10 ms·

Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

230 points by zachh 14y ago

NelsonMinar 14y ago
If I understand Google's ToS right, you are giving them a license to do pretty much anything with the data you upload to Drive. For instance, if you backup your git repo to Drive, Google's engineers have a license to take your source code and incorporate it into their own products. Now of course Google's not actually going to do that. So why not make the license say that? Google is using a generic ToS for all their products, but it's not appropriate to products that host valuable intellectual property.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Because it's impractical to create a TOS that defines all possible ways they might need to use that data in order to provide the service (from any court's viewpoint) but also explicitly carve out that usage. If re-using the code as you posit is indistinguishable (legally) from a valid use of the data they need in order to provide the service, they're not going to carve it out of the TOS. It's better to not attempt that, and let you (as the customer) pick if you're okay with that. If you find the risk unacceptable, don't use the service. To some degree that's a better outcome than exposing the host to a ton of legal risk.
7c8011dda3f3b 14y ago
"Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you."
- cavilling_elite 14y ago
  Its the derivative works that I am worried about. But in context it may just be "thumbnails" or other things for searching content.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Yep. Thumbnails, PDFs, showing excerpts when you search for a document, etc. could all probably be argued to be "derivative works". It's a little crazy that our legal system makes you CYA this much, but it's often necessary.
  - rryan 14y ago
    Editing a shared Google Docs document is inherently creating derivative works. You and anyone editing with you are asking Google to change the original document via HTTP requests. Each edit is a derivative work of the original document you uploaded to Google Docs, so of course Google needs to be allowed to do this as part of its license to use your data.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    It's "developing new services" which essentially opens the door for Google to do anything they want. Dropbox has to justify anything it does with your work in terms of providing a service to you. Google can justify doing things with your data solely for it's own benefit.
  - cube13 14y ago
    If Google compresses, re-encodes, or encrypts the files, they're creating derivative works. Google needs those rights in order to actually store the data.
bluetidepro 14y ago
Yup. This is EXACTLY what I knew Google would try to pull. There is no way I'm switching from Dropbox to one of the shadiest online companies out there.
- andybak 14y ago
  Sounds a little tin-foil hat to me. Care you justify your hyperbole?
  - bluetidepro 14y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+shady+tactivs#hl=en&sa=X&ei=_W2ZT-jWJY_gggezuLnDBg&ved=0CBwQvwUoAQ&q=Google+bad+policies&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b34a9ed25f849e5f&biw=1380&bih=1006 https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#... (PUN intended on using Google to show you some of many complaints towards their policies...)
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=bluetidepro%20bad%20policies https://www.google.com/search?q=bluetidepro%20bad%20policies
      - bluetidepro 14y ago
        DID lol.
chwahoo 14y ago
I do agree that Dropbox's wording is much friendlier, but I attribute most of the difference to Google having big plans (e.g., searching and sharing) and being careful that their terms will permit them. I suspect a big part of this is Google's intention to analyze your data to make it indexed/searchable (e.g., their 'search for Mt. Everest and get back your pictures of it' features).
- ajross 14y ago
  Really, the difference seems to be almost exclusively wording. Both licenses grant very broad powers to the service to redistribute (Google is guilty only of enumerating them more fully, where Dropbox simply claims "all the permissions we need"). Both providers include language that they will only do this in order "to provide the service", but neither enumerates exactly what that means. Does anyone see anything specific that Dropbox can't do that Google can? That grant looks really broad to me, just ... friendlier.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    What people are noticing is perceived intent. Dropbox is clear what their intent is. Google is less clear. People like clarity, especially ewhen dealing with personal items.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services." I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is nicer about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the rights they reserve seem less scary. But really, I think this is a giant kerfuffle over nothing (fueled in no small part by the "Dropbox is on the HN team" feeling here). These licenses look almost 100% equivalent to me.
      - 14y ago
judofyr 14y ago
We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example [..]. This includes [..]. It also includes [..]. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff? Seriously? IANAL, but doesn't that include more than what Google says? Also note that Google has this line (you know, just above the paragraph that was quoted in the article): Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
- bluetidepro 14y ago
  How did you get to "So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff?" from what Dropbox put, I personally did not interrupt it that way at all...
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff? Why'd you leave out the "things you ask us to do" bit? "You give us permission to kick you in the balls" sounds bad in a contract if you leave out the "because you're signing up to become a mixed martial arts combatant" bit, too.
stuartmemo 14y ago
Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...
- nooop 14y ago
  Yet, with those rights, Google are able to (worldwide) ; create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"? In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.
  - cube13 14y ago
    Google can only do those rights. They cannot sell your content, for example, because it is not enumerated in the list. Dropbox, on the other hand, could, theoretically decide that they want to sell your information as a part of the service, and their TOS allows it. Also keep in mind that this is Google's unified TOS for ALL Google services and products. So it includes Youtube and Google Music, both of which require those rights in order to function.
- rjsamson 14y ago
  Exactly. The same FUD was being spread around a while back regarding google's terms as related to photo sharing on G+. Google needs these rights to provide certain features...
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Was it Facebook that used someone's photo of themselves in an advert - claiming that it fell under "we can use your images for any purpose" ?
Xuzz 14y ago
On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them." All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifact of how our copyright law works. Google does a bad job of expressing that reality as nicely as others (like Dropbox), but with almost equivalent permissions, I'd put them pretty far down on the list of companies not to trust.
- rfugger 14y ago
  Google's is worse because it takes all rights to use your work however it likes, and then states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service. But if it likes, it can amend the privacy policy in the future to remove or modify that limitation. So you have to trust Google, which may be fine now, but what about in 20 years? They have rights to your work forever. Other providers clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service, right in the ToS. IANAL, but this seems important.
  - Xuzz 14y ago
    I'm confused. You say Google "states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service", but that's not good enough, because they can amend it later to remove that protection. How is that different from the other providers, who (as you said, again) "clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service"? What is different about them which stops them from amending their policies?
    - adgar 14y ago
      > I'm confused. No, you're not. You identified a crystal clear double standard in your parent post.
Zaim3 14y ago
Looks like Google accidentally started two memes this month: #whitespace and #selectivelyquoteprivacypolicy
sangaya 14y ago
That's standard wording allowing them to provide the content to you on any device you access the services from over the internet (i.e. publicly). http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+worldwide+license+to+use%2C+host%2C+store%2C+reproduce%2C+modify%2C+create+derivative+works%22+-Google http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+w...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
ceejayoz 14y ago
Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in. http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867
- whackberry 14y ago
  > Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, Yes but Dropbox doesn't have the reach and amount of data gathering power Google has. Google is actively monitoring hundreds to thousands of personal data gathering systems, whereas Dropbox is only a cloud storage system. There IMO lies the difference.
- NelsonMinar 14y ago
  Yeah, and Dropbox fixed it after public complaint. It's amazing to me Google would launch with a license with the same problem.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Frankly, I'd be surprised if Drive didn't get an addendum to the TOS to address the concerns. Lawyers don't often have 24 hour turnarounds on this sort of change.
joejohnson 14y ago
I think this image nicely compares the TOS for Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft's Sky Drive: https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/photo/1 https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/...
nicholassmith 14y ago
It's the derivative works part of the T&Cs for GDrive that makes it a little wonky, I don't want to give them full license to create any derivative work but I'm happy with them making changes for technical architecture. But that's so selective and does miss the part where they say your content and copyright is all yours, so it justifies picking on Google for being supposedly creepy.
- mangodrunk 14y ago
  As others have mentioned, it probably is about producing thumbnails of images or something like that. >You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This give Dropbox the ability to modify your images to create thumbnails as well if that's a part of their service. It also allows them to do whatever else they want without being explicit and hiding behind vague wording.
nateberkopec 14y ago
The exact same language is in the Google terms of service, so if you use Gmail, your emails are covered by the same language. Clearly, this is lawyer boilerplate being taken out of context. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
- brudgers 14y ago
  "if you use Gmail" Yes, Gmail has the same issue. Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit. Which sounds nasty, until you realize they potentially need such language to be able to do something as simple as implementing a better spam filter, or offline syncing for your e-mail.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Furthermore, Google could, like dropbox, limit their use of your data to providing or improving the services they provide you. Spam filtering and syncing resonably fall in that category.
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        > That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Google just recently went through a unification of their disparate privacy policies, terms of service, etc. I also don't see why Google wouldn't want to add services to Drive down the road...
        brudgers 14y ago
        Unification of Google's privacy policies was done for Google's benefit. Furthermore, as an explanation for why these policies should apply to drive, it begs the question.
aresant 14y ago
If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox. Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.
- ghoul2 14y ago
  I have found quite a few people recommend this, and never understood the point - if all you want is a "cloud" backup of your opaque data, simply use tarsnap. cheap, easy, brilliant piece of engineering. Or heck, use backblaze with their unlimited storage plan! The trouble with building a truecrypt volume inside GDrive/Dropbox etc is that this makes the data completely opaque to the service. You give up all integration with google docs, easy sharing via links, collaboration, everything. Why use these services at all if you don't need the features they provide over and above basic backup?
  - j_s 14y ago
    The price is right!
- xtrimsky_ 14y ago
  Doesn't allow me to access my files on my Android device. I sometimes like to access a PDF, or word document :(.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  TC volume needs to be unmounted in order for gDrive/Dropbox to be able to sync it. For that you need to close all apps that are currently using any files on that volume. That's not exactly easy-breezy. In fact, it's a major pain in the ass, so - no, this is not a practical option.
  - trustmeimadr 14y ago
    What about using encfs?
timothya 14y ago
There's been several articles on this topic, and I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS: "Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." These terms are across all of Google's services, and of course they need to state these sorts of things to keep themselves covered.
- demetris 14y ago
  “I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS.” Because not many people are good at reading and at understanding what they read. Which, here, is this: Gmail or Google Docs/Drive or Google Apps are not among Google’s services that “allow you to submit content”. You don’t submit anything to them. A service like YouTube, on the other hand, is, and it obviously needs such terms in order to operate.
orbitingpluto 14y ago
While it's obvious Google isn't planning to rape, pillage and publish your private files, their terms of service are starting on the wrong foot. Ask for the base permissions you need and work from there. This is even more important when you're not a Google. Explain what you need and why to give them what they want from you, earn their trust and karma. More importantly, if you sell off your company later, they will protect your users from those who might take a more liberal view of the TOS.
cabirum 14y ago
Y no one compares them to skydrive? «we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service.» « we may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of [ppl]»
haraldk 14y ago
One thing is that the phrasing of Google's terms is more open, more importantly: I would rather like to store my files with someone that are in the business of storing files - than someone that is in the business of making "everything" searchable (for anyone?)
ryanisinallofus 14y ago
Dropbox writing their TOS in a way that non-lawyers can read it was a good move here. Neither TOS really effects anything being done with your data in a practical way but the PR Dropbox is getting from theirs is worth 100x the time they put into it. Nice investment.
sampsonjs 14y ago
If any of this blather is an attempt to prevent me from giving my money to Google instead of Dropbox, mission failed. Pay 2 to 4 times as much for the same service? I don't think so. Google wins, T. K. O., pwned with a capital P.
xxiao 14y ago
can I encrypt it first...
sturmeh 14y ago
Amendment of a Privacy Policy doesn't retroactively apply the policy to all the data previously provided to the service without first consulting the user. If that is the case then they need to make the user ACCEPT the new terms before this can be done. (This is what is happening whenever you are forced to accept an amended TOS before returning to a service.)
cageface 14y ago
I'm actually not so worried about the privacy of the files I might put in GDrive. The handful of files I really care about (financial data etc) I store in other ways. But I am worried about having my Google account yanked out from under me. I'm simply not willing to depend on one capricious company with no customer support for email, phone, storage, online collaboration, chat, social etc. Ironically the harder Google tries to squeeze all their services together the less inclined I am to use any individual service.
Simpletoon 14y ago
The question for those looking at the TOS is: What is it you do not want Google to do? Unless you know the answer to that, reading TOS is a mindless exercise. You need to supply some facts, a real scenario. Then we can assess whether the TOS are reasonable. Google can say "what's yours stays yours". They could say also that to website content owners with respect to their web crawls. But the simple fact is they have a copy of someone else's data, they know what the contents are and they will use that knowledge of the contents (aggregated and de-personalised if necessary) to their own benefit, by using it to lure more web users and thereby advertisers. It works. That's how they make money. Of course given the chance they will require an explicit license from you to do so. Here, that's the TOS. With the web crawls, I guess it's robots.txt. There's an implicit license. What I'd like to see discussed is what happens if you encrypt some multi-GB binary blob of random bytes, give it an attention-grabbing filename and then move it to cloud storage. Does a team of cryptographers start trying to crack it? Now that's a fun legal question. I really do not understand the whole cloud storage thing. I imagine the real issue is people do not know how to move large amounts of data to each other, quickly and securely. They've never heard of netcat. And "storage" with a "link to download" is their solution. File sharing. Same old story. Everything gets funnelled through a webserver. Quite silly if you can directly connect to the recipient.

230 points by zachh 14y ago

If I understand Google's ToS right, you are giving them a license to do pretty much anything with the data you upload to Drive. For instance, if you backup your git repo to Drive, Google's engineers have a license to take your source code and incorporate it into their own products. Now of course Google's not actually going to do that. So why not make the license say that? Google is using a generic ToS for all their products, but it's not appropriate to products that host valuable intellectual property.

tomkarlo 14y ago
Because it's impractical to create a TOS that defines all possible ways they might need to use that data in order to provide the service (from any court's viewpoint) but also explicitly carve out that usage. If re-using the code as you posit is indistinguishable (legally) from a valid use of the data they need in order to provide the service, they're not going to carve it out of the TOS. It's better to not attempt that, and let you (as the customer) pick if you're okay with that. If you find the risk unacceptable, don't use the service. To some degree that's a better outcome than exposing the host to a ton of legal risk.

7c8011dda3f3b 14y ago

"Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you."

cavilling_elite 14y ago
Its the derivative works that I am worried about. But in context it may just be "thumbnails" or other things for searching content.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Yep. Thumbnails, PDFs, showing excerpts when you search for a document, etc. could all probably be argued to be "derivative works". It's a little crazy that our legal system makes you CYA this much, but it's often necessary.
- rryan 14y ago
  Editing a shared Google Docs document is inherently creating derivative works. You and anyone editing with you are asking Google to change the original document via HTTP requests. Each edit is a derivative work of the original document you uploaded to Google Docs, so of course Google needs to be allowed to do this as part of its license to use your data.
- brudgers 14y ago
  It's "developing new services" which essentially opens the door for Google to do anything they want. Dropbox has to justify anything it does with your work in terms of providing a service to you. Google can justify doing things with your data solely for it's own benefit.
- cube13 14y ago
  If Google compresses, re-encodes, or encrypts the files, they're creating derivative works. Google needs those rights in order to actually store the data.

bluetidepro 14y ago

Yup. This is EXACTLY what I knew Google would try to pull. There is no way I'm switching from Dropbox to one of the shadiest online companies out there.

andybak 14y ago
Sounds a little tin-foil hat to me. Care you justify your hyperbole?
- bluetidepro 14y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+shady+tactivs#hl=en&sa=X&ei=_W2ZT-jWJY_gggezuLnDBg&ved=0CBwQvwUoAQ&q=Google+bad+policies&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b34a9ed25f849e5f&biw=1380&bih=1006 https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#... (PUN intended on using Google to show you some of many complaints towards their policies...)
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=bluetidepro%20bad%20policies https://www.google.com/search?q=bluetidepro%20bad%20policies
    - bluetidepro 14y ago
      DID lol.

chwahoo 14y ago

I do agree that Dropbox's wording is much friendlier, but I attribute most of the difference to Google having big plans (e.g., searching and sharing) and being careful that their terms will permit them. I suspect a big part of this is Google's intention to analyze your data to make it indexed/searchable (e.g., their 'search for Mt. Everest and get back your pictures of it' features).

ajross 14y ago
Really, the difference seems to be almost exclusively wording. Both licenses grant very broad powers to the service to redistribute (Google is guilty only of enumerating them more fully, where Dropbox simply claims "all the permissions we need"). Both providers include language that they will only do this in order "to provide the service", but neither enumerates exactly what that means. Does anyone see anything specific that Dropbox can't do that Google can? That grant looks really broad to me, just ... friendlier.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  What people are noticing is perceived intent. Dropbox is clear what their intent is. Google is less clear. People like clarity, especially ewhen dealing with personal items.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services." I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is nicer about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the rights they reserve seem less scary. But really, I think this is a giant kerfuffle over nothing (fueled in no small part by the "Dropbox is on the HN team" feeling here). These licenses look almost 100% equivalent to me.
    - 14y ago

judofyr 14y ago

We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example [..]. This includes [..]. It also includes [..]. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff? Seriously? IANAL, but doesn't that include more than what Google says? Also note that Google has this line (you know, just above the paragraph that was quoted in the article): Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

bluetidepro 14y ago
How did you get to "So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff?" from what Dropbox put, I personally did not interrupt it that way at all...
ceejayoz 14y ago
> So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff? Why'd you leave out the "things you ask us to do" bit? "You give us permission to kick you in the balls" sounds bad in a contract if you leave out the "because you're signing up to become a mixed martial arts combatant" bit, too.

stuartmemo 14y ago

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...

nooop 14y ago
Yet, with those rights, Google are able to (worldwide) ; create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"? In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.
- cube13 14y ago
  Google can only do those rights. They cannot sell your content, for example, because it is not enumerated in the list. Dropbox, on the other hand, could, theoretically decide that they want to sell your information as a part of the service, and their TOS allows it. Also keep in mind that this is Google's unified TOS for ALL Google services and products. So it includes Youtube and Google Music, both of which require those rights in order to function.
rjsamson 14y ago
Exactly. The same FUD was being spread around a while back regarding google's terms as related to photo sharing on G+. Google needs these rights to provide certain features...
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Was it Facebook that used someone's photo of themselves in an advert - claiming that it fell under "we can use your images for any purpose" ?

Xuzz 14y ago

On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them." All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifact of how our copyright law works. Google does a bad job of expressing that reality as nicely as others (like Dropbox), but with almost equivalent permissions, I'd put them pretty far down on the list of companies not to trust.

rfugger 14y ago
Google's is worse because it takes all rights to use your work however it likes, and then states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service. But if it likes, it can amend the privacy policy in the future to remove or modify that limitation. So you have to trust Google, which may be fine now, but what about in 20 years? They have rights to your work forever. Other providers clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service, right in the ToS. IANAL, but this seems important.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  I'm confused. You say Google "states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service", but that's not good enough, because they can amend it later to remove that protection. How is that different from the other providers, who (as you said, again) "clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service"? What is different about them which stops them from amending their policies?
  - adgar 14y ago
    > I'm confused. No, you're not. You identified a crystal clear double standard in your parent post.

Zaim3 14y ago

Looks like Google accidentally started two memes this month: #whitespace and #selectivelyquoteprivacypolicy

sangaya 14y ago

That's standard wording allowing them to provide the content to you on any device you access the services from over the internet (i.e. publicly). http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+worldwide+license+to+use%2C+host%2C+store%2C+reproduce%2C+modify%2C+create+derivative+works%22+-Google http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+w...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

ceejayoz 14y ago

Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in. http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867

whackberry 14y ago
> Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, Yes but Dropbox doesn't have the reach and amount of data gathering power Google has. Google is actively monitoring hundreds to thousands of personal data gathering systems, whereas Dropbox is only a cloud storage system. There IMO lies the difference.
NelsonMinar 14y ago
Yeah, and Dropbox fixed it after public complaint. It's amazing to me Google would launch with a license with the same problem.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Frankly, I'd be surprised if Drive didn't get an addendum to the TOS to address the concerns. Lawyers don't often have 24 hour turnarounds on this sort of change.

joejohnson 14y ago

I think this image nicely compares the TOS for Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft's Sky Drive: https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/photo/1 https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/...

nicholassmith 14y ago

It's the derivative works part of the T&Cs for GDrive that makes it a little wonky, I don't want to give them full license to create any derivative work but I'm happy with them making changes for technical architecture. But that's so selective and does miss the part where they say your content and copyright is all yours, so it justifies picking on Google for being supposedly creepy.

mangodrunk 14y ago
As others have mentioned, it probably is about producing thumbnails of images or something like that. >You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This give Dropbox the ability to modify your images to create thumbnails as well if that's a part of their service. It also allows them to do whatever else they want without being explicit and hiding behind vague wording.

nateberkopec 14y ago

The exact same language is in the Google terms of service, so if you use Gmail, your emails are covered by the same language. Clearly, this is lawyer boilerplate being taken out of context. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

brudgers 14y ago
"if you use Gmail" Yes, Gmail has the same issue. Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit. Which sounds nasty, until you realize they potentially need such language to be able to do something as simple as implementing a better spam filter, or offline syncing for your e-mail.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Furthermore, Google could, like dropbox, limit their use of your data to providing or improving the services they provide you. Spam filtering and syncing resonably fall in that category.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      > That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive. Google just recently went through a unification of their disparate privacy policies, terms of service, etc. I also don't see why Google wouldn't want to add services to Drive down the road...
      - brudgers 14y ago
        Unification of Google's privacy policies was done for Google's benefit. Furthermore, as an explanation for why these policies should apply to drive, it begs the question.

aresant 14y ago

If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox. Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.

ghoul2 14y ago
I have found quite a few people recommend this, and never understood the point - if all you want is a "cloud" backup of your opaque data, simply use tarsnap. cheap, easy, brilliant piece of engineering. Or heck, use backblaze with their unlimited storage plan! The trouble with building a truecrypt volume inside GDrive/Dropbox etc is that this makes the data completely opaque to the service. You give up all integration with google docs, easy sharing via links, collaboration, everything. Why use these services at all if you don't need the features they provide over and above basic backup?
- j_s 14y ago
  The price is right!
xtrimsky_ 14y ago
Doesn't allow me to access my files on my Android device. I sometimes like to access a PDF, or word document :(.
huhtenberg 14y ago
TC volume needs to be unmounted in order for gDrive/Dropbox to be able to sync it. For that you need to close all apps that are currently using any files on that volume. That's not exactly easy-breezy. In fact, it's a major pain in the ass, so - no, this is not a practical option.
- trustmeimadr 14y ago
  What about using encfs?

timothya 14y ago

There's been several articles on this topic, and I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS: "Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." These terms are across all of Google's services, and of course they need to state these sorts of things to keep themselves covered.

demetris 14y ago
“I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS.” Because not many people are good at reading and at understanding what they read. Which, here, is this: Gmail or Google Docs/Drive or Google Apps are not among Google’s services that “allow you to submit content”. You don’t submit anything to them. A service like YouTube, on the other hand, is, and it obviously needs such terms in order to operate.

orbitingpluto 14y ago

While it's obvious Google isn't planning to rape, pillage and publish your private files, their terms of service are starting on the wrong foot. Ask for the base permissions you need and work from there. This is even more important when you're not a Google. Explain what you need and why to give them what they want from you, earn their trust and karma. More importantly, if you sell off your company later, they will protect your users from those who might take a more liberal view of the TOS.

cabirum 14y ago

Y no one compares them to skydrive? «we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service.» « we may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of [ppl]»

haraldk 14y ago

One thing is that the phrasing of Google's terms is more open, more importantly: I would rather like to store my files with someone that are in the business of storing files - than someone that is in the business of making "everything" searchable (for anyone?)

ryanisinallofus 14y ago

Dropbox writing their TOS in a way that non-lawyers can read it was a good move here. Neither TOS really effects anything being done with your data in a practical way but the PR Dropbox is getting from theirs is worth 100x the time they put into it. Nice investment.

sampsonjs 14y ago

If any of this blather is an attempt to prevent me from giving my money to Google instead of Dropbox, mission failed. Pay 2 to 4 times as much for the same service? I don't think so. Google wins, T. K. O., pwned with a capital P.

xxiao 14y ago

can I encrypt it first...

sturmeh 14y ago

Amendment of a Privacy Policy doesn't retroactively apply the policy to all the data previously provided to the service without first consulting the user. If that is the case then they need to make the user ACCEPT the new terms before this can be done. (This is what is happening whenever you are forced to accept an amended TOS before returning to a service.)

cageface 14y ago

I'm actually not so worried about the privacy of the files I might put in GDrive. The handful of files I really care about (financial data etc) I store in other ways. But I am worried about having my Google account yanked out from under me. I'm simply not willing to depend on one capricious company with no customer support for email, phone, storage, online collaboration, chat, social etc. Ironically the harder Google tries to squeeze all their services together the less inclined I am to use any individual service.

Simpletoon 14y ago

The question for those looking at the TOS is: What is it you do not want Google to do? Unless you know the answer to that, reading TOS is a mindless exercise. You need to supply some facts, a real scenario. Then we can assess whether the TOS are reasonable. Google can say "what's yours stays yours". They could say also that to website content owners with respect to their web crawls. But the simple fact is they have a copy of someone else's data, they know what the contents are and they will use that knowledge of the contents (aggregated and de-personalised if necessary) to their own benefit, by using it to lure more web users and thereby advertisers. It works. That's how they make money. Of course given the chance they will require an explicit license from you to do so. Here, that's the TOS. With the web crawls, I guess it's robots.txt. There's an implicit license. What I'd like to see discussed is what happens if you encrypt some multi-GB binary blob of random bytes, give it an attention-grabbing filename and then move it to cloud storage. Does a team of cryptographers start trying to crack it? Now that's a fun legal question. I really do not understand the whole cloud storage thing. I imagine the real issue is people do not know how to move large amounts of data to each other, quickly and securely. They've never heard of netcat. And "storage" with a "link to download" is their solution. File sharing. Same old story. Everything gets funnelled through a webserver. Quite silly if you can directly connect to the recipient.