/a/answer/10741897?hl=en.
- remus 5y agoIs that a surprise to anyone? It's literally a service where you upload your data directly to their servers. Businesses have contracts with other businesses to protect them against particular kinds of abuse of this data (e.g. google stealing business secrets, or leaking personal data as defined by GDPR) and google sticks to these because businesses would lost trust very quickly if they didn't respect the contracts they have.
- StreamBright 5y agoIt is a giant surprise to many managing directors and other people who are not that technical.
- kerneloftruth 5y agoYou're right. That's been my argument against trusting "the cloud" (i.e. somebody else who actually own the computers on which you place all your precious trade secrets and personal business) for the past 15 years...ESPECIALLY when there is no clear agreement or customer/vendor relationship, and they're doing it for "free".
- ricardobayes 5y agoThis is great, afaik Google Drive stuff is a nightmare for SoCs as they don't want to block the whole domain.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoOne easy to block is storage.googleapis.com ...Regularly used to host malware, but legitimate users generally throw their own domain in front of any usage of that service.
- ricardobayes 5y agoNo don't do that, this is exactly why IT/opsec is hated in organizations. False positives.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoI have so far seen a single instance where a legitimate organization sent someone a storage.googleapis.com URL. I have seen literally hundreds of phishing emails do it. Which is to say, the problem is organizations using storage.googleapis.com URLs, not organizations blocking them. And probably Google should be doing a better job policing content on their content domains if they don't want them to be blocked by default. (Similarly, all Chrome Web Store extensions should be blocked by default, with an allowlist for requested and vetted ones... there's simply too much malware to default to anything else.) I'd love to block Google Drive by default too, but there is enough legitimate use that at present that would cause too many false positives, and it's a balancing act.
- profmonocle 5y ago> Which is to say, the problem is organizations using storage.googleapis.com URLs, not organizations blocking them. Blocking this domain definitely isn't common, at least not in large organizations. Several of my company's B2B apps use Google Cloud Storage (it's just Google Cloud's version of S3) and have always used storage.googleapis.com/bucketname rather than bucketname.storage.googleapis.com. (AFAIK it was the default URL format shown in their documentation when I last looked at it years ago.) We've had to deal with overzealous corporate web filters now and then - comes with the territory of B2B apps - but I've never heard of storage.googleapis.com being blocked. It'd be pretty straightforward for us to change it if a customer had trouble, but we'd probably gently push back and ask them to whitelist the domain before doing so.
- exabrial 5y agoYikes. It's been said several times, don't use Google for anything important. The minute something goes wrong, you're so SOL and they literally could care less.
- marcodiego 5y agoWe need a distributed volunteer backed free replacement. Is IPFS or gnunet ready for that yet?
- api 5y agoThere are many replacements for tech savvy people, but few for people who lack the skills or time to futz around with configurations and installs and software updates. Regular users need something that just works instantly and never needs maintenance. If it doesn’t just work it’s broken.
- jeffbee 5y agoRight, we need to trade a vanishingly small probability that anti-abuse systems at Google will flag your school photos as Al Qaeda propaganda for the much higher probability that your files hosted on an elaborate scheme operated mostly by 4chan users will be unavailable due to widespread malfunction, malice, and capriciousness.
- marcodiego 5y agoNo. We have to replace a service with incentives which are not always on the user side with something that is a distributed volunteer backed free replacement.
- rsync 5y ago"We need a distributed volunteer backed free replacement. Is IPFS or gnunet ready for that yet?" Or you could just choose a provider who respected your privacy and had a very long history of standing for freedom of speech and the rights of users. If only such a provider existed. If only ...
- rei_ayanami 5y agoNextcloud
- 5dd83f0e 5y ago
- jeffbee 5y agoThis came up on HN a few days ago with a similarly hyperbolic editorialized headline. Google has always restricted objectionable content from being shared on Drive, Docs, or wherever the platform has sharing features. Google is, obviously, not going to act as a free static hosting service for your malware and porn. What's new is that customers with paid accounts are going to be notified when their content has been restricted from sharing. Before this change it was silent from the user's perspective.
- Manheim 5y agoThis is deeply disturbing news. It is already a problem that people get their Google accounts closed without any explanation from Google and with no response from Google when they try to contact them. A story about Elin Killie Martinsen, a Norwegian journalist and writer who lost access to her book manuscripts this way, was recently run in the national newspaper Aftenposten (https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/8Qj1lG/uten-forklaring-ble-google-kontoen-hennes-plutselig-stengt-da-mistet https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/8Qj1lG/uten-forklaring-b...). The article is in Norwegian but to summarize she got this answer from Google; "There appears to be malicious content in your Google Account. This is a serious violation of Google's policy and may be illegal" with a link to this page https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40695?p=disabled_le3_signin1&visit_id=637743832180607469-3110883680&rd=1#why&zippy=%2Cterroristinnhold%2Ch%C3%B8yt-antall-anrop%2Cspredning-av-netts%C3%B8ppel%2Cseksuelt-misbruk-og-utnyttelse-av-barn https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40695?p=disabled_... . To the writer this was incomprehensible because she couldn't understand that any of her files could even be close to violating anything. I am already seriously considering discontinuing my subscriptions of their storage services, and this post about restricting files doesn't give me comfort.
- r00fus 5y agoIt's really bothering when the account just also happens to be your core email service so suddenly you have no way of recovering other accounts. Moving off Gmail is likely impossible for most non-technical folks.
- fs111 5y agoThere are plenty email providers out there. Free and paid. It should not be a problem for anyone to switch. Moving off of Gmail doesn't mean to self host. It is a bit of work to tell anyone about your new address, but that's it.
- bencollier49 5y agoChanging upwards of 200 logins to use a new email address may be troublesome. Do you keep a list?
- ApolloFortyNine 5y agoHonestly surprised they weren't forced to do this earlier, Google likely already hashes files for deduplication or integrity checks, making it rather trivial to keep a database of known pirated movie hashes. Obviously it can be easily defeated with encryption / changing the metadata, but it's so easy to implement I'm shocked they didn't do it earlier. Google drive is commonly used for a backup of media or even a host of media when using rclone.
- rsync 5y agoThis is, suddenly, a FAQ for us.[1] Many, many pre-sales conversations are now focused on whether or not we hash files or keep databases of file hashes, etc. Do we collude with other cloud providers to report file incidence. Or, for people who really have no idea who they are talking to "which cloud do (you) run on top of". This was not the case before. I think the advent of 'rclone'[2] has created a lot of use-cases that very efficiently use (cheap online drives) and all the kids are storing their warez with it. Yes, trivially easy to defeat with encryption and rclone has a very nice and simple workflow for this. [1] You know who we are. [2] https://rclone.org/ https://rclone.org/
- 5dd83f0e 5y agoWait for ToS banning 'double encrypted files' aka 'we encrypt your files on google' and user adding rclone or other crypt on top.
- max48 5y agoThey have been doing it since at least 2017. I noticed it on my account with Game of Thrones episode and when I googled it at the time, it was a known issue. They didn't warn you like they do for virus, the files simply wouldn't show up when people opened the shared folder.
- jorgeudajer 5y ago
- richardfey 5y agoHow is this going to be effective if files are encrypted and with no discernible name?
- KMnO4 5y agoI’d place bets that >99.9999% of files on Google Drive are not.
- richardfey 5y agoYes, but aren't the abusers now going to do exactly that?
- mcherm 5y agoPerhaps it may surprise you to learn that many "bad actors" are rather stupid. This is one of the few large advantages that defense has over offense in security matters.
- richardfey 5y agoYou could try to express yourself in less condescending ways, it should have a positive outcome, on average, in interactions with people
- everdrive 5y agoRemember, this means Google has already been scanning and collecting the contents of your Google drive. All they’re talking about is applying a filter to certain files they find objectionable. Even without this announcement, this could happen at any time. If one day something you own is found to be illegal or objectionable, Google may delete it without notice. At worst, they may report you to the authorities.
- donkeybeer 5y agoHow on earth is this seen as surprising? Its their servers, they can read anything you upload, I thought this was common sense part of the bargain.
- everdrive 5y agoBeing able to read the fat you upload is different from doing it automatically and en masse, and then applying rules and filters to that data. As with many topics, this should be self evident to many HN readers, but I doubt it is obvious to most users of Google Drive.
- donkeybeer 5y agoAutomatic monitoring should also be obvious at this scale. Also I am sure non-technical users also understand what it means to put up something on someone else's website.
- znpy 5y agoAren't we even scared anymore by the fact that google is inspecting our files?
- helloworld11 5y agoWhy in god's name do so many people with even modest IT knowledge keep using this invasive dumpster fire of a cloud service with conditions like this one and others being piled on? There are so many affordable, secure and easy to use options on the web that trusting Google with your data seems absurd, especially considering how easily the company can simply permaban you for no discernible reason and not a human in range to dispute the matter with. At this stage, using any Google service is sort of like trying to expect decent customer service from the DMV and IRS rolled into one.
- judge2020 5y agoBecause (A) it's a usable interface accessible by pretty much anyone [with a phone number, as of recent] (B) it's cheap as you don't pay for bandwidth and storage is either $0 for 15GB or paid storage at a low-priced rate[0] (C) all of that storage is geo-redundant and thus extremely unlikely to ever be lost, outside of Google terminating accounts (which isn't part of a lot of people's risk models). 0: https://one.google.com/about/plans https://one.google.com/about/plans
- brutal_chaos_ 5y agoPerhaps one should encrypt files before uploading to cloud services. Sure it destroys the possibility of webview for your data, but then you don't have to worry about situations like this.
- willk 5y agoUnless they decide that encrypted files violate their TOS.
- hellojesus 5y agoWhich should be a red flag not to use the service because they're collecting your data for any and all reasons.
- ipaddr 5y agoThis is your redflag
- userbinator 5y agoThat's what steganography is for.
- b215826 5y agoI've been using rclone+restic to back up files to my university-provided Google Drive, which has unlimited storage. Apart from occasional "rate limit exceeded API warnings", I haven't faced any issues so far. Wonder if that'll change with the new policy.
- notfed 5y agoCryptomator is a great tool for this.
- buro9 5y agoI never thought I'd consider going back to MS Office or Libre Office... but the thought that my Google Account and all of my files are at risk by a company that has well known poor customer support is very scary.
- makecheck 5y agoWe need “dumb” infrastructure again, that you can simply pay for with few strings attached, where the provider cannot fiddle with things at all, leaving enforcement to other authorities. We build roads; yes, those roads might be used to transport stolen goods but the road builder doesn’t get to sit there and inspect every vehicle (and accuse the wrong people sometimes and ban them from driving). It’s just so damned complicated now and I don’t know how it got that way.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- RIMR 5y agoThat "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.
- sovietmudkipz 5y agoIs there a source that breaks down this sort of stuff on your own hardware in a beginner friendly or at least explicit way? One hesitation I have to exposing something public that may not be secure, compromising my home network. It’s intimidating and holds me back, a bit.
- BoysenberryPi 5y agoI'll second this. I'm pretty techno-savvy if I do say so myself but I haven't the slightest when it comes to self-hosting and security concerns also prevent me from doing it.
- umvi 5y ago> That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Can you though? I would consider AWS "in the cloud" yet they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally[0]. Same with Cloudflare[1]. So it seems even infrastructure-level cloud offerings are prone to moral arbitration. Hosting on your own hardware is the only option, but even then... I don't see any reason twitter mobs couldn't pressure Comcast or whoever is connecting your hardware to the internet to cut you off. [0] https://telecoms.com/508138/aws-banning-of-parler-exposes-the-precariousness-of-the-public-cloud/ https://telecoms.com/508138/aws-banning-of-parler-exposes-th... [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoWhich means: - google reads all your files - google judges your files - google has a set of opaque, arbitrary, ever changing list of things that can turn your files into a reason for locking you out So, basically: s/your files/their files
- MisterTea 5y agoWhen google said they were no longer giving way free storage I bought the cheapest 100GB google one plan for $20/yr. Last night I saw the renewal email and cancelled it. After nearly 10 years of Google usage including drive, email, and pictures (I rarely take videos) I have only ~30GB. Almost 15GB of that is in drive which is a simple "my docks" kind of backup and dumping ground. I'm moving my drive stuff to a cheap VPS running OpenBSD. Then I'm going to remove all photos and video from 2-3+ years ago. Then I'll just use the free plan for photos and email for the time being. My VPS will do the rest.
- judge2020 5y agoYou might still want to backup to a different location, given VPS's aren't immune to data loss. rclone with encryption works and ensures you are the only one with access to your data. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-outage-shows-data-in-the-cloud-is-not-always-safe/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-... https://www.techzine.eu/news/infrastructure/57005/ovh-share-overview-of-data-lost-in-fire/ https://www.techzine.eu/news/infrastructure/57005/ovh-share-...
- MisterTea 5y agoAt home I have an actual server that's a secondary (Xeon w/32GB ECC running FreeBSD w/20TB ZFS). Likely just use rsync between them.
- awinter-py 5y agooh they're removing files that violate their rules. my brain initially read this as removing files which download the uploader's tos, which is dystopian but in a much cooler way same prediction as always, moderation is an ecosystem that requires transparent enforcement and dispute processes. new moderation norms will bend the economics of social media towards the reddit model: small communities, moderation primarily provided by 'community owner'. Platforms provide a layer cake of less frequent 'nuclear option' bans on top of that -- platforms deplatforming communities so their host doesn't deplatform them.
- myko 5y ago"Available to all Google Workspace customers, as well as G Suite Basic and Business customers" So this isn't general Drive, only the paid for version? ie to prevent businesses from having employees with these files on their company Drive?
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoso people doing more creative writing will not really be able be able to rely on it for collaborative editing etc. as those are the users more likely to write something that will look like a violation. What would be a good collaborative platform for creative writing?
- jimkri 5y agoBased on the comments I thought it was about pirated content. But it seems focused on the spamming issues. It also looks like they have been focusing on document sharing with the new look that shows Guests and Members in Workspace. - I wonder how long it would take for your Workspace account to get shutdown if you have 10 users sending mass document invitation? - If a file is blocked from sharing, can i duplicate and re-share? Does anyone use the service MEGA?
- passivate 5y agoGoogle is upset because they're using Google services for advertising without paying them :)
- ggm 5y agoThe join over {IPR theft, AI, censorship and "think of the children"} is a strong reinforcing superset of all of the motivations here. CSAM opened the door to a conversation but we're a long way down the road to cloud backed storage being a gatekeeper not just a storage space. In my cloud or on my device, it's being looked at. What's missing is arbitration via neutral mediator. The contracts are written to favour the provider. Automated reasoning of your breach and the abysmal restitution process is bad, but we're also a lot further down that road than people think. The "help by public shaming" here is not a solution at scale. I pay for Google "one" and my hope is that excluding frank breach of the terms, paying them gives me one small extra edge in the "why did that happen and how do we fix it" space. I have found with ad spend, being a customer changes the relationship compared to free service. So.. there's hope. Probably misplaced.
- javajosh 5y agoThere is hope, and there will be fumbles on the way I think. The real solution is for us all to voluntarily run a CSAM scan on our systems that can trigger a notification to a nuetral arbiter (ideally something like an online jury of ones peers, but who don't know you) take a quick glance at the photo, determine it's your kids in the bathtub and not CSAM, and click "It's Fine". We would subscribe to updates to a CSAM scanning corpus which would parameterize the scan. The whole thing requires "trusting the client" but I bet there are ways to make it work. If it would defuse this movement toward total black box checking of content, then I think it's worth it to voluntarily do this kind of scan. The effectiveness presumes that the intersection of child porn consumers and users sophisticated enough to disable a scan like the one I'm imagining is very small.
- ggm 5y agoYou're modelling the compliance for good people. Threat and risk analysis has to model for bad actors. Your solution won't work because bad actors exist and will exploit it.
- 14 5y agoWhy should we run a scan on ourselves? Why should we be treated as a criminal for doing nothing wrong? The solution is to vote out anyone who thinks this is a good idea. To not support any company who tries to implement this kind of technology. It is absurd to think people will give up their rights to privacy in their homes to accommodate this kind of idea. Encryption is math and won’t be stopped. People will find a way to hide what they need any any of these systems only effects the non criminal user. Also I have hundreds of pictures of my kids in the bath. I always try and not get their private parts in the picture but with my hundreds and millions of people potentially with the same numbers it really is not possible for a human to lay eyes on that many pictures. Also that would itself open up avenues for abuse say it was just an innocent picture of my kids butt their are perverts out there that will get off on this. They are private photos of my family enjoying their youthfulness in a bathtub and never will I consent to someone browsing my private photos. This just seems whack.
- johnhowardstein 5y ago
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y agoUse MEGA for cloud file storage! It's wonderful and easy and zero-knowledge! https://mega.io https://mega.io Syncthing is also another great option. A little more setup, a little more control, significantly less trusting.