Google Isn't Claiming Ownership of Your Google Drive Files

[Guest]

So at least for now, 'Don't Be Evil' is still operational.

Google Isn't Claiming Ownership of Your Google Drive Files : Read more

 

[Northwestern]

Riiiiiiight, I believe you Google, you DON'T own what I put into my account. *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*

 

[frozonic]

Google is getting too big, i am afraid they will start to get greedy

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]frozonic[/nom]Google is getting too big, i am afraid they will start to get greedy[/citation]

I totally agree but the alternatives have already been too greedy. When Google starts to put out products that only work with Chrome I'll start searching for another all-in-one solution for my Internet-connected life. Hopefully one that will import everything from Google in a click.

 

[rocknrollz]

[citation][nom]frozonic[/nom]Google is getting too big, i am afraid they will start to get greedy[/citation]

Start to get big? They have been big. ATM, they have shares at over 600 each. I do not see your evidence that Google is o the brink of becoming "greedy".

 

[koga73]

lol you may still own the rights to the content but it doesn't mean google isn't going to "peek" at it

 

[IAmVortigaunt]

[citation][nom]koga73[/nom]lol you may still own the rights to the content but it doesn't mean google isn't going to "peek" at it[/citation]

Yeah I was reading, for example, that they supposedly use your uploaded pictures to aid Google Goggles...which seems to fall under the 'improve our services' clause. I wonder if serving you more 'relevant' ads is also considered to improve their 'services'.

 

[chechak]

selling important information is ethical behave ...
is that what google is doing opposite to it's service ?
what do you think it's another way to collect personal information !

 

[tntom]

I just don't want to be used to promote something I do not endorse. My name, image, convictions and character are valuable to me. I do not participate in sweepstakes for computer systems and gaming gear because they reserve the right to use your name or image to promote products that you may not agree with.

I also avoid using ad engines on my website as I have little control of what they display. I would not want to promote questionable things that friends, children and family could be victimized by e.g. "work at home" "meds and enhancements" "meet girls".

 

[Guest]

I use their Picasa photo-organizing software on my local machine --- but I will NOT use their online Picasa Web Albums service. Why? Because their terms of service directly state that by uploading photos, you are granting them a permanent right to use them -- even those you otherwise keep private -- in any way they see fit, such as to promote their own services. Even if you later cancel your account, they can keep and use your photos essentially forever.

No, thank you, I do not want to see my relatives' faces -- especially those who have since passed away -- in an ad for Google+ or whatever else they happen to be pushing at the time.

 

[Guest]

This same issue was raised when DropBox updated the term of service of his product, everybody cryed foul and nothing ever happened, it's the same in this case. If you are realy too concerned of the privacy policies of ANY company, don't use the product, period!

Google like any other copany NEEDS to make money so you are free to find another service with the policy that most suits you and pay them what they ask.

 

[freggo]

I don't care who is running an online storage -cloud- facility. There is no chance in hell I'd store unencrypted data online unless we are talking about my collection of Blonde Jokes.

And even those, due to their politically incorrect nature, are better encrypted.


My apologies to all Blonde readers; we know that not all of you put postage stamps on your faxes

 

[rumandcoke]

Using "The Cloud" = handing everything you ever store there over to big brother on a silver platter. From that point on it belongs to the US govt to use for ANY Purpose.

the cloud is for ignorant people & people who willfully seek to participate in the destruction of their own civil liberties and constitutional rights to privacy.

http/www.democracynow.org/2012/4/26/targeted_hacker_jacob_appelbaum_on_cispa

 

[Marfig]

[citation][nom]rumandcoke[/nom]the cloud is for ignorant people & people who willfully seek to participate in the destruction of their own civil liberties and constitutional rights to[/citation]

No, they are not. And no, it's not.

It's our responsibility to ensure we fight for the proper protection of our rights and for the just use of technological evolution. The Cloud is nothing more than a technological tool. One we need to defend and protect against misuse, like every other technological tool before it; from fire to genetics.

You don't do yourself any good by simply pushing it aside and failing to acknowledge the people that use or may need to use it. You don't think your activism is a form of action. You will fail by inaction. The real action is in protecting technological innovation, not ignoring it.

 

[Wolygon]

is simply standard legal language designed to ensure their ability to deliver requested services to users

Then how come Microsoft or Dropbox don't have this kind of ToS?

Dropbox:
"Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that are needed to run the Services, as explained below."

Windows Sky Drive
"5. Your Content: Except for material that we license to you, 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."

 

[Guest]

LOOOOOL yeah right.

Translation: "Don't worry about the fine print, that's just a standard thing our lawyers do"

Fuck that. I'll stay with Dropbox, whose terms of service are clear: Dropbox doesn't own your stuff. Or get a license. End of story. Google needs to change its terms, then I'll consider them.

 

[gregor]

Different service but LinkedIn goes even further:

2B.
License and warranty for your submissions to LinkedIn.

You own the information you provide LinkedIn under this Agreement, and may request its deletion at any time, unless you have shared information or content with others and they have not deleted it, or it was copied or stored by other users. Additionally, you grant LinkedIn a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royalty-free right to us to copy, prepare derivative works of, improve, distribute, publish, remove, retain, add, process, analyze, use and commercialize, in any way now known or in the future discovered, any information you provide, directly or indirectly to LinkedIn, including, but not limited to, any user generated content, ideas, concepts, techniques or data to the services, you submit to LinkedIn, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties. Any information you submit to us is at your own risk of loss as noted in Sections 2 and 3 of this Agreement.

 

[SRRAE]

I stopped trusting Google products when their first T&C with Chome stated they own everything you upload with the browser, texts, photos etc belongs to them.
It was quickly changed once noticed but I have avoided using Google products since, even trying different search engines.

 

[back_by_demand]

Happily using my free 25Gb of Skydrive
...
Why use Google at all?