5 ms·

Key points mentioned in the thread: - The specific policy violated is "Phishing" - Sheet was titled "Boston Election candidate websites" - OP says it's a lis

by danso 4y ago

Key points mentioned in the thread: - The specific policy violated is "Phishing" - Sheet was titled "Boston Election candidate websites" - OP says it's a list of candidate names and their campaign websites - Created in Oct 2021, removed in July 2022 - OP says a similar worksheet with many more records has not been removed

andybak 4y ago
Curious what rule this has tripped. Surely there's tons of sheets consisting of name and url?
- willis936 4y ago
  A question with no answer. It's an unnamed node tuned with automated routines. Classifier curators will scratch their heads too meanwhile victims have to wonder why this is acceptable.
ABeeSea 4y ago
One explanation could be that a candidate’s campaign domain expired and is now being used for phishing.
ibejoeb 4y ago
The key point, to me, is that Google monitors all content. I don't think it's much of a surprise, but in context of Google Drive, it's pretty terrible. Drive is a anti-product like this. It's like if Western Digital decided to update the disk firmware to just ship your data to them for scrutiny.
- nathancahill 4y ago
  User stores data in the cloud. User: surprised pikachu face.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    There is no reason a priori that companies should be looking at private data, even automated agents thereof. The fact that they do monitor that content represents some kind of deviation from the null hypothesis that is important to identify and explicate.
    - nathancahill 4y ago
      In fact the opposite is true, companies care about what their servers are being used for, both to prevent abuse and legal liability. Any impression users may have to the contrary is a result of marketing and the widespread concept of "the cloud" as a nebulous entity. E2E encrypted services are the exception, not the rule. This mischaracterization extends so far that when Apple announced plans to turn on E2EE for photos (necessitating an on-device scanning tool for banned photos before upload), the uproar against it was vast and unanimous. So now we still have the same photo scanning on Apple's servers, and no E2EE.
  - domador 4y ago
    This is a pretty pessimistic comment. Cloud storage companies should, can, and have been held accountable for violating their users' privacy, including when they themselves are the violators.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      Using data to detect abuse is a very different situation from using it in something like ad personalization. The companies that provide cloud storage still need to make a profit, and that means reducing overhead on things like human spam and DMCA processing; A few people abusing free/cheap accounts will just increase everyone's data costs.
      - metadat 4y ago
        This isn't an acceptable justification for what is happening. Removing people's legitimate private, non-spam, non-abusive documents should never ever happen.
- function_seven 4y ago
  > It's like if Western Digital decided to update the disk firmware to just ship your data to them for scrutiny. Not exactly what your scenario is, but damn close: https://boingboing.net/2007/12/06/western-digital-netw.html https://boingboing.net/2007/12/06/western-digital-netw.html I can't believe it's been 15 years. I remember this like it was yesterday, and it's still the reason I won't buy anything from WD.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Heh Heh Heh On a related note, back in 2007 Western Digital did indeed decide to do some pro-active policing with users files: https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/07/western_digital_drm_crippled_harddrive/ https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/07/western_digital_drm_c... And yeah, that was about as popular as you'd expect. ;)
- milesskorpen 4y ago
  ... that might be a stretch. If this were a private file, I don't think it is evaluated in the same way. But he's sharing it, so if it is linking to malicious content using Google, they could be perceived as complicit so they need to take action. Otherwise any spammer in the world can host whatever link farms they like.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    It's that we don't really know what is being inspected. I don't, at least. I've been looking, and I can't find any official statement or specific language in the myriad policies.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > The key point, to me, is that Google monitors all content. Google monitors and restricts shared content. This is reasonable, IMO. If someone is hosting documents publicly on the Google domain, it's reasonable for them to make judgment calls about what can and cannot be hosted. Note that the file wasn't removed, it just had public sharing and other public features restricted. (Read the dialog in the Tweet closely)
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    >Google monitors and restricts shared content Does it monitor only shared content? If the author is to be believed, and if Google made a judgement call as you suggest, it is bad judgement. I'm not concerned about happens after Google reads the document. I'm concerned that Google reads the document, and I want to know which ones are read.
mmanfrin 4y ago
Stab in the dark but I imagine some of those campaign website domains lapsed, were picked up by domain expiry people because they probably have very good visibility (i.e. a lot of links to those pages from official/.gov sites), and had phishing or sketchy landing pages put on them. Google then prunes these malicious pages from their search and then also flags any docs that have those links in them.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Yeah this seems like the most likely scenario to me, as well... Lots of losing candidates who don't want to keep paying for their domains.
wolpoli 4y ago
Although it wasn't specifically mentioned, the file was likely shared with the OP's professor. That might be what triggered the scan.

by danso 4y ago

andybak 4y ago

Curious what rule this has tripped. Surely there's tons of sheets consisting of name and url?

willis936 4y ago
A question with no answer. It's an unnamed node tuned with automated routines. Classifier curators will scratch their heads too meanwhile victims have to wonder why this is acceptable.

ABeeSea 4y ago

One explanation could be that a candidate’s campaign domain expired and is now being used for phishing.

ibejoeb 4y ago

The key point, to me, is that Google monitors all content. I don't think it's much of a surprise, but in context of Google Drive, it's pretty terrible. Drive is a anti-product like this. It's like if Western Digital decided to update the disk firmware to just ship your data to them for scrutiny.

nathancahill 4y ago
User stores data in the cloud. User: surprised pikachu face.
- uoaei 4y ago
  There is no reason a priori that companies should be looking at private data, even automated agents thereof. The fact that they do monitor that content represents some kind of deviation from the null hypothesis that is important to identify and explicate.
  - nathancahill 4y ago
    In fact the opposite is true, companies care about what their servers are being used for, both to prevent abuse and legal liability. Any impression users may have to the contrary is a result of marketing and the widespread concept of "the cloud" as a nebulous entity. E2E encrypted services are the exception, not the rule. This mischaracterization extends so far that when Apple announced plans to turn on E2EE for photos (necessitating an on-device scanning tool for banned photos before upload), the uproar against it was vast and unanimous. So now we still have the same photo scanning on Apple's servers, and no E2EE.
- domador 4y ago
  This is a pretty pessimistic comment. Cloud storage companies should, can, and have been held accountable for violating their users' privacy, including when they themselves are the violators.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Using data to detect abuse is a very different situation from using it in something like ad personalization. The companies that provide cloud storage still need to make a profit, and that means reducing overhead on things like human spam and DMCA processing; A few people abusing free/cheap accounts will just increase everyone's data costs.
    - metadat 4y ago
      This isn't an acceptable justification for what is happening. Removing people's legitimate private, non-spam, non-abusive documents should never ever happen.
function_seven 4y ago
> It's like if Western Digital decided to update the disk firmware to just ship your data to them for scrutiny. Not exactly what your scenario is, but damn close: https://boingboing.net/2007/12/06/western-digital-netw.html https://boingboing.net/2007/12/06/western-digital-netw.html I can't believe it's been 15 years. I remember this like it was yesterday, and it's still the reason I won't buy anything from WD.
justinclift 4y ago
Heh Heh Heh On a related note, back in 2007 Western Digital did indeed decide to do some pro-active policing with users files: https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/07/western_digital_drm_crippled_harddrive/ https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/07/western_digital_drm_c... And yeah, that was about as popular as you'd expect. ;)
milesskorpen 4y ago
... that might be a stretch. If this were a private file, I don't think it is evaluated in the same way. But he's sharing it, so if it is linking to malicious content using Google, they could be perceived as complicit so they need to take action. Otherwise any spammer in the world can host whatever link farms they like.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  It's that we don't really know what is being inspected. I don't, at least. I've been looking, and I can't find any official statement or specific language in the myriad policies.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> The key point, to me, is that Google monitors all content. Google monitors and restricts shared content. This is reasonable, IMO. If someone is hosting documents publicly on the Google domain, it's reasonable for them to make judgment calls about what can and cannot be hosted. Note that the file wasn't removed, it just had public sharing and other public features restricted. (Read the dialog in the Tweet closely)
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  >Google monitors and restricts shared content Does it monitor only shared content? If the author is to be believed, and if Google made a judgement call as you suggest, it is bad judgement. I'm not concerned about happens after Google reads the document. I'm concerned that Google reads the document, and I want to know which ones are read.

mmanfrin 4y ago

Stab in the dark but I imagine some of those campaign website domains lapsed, were picked up by domain expiry people because they probably have very good visibility (i.e. a lot of links to those pages from official/.gov sites), and had phishing or sketchy landing pages put on them. Google then prunes these malicious pages from their search and then also flags any docs that have those links in them.

sdenton4 4y ago
Yeah this seems like the most likely scenario to me, as well... Lots of losing candidates who don't want to keep paying for their domains.

wolpoli 4y ago

Although it wasn't specifically mentioned, the file was likely shared with the OP's professor. That might be what triggered the scan.