Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jeff Vader on April 24, 2012, 12:12:45 pm
-
As seen here (https://drive.google.com/). It's like Dropbox, but it's Google. And you get 5GB of free space. They already have my browsing habits/email/calendar/contacts/documents/location info; why not my files as well.
Edit: yes i'm a googel fanboy
-
I'm using good old Mediafire. AFAIK, it doesn't limit free storage space (or at least, not to 5GB). Also, my inbox (on inbox.com) has 5GB space for free.
-
Looking forward to trying this out when I get home tonight.
-
Microsoft also upgraded SkyDrive just yesterday.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/23/the-next-chapter-for-skydrive-personal-cloud-storage-for-windows-available-anywhere.aspx
Dragon, MediaFire is different from Dropbox, Skydrive and GDrive.
-
Ah, right. It's that kind of virtual drive. I've mostly used Dropbox for downloading flies from it (seems to be a popular choice on KSP forums), so I had no idea that it's not a hosting service like Mediafire.
-
5gb is nothing. i couldn't even back up all the nukemod sources with that.
-
Meh, backs up my flashdrive...
How does it work? We're actually going to start running into problems very soon with my animation project, because after St. Louis, some of the people on the team have expressed interest in helping. Unfortunately, I have nothing like a network drive to put it on, as student accounts can't modify the robotic's network drive.
-
So far Google Drive seems a bit less clunky than Dropbox in terms of file version management. There are some Dropbox features I would have expect Drive to have, like a public link sharing ability. But Drive also seems to sync more sanely that Dropbox.
However, given that I've gotten up to about 23 GB of free space on Dropbox, Google Drive is going to be a tough sell for me. But I've got both installed for now, we'll see how it goes.
This feature is damned cool though...
"View anything.
Open over 30 file types right in your browser—including HD video, Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop—even if you don’t have the program installed on your computer."
-
I think the photos from my phone will have a new place to live now.
-
Cool but I've got Dropbox, and Google knows enough about me already.
-
My Google Drive is not ready yet :(
-
FYI, SkyDrive offers existing users 25GB for free. You need to go claim that by logging into SkyDrive, there is a notification link on top of the page. New users are stuck with free 7GB.
If you didn't notice it from my previous post, SkyDrive now also offers similar sync app to Dropbox and GDrive. It's also available to Mac, WinPhone and iPhone. No Android app yet unfortunately.
-
I wish I had known that M$ was axing SkyDrive down to 7GB. They say 7GB covers 98% of users? What they are trying to say is that the top 2% of new free users need to go pay up instead now. :P If it was really that small of a percentage, I don't think MS would have any problem keeping 25GB storage for everyone, as 98% would not use it.
My GDrive isn't ready yet.
I think I'll get a SkyDrive.
I've already got a Dropbox.
EDIT: OK, if you are an existing MS Live user (hotmail or live.com account, I think XBOX online users will have a live.com account) then you can get 25GB if you sign in now.
Now would be the time to dig up your old hotmail account that you used to use for registering on sites. Go to www.skydrive.com , log in, and upgrade your storage. (If you want it, anyways.)
-
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.
Sounds ****ty to me. It must offer a hell of a hand job since many like it. This however destroys any anticipation for me and many others. Encrypt then upload perhaps?
-
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.
Sounds ****ty to me. It must offer a hell of a hand job since many like it. This however destroys any anticipation for me and many others. Encrypt then upload perhaps?
100% of the stuff I have on my google drive are docs like grocery lists, random pdfs, and tiny snippets of code. I really don't care if google uses my grocery list in their marketing campaign, and if they want to say they own a pdf of Missile Guidance and Control Systems, then whatever, I don't give a ****.
-
GOOGLE IS EVIL!
withdraw all your support from Google!
-
Google is terrifying (http://www.cracked.com/article_18540_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-google.html). Their standing position is still "Don't be Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)" though.
If that changes, I'll panic.
-
Their standing position is still "Don't be Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)"
Talk is cheap.
-
Talk is cheap.
True, but it's still better than you get from most.
-
Meh.. I've got nothing to hide. Besides just about any online company tracks whatever you do with their stuff. If you're online these days, it's hard to keep any data about you from being stored somewhere.
And if someone really wanted the information about me then they could find it. There isn't really much I can do about it... and since I have nothing to hide, I'm not going to fret about it.
-
If there is something sensitive, just encrypt it and use a good password. Create a little TrueCrype drive, and upload that.
-
100% of the stuff I have on my google drive are docs like grocery lists, random pdfs, and tiny snippets of code. I really don't care if google uses my grocery list in their marketing campaign, and if they want to say they own a pdf of Missile Guidance and Control Systems, then whatever, I don't give a ****.
OK, i guess the terms of service that wreaks of it being a bad idea to use it aren't good enough for others. Usually the best course of action to get rid of what is yours to others or entities is through the use of money. You get money, they get your stuff kind of thing.
It's not what you have that is valuable to them. It's what most others have on there that is valuable to them and what in the future that you may have that is valuable to them also. User data is valuable, google makes the big bucks off of user data that they swindle off users now. It's a really ****ty trade off.
-
It's not what you have that is valuable to them. It's what most others have on there that is valuable to them and what in the future that you may have that is valuable to them also. User data is valuable, google makes the big bucks off of user data that they swindle off users now. It's a really ****ty trade off.
you mean them giving users targeted advertisements in exchange for a free service is a swindle? it's not like they're selling your identity to the russian mafia.
-
It's not what you have that is valuable to them. It's what most others have on there that is valuable to them and what in the future that you may have that is valuable to them also. User data is valuable, google makes the big bucks off of user data that they swindle off users now. It's a really ****ty trade off.
you mean them giving users targeted advertisements in exchange for a free service is a swindle? it's not like they're selling your identity to the russian mafia.
Indeed. If they use my info to show me ads that I actually care about.. then it's good for me and for them I guess.
-
I very much look forward to this only having mobile apps which are poorly updated or non-existent for all the platforms except Android. Like they do with pretty much every other app for their services. Quite frankly I have no idea how Google have thus far avoided an anti-trust investigation on this issue and I hugely look forward to the day when they get one.
**** them. I'm sticking with Dropbox.
-
if by 'all of the platforms except Android' I assume you mean IOS? if that is the case keep in mind that Apple holds the keys to what apps show up there. and if there is anti-trust for that then why is there not anti-trust for all of the **** Apple does, like not letting you install software on your hardware outside of their control.
-
if by 'all of the platforms except Android' I assume you mean IOS? if that is the case keep in mind that Apple holds the keys to what apps show up there. and if there is anti-trust for that then why is there not anti-trust for all of the **** Apple does, like not letting you install software on your hardware outside of their control.
Anti-trust refers to using a monopoly in one field to encourage unfair competition in another. Unless Apple are actually preventing you installing an alternative to iTunes, what are they doing that fits that description?
iPhone actually is the best supported non-android platform. An example of what I mean though is that for instance Google recently just dropped support for Blackberry almost across the board after not having updated their apps for around 3 years. iPhone is too big for them to ignore but when you drop support for a platform with 90 million users, it's pretty hard to claim that's cause you don't think anyone will want to use their gmail app.
-
Using GDrive. Works pretty well.
Now I need to find a way to run Truecrypt with it.
-
if by 'all of the platforms except Android' I assume you mean IOS? if that is the case keep in mind that Apple holds the keys to what apps show up there. and if there is anti-trust for that then why is there not anti-trust for all of the **** Apple does, like not letting you install software on your hardware outside of their control.
Anti-trust refers to using a monopoly in one field to encourage unfair competition in another. Unless Apple are actually preventing you installing an alternative to iTunes, what are they doing that fits that description?
iPhone actually is the best supported non-android platform. An example of what I mean though is that for instance Google recently just dropped support for Blackberry almost across the board after not having updated their apps for around 3 years. iPhone is too big for them to ignore but when you drop support for a platform with 90 million users, it's pretty hard to claim that's cause you don't think anyone will want to use their gmail app.
Lemme guess, you have a Blackberry.
-
Yep. Which is why I know how ****ty their Blackberry support is. But I've heard complaints from iPhone and Nokia users too. I'd probably hear them from Windows Phone users if I ever met one. :p
-
Using GDrive. Works pretty well.
Now I need to find a way to run Truecrypt with it.
Use it for TrueCrypt backups (this is what I do).
You don't want to be mounting anything in trueCrypt that's actively and continuously synchronizing with a server. Bad things happen.
-
[Rhetorical] question: How many of you folks criticizing Google's business practices have a Facebook account?
-
Yep. Which is why I know how ****ty their Blackberry support is. But I've heard complaints from iPhone and Nokia users too. I'd probably hear them from Windows Phone users if I ever met one. :p
It's interesting that you have this perspective. Why aren't you complaining that you can't use iCloud on your Blackberry at all? Or any number of other Apple products.
-
Let me guess, you're an Android user. :p
Why aren't you complaining that you can't use iCloud on your Blackberry at all? Or any number of other Apple products.
Cause this thread is about Google.
I've given Apple plenty of **** over the years. In what field do you feel Apple has a monopoly large enough to make their actions anti-trust though? iTunes is about the only thing even close to large enough and I don't use it. Google has a massive advantage in several markets, is attempting to shoulder in on others (Google+, Google Drive) and I'll be damned if I give up a multiplatform offering like Dropbox for a one which is much more limited.
Do I need to also point out that Dropbox has a Linux client too, unlike Google Drive? In know most techies don't seem to give a toss about multiplatform support on mobiles any more but I'd expect that fact to have raised somewhat of a stink.
-
[Rhetorical] question: How many of you folks criticizing Google's business practices have a Facebook account?
Truth be told, I do not have a Facebook account. I like Google, though.
The only thing in recent memory that Google did that made me sad was their support for the neutral net law, but that was awhile ago.
-
you mean them giving users targeted advertisements in exchange for a free service is a swindle? it's not like they're selling your identity to the russian mafia.
I was going beyond that. With all the money they make off of user data, i wonder why even the need for advertisements to use the service to help pay for it except to make it that much more annoying to use. With all that data on google drive they now get to keep, you'd think they'd give the users a little dignity and say "hey, no ads ever google drive users". And no, it's not a free service. All your stuff becomes there's automatically on google drive; that's the payment.
What google is getting in return by being able to claim all your stuff as their's is a hell of a deal for them (they get to make off with serious ****, while all you get is a little storage and perhaps some "app" integration). It may be a nice service, but what you get in return for what they get to keep is why google is swindling people.
Do we really need a russian mafia exaggeration in a day and age where personal information on the internet is and has been big money? It's not that they'll sell the data,...wait, yes they will. That's why they want your stuff on your google drive account so badly. They also want to retain your data for their purposes too, probably make better ads with all of the pictures for all the photos that just got branded with googles TOS, etc.
:pimp: I think google would sell your data to the horny obese lady mafia.
-
But the ads are how Google makes all its money. That's the only thing they use your data for, to better-target the ads. If they did actually sell your personal data to anybody, and the fact got out (which would be pretty easy to figure out it happened), Google would go bankrupt. It's in their best interests to keep your secret stuff to themselves.
-
To better target the ads, and i wouldn't put it past them to use your data in ads. Stuff like your picture or something else. Or other purposes. It's still pretty awkward that they would lay claim to everything uploaded. They know they'll have access to a whole big lot of information of all kinds, not personal information derived from data kept on google drive.
They're not just interested in your personal details. They could find all of that out by probably having you fill out a survey or something.
-
They would most likely be concerned that you would purposefully throw off the results of said survey.
-
To better target the ads, and i wouldn't put it past them to use your data in ads. Stuff like your picture or something else. Or other purposes. It's still pretty awkward that they would lay claim to everything uploaded. They know they'll have access to a whole big lot of information of all kinds, not personal information derived from data kept on google drive.
They're not just interested in your personal details. They could find all of that out by probably having you fill out a survey or something.
If you have some sort of reliable piece of evidence suggesting that Google has interest in your personal data beyond that of advertising and the services provided you can either share it with us or stop posting. Tinfoil hatters are not on my, or I'm sure anyone else's, list of people to have a good discussion with. Alternatively, an equally valid continuation of this discussion would by why you don't want targeted advertisements or why these services aren't good.
-
you mean them giving users targeted advertisements in exchange for a free service is a swindle? it's not like they're selling your identity to the russian mafia.
I was going beyond that. With all the money they make off of user data, i wonder why even the need for advertisements to use the service to help pay for it except to make it that much more annoying to use. With all that data on google drive they now get to keep, you'd think they'd give the users a little dignity and say "hey, no ads ever google drive users". And no, it's not a free service. All your stuff becomes there's automatically on google drive; that's the payment.
What google is getting in return by being able to claim all your stuff as their's is a hell of a deal for them (they get to make off with serious ****, while all you get is a little storage and perhaps some "app" integration). It may be a nice service, but what you get in return for what they get to keep is why google is swindling people.
Do we really need a russian mafia exaggeration in a day and age where personal information on the internet is and has been big money? It's not that they'll sell the data,...wait, yes they will. That's why they want your stuff on your google drive account so badly. They also want to retain your data for their purposes too, probably make better ads with all of the pictures for all the photos that just got branded with googles TOS, etc.
:pimp: I think google would sell your data to the horny obese lady mafia.
Last I checked, Facebook says "what you upload is ours" (as in what you upload is legally theirs, being a member is that contract apperently) and Google says "What you upload is yours, but we'll probably use it for adverts". I would love to see this source that says Google owns what you upload.
And I agree with Polpolion, Proof or don't post.
As far as I'm concerned, Google is the cool Big Brother who gives you nice things and doesnt tattle on you unless Bigger Brother (Gov) wants to know directly. (Thanks Patiot Act...)
-
Yeah, I was going to get annoyed at that list of terms and conditions until I noticed that the long list of rights they were giving themselves only apply to them advertising or adding new services.
I take much greater exception to Facebooks "All your stuff are belong to us" attitude.
-
Google is terrifying (http://www.cracked.com/article_18540_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-google.html). Their standing position is still "Don't be Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)" though.
If that changes, I'll panic.
"Don't actually say that you are Evil"... if that s not an entry on that "How to be an Evil Overlord" list, then it should be :) LOL.
-
I don't have a facebook account or any social networking accounts (i don't find social networking of any kind of use i'd need). My analyzation of possible scenarios comes from the fact that i shouldn't trust service agreements with such clauses in them.
Call me paranoid, i don't care, i was too broad with analyzing.
-
a reasonable conclusion to reach if you cannot trust yourself to use these services responsibly
-
I can use these services responsibly. I just don't agree with all of these questionable TOS's these days. As for social networking, i don't like the employment practices happening with them. I also have no need for these services.
Since i don't agree with them because i find that stuff detestable, i will have nothing to do with them. I will tell others to be wary. Granted my stance was don't use it. I'll just tell people to be careful instead. Another area of TOS's these days is forced arbitration. But, that's another topic.
EDIT:
a reasonable conclusion to reach if you cannot trust yourself to use these services responsibly
I don't find people inviting me to a million apps, looking at my friend's drama, people i don't know wanting me to add them, staying up with the current bull**** buzz of the people in my friends list, or putting my data in the "cloud" as needs. This is not about me trusting myself to not use the service responsibly. Aside from the crappy TOS's that i don't trust and my disgust, i simply don't have a need.
-
an alternative to iTunes
sounds like that would be "confusingly similar to an existing Apple product" and would therefore not pass the compliance review.
-
You mean you can't buy any 3rd party programs that allow you to download music on the iPhone?
Even if you can't, I still doubt that would be anywhere near as anti-trust as Google though. After all, you chose to put yourself in that nightmare when you bought an iPhone. Anti-trust is about people not being able to have any choice because the alternatives have been crushed.
How many people use a mapping solution other than Google maps on their PC? And I don't mean just us tech-literate types.
-
What about Chomp (http://chomp.com/) being bought by Apple and removing the previous existing support of other mobile operating systems? Or Siri?
Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?
-
Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?
No. Anti-trust means that if you have a monopoly or near monopoly in one field, you can't then use it to exploit another one.
Google has a massive share of the mapping and webmail markets. So I'll ask again, what monopoly do you think Apple have in a non-mobile phone market that they have exploited to sell iPhones?
-
lets, see, they have a dominant position in the tablet market, though it's not quite a monopoly, music players and music distribution, they could be said to have a monopoly.
but I'm not sure I see how not actively supporting rivals equates to trust-like activities, you can access gmail just fine using any IMAP compatible email client. the fact that they support IMAP is the very opposite of what you are accusing them of.
-
Are you forced to support every platform you've ever supported once your application reaches a certain level of popularity?
No. Anti-trust means that if you have a monopoly or near monopoly in one field, you can't then use it to exploit another one.
Google has a massive share of the mapping and webmail markets. So I'll ask again, what monopoly do you think Apple have in a non-mobile phone market that they have exploited to sell iPhones?
So the answer to the question is "Not unless you own one of the platforms."?
-
I totally fail to understand your meaning.
but I'm not sure I see how not actively supporting rivals equates to trust-like activities, you can access gmail just fine using any IMAP compatible email client. the fact that they support IMAP is the very opposite of what you are accusing them of.
And you can install other browsers on Windows but that didn't mean MS won their anti-trust case.
I still don't see how you can say that Apple are more anti-trust?
-
I don't follow. You can uninstall any Google product you have on your PC, and you can choose not to use any Google products on the internet. There are alternatives. Those that use Google products choose not to use the alternatives.
-
they are more anti-competitive because they will chose to litigate at the drop of a hat, and on the platforms they own they do not let competitors in, in other words you will never be able to install a microsoft/google/opensource operating system on any of their hardware, at least not without them wanting to imprison you, and finaly if you own a company that makes apps you had better hope that apple does not decide to make something similar to what you have made or they will simply ban you from all of their phones, as nasty as MS was with the IE thing, at least you could go out and download an alternative, with apple if they decide they don't want an app on their phones they will simply remove it from the app store, and there is nothing you can do about it.
further the reason MS lost it's anti-trust case was because they bundled IE. all of google's products are things you have to go out of your way to get to begin with so I don't see how there is a parallel.
-
I totally fail to understand your meaning.
Well, I'm basing these questions on the following comment.
I very much look forward to this only having mobile apps which are poorly updated or non-existent for all the platforms except Android. Like they do with pretty much every other app for their services. Quite frankly I have no idea how Google have thus far avoided an anti-trust investigation on this issue and I hugely look forward to the day when they get one.
I assume you are implying that Google should be investigated for anti-trust behavior because they update apps infrequently for other platforms or don't provide them at all. You seem to base your reasoning on these applications having a monopoly in their market (I disagree, but I don't really care on this point) and Google using them to somehow creating a competitive advantage in other markets.
However, this behavior is identical to most, if not all, competitors in the mobile OS market. For example, Microsoft has Skype and keeps it updated most often on its own OSs. Every competitor has at least one product in a market that they have a large majority or virtual monopoly over and uses it to further their mobile OS.
So if everyone is doing this, should they all be investigated for these practices? Is condemning them for this going to be some sort of slippery slope? The problem is that the idea of forcing them to support platforms seems somehow wrong. You are forcing them to add extra costs for what might not be, disregarding anti-trust behavior, good allocation of resources.
-
apple is only 20% of the smart phone market. it makes seance that they would allocate 4 times as many resources to support it.
-
Last I checked, Facebook says "what you upload is ours" (as in what you upload is legally theirs, being a member is that contract apperently) and Google says "What you upload is yours, but we'll probably use it for adverts". I would love to see this source that says Google owns what you upload.
You didn't know i at least posted some kind of proof on page one? The proof that you're looking for too. Here it is again.
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.
They definitely use people's google drive uploaded content to improve the services (but hey, no one other than me can imagine a world where people who host the service don't abide by the TOS, but whatever).
The wording of all of that says your stuff is ours for x purpose (x being improving the services), even when you part ways and stop using y service, the license that we required to use y service to use your stuff never expires. That rings of "we own your stuff" pretty strongly. I mean hell, uploading content automatically licenses your stuff to them and it never expires even if you stop using the service.
I'd still never recommend a service like this. Even under the innocent guise of just using people's content for improving the service by ads and everything. You're still signing over everything on the drive to them, and that's too much power to have over the people who use google drive. It's offensive and insulting to ask people to surrender that much for this service.
-
1) license for use != ownership. Anyone that's been to a university operated computer lab can tell you that it's not even close.
2) I still see no evidence suggesting that google intends to do malicious things with your data.
also, afaik, people are kind of legally bound to the TOS. Try suing google if they violate it. (oh wait, that would require evidence, wouldn't it?)
-
1) license for use != ownership. Anyone that's been to a university operated computer lab can tell you that it's not even close.
2) I still see no evidence suggesting that google intends to do malicious things with your data.
Exactly. They are saying it gives them the right to use it, but not that it is theirs. Google wouldn't want to own it anyway since if people host illegal data, and google claims ownership of all data uploaded, they can be brought to court.
Liiiiike... the RIAA bringing them in for a song. (or 20,000 songs. Google is big enough for the fun numbers)
-
The fact that they hold onto the data of yours that they were using after you stop using the service means that they kept it. License to use in this case i would say is ownership without using the word ownership.
Malicious intentions? Most likely not in this case. I however don't discount it. I don't expect companies to follow all terms of TOS's behind doors if they find ways to get away with it so they don't get sued. Google on the other hand. I don't think they have grave plans for anything.
For the TOS that they have for google drive? How much stuff do they want for free. At least it's a trade off. I just don't like what the cost is for ad support.
-
Malicious intentions? Most likely not in this case.
I just don't like what the cost is for ad support.
exactly what is the cost?
-
I already outlined what the cost of using the service is. The cost is the data of yours that you'll be granting to use (and keep when you're gone from the service).
-
yet you've already stated
Malicious intentions? Most likely not in this case.
unless you actually think google employees are spending their coffee breaks illicitly (and illegally) copying your personal data to their home computers (why the **** they would want to be doing that I have no idea), I really don't get how you think google's access to your data is in any way bad.
Even if we assume that 1) Google did employ spies to snoop your data to steal (for whatever reason) and 2) you did find a need to upload sensitive information to google drive (assume you have a good reason for sending it to a third party rather than storing it yourself), what's stopping you from encrypting it? I'm not going to bother encrypting my grocery lists or my lecture notes, but whatever I did want to encrypt, I doubt google would want to bother spending the resources to crack. And if they did we'd all be ****ed, google drive or not.
no really, in case you think I'm trying to make straw men I'm still having a hard time understanding the point you're trying to make.
-
The point is that the cost of using this service is what i consider too high for what the TOS requires. I don't agree with it. They're requiring access and use of user personal data whenever they want (aside from the fact that it's just for ads). And, when you get rid of your google drive account, they keep what of yours they used.
It's not exactly good form to go up to people and say, "hey, can i have access to and use, and even keep some of your stuff for x purpose". When it's someone who doesn't know you personally asking you this, it's offensive and insulting; i find it an unethical practice. It always serves to make the person asking look bad. I think it's not a bright idea to trust a person who asks that question.
It's the fact that google went beyond asking and made it a requirement for one of their services. Who cares what they use the data for. It's blatantly obvious that they want to mine user data. I think google could have come up with something different for users of the service to contribute back to it aside from asking to pony up money or what the TOS currently says.
As far as google goes for abusing the power behind what they use the data stored on google drive for. That probably won't happen. My point with that is that it's not exactly unheard of for big business and companies to do things behind closed doors and abuse of policy, or not even following policy. Google is a lot smarter and friendlier in general.
There's encrypt and upload like i mentioned earlier in my first post in this thread of course. But, as far as that goes. Why would anyone want to use a third party service for storage? The best things i can think of is convenience, need, and immediacy of need. No one would need to encrypt everything. Most likely what would be encrypted is stuff that no one would want anybody else seeing (or certain others with the password...meant for designated eyes). But, i don't see google trying to crack encrypted files.
I hope this helps?
-
You know who else keeps your personal information after you've given it to them, yet does absolutely nothing with it except, you know, keep it, even after youv'e stopped using the service?
Physical storage companies.
This is absolutely nothing new to the world. The only new part is that it's digital instead of physical.
That said, I like it.
-
Yes, but in this case we are told that they will be using it after you stopped using the service.
-
Right. In this case they actually have the decency to tell us. That's horrible.
-
That's about the only decent thing of the TOS.
-
Fun fact: Even if you decide to stop posting on HLP your posts will remain here and people can continue to read them long afterwards.
-
There's encrypt and upload like i mentioned earlier in my first post in this thread of course. But, as far as that goes. Why would anyone want to use a third party service for storage? The best things i can think of is convenience, need, and immediacy of need. No one would need to encrypt everything. Most likely what would be encrypted is stuff that no one would want anybody else seeing (or certain others with the password...meant for designated eyes). But, i don't see google trying to crack encrypted files.
Convenience.
Immediacy.
Need.
Encrypted volumes.
Yup, that about covers why and how I'm using it.