7 ms·

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:/

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" ?
  - rjsamson 14y ago
    That sounds about right. I'm not intimately familiar with FB's terms of use - I'm not sure if there is some differentiation between how they can use your other content and how they can use your profile / profile photo, etc. I haven't heard of Google doing anything like that though, but then their advertising model is a bit different.
  - nbm 14y ago
    I suspect you are misremembering either a real story about an advertiser using someone's photo without permission or rumours based on it that occasionally become popular. An advertiser once, against the FB terms of service, used a user's profile picture in their advertising. The advertiser was banned from the platform. Here's a news story that might jog your memory on this: http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/ http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/
    - rjsamson 14y ago
      Looks like you're absolutely correct - there's FB blog post from a while back talking about how this is something that they will not do: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130 http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130
ctdonath 14y ago
Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. Remember that recent flap about iOS apps uploading users' entire Contacts list for non-relevant uses? hey, users gave permission for the apps to access that data without explicit limits; same idea, same concerns.
- capo 14y ago
  No. If they are to enable you to share a document you need to give them license to do so. If they are to create copies of the files across datacenters and employ OCR on images and use that to improve their algorithms, they need to inlucde that in their terms of service to avoid getting sued.
  - sixothree 14y ago
    "use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works[...], communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." That's very different from what you are describing.
    - yesbabyyes 14y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. Use, host, store, reproduce are no-brainers. Modify and create derivative works are for thumbnails, OCRing, converting to other formats for displaying. The rest are for sharing with friends, or the world, right? Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.
      - ctdonath 14y ago
        As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google isn't (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image (even every snapshot just in case some text may be discerned), etc. to feed back into their grand ads-placed-via-data-mining profit center - it's just what they do; they may not do it (yet) in any way revealing private details, but they're sure not providing all these free services and tools out of sheer good will. You're thinking in terms of what reasonable uses the terms apply to. The problem is what UNreasonable uses are allowed by those who consent to those terms. Publish the entire private works (at least those docs stored on Google Drive) of yesbabyyes in a collectable volume? you agreed to it...
CWuestefeld 14y ago
You may be right, but that doesn't prevent them from using those same rights for other purposes (much like TSA searches being used to find drugs rather than terrorism). If Google really means it, and wants it to be clear, they could put it right into the TOS: "Google may do X, when it does so in order to provide feature Y".
- curveship 14y ago
  Doesn't this part of the TOS say exactly that?: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
  - aGHz 14y ago
    There's only one word I have issues with in the entire TOS, and that's "promoting". Basically they can do the same annoying thing Facebook does when they use your face to recommend pages to other people. Google could potentially use your stuff to build ads for Drive.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I can't think of any possible workable scheme for implementing that, that makes any kind of sense in any universe real or imagined. "Store your spreadsheets! Just like Joe Blow's 2012 sales forecast! (link to preview)"
      - aGHz 14y ago
        They could use the best photos in a collage or something. Be creative :)
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    "Develop new ones" is quite a broad clause ! eg. Rounding up non-gingers to be put in cages above pools of lava would be allowed
  - 14y ago
curveship 14y ago
Holy cow -- Apple says they may delete any iCloud content that they find "objectionable"? And that they have a right to scan your content to determine such? Jaw drop I store at the pleasure of the King.
RandallBrown 14y ago
To me, Google's terms imply an intention to use my data for certain things that I don't want them to, like promoting the service.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  A blog post saying "We have 20 petabytes of data in Google Drive" would be promoting the service with your data. Lawyers are always going to argue for the vaguest terms possible in situations like this.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    Under Google's TOS they can promote their service by posting my pictures in advertisements on other pages, under the title, "Look what other people are storing on Google Drive."
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example. TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner.
      - jlarocco 14y ago
        "Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example." Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is. "TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner." Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.
toddmorey 14y ago
No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting. Look, I get it: the chances of Google acting on these rights are small and the PR backlash for abuse would be brutal. But this is a great example of a legal department _far_ overreaching in their corporate protection efforts. I really want to use GDrive, but even if the odds of abuse are unimaginable, I really hate that they make me sign a contract that makes me out to be a functional idiot. "Sign away all your legal rights--it's okay because you can trust us."
- Xuzz 14y ago
  If you share a public link, maybe? If you use their website to stream a song to an audience?
- cube13 14y ago
  >No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting. Youtube.
AmazingMe 14y ago
How come dropbox, skydrive don't need such perpetual blanket permission to provide exactly same service.
- yohui 14y ago
  From stuartmemo's comment, which you replied to: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloudhttp://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 Verge: "Is Google Drive worse for privacy than iCloud, Skydrive, and Dropbox?" Short answer: no.
  - AmazingMe 14y ago
    reading the article mentioned Skydrive: (GRANT ALL)..."posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service" GDrive: (GRANT ALL)..."the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." Services vs. Service, Promoting vs providing will showing book drafts being created by me on Google Books is promoting/improving there service, yep. Google may not do so ever, but you have to trust them instead of being on TOS.
whackberry 14y ago
> Complete FUD. Care to provide backup to this claim? Privacy issues and property rights on Google services seem very real to me.
dudus 14y ago
I agree it's a lot of FUD around this subject. I started to have some weird thoughts that Dropbox is creating all this FUD

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" ?
- rjsamson 14y ago
  That sounds about right. I'm not intimately familiar with FB's terms of use - I'm not sure if there is some differentiation between how they can use your other content and how they can use your profile / profile photo, etc. I haven't heard of Google doing anything like that though, but then their advertising model is a bit different.
- nbm 14y ago
  I suspect you are misremembering either a real story about an advertiser using someone's photo without permission or rumours based on it that occasionally become popular. An advertiser once, against the FB terms of service, used a user's profile picture in their advertising. The advertiser was banned from the platform. Here's a news story that might jog your memory on this: http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/ http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/
  - rjsamson 14y ago
    Looks like you're absolutely correct - there's FB blog post from a while back talking about how this is something that they will not do: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130 http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130

ctdonath 14y ago

Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. Remember that recent flap about iOS apps uploading users' entire Contacts list for non-relevant uses? hey, users gave permission for the apps to access that data without explicit limits; same idea, same concerns.

capo 14y ago
No. If they are to enable you to share a document you need to give them license to do so. If they are to create copies of the files across datacenters and employ OCR on images and use that to improve their algorithms, they need to inlucde that in their terms of service to avoid getting sued.
- sixothree 14y ago
  "use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works[...], communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." That's very different from what you are describing.
  - yesbabyyes 14y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. Use, host, store, reproduce are no-brainers. Modify and create derivative works are for thumbnails, OCRing, converting to other formats for displaying. The rest are for sharing with friends, or the world, right? Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google isn't (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image (even every snapshot just in case some text may be discerned), etc. to feed back into their grand ads-placed-via-data-mining profit center - it's just what they do; they may not do it (yet) in any way revealing private details, but they're sure not providing all these free services and tools out of sheer good will. You're thinking in terms of what reasonable uses the terms apply to. The problem is what UNreasonable uses are allowed by those who consent to those terms. Publish the entire private works (at least those docs stored on Google Drive) of yesbabyyes in a collectable volume? you agreed to it...

CWuestefeld 14y ago

You may be right, but that doesn't prevent them from using those same rights for other purposes (much like TSA searches being used to find drugs rather than terrorism). If Google really means it, and wants it to be clear, they could put it right into the TOS: "Google may do X, when it does so in order to provide feature Y".

curveship 14y ago
Doesn't this part of the TOS say exactly that?: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
- aGHz 14y ago
  There's only one word I have issues with in the entire TOS, and that's "promoting". Basically they can do the same annoying thing Facebook does when they use your face to recommend pages to other people. Google could potentially use your stuff to build ads for Drive.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I can't think of any possible workable scheme for implementing that, that makes any kind of sense in any universe real or imagined. "Store your spreadsheets! Just like Joe Blow's 2012 sales forecast! (link to preview)"
    - aGHz 14y ago
      They could use the best photos in a collage or something. Be creative :)
- excuse-me 14y ago
  "Develop new ones" is quite a broad clause ! eg. Rounding up non-gingers to be put in cages above pools of lava would be allowed
- 14y ago

curveship 14y ago

Holy cow -- Apple says they may delete any iCloud content that they find "objectionable"? And that they have a right to scan your content to determine such? Jaw drop I store at the pleasure of the King.

RandallBrown 14y ago

To me, Google's terms imply an intention to use my data for certain things that I don't want them to, like promoting the service.

ceejayoz 14y ago
A blog post saying "We have 20 petabytes of data in Google Drive" would be promoting the service with your data. Lawyers are always going to argue for the vaguest terms possible in situations like this.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  Under Google's TOS they can promote their service by posting my pictures in advertisements on other pages, under the title, "Look what other people are storing on Google Drive."
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example. TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      "Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example." Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is. "TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner." Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.

toddmorey 14y ago

No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting. Look, I get it: the chances of Google acting on these rights are small and the PR backlash for abuse would be brutal. But this is a great example of a legal department _far_ overreaching in their corporate protection efforts. I really want to use GDrive, but even if the odds of abuse are unimaginable, I really hate that they make me sign a contract that makes me out to be a functional idiot. "Sign away all your legal rights--it's okay because you can trust us."

Xuzz 14y ago
If you share a public link, maybe? If you use their website to stream a song to an audience?
cube13 14y ago
>No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting. Youtube.

AmazingMe 14y ago

How come dropbox, skydrive don't need such perpetual blanket permission to provide exactly same service.

yohui 14y ago
From stuartmemo's comment, which you replied to: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloudhttp://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 Verge: "Is Google Drive worse for privacy than iCloud, Skydrive, and Dropbox?" Short answer: no.
- AmazingMe 14y ago
  reading the article mentioned Skydrive: (GRANT ALL)..."posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service" GDrive: (GRANT ALL)..."the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." Services vs. Service, Promoting vs providing will showing book drafts being created by me on Google Books is promoting/improving there service, yep. Google may not do so ever, but you have to trust them instead of being on TOS.

whackberry 14y ago

> Complete FUD. Care to provide backup to this claim? Privacy issues and property rights on Google services seem very real to me.

dudus 14y ago

I agree it's a lot of FUD around this subject. I started to have some weird thoughts that Dropbox is creating all this FUD