9 ms·

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

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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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...
      - abraham 15y ago
        > As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.
        streptomycin 15y ago
        You may move on, but their backups of your data won't.
      - waterlesscloud 15y ago
        It's extremely likely that Google will search your personal data for ad targeting purposes. It's what their entire company exists to do. The only way I'd believe they won't do it is if they VERY publicly state that they won't in completely unequivocal terms such that they'll be held liable if they do.
      - yesbabyyes 15y ago
        Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions. And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I regret that we have to have these far reaching policies and agreements filled with legalese, but there is also the social contract. Of course, what you say about data mining for ads is true. If you don't want to expose yourself to that, don't expose your data to Google. [1] http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
        smeg 15y ago
        > Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. It doesn't say that anywhere. The Privacy Policy covers "What information we collect and why we collect it.". In other words, the PP is about information they collect about you using the service, not stuff you upload to Drive. Think IP addresses, cookies, log-on times etc. > Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions. So your saying that TOS don't matter and we shouldn't read or analyse them because we trust Google wont do anything untoward? So we are we even having this discussion in the first place then?
- user24 15y ago
  Why not make the ToS incremental so you agree as-and-when you use the relevant part of the service. Click share "Do you authorise Google to share this document yada-yada", done. Most users will only consume part of the service, why should they have to agree to 100%?
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    I really don't want a dialog box with an "I agree" checkbox every time I make a minor action in a web interface.
    - user24 15y ago
      Not every time, just the first time.
cube13 15y ago
>Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. They actually don't. Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them. Dropbox actually does not state specifically what rights Dropbox needs to provide the services, and as such, could claim that you're granting all of the rights that Google has granted and more. This does not include full ownership, which they explicitly deny.
- smeg 15y ago
  >Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them They sure do. It just turns out one of these rights is that they can use your content for promotional purposes (advertising?). Dropbox may not have such a detailed TOS, but they are clear on one thing: whatever rights you do grant them are solely for the provision of the service to you.
  - cube13 15y ago
    The problem is that Dropbox may, at their sole discretion, decide that providing ads is part of "the Service". Under their TOS, they could do that without changing it. Realistically, Dropbox won't ever do that. But the key thing here is that Dropbox's TOS does not explicitly state exactly what rights they believe they need to operate with.
notatoad 15y ago
note that google also has a privacy policy in addition to a TOS. Most of the hypothetical horrible things that people are assuming the TOS allows google to do with your data are forbidden by their privacy policy.

capo 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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...
    - abraham 15y ago
      > As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.
      - streptomycin 15y ago
        You may move on, but their backups of your data won't.
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      It's extremely likely that Google will search your personal data for ad targeting purposes. It's what their entire company exists to do. The only way I'd believe they won't do it is if they VERY publicly state that they won't in completely unequivocal terms such that they'll be held liable if they do.
    - yesbabyyes 15y ago
      Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions. And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I regret that we have to have these far reaching policies and agreements filled with legalese, but there is also the social contract. Of course, what you say about data mining for ads is true. If you don't want to expose yourself to that, don't expose your data to Google. [1] http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
      - smeg 15y ago
        > Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent. It doesn't say that anywhere. The Privacy Policy covers "What information we collect and why we collect it.". In other words, the PP is about information they collect about you using the service, not stuff you upload to Drive. Think IP addresses, cookies, log-on times etc. > Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions. So your saying that TOS don't matter and we shouldn't read or analyse them because we trust Google wont do anything untoward? So we are we even having this discussion in the first place then?
user24 15y ago
Why not make the ToS incremental so you agree as-and-when you use the relevant part of the service. Click share "Do you authorise Google to share this document yada-yada", done. Most users will only consume part of the service, why should they have to agree to 100%?
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  I really don't want a dialog box with an "I agree" checkbox every time I make a minor action in a web interface.
  - user24 15y ago
    Not every time, just the first time.

cube13 15y ago

>Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. They actually don't. Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them. Dropbox actually does not state specifically what rights Dropbox needs to provide the services, and as such, could claim that you're granting all of the rights that Google has granted and more. This does not include full ownership, which they explicitly deny.

smeg 15y ago
>Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them They sure do. It just turns out one of these rights is that they can use your content for promotional purposes (advertising?). Dropbox may not have such a detailed TOS, but they are clear on one thing: whatever rights you do grant them are solely for the provision of the service to you.
- cube13 15y ago
  The problem is that Dropbox may, at their sole discretion, decide that providing ads is part of "the Service". Under their TOS, they could do that without changing it. Realistically, Dropbox won't ever do that. But the key thing here is that Dropbox's TOS does not explicitly state exactly what rights they believe they need to operate with.

notatoad 15y ago

note that google also has a privacy policy in addition to a TOS. Most of the hypothetical horrible things that people are assuming the TOS allows google to do with your data are forbidden by their privacy policy.