40 ms·

Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

1117 points by thanatosmin 5y ago

superkuh 5y ago
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Putting your data in a megacorp basket means it'll be treated primarily with consideration towards their legal liability first, other megacorps second, and you third or fourth.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  If the megacorps buy up the best competitors, there's not much chance left for people, just use them.
  - gruez 5y ago
    It's true to some extent, but in the file storage space it's not really applicable. There are hundreds of competitors, and I'm not even sure if any file storage providers got bought up by "megacorps".
    - xiphias2 5y ago
      Not really. I'm using all parts of Google suite together as they are well integrated with every device I have and eachother. I am using Adobe cloud for photos instead of Google photos for example, and even there I quite often feel the difference in integration with the Android operating system.
      - asdff 5y ago
        Adobe software is especially annoying. There are probably five or six adobe launch daemons running in the shadows on my Mac as we speak and it's unclear if when I want to uninstall that their uninstaller will actually purge them all (in my experience, no), or I'm going to have to write a script to collect anything with adobe in the name and rm -rf. Microsoft is bad with this too on Mac at least. I tried killing a microsoft autoupdate daemon and I ended up getting a system notification like three times a day about it until I relented and reinstalled it.
version_five 5y ago
"A review cannot be requested for this restriction" ML enforcing rules is bad enough, but not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. This is why I would never consider g-suite for any business application. Otoh, I think there is a legitimate business to be made helping small businesses and individuals secure themselves against arbitrary behavior from big tech. This kind of thing can have serious consequences (imagine if it was something of real substance that got restricted without recourse) and people need to consider hardening their activities against google et al
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > ML enforcing rules is bad enough, not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. And potentially illegal. According to Article 22 of the GDPR: "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." I think that being accused of copyright infringement (and having your free speech rights curtailed) should count as "similarly significant" to a legal effect on someone.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    Free speech does not exist in the same way in the EU, where the GDPR exists, as it does in the U.S on edit: clarification as I seem to have offended some people, there is no right to free speech in Europe similar to the right in the U.S Bill of Rights, the closest is the following https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expre... hope this clarifies it for people. on edit 2: here you can get a country by country overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jrockway 5y ago
  How long until cloud providers are forced to scan block devices, so you can't even self-host a file erroneously flagged by the ML? (Actually, how long until this is integrated with the "security engine" in CPUs, so you can't even hide with encryption? Everyone is talking about on-device voice-recognition and CSAM recognition, but no doubt the copyright lobby is going to push hard for this as well.)
onion2k 5y ago
If Google has the copyright on "1", they only need to get "0" as well and they'll have everything.
- gvb 5y ago
  0 = 1 - 1 so they have everything already!
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    Only if they have patented -
    - wlesieutre 5y ago
      Not - as an abstract concept, but perhaps "a method and apparatus for subtracting numbers"
      - tragomaskhalos 5y ago
        There must be some internet law that states something like "no flippant comment about the absurdities of copyright law is so crazy that a patent troll won't be inspired by it"
    - version_five 5y ago
      Or XOR
    - gvb 5y ago
      Point of order: you've changed the method of restriction from copyright to patent.
- bluecheese33 5y ago
  https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-29 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-29
- misnome 5y ago
reaperducer 5y ago
I've said it before, Google is trying to be the new Microsoft. https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663 https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-18195...
PaulHoule 5y ago
Must have infringed on Metallica.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  Must be google's new Easter egg...
  - iszomer 5y ago
    "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"
ChicagoBoy11 5y ago
I experienced something similar building an internal tool on GSuite. I had a large file with sequences of 9 digit numbers specific to our use-case, all tied to names of people (employees). Whelp, at one point the tool I was working on stopped working, and it was flagged as apparently containing social security numbers (which I suppose matched the character length). Whelp, on the admin panel, you can get a report of those files, and then mark it as a false positive. Which I did. But then nothing happened, and nothing changed. It was no use. The hilarious bit: It did, of course, allow me to make a copy of the file in question, and then just point the resource I was building to the new file, which was exactly the same. Weeks later... so far, so good.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  Is this a tool that you pay money for? Sounds like it fails the 'fitness for purpose' test.
- slig 5y ago
  Google is working very hard to make everyone drop their shitty services.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  This is why running filters on automated data is never a good idea, and should never be accepted (at least for enterprise applications, but really for anything) .
- Arnavion 5y ago
  This is another case for only pushing encrypted files to storage hosts, unless it's against Google Drive's TOS or something. Has anyone tried it? Did Google complain?
  - anon9001 5y ago
    Tarsnap is entirely encrypted and the service provider can't see the keys. They run it on EC2 and S3: https://www.tarsnap.com/infrastructure.html https://www.tarsnap.com/infrastructure.html
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Protondrive is a thing. Zero knowledge storage needs to be the default everywhere.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  As is Mega. I don't know why one would ever use Google Drive, OneDrive or Dropbox when Mega and Protondrive are available.
  - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    The collaborative apps aspect of Suite/Drive is a wondrous 1-2 punch
tyingq 5y ago
I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a comment? Update: Recreated it. Most of them are now flagged. Took about an hour for that to happen. So far, all that have just one byte, being a "1", and also the one that contains "1\n". The one with "1\r\n" hasn't been flagged. The file names of the flagged files: "one.txt", "onev2.txt", "output04.txt" and "output05.txt". Screenshots of the email and Google drive: https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj (note the little flags on the Google drive view, and the file sizes) Just added some files with "0" and "0\n", we'll see if "0" is copyrighted :)
- tyingq 5y ago
  Update: It has now flagged the file with "0\n" in it. So it's official, Both 0 and 1 are copyrighted :) https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn
  - Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
    Well that MP3 the RIAA flagged was FULL of ones and zeros, so it only makes sense they would get flagged ;-)
  - bl4ckneon 5y ago
    Does that mean someone copyrighted binary? :p I guess that mean that this comment and everything digital is copyrighted.
    - jrockway 5y ago
      Technically any creative work you author is copyrighted, so your comment was copyrighted anyway. Whether or not large tech companies will punish people for infringing upon your copyright is yet to be determined.
TT-392 5y ago
"Thanks for helping google keep the web safe" Interesting thing to add in there, how on earth does copyright stuff have anything to do with safety?
- tyingq 5y ago
  Not that I agree with it, but here's the FBI view: "Not only can the violation of intellectual property rights damage the economy, it also poses serious health and safety risks to consumers, and often times, it fuels global organized crime." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft/fbi-anti-piracy-warning-seal https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip... No helpful detail on why it's not safe.
  - zerocrates 5y ago
    Since they went wide with "intellectual property rights" there, the references to health and safety are probably more in the realm of trademark and maybe patent... think counterfeit drugs. You can probably gin up a copyright example from, I dunno, the DRM system on some medical device or something, though that's obviously not the real focus of their copyright enforcement work.
    - coliveira 5y ago
      But drug safety is not an issue of copyright, but of physical control of medications. You don't need to break the copyright of a drug to create and distribute fake medication.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        But you might be able to trick more people to buy your fake medication if you put another company's logo on it. I'd hate to think that a country's procedures for stopping copyright infringement are so efficient that they are the optimal route for preventing the distribution of fake medication (even making trademark law pointless), but I must admit that comparing two images is simpler than comparing the composition of two medications. Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two approaches.
newhotelowner 5y ago
I am a small business owners. I pay for google one so that all my files are backed up and sync across devices. I also pay for backblaze to backup all my files (Just in the case google screws me). Is there an alternative for encrypted backup & sync between different computers?
- Filligree 5y ago
  Plenty. One of the easiest to use is probably Syncthing, if you’re thinking of self-hosting.
- kbumsik 5y ago
  I use Dropbox for almost 10 years and I have been using it well so far! Dropbox offers great file history and restoration support. One day I deleted files permanently then the team kindly supported my case to restore the files within a day.
- manquer 5y ago
  Depending on how technically inclined you are something like Tarsnap might be a good fit. [1] [1] https://www.tarsnap.com/ https://www.tarsnap.com/
- hyperdimension 5y ago
  You're talking about their subscription, Google [Removed for DMCA Violation]?
everyone 5y ago
It's so dystopian / Kafkaesque it's like a parody. "Thankyou for helping google keep the web safe" followed by... "A review cannot be requested for this restriction"
- slig 5y ago
  Computer says no.
lhorie 5y ago
I have a pet theory that all of these recent Google bloopers could be explained easily if you start from the assumption that Google internal incentives promote efforts to cut costs such as storage. "Garbage" docs, inactive email accounts, less search results etc can all be reasonably explained by a desire to not spend money on storage for "low value" data (i.e. data that is unlikely to be accessed in a way that translates to profit for Google). Users, having been trained to rely on free services and the magic of search to summon stuff, have zero incentives to clean up their digital "pollution", and at some point, something's gotta give.
- munificent 5y ago
  I don't think there's anything specific to Google. I think the chain of events was basically: 1. Storage is expensive, so software designers and users build tools and habits that are parsimonious with it. Programs would store files in carefully designed binary formats to save space because space was expensive. Users would periodically go through directories on our computers and manually delete old stuff. Apps required users to explicitly choose what to save. 2. Storage gets much cheaper. 3. Seeing that, companies like Google and others offer "unlimited storage" by projecting the observed user behavior from (1) onto the storage costs of (2). 4. But now users and app developers change their behavior since the incentive environment is now (3). Camera apps automatically save every photo you take. Phones record higher and higher resolution video. Users stop deleting anything and rely on search to wade through their sea of bits. 5. Companies how have to adapt to the reality of (4). I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious or shitty on the part of any participant. It's just the nature of big complex iterated systems with emergent properties.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    > I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious or shitty on the part of any participant. It's just the nature of big complex iterated systems with emergent properties. I find it interesting that one can draw some parallels to physical consumerism and its impact of ecology. We don't generally consider buying day-to-day stuff as nefarious either, until we pay attention to the aggregate impact of the entire supply chain machine, and then it's "80% less polinators" this, and "donated clothes landfills" that. The big difference is that Google as an organization can make the call to - and follow through on - telling users directly to back off if users' consumption patterns themselves become a significant enough liability on the sheets.
blunte 5y ago
Ironically, it may end up being one of these "tiny" scenarios which finally does Google in. When trying to illustrate a problem or bug, one of the typically time consuming challenges is reducing the scenario to the minimal case which illustrates the problem. So thank you, @emilyldolson! Aside from an empty file, you cannot reduce this any further. It brings to light in simple terms that non-techies can understand how absurd the "ML to solve everything" promise is -- and even moreso how wilfully negligent companies are by providing NO human intervention or support when the machines break down.
- trhway 5y ago
  > "tiny" scenarios which finally does Google in Danger of tiny scenarios - I expect that Google like any BigCo will try files containing only 2, 3, 7 - no bug, ok, and then push the fix like this if (l = read(file) ; l == "1") ... else
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    Given it's almost certainly a ruleset generated by an ml agent, it's more likely to be a change in the training data.
    - bonzini 5y ago
      Or just don't flag any file below 100 bytes.
      - tyingq 5y ago
        They probably want to flag some urls or torrent references.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  It's a real motivator to leave Google and the MAG cloud in general. It has at least reminded me again to do regular Google takeouts.
leokennis 5y ago
15 years ago the first word that came to mind when thinking of Google was “magic”. 10 years ago “useful”. These days it’s just “dread”.
- notyourwork 5y ago
  I think dread is a bit over dramatic. I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Some products in the Google domain are heading that way but I don't dread Google I treat them as a business with respect to my coupling to them on a case by case basis. I used to be a Google first, now I am one to look at all options and decide if its worth coupling something else in my life to Google. In many cases its not worth it or even required.
  - matheweis 5y ago
    > I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Give it time... There are a lot of people feeling that dread about “gmail” now. Have you seen the recent threads about GSuite Legacy? Small businesses and families suddenly need to cough up hundreds of dollars per year or figure out how to migrate away from a product that originally marketed itself as free forever.
    - notyourwork 5y ago
      Sure, maybe they will and maybe they won't. Personally, I'll be happy to pay for it and have considered over the last few months a migration plan away to a paid subscription. It's just not on top of my todo list. If Google started asking me to pay, I'd pay because they have provided this service and its pretty darn good if you ask me. How much I'd pay is an open question.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Concerning the maps, try https://openstreetmap.org https://openstreetmap.org Concerning the GMail, see this:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054
dmitrygr 5y ago
"A review cannot be requested for this restriction" I always did say that Franz Kafka never died. He is semi-retired working in google’s PM org, occasionally consulting for the UX teams as well.
Devasta 5y ago
No pity, if you are using Google products for anything important you only have yourself to blame.
mbfg 5y ago
i remember BlackDuck flagging a one pixel (white) image as a copyright infringement in our product.
iameli 5y ago
All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction." Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel movies from Google Drive! Thank you for your contributions to Disney+'s bottom line."
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  It'd be nice if the law had a escrow appeal process. Alleged violator now posts a $100 escrow, now accuser has to do the same. Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    Sounds like some shenanigans you’d see on a blockchain. Though, if a blockchain did something like that to reverse a transaction, that’d be amazing.
  - amne 5y ago
    It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that you do not in fact own this output04.txt file with a 1 in it". If the the claimant still thinks he can win he can call the $100k and prove ownership. Otherwise the defendant just made $100. How cool would that be?
    - jiggawatts 5y ago
      An observation made by shrewd businesspeople throughout history is that you can only trust money. No amount of words, documents, statements, etc... matter unless someone is willing to put up real cash. If there are no consequences, then by definition misdeeds aren't punished and will be effectively incentivised. E.g.: You can trust a legally enforced warranty with full refunds guaranteed by the government, because it costs real money to the manufacturer. You can't trust a "Best Quality!" sticker. It basically costs nothing. It's just words. Copyright protection laws are the same kind of thing. While the marginal cost of enforcement is zero, there is similarly zero incentive to do it correctly and respectfully of the law. If there was enforced financial penalties for each screw up, then it is assured that any errors like this will be ironed out very quickly. No penalty? No bug fixing!
ccbccccbbcccbb 5y ago
No surprise here. One World Corporation is going to reserve 1 for itself. This tweet is just a test drive.
kats 5y ago
May want to back up your Google account if you see a message like that.
wanderingmind 5y ago
Maybe just use rclone or other tools to store encrypted files at rest in drive.
shmerl 5y ago
Copyright was always bizarre in the sense that any information can be expressed as numbers. So why are some numbers more copyrightable? Also reminds me this ("Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes"): https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/ https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theoni...
- otterley 5y ago
  Any novel can be expressed as a sequence of alphabetical characters. So why are these copyrightable?
  - shmerl 5y ago
    Exactly the question you should wonder about. So translating in to abstract form, different numbers have different legal application :) Illegal numbers anyone?
spaniard_dev 5y ago
Who said that “Don’t be evil” thing?
choward 5y ago
The fact that Google is scanning your files for "copyright infringement" is bad enough. They have no way of knowing that you don't legitimately own something. Then pair that with this example and if that isn't enough of a deal breaker for using Google drive I don't know what is.
- chickenmonkey 5y ago
  Exactly, I was surprised by the lack of outrage at this.
- russellbeattie 5y ago
  I had no idea that Drive isn't just a disk drive in the cloud. I've always treated it as such. Do they all do this? OneDrive, Drop, etc.?
  - andrewxdiamond 5y ago
    I believe this is only for accounts with sharing on. Otherwise, there is no infringement
TedShiller 5y ago
Maybe but anyone can claim that on Twitter
- zydex 5y ago
  It's been reproduced by other users, see below comment in this topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061080
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Interesting, you’re right then. The thing with Twitter posters is they often don’t understand what they’re doing.
luckystarr 5y ago
Could this be a rare case of a SHA-whatever collision? Or do they use MD5 to identify these files.
jpambrun 5y ago
Google's bots are crazy. Thank god they sold Boston Dynamics...
Qub3d 5y ago
Always operate under the assumption that iCloud (Apple), Microsoft and Google will delete any/all of your data, with no notice, and for no reason. Because they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes. Not your computer, not your data etc. (https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/ https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/)
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  Cloud drives are a cache. (Actually treat all storage as a cache, i.e. the data will be lost, it's just a matter of when.).
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    Good advice. This is why I encourage anyone with sensitive digital data (photos, important receipts, etc) to set up a 3-2-1 backup: 3 copies of the data, 2 of which are on different, local mediums (i.e. hard drive and a thumb drive) 1 of which is offsite (cloud storage, safe deposit box, salt mine, etc)
- panarky 5y ago
  > they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes Do you have an example of Google explicitly reserving the right to delete any/all data with no notice and for no reason?
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14762 https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14762 Note the wording "we reasonably believe". There is nothing objective about this. Additionally: https://policies.google.com/terms#toc-removing https://policies.google.com/terms#toc-removing > Removing your content > If any of your content (1) breaches these terms, service-specific additional terms or policies, (2) violates applicable law, or (3) could harm our users, third parties, or Google, then we reserve the right to take down some or all of that content in accordance with applicable law. Finally, buried 3 links deep in the Terms[0], we can find a list of some of what Google considers valid under this clause. A lot of it makes sense (clearly illegal things) some of it is subjective ("misleading content"). If you feel comfortable all of your data could never be interpreted by anyone as falling under any of these categories, be my guest, use GDrive. [0]: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505
olliej 5y ago
1 is the loneliest IP :D
Animats 5y ago
File a DMCA counter-notice, of course.[1] You may have to do this the hard way, via Google's address for service of process.[2] Use registered mail or FedEx. There's also the option of taking Google to arbitration. Legal advice from one of those "free quick consult" services may be helpful. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-takedown-notice.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take... [2] https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275 https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275
- watusername 5y ago
  Can you file a counter-notice _in absence of_ a DMCA notice? The problem at hand is not DMCA.
  - Animats 5y ago
    Google claimed a copyright violation and did a takedown. That's what DMCA counter-notices are for. They phrased it in other terms, but ask a lawyer if that matters.
    - manquer 5y ago
      It matters for counter notice that they didn't issue a DMCA notice, you can always sue them of course, but since the first action is not under framework of DMCA, you cannot issue a counter notice to what is not a DMCA notice. The lawsuit is not strong either because their ToS says they can delete your all your data for any and no reason at all.
      - Animats 5y ago
        What Google calls the action is a non-issue. "Wrongful assertion of a copyright violation" is illegal and actionable. It's hard to win on that, but it's been done.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Summit_Entertainment_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Summit_Entertainment_...
daneel_w 5y ago
And googling "15.91/4" throws a SafeSearch alert letting us know that "some results may be explicit".
nocturnial 5y ago
Just call google support... oh... wait... right... I wonder how many ads we need to watch before google implements something even remotely similar to user support? How many billions are enough before we get support? I know I'm overreacting but I'm getting tired of these articles. We all know that google is messed up (to put it lightly). Some people here don't think that's the case and that's fine. Other people, including me, don't find it surprising at all. Post something about google killing cute kittens. I wouldn't be surprised but I would be interested in that story.
marivilla 5y ago
Google Drive also offers client side encryption, which would make this scanning ineffectual: https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspace-encryption/ https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspa... So as long as you have a ton of money and are a corporation your privacy should be just fine
- Snuupy 5y ago
  You can do the same with rclone crypt or cryptomator.
verytrivial 5y ago
A quick note to anyone working to reproduce this: the automated stupidity that caused this is of the same variety that will CANCEL YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT without recourse if your stats lean a certain way. Tread carefully.
fortran77 5y ago
Ar least it wasn’t flagged for illegal porn, too.
ahsima1 5y ago
I wonder if it's a part of some sort of cyberattack. Someone knows that deleting a file, containing a "1" or "0" from target's gdrive will break something they want, so they filed a false DMCA claim.
- dibujante 5y ago
  Maybe it's a low-key attempt to disrupt the use of Google Drive as a command and control source for botnets? Seems very easy to work around.
itronitron 5y ago
I guess the moral of the story is, never do business with a company that doesn't provide a mailing address to which you can mail a turd (at book rate.)
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Or just use google takeout to grab regular dumps of your files
jacquesm 5y ago
Pretty weird that Google would be scanning files for copyright infringement in the first place, it's supposed to be a Drive not the enforcement arm of the copyright mafia.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It's not clear from this tweet but usually google drive only cares about shared files. Lots of people have copyrighted content in their private drives but until you make it public, it doesn't get flagged.
diogenesjunior 5y ago
I feel bad for the new hire who wasn't entirely sure what he was doing. Something similar happened at reddit[0], wouldn't put it past google. 0: https://redd.it/m0rmux https://redd.it/m0rmux
flykespice 5y ago
Serious I'm upset that google drive can block files that you own, I feel my trust betrayed. We're really moving to an dystopian age where companies can control your personal data.
golem14 5y ago
That's Number Wang!!!
pmontra 5y ago
Is this an unintended adversarial attack to some copyright classifier?
gumby 5y ago
what about an empty audio file four minutes and 33 seconds long?
unclekev 5y ago
Meanwhile my Mom uses Google Drive to share pirated movies with family members (despite my protests) and is yet to have a single file flagged. Just need to name your file something like "Output04.S01E01.NumberOne.1080p.HEVC.x265-MeGusta" and you'll be fine /s How can they get things so wrong?
userbinator 5y ago
I wonder how quickly this would have been fixed if it happened to a Google employee.
dwaite 5y ago
So who is going to run out and get a tattoo a la DeCSS?
jacob019 5y ago
Another example of why it is time to dump google. With google you are the product, not the customer. There are decent alternatives for everything that google offers. It feels really good to do.
hderms 5y ago
This seems like a really great case for property based testing and/or fuzzers. Randomly generated output should virtually never flag copyright (and would be rare enough that you could manually assess if it was accurate or not, likely). The core utility of system like this, which puts an enormous amount of leverage in the hands of automated decision making must be robust against things like this.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Maybe for those times when copyright infringers try to split an infringing file into separate files containing only one bit, represented as text, to avoid detection. No, I am not serious. Try testing a file that contains more than a single 1 or 0, such as 01111000.
mbrukman 5y ago
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on the Google Drive team specifically. Sorry about the issue, folks! The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it. And thank you all for the many test cases! :)
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it. So reviews of copyright infringement claims _can_ be requested, but only if they reach the front page of HN? That is not OK.
davebailey 5y ago
This might have been a test case.
davebailey 5y ago
This could easily have been a test value.
hedora 5y ago
This is a great example of why all cloud services should be end to end encrypted.
mateo1 5y ago
This is your annual reminder that you don't own your files if they're stored in someone else's computer (also known as "the cloud"). Keep offline backups, legislation has made it very easy to export literally everything from google.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raydev 5y ago
Looks like the Google Drive team is aware of it. Wonder what happens next. https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291 https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291
T3RMINATED 5y ago
woliveirajr 5y ago
Google Drive answered: "Hi Dr. Emily Dolson, thank you for letting us know about this issue! The Drive team is very much aware of this now thanks to all of you we're working on it!"
mastazi 5y ago
I remember when it was announced that this was going to be possible and people here on HN were defending Google's decision with comments along the lines of "this is fine, they're not reading your private files, they're just going to stop people that use Google Docs for distributing pirated content" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032
Ansil849 5y ago
Are there any updates on this? Like any accountability or an explanation why this happened?
Grismar 5y ago
I wonder: is this a technical issue, or just a practical joke by someone who has managed to convince Google Drive that they have the copyright to files containing only "1"?

1117 points by thanatosmin 5y ago

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Putting your data in a megacorp basket means it'll be treated primarily with consideration towards their legal liability first, other megacorps second, and you third or fourth.

xiphias2 5y ago
If the megacorps buy up the best competitors, there's not much chance left for people, just use them.
- gruez 5y ago
  It's true to some extent, but in the file storage space it's not really applicable. There are hundreds of competitors, and I'm not even sure if any file storage providers got bought up by "megacorps".
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    Not really. I'm using all parts of Google suite together as they are well integrated with every device I have and eachother. I am using Adobe cloud for photos instead of Google photos for example, and even there I quite often feel the difference in integration with the Android operating system.
    - asdff 5y ago
      Adobe software is especially annoying. There are probably five or six adobe launch daemons running in the shadows on my Mac as we speak and it's unclear if when I want to uninstall that their uninstaller will actually purge them all (in my experience, no), or I'm going to have to write a script to collect anything with adobe in the name and rm -rf. Microsoft is bad with this too on Mac at least. I tried killing a microsoft autoupdate daemon and I ended up getting a system notification like three times a day about it until I relented and reinstalled it.

version_five 5y ago

"A review cannot be requested for this restriction" ML enforcing rules is bad enough, but not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. This is why I would never consider g-suite for any business application. Otoh, I think there is a legitimate business to be made helping small businesses and individuals secure themselves against arbitrary behavior from big tech. This kind of thing can have serious consequences (imagine if it was something of real substance that got restricted without recourse) and people need to consider hardening their activities against google et al

dane-pgp 5y ago
> ML enforcing rules is bad enough, not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. And potentially illegal. According to Article 22 of the GDPR: "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." I think that being accused of copyright infringement (and having your free speech rights curtailed) should count as "similarly significant" to a legal effect on someone.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  Free speech does not exist in the same way in the EU, where the GDPR exists, as it does in the U.S on edit: clarification as I seem to have offended some people, there is no right to free speech in Europe similar to the right in the U.S Bill of Rights, the closest is the following https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expre... hope this clarifies it for people. on edit 2: here you can get a country by country overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jrockway 5y ago
How long until cloud providers are forced to scan block devices, so you can't even self-host a file erroneously flagged by the ML? (Actually, how long until this is integrated with the "security engine" in CPUs, so you can't even hide with encryption? Everyone is talking about on-device voice-recognition and CSAM recognition, but no doubt the copyright lobby is going to push hard for this as well.)

onion2k 5y ago

If Google has the copyright on "1", they only need to get "0" as well and they'll have everything.

gvb 5y ago
0 = 1 - 1 so they have everything already!
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  Only if they have patented -
  - wlesieutre 5y ago
    Not - as an abstract concept, but perhaps "a method and apparatus for subtracting numbers"
    - tragomaskhalos 5y ago
      There must be some internet law that states something like "no flippant comment about the absurdities of copyright law is so crazy that a patent troll won't be inspired by it"
  - version_five 5y ago
    Or XOR
  - gvb 5y ago
    Point of order: you've changed the method of restriction from copyright to patent.
bluecheese33 5y ago
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-29 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-29
misnome 5y ago

reaperducer 5y ago

I've said it before, Google is trying to be the new Microsoft. https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663 https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-18195...

PaulHoule 5y ago

Must have infringed on Metallica.

gpderetta 5y ago
Must be google's new Easter egg...
- iszomer 5y ago
  "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

ChicagoBoy11 5y ago

I experienced something similar building an internal tool on GSuite. I had a large file with sequences of 9 digit numbers specific to our use-case, all tied to names of people (employees). Whelp, at one point the tool I was working on stopped working, and it was flagged as apparently containing social security numbers (which I suppose matched the character length). Whelp, on the admin panel, you can get a report of those files, and then mark it as a false positive. Which I did. But then nothing happened, and nothing changed. It was no use. The hilarious bit: It did, of course, allow me to make a copy of the file in question, and then just point the resource I was building to the new file, which was exactly the same. Weeks later... so far, so good.

kwhitefoot 5y ago
Is this a tool that you pay money for? Sounds like it fails the 'fitness for purpose' test.
slig 5y ago
Google is working very hard to make everyone drop their shitty services.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
This is why running filters on automated data is never a good idea, and should never be accepted (at least for enterprise applications, but really for anything) .
Arnavion 5y ago
This is another case for only pushing encrypted files to storage hosts, unless it's against Google Drive's TOS or something. Has anyone tried it? Did Google complain?
- anon9001 5y ago
  Tarsnap is entirely encrypted and the service provider can't see the keys. They run it on EC2 and S3: https://www.tarsnap.com/infrastructure.html https://www.tarsnap.com/infrastructure.html

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

Protondrive is a thing. Zero knowledge storage needs to be the default everywhere.

ComradePhil 5y ago
As is Mega. I don't know why one would ever use Google Drive, OneDrive or Dropbox when Mega and Protondrive are available.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  The collaborative apps aspect of Suite/Drive is a wondrous 1-2 punch

tyingq 5y ago

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a comment? Update: Recreated it. Most of them are now flagged. Took about an hour for that to happen. So far, all that have just one byte, being a "1", and also the one that contains "1\n". The one with "1\r\n" hasn't been flagged. The file names of the flagged files: "one.txt", "onev2.txt", "output04.txt" and "output05.txt". Screenshots of the email and Google drive: https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj (note the little flags on the Google drive view, and the file sizes) Just added some files with "0" and "0\n", we'll see if "0" is copyrighted :)

tyingq 5y ago
Update: It has now flagged the file with "0\n" in it. So it's official, Both 0 and 1 are copyrighted :) https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  Well that MP3 the RIAA flagged was FULL of ones and zeros, so it only makes sense they would get flagged ;-)
- bl4ckneon 5y ago
  Does that mean someone copyrighted binary? :p I guess that mean that this comment and everything digital is copyrighted.
  - jrockway 5y ago
    Technically any creative work you author is copyrighted, so your comment was copyrighted anyway. Whether or not large tech companies will punish people for infringing upon your copyright is yet to be determined.

TT-392 5y ago

"Thanks for helping google keep the web safe" Interesting thing to add in there, how on earth does copyright stuff have anything to do with safety?

tyingq 5y ago
Not that I agree with it, but here's the FBI view: "Not only can the violation of intellectual property rights damage the economy, it also poses serious health and safety risks to consumers, and often times, it fuels global organized crime." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft/fbi-anti-piracy-warning-seal https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip... No helpful detail on why it's not safe.
- zerocrates 5y ago
  Since they went wide with "intellectual property rights" there, the references to health and safety are probably more in the realm of trademark and maybe patent... think counterfeit drugs. You can probably gin up a copyright example from, I dunno, the DRM system on some medical device or something, though that's obviously not the real focus of their copyright enforcement work.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    But drug safety is not an issue of copyright, but of physical control of medications. You don't need to break the copyright of a drug to create and distribute fake medication.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      But you might be able to trick more people to buy your fake medication if you put another company's logo on it. I'd hate to think that a country's procedures for stopping copyright infringement are so efficient that they are the optimal route for preventing the distribution of fake medication (even making trademark law pointless), but I must admit that comparing two images is simpler than comparing the composition of two medications. Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two approaches.

newhotelowner 5y ago

I am a small business owners. I pay for google one so that all my files are backed up and sync across devices. I also pay for backblaze to backup all my files (Just in the case google screws me). Is there an alternative for encrypted backup & sync between different computers?

Filligree 5y ago
Plenty. One of the easiest to use is probably Syncthing, if you’re thinking of self-hosting.
kbumsik 5y ago
I use Dropbox for almost 10 years and I have been using it well so far! Dropbox offers great file history and restoration support. One day I deleted files permanently then the team kindly supported my case to restore the files within a day.
manquer 5y ago
Depending on how technically inclined you are something like Tarsnap might be a good fit. [1] [1] https://www.tarsnap.com/ https://www.tarsnap.com/
hyperdimension 5y ago
You're talking about their subscription, Google [Removed for DMCA Violation]?

everyone 5y ago

It's so dystopian / Kafkaesque it's like a parody. "Thankyou for helping google keep the web safe" followed by... "A review cannot be requested for this restriction"

slig 5y ago
Computer says no.

lhorie 5y ago

I have a pet theory that all of these recent Google bloopers could be explained easily if you start from the assumption that Google internal incentives promote efforts to cut costs such as storage. "Garbage" docs, inactive email accounts, less search results etc can all be reasonably explained by a desire to not spend money on storage for "low value" data (i.e. data that is unlikely to be accessed in a way that translates to profit for Google). Users, having been trained to rely on free services and the magic of search to summon stuff, have zero incentives to clean up their digital "pollution", and at some point, something's gotta give.

munificent 5y ago
I don't think there's anything specific to Google. I think the chain of events was basically: 1. Storage is expensive, so software designers and users build tools and habits that are parsimonious with it. Programs would store files in carefully designed binary formats to save space because space was expensive. Users would periodically go through directories on our computers and manually delete old stuff. Apps required users to explicitly choose what to save. 2. Storage gets much cheaper. 3. Seeing that, companies like Google and others offer "unlimited storage" by projecting the observed user behavior from (1) onto the storage costs of (2). 4. But now users and app developers change their behavior since the incentive environment is now (3). Camera apps automatically save every photo you take. Phones record higher and higher resolution video. Users stop deleting anything and rely on search to wade through their sea of bits. 5. Companies how have to adapt to the reality of (4). I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious or shitty on the part of any participant. It's just the nature of big complex iterated systems with emergent properties.
- lhorie 5y ago
  > I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious or shitty on the part of any participant. It's just the nature of big complex iterated systems with emergent properties. I find it interesting that one can draw some parallels to physical consumerism and its impact of ecology. We don't generally consider buying day-to-day stuff as nefarious either, until we pay attention to the aggregate impact of the entire supply chain machine, and then it's "80% less polinators" this, and "donated clothes landfills" that. The big difference is that Google as an organization can make the call to - and follow through on - telling users directly to back off if users' consumption patterns themselves become a significant enough liability on the sheets.

blunte 5y ago

Ironically, it may end up being one of these "tiny" scenarios which finally does Google in. When trying to illustrate a problem or bug, one of the typically time consuming challenges is reducing the scenario to the minimal case which illustrates the problem. So thank you, @emilyldolson! Aside from an empty file, you cannot reduce this any further. It brings to light in simple terms that non-techies can understand how absurd the "ML to solve everything" promise is -- and even moreso how wilfully negligent companies are by providing NO human intervention or support when the machines break down.

trhway 5y ago
> "tiny" scenarios which finally does Google in Danger of tiny scenarios - I expect that Google like any BigCo will try files containing only 2, 3, 7 - no bug, ok, and then push the fix like this if (l = read(file) ; l == "1") ... else
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Given it's almost certainly a ruleset generated by an ml agent, it's more likely to be a change in the training data.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    Or just don't flag any file below 100 bytes.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      They probably want to flag some urls or torrent references.
quickthrower2 5y ago
It's a real motivator to leave Google and the MAG cloud in general. It has at least reminded me again to do regular Google takeouts.

leokennis 5y ago

15 years ago the first word that came to mind when thinking of Google was “magic”. 10 years ago “useful”. These days it’s just “dread”.

notyourwork 5y ago
I think dread is a bit over dramatic. I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Some products in the Google domain are heading that way but I don't dread Google I treat them as a business with respect to my coupling to them on a case by case basis. I used to be a Google first, now I am one to look at all options and decide if its worth coupling something else in my life to Google. In many cases its not worth it or even required.
- matheweis 5y ago
  > I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Give it time... There are a lot of people feeling that dread about “gmail” now. Have you seen the recent threads about GSuite Legacy? Small businesses and families suddenly need to cough up hundreds of dollars per year or figure out how to migrate away from a product that originally marketed itself as free forever.
  - notyourwork 5y ago
    Sure, maybe they will and maybe they won't. Personally, I'll be happy to pay for it and have considered over the last few months a migration plan away to a paid subscription. It's just not on top of my todo list. If Google started asking me to pay, I'd pay because they have provided this service and its pretty darn good if you ask me. How much I'd pay is an open question.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > I still find utility in Google Maps and GMail. Concerning the maps, try https://openstreetmap.org https://openstreetmap.org Concerning the GMail, see this:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30051054

dmitrygr 5y ago

"A review cannot be requested for this restriction" I always did say that Franz Kafka never died. He is semi-retired working in google’s PM org, occasionally consulting for the UX teams as well.

Devasta 5y ago

No pity, if you are using Google products for anything important you only have yourself to blame.

mbfg 5y ago

i remember BlackDuck flagging a one pixel (white) image as a copyright infringement in our product.

iameli 5y ago

All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction." Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel movies from Google Drive! Thank you for your contributions to Disney+'s bottom line."

JamesBarney 5y ago
It'd be nice if the law had a escrow appeal process. Alleged violator now posts a $100 escrow, now accuser has to do the same. Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  Sounds like some shenanigans you’d see on a blockchain. Though, if a blockchain did something like that to reverse a transaction, that’d be amazing.
- amne 5y ago
  It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that you do not in fact own this output04.txt file with a 1 in it". If the the claimant still thinks he can win he can call the $100k and prove ownership. Otherwise the defendant just made $100. How cool would that be?
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    An observation made by shrewd businesspeople throughout history is that you can only trust money. No amount of words, documents, statements, etc... matter unless someone is willing to put up real cash. If there are no consequences, then by definition misdeeds aren't punished and will be effectively incentivised. E.g.: You can trust a legally enforced warranty with full refunds guaranteed by the government, because it costs real money to the manufacturer. You can't trust a "Best Quality!" sticker. It basically costs nothing. It's just words. Copyright protection laws are the same kind of thing. While the marginal cost of enforcement is zero, there is similarly zero incentive to do it correctly and respectfully of the law. If there was enforced financial penalties for each screw up, then it is assured that any errors like this will be ironed out very quickly. No penalty? No bug fixing!

ccbccccbbcccbb 5y ago

No surprise here. One World Corporation is going to reserve 1 for itself. This tweet is just a test drive.

kats 5y ago

May want to back up your Google account if you see a message like that.

wanderingmind 5y ago

Maybe just use rclone or other tools to store encrypted files at rest in drive.

shmerl 5y ago

Copyright was always bizarre in the sense that any information can be expressed as numbers. So why are some numbers more copyrightable? Also reminds me this ("Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes"): https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/ https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theoni...

otterley 5y ago
Any novel can be expressed as a sequence of alphabetical characters. So why are these copyrightable?
- shmerl 5y ago
  Exactly the question you should wonder about. So translating in to abstract form, different numbers have different legal application :) Illegal numbers anyone?

spaniard_dev 5y ago

Who said that “Don’t be evil” thing?

choward 5y ago

The fact that Google is scanning your files for "copyright infringement" is bad enough. They have no way of knowing that you don't legitimately own something. Then pair that with this example and if that isn't enough of a deal breaker for using Google drive I don't know what is.

chickenmonkey 5y ago
Exactly, I was surprised by the lack of outrage at this.
russellbeattie 5y ago
I had no idea that Drive isn't just a disk drive in the cloud. I've always treated it as such. Do they all do this? OneDrive, Drop, etc.?
- andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  I believe this is only for accounts with sharing on. Otherwise, there is no infringement

TedShiller 5y ago

Maybe but anyone can claim that on Twitter

zydex 5y ago
It's been reproduced by other users, see below comment in this topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061080
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Interesting, you’re right then. The thing with Twitter posters is they often don’t understand what they’re doing.

luckystarr 5y ago

Could this be a rare case of a SHA-whatever collision? Or do they use MD5 to identify these files.

jpambrun 5y ago

Google's bots are crazy. Thank god they sold Boston Dynamics...

Qub3d 5y ago

Always operate under the assumption that iCloud (Apple), Microsoft and Google will delete any/all of your data, with no notice, and for no reason. Because they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes. Not your computer, not your data etc. (https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/ https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/)

quickthrower2 5y ago
Cloud drives are a cache. (Actually treat all storage as a cache, i.e. the data will be lost, it's just a matter of when.).
- Qub3d 5y ago
  Good advice. This is why I encourage anyone with sensitive digital data (photos, important receipts, etc) to set up a 3-2-1 backup: 3 copies of the data, 2 of which are on different, local mediums (i.e. hard drive and a thumb drive) 1 of which is offsite (cloud storage, safe deposit box, salt mine, etc)
panarky 5y ago
> they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes Do you have an example of Google explicitly reserving the right to delete any/all data with no notice and for no reason?
- Qub3d 5y ago
  https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14762 https://edit.tosdr.org/points/14762 Note the wording "we reasonably believe". There is nothing objective about this. Additionally: https://policies.google.com/terms#toc-removing https://policies.google.com/terms#toc-removing > Removing your content > If any of your content (1) breaches these terms, service-specific additional terms or policies, (2) violates applicable law, or (3) could harm our users, third parties, or Google, then we reserve the right to take down some or all of that content in accordance with applicable law. Finally, buried 3 links deep in the Terms[0], we can find a list of some of what Google considers valid under this clause. A lot of it makes sense (clearly illegal things) some of it is subjective ("misleading content"). If you feel comfortable all of your data could never be interpreted by anyone as falling under any of these categories, be my guest, use GDrive. [0]: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505

olliej 5y ago

1 is the loneliest IP :D

Animats 5y ago

File a DMCA counter-notice, of course.[1] You may have to do this the hard way, via Google's address for service of process.[2] Use registered mail or FedEx. There's also the option of taking Google to arbitration. Legal advice from one of those "free quick consult" services may be helpful. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-takedown-notice.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take... [2] https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275 https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275

watusername 5y ago
Can you file a counter-notice _in absence of_ a DMCA notice? The problem at hand is not DMCA.
- Animats 5y ago
  Google claimed a copyright violation and did a takedown. That's what DMCA counter-notices are for. They phrased it in other terms, but ask a lawyer if that matters.
  - manquer 5y ago
    It matters for counter notice that they didn't issue a DMCA notice, you can always sue them of course, but since the first action is not under framework of DMCA, you cannot issue a counter notice to what is not a DMCA notice. The lawsuit is not strong either because their ToS says they can delete your all your data for any and no reason at all.
    - Animats 5y ago
      What Google calls the action is a non-issue. "Wrongful assertion of a copyright violation" is illegal and actionable. It's hard to win on that, but it's been done.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Summit_Entertainment_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Summit_Entertainment_...

daneel_w 5y ago

And googling "15.91/4" throws a SafeSearch alert letting us know that "some results may be explicit".

nocturnial 5y ago

Just call google support... oh... wait... right... I wonder how many ads we need to watch before google implements something even remotely similar to user support? How many billions are enough before we get support? I know I'm overreacting but I'm getting tired of these articles. We all know that google is messed up (to put it lightly). Some people here don't think that's the case and that's fine. Other people, including me, don't find it surprising at all. Post something about google killing cute kittens. I wouldn't be surprised but I would be interested in that story.

marivilla 5y ago

Google Drive also offers client side encryption, which would make this scanning ineffectual: https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspace-encryption/ https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspa... So as long as you have a ton of money and are a corporation your privacy should be just fine

Snuupy 5y ago
You can do the same with rclone crypt or cryptomator.

verytrivial 5y ago

A quick note to anyone working to reproduce this: the automated stupidity that caused this is of the same variety that will CANCEL YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT without recourse if your stats lean a certain way. Tread carefully.

fortran77 5y ago

Ar least it wasn’t flagged for illegal porn, too.

ahsima1 5y ago

I wonder if it's a part of some sort of cyberattack. Someone knows that deleting a file, containing a "1" or "0" from target's gdrive will break something they want, so they filed a false DMCA claim.

dibujante 5y ago
Maybe it's a low-key attempt to disrupt the use of Google Drive as a command and control source for botnets? Seems very easy to work around.

itronitron 5y ago

I guess the moral of the story is, never do business with a company that doesn't provide a mailing address to which you can mail a turd (at book rate.)

Gigachad 5y ago
Or just use google takeout to grab regular dumps of your files

jacquesm 5y ago

Pretty weird that Google would be scanning files for copyright infringement in the first place, it's supposed to be a Drive not the enforcement arm of the copyright mafia.

Gigachad 5y ago
It's not clear from this tweet but usually google drive only cares about shared files. Lots of people have copyrighted content in their private drives but until you make it public, it doesn't get flagged.

diogenesjunior 5y ago

I feel bad for the new hire who wasn't entirely sure what he was doing. Something similar happened at reddit[0], wouldn't put it past google. 0: https://redd.it/m0rmux https://redd.it/m0rmux

flykespice 5y ago

Serious I'm upset that google drive can block files that you own, I feel my trust betrayed. We're really moving to an dystopian age where companies can control your personal data.

golem14 5y ago

That's Number Wang!!!

pmontra 5y ago

Is this an unintended adversarial attack to some copyright classifier?

gumby 5y ago

what about an empty audio file four minutes and 33 seconds long?

unclekev 5y ago

Meanwhile my Mom uses Google Drive to share pirated movies with family members (despite my protests) and is yet to have a single file flagged. Just need to name your file something like "Output04.S01E01.NumberOne.1080p.HEVC.x265-MeGusta" and you'll be fine /s How can they get things so wrong?

userbinator 5y ago

I wonder how quickly this would have been fixed if it happened to a Google employee.

dwaite 5y ago

So who is going to run out and get a tattoo a la DeCSS?

jacob019 5y ago

Another example of why it is time to dump google. With google you are the product, not the customer. There are decent alternatives for everything that google offers. It feels really good to do.

hderms 5y ago

This seems like a really great case for property based testing and/or fuzzers. Randomly generated output should virtually never flag copyright (and would be rare enough that you could manually assess if it was accurate or not, likely). The core utility of system like this, which puts an enormous amount of leverage in the hands of automated decision making must be robust against things like this.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

Maybe for those times when copyright infringers try to split an infringing file into separate files containing only one bit, represented as text, to avoid detection. No, I am not serious. Try testing a file that contains more than a single 1 or 0, such as 01111000.

mbrukman 5y ago

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on the Google Drive team specifically. Sorry about the issue, folks! The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it. And thank you all for the many test cases! :)

Ansil849 5y ago
> The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it. So reviews of copyright infringement claims _can_ be requested, but only if they reach the front page of HN? That is not OK.

davebailey 5y ago

This might have been a test case.

davebailey 5y ago

This could easily have been a test value.

hedora 5y ago

This is a great example of why all cloud services should be end to end encrypted.

mateo1 5y ago

This is your annual reminder that you don't own your files if they're stored in someone else's computer (also known as "the cloud"). Keep offline backups, legislation has made it very easy to export literally everything from google.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raydev 5y ago

Looks like the Google Drive team is aware of it. Wonder what happens next. https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291 https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291

T3RMINATED 5y ago

woliveirajr 5y ago

Google Drive answered: "Hi Dr. Emily Dolson, thank you for letting us know about this issue! The Drive team is very much aware of this now thanks to all of you we're working on it!"

mastazi 5y ago

I remember when it was announced that this was going to be possible and people here on HN were defending Google's decision with comments along the lines of "this is fine, they're not reading your private files, they're just going to stop people that use Google Docs for distributing pirated content" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032

Ansil849 5y ago

Are there any updates on this? Like any accountability or an explanation why this happened?

Grismar 5y ago

I wonder: is this a technical issue, or just a practical joke by someone who has managed to convince Google Drive that they have the copyright to files containing only "1"?