6 ms·

I 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

by ncann 5y ago

I 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 ago
there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive. TBH I'm surprised they havent started earlier
- ncann 5y ago
  People 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 ago
    People have been using password protected archives to get around pirated content restrictions since forever.
    - unilynx 5y ago
      Does 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 ago
        Same for game mods
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        They block upload even if you're not sharing it.
      - Namidairo 5y ago
        They already rate limit popular files that match these patterns. They don't actually block the file though, and there were (and still are) ways around the rate limit. (Which presumably they knew about to some extent, given you now cannot make copies of said files.) They could easily start taking action on obvious copyright violations using Drive, but it's unlikely they would want to, unless actually mandated to legally. I'm not sure what they would do about massive encrypted collections that have been rcloned onto their servers though. Aside from "please stop breaking our de-duplication".
- slg 5y ago
  >there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive Is anyone surprised by that? Every file sharing tool will invariable be used to share pirated and worse material until the people behind that tool show a willingness to stop that behavior. It is practically a universal law of the internet.
  - artificial 5y ago
    Is it really a service if it doesn’t facilitate infringement?
    - ruined 5y ago
      i was about to suggest that copyright enforcement as a service doesn't but no, really, they do their own special kind of infringement
- alkonaut 5y ago
  So basically: piracy, spam or anything you'd get into legal trouble for doing on your own hardware, Google restricts on their hardware. I can't really see how that's surprising or strange.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    If they're using content ID then they're also flagging legitimate fair use without providing a counternotice procedure.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      That’s unfortunate. But I’d fully understand if that’s the terms of the service, at least for cheaper tiers. Basically “store all you want but at this price point you are subject to errors in automated blocking”. At enterprise level I’d expect service from humans though, and I expect to pay for it.
Goronmon 5y ago
That and I'm not sure how different this is from cloud file sharers that disable file shares for reasons like piracy, which is something that I'm pretty sure Google Docs was doing already.
dqv 5y ago
Nah Google doesn’t care about that. Spammers have been doing it for years on Google Drive/Docs and Microsoft Sharepoint.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  You're restating GP comment about why Google may need to do this.
  - dqv 5y ago
    No, I am not. The GP said that it is a popular method lately and I explained that it has been happening for years. What TFA is saying is that there will be more communication about files being blocked, but it doesn't suggest to me this is a response to this kind of spam. What probably happened is a file BigCorp wanted to share was opaquely blocked so now Google feels the need to provide better communication. If Google were genuinely interested in stopping the spam, they would create a way for recipients to establish which organizations could send files to them.
    - tobyjsullivan 5y ago
      Except that’s not a real solution at all, is it? Whitelisting orgs would either be an opt-in or opt-out feature. If it’s opt-in, it won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up. If it’s opt-out, it will break sharing for 99.999% of users. These are never easy problems.
      - dqv 5y ago
        >won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up I would. And anyone who doesn't want the spam would. Right now we send "550 Too much spam" responses to docs and sharepoint emails. I'd be happy to, as an alternative, use an interface at Google or Microsoft that let me whitelist the organizations who can send files.
duskwuff 5y ago
Similarly: Google Forms being used for phishing, Google Calendar invite spam... I've even heard of Google Photos being used for spam (by "sharing" photos, or by posting photos with text as the target of a spam campaign). Spammers ruin everything.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  They truly do. And it doesn't even have to be many spammers, it only really takes one person to ruin a free service. I've had plenty of personal projects I had to shut down due to some random person who just decided to hammer my servers for no reasons. I block the IP or IP block and they get more. I put Captcha (HN always complains about it but this is why it's often needed...), and users (who pay nothing) complain that it's annoying. Running free services on the internet is truly a PITA.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    If that's true then I'd expect there to be personalized and well-funded counter-measures, for tracking and prosecution coordination with local law-enforcement and court system. Considering that one service could be worth many millions, and that can be destroyed by one person, it would make sense to spend the money.
    - hiptobecubic 5y ago
      How do you plan on prosecuting random people on the other side of the world that are sending garbage from a bot net? I can't even fathom the amount of money this would take to do reliably. Even if you did manage to find the person, you need the other government to actually _do_ something about it. It seems pretty intractable to me, given the scale.
    - dirtyoldmick 5y ago
      Yeah that's not going to happen unless you can convince everyone to implement a 1 world government.
  - 7373737373 5y ago
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible So it's probably a combination of things, including piracy. They're not forbidding people from storing or retrieving the files, just not allowing anyone to publicly host whatever they want on Google's servers. Seems reasonable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quitit 5y ago
  I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities. Of course this point of view is silly - Google have done very well to make users the product. A win:win scenario for those which couldn't afford the pay-for equivalents, but their ceaseless ability to kill useful services proved that they were never benevolent, nor a charity. The internet has grown up, and so has the ability to scan masses of data for liabilities - Google's change here is not controversial or unexpected, and realistically if people have a problem with the many problems with US copyright laws they need to pick up their pens, change who they vote for and vote with their wallet. As for the implementation I think it's pretty fair - they aren't stopping the user from their 'backups', they're just preventing their hardware and bandwidth being used as a piracy BBS.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    I'm using internet since the simpler, lawless period. Yes, I miss the excitement of a new Netscape Navigator release, or using some new tool, and just being able to explore anything and everything. OTOH, I welcome this change. Instead of losing my access or getting a strike on my account, I'd rather have my file merely flagged and stopped being shared (not that I share a lot). I think service providers should be more transparent about problems they see with the users' accounts, so users can take appropriate actions. Of course there can be other mechanisms to prevent abuse, or lawful intercept (which is another can of worms that I want to leave it at the top shelf for now). So, I've read a Google blog without bad feelings for once. That's good.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
denysvitali 5y ago
As someone who suffered (and complained a lot) about this issue, I kind of fail to understand how this could possibly help fight the spam. This seems to be more related to DMCA violations to be honest. Anyways, my spam issue stopped around two months ago. After I complained to Google for those spammy tags with multiple examples forwarded and multiple cases opened, they seem to have solved the issue (or added me to some sort of mention exclude list lol)

by ncann 5y ago

qnsi 5y ago

there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive. TBH I'm surprised they havent started earlier

ncann 5y ago
People 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 ago
  People have been using password protected archives to get around pirated content restrictions since forever.
  - unilynx 5y ago
    Does 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 ago
      Same for game mods
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      They block upload even if you're not sharing it.
    - Namidairo 5y ago
      They already rate limit popular files that match these patterns. They don't actually block the file though, and there were (and still are) ways around the rate limit. (Which presumably they knew about to some extent, given you now cannot make copies of said files.) They could easily start taking action on obvious copyright violations using Drive, but it's unlikely they would want to, unless actually mandated to legally. I'm not sure what they would do about massive encrypted collections that have been rcloned onto their servers though. Aside from "please stop breaking our de-duplication".
slg 5y ago
>there is also a method for sharing pirated media using google drive Is anyone surprised by that? Every file sharing tool will invariable be used to share pirated and worse material until the people behind that tool show a willingness to stop that behavior. It is practically a universal law of the internet.
- artificial 5y ago
  Is it really a service if it doesn’t facilitate infringement?
  - ruined 5y ago
    i was about to suggest that copyright enforcement as a service doesn't but no, really, they do their own special kind of infringement
alkonaut 5y ago
So basically: piracy, spam or anything you'd get into legal trouble for doing on your own hardware, Google restricts on their hardware. I can't really see how that's surprising or strange.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  If they're using content ID then they're also flagging legitimate fair use without providing a counternotice procedure.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    That’s unfortunate. But I’d fully understand if that’s the terms of the service, at least for cheaper tiers. Basically “store all you want but at this price point you are subject to errors in automated blocking”. At enterprise level I’d expect service from humans though, and I expect to pay for it.

Goronmon 5y ago

That and I'm not sure how different this is from cloud file sharers that disable file shares for reasons like piracy, which is something that I'm pretty sure Google Docs was doing already.

dqv 5y ago

Nah Google doesn’t care about that. Spammers have been doing it for years on Google Drive/Docs and Microsoft Sharepoint.

bdcravens 5y ago
You're restating GP comment about why Google may need to do this.
- dqv 5y ago
  No, I am not. The GP said that it is a popular method lately and I explained that it has been happening for years. What TFA is saying is that there will be more communication about files being blocked, but it doesn't suggest to me this is a response to this kind of spam. What probably happened is a file BigCorp wanted to share was opaquely blocked so now Google feels the need to provide better communication. If Google were genuinely interested in stopping the spam, they would create a way for recipients to establish which organizations could send files to them.
  - tobyjsullivan 5y ago
    Except that’s not a real solution at all, is it? Whitelisting orgs would either be an opt-in or opt-out feature. If it’s opt-in, it won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up. If it’s opt-out, it will break sharing for 99.999% of users. These are never easy problems.
    - dqv 5y ago
      >won’t prevent 99.999% of spam because nobody will set it up I would. And anyone who doesn't want the spam would. Right now we send "550 Too much spam" responses to docs and sharepoint emails. I'd be happy to, as an alternative, use an interface at Google or Microsoft that let me whitelist the organizations who can send files.

duskwuff 5y ago

Similarly: Google Forms being used for phishing, Google Calendar invite spam... I've even heard of Google Photos being used for spam (by "sharing" photos, or by posting photos with text as the target of a spam campaign). Spammers ruin everything.

ehsankia 5y ago
They truly do. And it doesn't even have to be many spammers, it only really takes one person to ruin a free service. I've had plenty of personal projects I had to shut down due to some random person who just decided to hammer my servers for no reasons. I block the IP or IP block and they get more. I put Captcha (HN always complains about it but this is why it's often needed...), and users (who pay nothing) complain that it's annoying. Running free services on the internet is truly a PITA.
- javajosh 5y ago
  If that's true then I'd expect there to be personalized and well-funded counter-measures, for tracking and prosecution coordination with local law-enforcement and court system. Considering that one service could be worth many millions, and that can be destroyed by one person, it would make sense to spend the money.
  - hiptobecubic 5y ago
    How do you plan on prosecuting random people on the other side of the world that are sending garbage from a bot net? I can't even fathom the amount of money this would take to do reliably. Even if you did manage to find the person, you need the other government to actually _do_ something about it. It seems pretty intractable to me, given the scale.
  - dirtyoldmick 5y ago
    Yeah that's not going to happen unless you can convince everyone to implement a 1 world government.
- 7373737373 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible So it's probably a combination of things, including piracy. They're not forbidding people from storing or retrieving the files, just not allowing anyone to publicly host whatever they want on Google's servers. Seems reasonable.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quitit 5y ago
I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities. Of course this point of view is silly - Google have done very well to make users the product. A win:win scenario for those which couldn't afford the pay-for equivalents, but their ceaseless ability to kill useful services proved that they were never benevolent, nor a charity. The internet has grown up, and so has the ability to scan masses of data for liabilities - Google's change here is not controversial or unexpected, and realistically if people have a problem with the many problems with US copyright laws they need to pick up their pens, change who they vote for and vote with their wallet. As for the implementation I think it's pretty fair - they aren't stopping the user from their 'backups', they're just preventing their hardware and bandwidth being used as a piracy BBS.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  I'm using internet since the simpler, lawless period. Yes, I miss the excitement of a new Netscape Navigator release, or using some new tool, and just being able to explore anything and everything. OTOH, I welcome this change. Instead of losing my access or getting a strike on my account, I'd rather have my file merely flagged and stopped being shared (not that I share a lot). I think service providers should be more transparent about problems they see with the users' accounts, so users can take appropriate actions. Of course there can be other mechanisms to prevent abuse, or lawful intercept (which is another can of worms that I want to leave it at the top shelf for now). So, I've read a Google blog without bad feelings for once. That's good.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

denysvitali 5y ago

As someone who suffered (and complained a lot) about this issue, I kind of fail to understand how this could possibly help fight the spam. This seems to be more related to DMCA violations to be honest. Anyways, my spam issue stopped around two months ago. After I complained to Google for those spammy tags with multiple examples forwarded and multiple cases opened, they seem to have solved the issue (or added me to some sort of mention exclude list lol)