[HN Gopher] Google Drive of Historical Footage Locked and Flagge...
___________________________________________________________________
Google Drive of Historical Footage Locked and Flagged as Terrorist
Activity
Author : knaik94
Score : 919 points
Date : 2021-09-22 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.google.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.google.com)
| shadofx wrote:
| Scroogled lives on
| Aeolun wrote:
| I haven't said it before, but I'll say it again.
|
| _Don't host your important shit on Google!_
|
| It's pretty much the worst place you can use as a backup service.
| rexreed wrote:
| I have more concerns about Google Docs than Google Drive. While
| files can be moved around and used pretty much the same offline
| as online, the same cannot be said about the use of Google Docs
| for collaborative document editing.
|
| If you're trying to de-Google your life, what is a sane
| replacement for Google Docs in a collaborative team environment
| where you can have some confidence that you won't lose all your
| assets?
| midnightGhost wrote:
| https://www.onlyoffice.com/
| 1023bytes wrote:
| If you want to own your data you can use Nextcloud with
| Collabora
| slownews45 wrote:
| I'm on the AWS cloud. I've never had a problem like this. I pay
| the $100 / month for the basic AWS support plan. Even store side
| AWS has done reasonably OK by me (except for all the crap
| listings in their storefront - wish they'd fix that).
|
| By this I mean any problem I've had has been fixed. So at least
| Amazon has SOME humans still in the loop handling AWS support
| tickets and Amazon store calls.
| dudus wrote:
| I'm on Google Cloud and Google Drive and have never had a
| problem like that either. I have Google One and it gives me
| access to humans when needed for chat, email and phone support.
|
| I pay way less than $100/month
|
| My evidence is as good as yours. Anecdotal.
|
| I think the real lesson here is that you should backup your
| data. Simple as that.
|
| The guy losing access to their Google account today is at fault
| just like the guy that lost all his data because his HD got
| burned a decade ago. It's just slightly easier to blame Google
| than to blame a faulty drive. But ultimately you are the one to
| blame.
|
| Just backup your Google Drive to a S3 storage or equivalent.
| And maybe keep a local copy in an HD or optical media.
| npteljes wrote:
| >I think the real lesson here is that you should backup your
| data. Simple as that.
|
| It really is as simple as that. People who have their only
| hard drive die experience the same. "Don't put all your eggs
| in one basket"
| hereforphone wrote:
| Tenuously related: Wikipedia articles referencing less than
| desirable historical figures (e.g. Nazis) are reportedly being
| deleted en masse.
| prox wrote:
| Citation needed?
| carabiner wrote:
| https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-
| na...
|
| There have been a lot of WW2 fanboys who have been writing
| fawning articles about nazis who won a medal or two and were
| secretly, actually anti-Hitler the whole time. The reality,
| as far as documented, is that most of these were run of the
| mill soldiers without any known tendencies to be treasonous
| in wartime. She's been finding most of the heroics to be
| bullshit, and the real soldiers to be nobodies, and hence
| having the articles deleted per WP non-notable policy.
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| 161 comment yelling at either google or the guy for XYZ and here
| I am just wondering if the bloke got his tank photos back
| snthd wrote:
| Could this be related?
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/19/war_thunder_classifie...
|
| >Hungary-based game developer Gaijin Entertainment found
| themselves in a tactically difficult position last week when a
| user of their combat simulator War Thunder tried to win an online
| argument by sharing classified documents in the company's game
| forums.
|
| Maybe checksums of that document are circulated to cloud
| providers for censorship purposes.
| kipchak wrote:
| Looking at pricing for Google One to compare it with a Synology,
| I noticed my account doesn't seem to have the option for the
| higher tiers of storage such as the 5TB or 10TB that should be an
| option, instead 2TB is the highest. Have these plans gone away
| recently, or is this perhaps an account issue? I see articles
| mentioning them this month.
| foxpurple wrote:
| Over 2TB is hidden behind an expanding button. They went up to
| 10TB iirc.
| cyberpsybin wrote:
| Mega is more reliable that Google lol
| notyourday wrote:
| Is he on a free plan? Because if so, I see exactly zero basis for
| his complaint. He got what he paid for.
|
| P.S. No, I'm not saying that Google is in the right.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > I see exactly zero basis for his complaint.
|
| > P.S. No, I'm not saying that Google is in the right.
|
| You are, however, clearly saying they are not in the wrong...
|
| I'm not sure that difference matters.
| notyourday wrote:
| Not at all. He used a service for years, for free. He got
| what he paid for, in fact he got more than what he paid for.
|
| > I'm not sure that difference matters.
|
| It does. Customers pay money. He is not a customer.
| bjourne wrote:
| Not the first time:
|
| "so google disabled my account that i used to make my folder with
| educational content on Palestine, i.e the drive folder that i had
| linked in my bio"
|
| https://twitter.com/hotgirlhala/status/1385212069679702020
| ecshafer wrote:
| I will upvote and comment to hopefully gain visibility at the
| minimum.
|
| Google really has an unfortunate customer support set up, in that
| there isn't one. Your best bet when Google does something bad to
| their customers like this (And regardless if its a bad AI or bad
| bot, its still Google doing it), is to post it on twitter or
| hackernews and hope it gets the visibility for a Google employee
| to fix it, or contact someone who can fit it. That isn't a
| support model.
| irrational wrote:
| I have to assume they realize this is terrible PR for them and
| engenders feelings of distrust, yet, they don't seem care. Is
| it hubris?
| edoceo wrote:
| This news will be gone tomorrow, forgotten by Friday and they
| can spin a flashy thing on Monday. Solved! (for some limited
| definition of solved)
| Causality1 wrote:
| Google's fetish for not providing human support is so counter-
| productive it makes me think there must be a single powerful
| individual executive maintaining the policy. It's too stupid to
| have widespread support among Googlers.
| jvalencia wrote:
| It seems like you could offer phone support and provide it
| for a little above cost per month. At their scale it would
| almost immediately be efficient.
| dtjb wrote:
| That creates some weird incentive structures.
| Avicebron wrote:
| I imagine this theoretical powerful individual is rewarded
| handsomely for the decrease in "labor costs" presented
| quarter to quarter
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It doesn't exactly have widespread support; it's more that
| nobody can propose a better solution that doesn't blow the
| budget completely out of the water.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Here's one - how about allowing you to pay to get official
| support if your account has been locked. And maybe even,
| god forbid, refund you if your complaint had merit.
| aprao wrote:
| I can see the claims now - "Google is holding my account
| ransom for $XX/hr of customer support!"
| jedberg wrote:
| If they offered such a service people would accuse them
| of locking accounts to increase revenue.
| [deleted]
| strogonoff wrote:
| You cannot feasibly provide any level of acceptable human
| support _and_ remain "free" with a huge user base. Meanwhile,
| being "free" is crucial if your actual paying customer is the
| advertisers. If you stop being free, you (gasp) normalize
| paid service. Suddenly you are conflicted and fighting two
| fronts, you compete with other paid services, your users can
| actually demand things and vote with their money, etc.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Remember, over $1 BILLION dollars a quarter of free cash
| flow into their cash hoard EVERY QUARTER.
|
| An absolutely stellar customer support network with real
| people was being operated by Network Appliance when I was
| there for less than $60 million A YEAR.
|
| Google is absolutely capable of providing a level of
| service that is unmatched, but they _choose not to._
| hathawsh wrote:
| It's possible that Google could provide support, but they
| are also trying to create a reputation of providing
| infrastructure so reliable that the technology is simply
| finished and doesn't need support. They don't want to
| give the impression that they're giving up that battle.
| nradov wrote:
| In my personal experience NetApp support was excellent,
| but most of their customers were at least sane, computer
| literate, and able to communicate coherently. That
| situation does not obtain with the masses of Google
| users.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Even if that was completely correct it wouldn't apply to
| their paid services like Workspace, Google Fi, YouTube
| Premium, etc that _also_ have no customer service
| whatsoever.
| cmelbye wrote:
| It would be very difficult to model a financial benefit of
| offering dedicated support for free products. If you pay for
| Google One (extra storage), you get access to phone support.
| I wonder if they would've been able to help in this situation
| of a locked account.
| [deleted]
| kvathupo wrote:
| Explains my experience with GCP...
| shoto_io wrote:
| I recently decided against G Drive and for office.com for our
| tiny startup. One reason being the unreliable customer support
| often mentioned here on HN.
|
| I hope MS customer support is better...
| sangnoir wrote:
| Google Workspace has excellent support - unlike Google's free
| offerings.
| hypothesis wrote:
| Ironically, someone recently attributed "hope is not a
| strategy" to Google's engineering...
|
| I definitely understand the sentiment and curious if you
| researched options before making this switch?
| x0x0 wrote:
| G Suite / Google Workspace / whatever they're calling it this
| month has generally very good support.
|
| eg I had to fix a domain issue, albeit a domain issue caused
| by some stupid google stuff, and was connected to helpful
| competent people within a minute or two. Peers have similar
| experiences.
|
| The paying stuff is fine.
| edoceo wrote:
| I'm a payer, on multiple domains. I disagree with "fine"
| and suggest "not absolute trash" as a replacement.
| apecat wrote:
| Any paid Google service with an SLA is perfectly fine.
|
| The choice between Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace should
| mostly be a matter of taste.
|
| Google Workspace is very straightforward and largely offers
| better finish and UX. I personally dislike Google's material
| design and find myself confused by it, but most people seem
| fine with it.
|
| M365 Business Standard on the other hand is arguably a better
| deal if you value the macOS and Windows versions of
| Microsoft's office apps. The UI isn't always good and the web
| versions suck, but everything is also very flexible and
| intended to scale to almost everything the IT dept of a
| Fortune 500 companies with tricky compliancy requirements
| might require to control a fleet of Windows machines.
| JGM_io wrote:
| Very obvious : they don't care about you... You're just ore to
| mine
| [deleted]
| verisimi wrote:
| Well, when you're making an omelette you have to break some
| eggs.
|
| There has been a literal, yet largely silent, book burning
| going on with Google services in recent years. On youtube, many
| alternative voices are silenced, billions of comments deleted.
|
| I know its a private company, but in the US there are free
| speech laws + the possibility of using the court system (if
| someone makes a libellous statement). But no, silencing voices
| is in the realms of corporate policy - the rule of law has been
| deemed to not apply.
| garmaine wrote:
| "Free speech" laws only apply to government restrictions on
| speech.
| dude187 wrote:
| I remember during the BLM riots, I had shared probably 50
| videos of individual destructive and/or violent acts by the
| rioters in a Slack channel I'm a part of. Probably 6 months
| later, I went back to look at some.
|
| I found a total of 3 that _hadn't_ been deleted.
| edoceo wrote:
| That may have just been cleanup on unpaid slack-chamnels.
| They don't keep the stuff on free tiers forever.
| dude187 wrote:
| No I mean I scrolled past all the comments that linked to
| the videos and they were all "the account that posted
| this video has been suspended" or "that video has been
| deleted". Don't remember the exact messages, but they
| were all deleted by Google.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I'd love to see those 3.
| saxonww wrote:
| Please don't characterize this as a political voices thing.
| Of course it's _related_, but this instance is about
| misclassification of private data, not silencing voices
| online.
|
| Also, Google is not a private company.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| They are a private company in the sense that they are not a
| government entity, and thus the first amendment does not
| apply to them. This is a different sense of the word
| "private" than whether their stock is or is not publicly
| traded on an exchange.
| PKop wrote:
| The nature of the problem (a big monopolist behemoth of a
| corporation is too big and powerful and lacks incentives to
| change) and the solution (only state action, regulation,
| mandates, i.e. something _more_ powerful than Google must
| enforce Google to act) is by definition a political
| problem. This is like the epitome of what politics is for.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| To Google, this is not unfortunate, this is planned. They truly
| do not give a single shit about you. Consume content and shut
| up is exactly what they want you to do.
| amelius wrote:
| Exactly, it doesn't matter if the customer has a problem,
| they will fix it when it becomes a problem for _them_.
| Haga wrote:
| Actually it is, it's just well hidden, their support is their
| developers in their spare time and reachability is your social
| connectivity graph distance to the next googleyesguy.
|
| Ps: you can increase likelihood of solution by adding words
| that suggest legal liabilities.
| travoc wrote:
| That's why making your business completely dependent on AWS or
| GCP is absolutely insane.
| cm2187 wrote:
| And to teach other users to stop critically relying on such a
| capricious service. I have less sympathy when it happens to
| someone techy, who should know better, but that doesn't seem to
| be the case here.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| IMO, the real issue is relying on any single storage solution
| for such critical and hard to replace data. You should always
| have multiple, redundant, _tested_ backups of such data, the
| minimum being 3 copies, in 2 different formats, with at least
| one located offsite.
|
| That said, Google does ha reputation for this shit,
| especially on their free plans, so, you should definitely
| keep that in mind when storing data on Google Drive.
|
| https://www.unitrends.com/blog/3-2-1-backup-sucks
| okdjnfweonfe wrote:
| In addition, encrypted backup means they can't do arbitrary
| scans and decide your content is wrong
|
| While it does make it harder to share things directly, its
| well worth the hassle
| paulpauper wrote:
| it is like this for almost anything in which money is not being
| exchanged. Impossible to get support unless you know someone
| who can give you a signal boost. Or if your compliant goes
| viral. otherwise, forget about it.
| rrdharan wrote:
| Google One, and Google Workspaces both offer paid support plans
| that cover Google Drive.
| tantalor wrote:
| https://one.google.com/about
|
| $2/mo or $20/yr
| spicybright wrote:
| I highly doubt getting locked out of your google drive still
| allows you to download backups from google backup services...
| himinlomax wrote:
| They have to provide it by law under GDPR and other
| directives in the EU.
| megous wrote:
| They can also just delete the data. That would solve it
| too. (for them)
| foxpurple wrote:
| Which is why I download the Takeout backup monthly.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| do you still have access to support if your account is
| locked?
| whymauri wrote:
| Google workspaces requires you to attach a non-workspaces-
| related account. Unless they both go down, you can still
| contact them. Worst case, I believe Workspaces requires a
| phone number now -- at least Google can't wipe that!
| Miraste wrote:
| Unless you have Google Fi!
| datguacdoh wrote:
| haven't had to deal with it, but I would assume it works
| since you can call them. you don't have to be logged in to
| request support.
| https://support.google.com/googleone/answer/9177339
| lucasverra wrote:
| I pay for Google one since approx 24 months and have had
| surprisingly decent phone support with less than 3 clicks.
|
| PS: I tend to avoid google services, but google workplace is
| too damn superior
| jhart99 wrote:
| This has also been my experience. Google One will get you
| to the right person to get things fixed. I had a billing
| issue that they were able to resolve in under 24 hours. But
| I could see the problem if your account gets banned that
| has the Google One on it... Would be hard to submit a
| request when you can't log in.
| version_five wrote:
| I saw comment in another one of these discussions saying you
| should treat google as a potentially hostile adversary and have
| a contingency plan for what to do when they turn on you.
|
| I agree with this really in relation to every cloud provider.
| If your business continuity and data are important, there
| should be a plan for how to keep the lights on if a provider
| through malice or incompetence stops playing nice. The google
| specific problem is they are into so much stuff that its not
| just a question of not using them, you also have to consider
| what happens when your emails are flagged as spam our you're
| delisted from search, etc
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| I have no activity on YouTube, Blogger, or any other Google
| service since they tied up all the accounts, just to minimize
| the chance of getting my Gmail chopped off.
|
| (Note to self: stop giving feedback on Maps routing. You
| never know.)
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| In a past job I was frequently around the globe and was not
| able to have my phone and SMS always with me. No matter how
| many settings I tweaked, it just seemed that google would
| not let me get into my gmail without my phone. Of course my
| banks would not let me in without my email. Ultimately I
| had to "de google" for the sake of being able to use the
| needed internet services wherever there was internet. When
| so much is tied to email these days, paying for a service
| that at least has a phone number to call if something goes
| wrong seems worth it to me, especially since most paid
| email services are reasonably priced.
| Dylovell wrote:
| Man, That's dark. "You went to X location a few years ago,
| now there's bad stuff happening there. Your google account
| is banned."
|
| Leave your phone at home if your are going to protest, no
| matter what or where you are protesting.
| adolph wrote:
| Eh, eventually they'll cut you off for not attending the
| good protests. Better off expecting to be cut off and
| redundantify your dependencies.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| I have a low-end Android phone that has no Google account
| tied to it, and all apps are exclusively downloaded
| through F-Droid.
|
| Briar* is a great app to communicate securely, even
| during an Internet blackout over Bluetooth.
|
| * https://briarproject.org/
| ycombigator wrote:
| Honestly don't understand why anyone would use their services
| unless they had to.
| thatsillyqaguy wrote:
| Google is f'ed up with bots.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Stop using Google Drive. Unless you're storing cat photos, or you
| use an rclone-encrypted mount that is stored in your Google
| Drive, you can't trust any public file store.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Well you especially cannot trust google for anything. The only
| reason they let you host stuff is so they can datamine it.
| dsign wrote:
| This is very disturbing; hundreds of thousands of individuals and
| companies host their important documents in Google Drive--and pay
| to do it. Imagine that tomorrow you are locked out of those by a
| faulty AI, and the company that you have spent years building
| goes into bankruptcy and the livelihood of your employees goes
| away, just like that. Google has no business snooping in their
| customer's data for any reason, much less with buggy software.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Google Drive is free. The individual in-question was not paying
| for the service.
|
| If you do pay for Google's services via G Suite then you _do_
| get instant human support.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Being free is not an excuse. If Google can't give a reliable
| free service, then they should stop offering free services.
| Thee way they're doing it is way unprofessional.
| tqwhite wrote:
| I don't mean to be insensitive but what on earth possessed you to
| have your only copy of _anything_ be held by some gigantic
| corporation, let alone one as completely nihilistic as Google.
|
| Dear Everyone, Buy a USB stick and keep some copies of your
| important stuff in your own possession.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| I have to say, the fact that google disables the back button once
| you hit the link above is truly infuriating.
| ColinWright wrote:
| The "Back" button works for me after I've cluck the link ... I
| wonder what you're seeing that I'm not.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| Ahh, I'm on firefox - wonder why its only there?
|
| Oh wait, I think that's even worse. This is the case for all
| google sites, if you use firefox, back button is disabled.
| Maybe this is to worsen the user experience for Firefox and
| encourage use of Chrome?
| ColinWright wrote:
| I'm also using Firefox. No addons, running on Ubuntu. I
| click on the link, read the article, click the "Back"
| button, and everything works as I expect.
|
| Maybe you have some scripts or addons.
| gibsonf1 wrote:
| Wow, ok, very interesting. It must be something about my
| particular environment (Also on Ubuntu) that it only
| affects google sites.
| adamrezich wrote:
| this does not occur for me (Chrome, Windows)
| ajb wrote:
| One of the simplest functions of a justice system - before
| impartial judgement, before detailed laws, before qualified
| advocates - is simply the right to summon a powerful person to
| justify their actions. Increasingly it seems that we will need
| this to be applied here, ideally in some simpler and less costly
| way than a full trial. It is just wrong for companies to make
| money by inviting people to rely on them , and then ghosting if
| something goes wrong.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > The added grievance to this is that my drive also included my
| own personal family photos and my current book on the subject
|
| I mean, how many times does this need to come up for people to
| learn the lesson? If you are storing your data with a third
| party, and you do not have an iron legal contract with this third
| party, then that third party can and will do whatever it wants
| with your data, including locking you out of it. We certainly
| don't like this state of affairs, but that is the world many of
| us have created.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Have you seen the TV ads for cloud storage services? They're
| _advertising_ themselves as being dependable. We cannot blame
| average consumers when events like these happen.
|
| We need to stop pretending that software, including free-as-in-
| beer SaaS, doesn't have an implied warranty. It does. The
| implied warranty in Google Drive is that "we'll host your files
| for you". Google screwed-up (an "honest" mistake, it pains me
| to say) but a consumer advocate (the FTC in the US?) should be
| going after Google for failing to comply with their own implied
| warranty.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Google is well aware this is a problem and actively
| obfuscates ways to get connected to support (unless you pay
| them extra, of course) so I have a real hard time accepting
| this as an "honest" mistake.
| kbenson wrote:
| Often people put quotes (or even air-quotes) around things
| to imply it's sarcasm or that it's only that thing if you
| can suspend disbelief, so I don't think there's any
| disagreement there.
|
| Additionally, making them accountable for these mistakes is
| a way to actually have them resolve them, so honest or not,
| it's likely to stop of decrease in occurrence then.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| I mean the account lock-out was probably an honest mistake.
|
| The lack of support, however, is not - and is part of
| Google's business model.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Hmm, Isn't this moving the overton window? Should we
| accept that they were viewing his data in the first
| place?
| munk-a wrote:
| Welp - affordability. It's expensive and arguably less reliable
| to get an external hard drive.
| dangs_p3n1s wrote:
| Penis
| prox wrote:
| I have HDDs running longer than most Google projects do. So
| that point is really moot.
| whymauri wrote:
| Ditto. And when I felt it was near end-of-life, I just
| moved it over to a more stable SSD.
|
| I'm honestly thinking I'm going to have to backup my entire
| G-Drive externally and wipe it (for the security of my
| Google account). I mean, who knows what will trigger the
| deletion of your Google account these days... I guess the
| storage I pay for is just for e-mails.
| theodric wrote:
| >assuming the emails you're sent won't also eventually
| result in the locking and banning of your Google account
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Incidentally, I've had more SSDs fail - or misbehave - on
| me than spinning-rust drives now. And I don't just mean
| cheap SSDs either, but an Intel Optane 905p I own results
| in hundreds of PCI Express bus errors every minute when
| plugged-in to any ASUS motherboard I own, while a SATA
| Intel 530 woke-up one day completely unreadable. And
| throw-in a couple of Samsung SSD failures too.
|
| It's enough to make me anxious between backups: at least
| with spinning rust-drives we can transplant the platters
| and controllers (separately, even!) while SSD hardware
| recovery is almost unheard of.
| andrekandre wrote:
| thats interesting, its been the exact opposite for me...
|
| though the ssds i use are for backup and arent used very
| often for writing... i wonder if that makes a difference?
| prox wrote:
| Sounds like a plan, it's actually cheaper in a sense.
| Today I saw my webhost had nextcloud one-click installs,
| that might be useful for those files you want accessible
| everywhere. I already pay for the space, so it doesn't
| cost me extra.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Try explaining RAID (not just RAID0/1, but RAID6 and
| RAID10) to an average consumer and expect them to maintain
| their own NAS - that's a bit too much.
| prox wrote:
| I have vanilla HDDs who do their job nicely for years
| now. The most important files are duplicated across a few
| HDDs.
| Ekaros wrote:
| RAID is overkill and bad designs can cause more issues
| than it saves.
|
| Two or more external-DDs, copied regularly per how much
| they are willing to spend time and lose data. One stored
| in some other place if possible.
| xoa wrote:
| I don't think this really deserves to be downvoted does it?
| Even if it's simplified. And I say that as someone who is in
| a tiny fraction of the population in terms of having my own
| fairly serious business TrueNAS system at the core of my data
| story, behind an OPNsense firewall on a fairly fancy network
| setup and with also my own offsite backups and Backblaze B2.
| I'm working on upgrading my ESXi system too, continuing to
| take more stuff self-hosted. And I'm pretty happy with it
| all, as well as any other benefits it's just plain faster to
| do stuff locally.
|
| But it's definitely fundamentally more expensive because
| there are tons of fixed costs that would be much better
| amortized across more parties. The hardware could handle far
| more than I throw at it, and importantly the incremental cost
| of expanding the setup is much much lower then the setup
| cost. My NAS could easily have nearly triple the storage
| space at "only" the cost of the drives themselves and maybe a
| bit more memory (which is dirt cheap). It's not processor or
| bandwidth limited. I don't need that much space, but if there
| were another few folks joining me on using it and we split
| the cost between us we'd each pay less for more. And the
| whole thing as-is leans heavily on my own personal
| amortization and professional knowledge, I can justify some
| of it as a business expense and I actually already knew tons
| of the basics before doing anything for the first time. A
| larger group could have someone devoting even more time to
| it.
|
| That's the simple relentless logic behind "cloud services"
| really behind whatever layers of fancy marketing or
| conversely outrage. It really is cheaper at a basic level,
| but unfortunately the way it's often been implemented lends
| to centralization and perverse incentives.
|
| Efforts to address it have to tackle those head-on. Ideally
| at a minimum there'd be legally mandated offering of standard
| "cloud APIs" for every platform so that iCloud or whatever
| could be slotted right out for something else compatible. It
| does seem like there is potential for more decentralized
| sharing and discovery, but the UI and reliability challenges
| are quite significant. We'll probably see a lot of gyrations
| back and forth as everyone searches for the right balances
| depending on their own situations along with whatever semi-
| ignorant semi-opportunistic bumbling responses governments
| come up with. Unfortunately even on HN lots of people tend to
| reach for sledgehammers over scalpels when it comes to the
| law.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Welp - affordability. It's expensive and arguably less
| reliable to get an external hard drive.
|
| I think multiply redundant back-ups get expensive, but one
| external hard drive with scads of space is cheap (at least
| from the perspective of someone who grew up when you measured
| space in MB). It won't provide you the security against data
| failure, but it _will_ provide _some_ recourse for when the
| cloud provider yanks your data.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Won't protect you from fire or theft either.
| JadeNB wrote:
| Well, it will if it's in a different location. But that's
| just what I mean--you don't need one solution that
| protects against everything; different solutions can
| protect against different threats, and all you really
| need is one to make it through.
| aboringusername wrote:
| Aside from all the moral and ethical questions this raises from
| the usage of faceless AI, really this happens time and again, I
| suspect so Google can employ less human reviewers and so they can
| claim "not our fault". I think I've commented on a couple of
| these posts by now every time with the same advice.
|
| But anyhow, people should be well aware cloud providers _do_ use
| AI systems and they _will_ make mistakes, so you should:
|
| 1: have multiple redundant backups, seriously this is a no-
| brainer, AI or no even Google can lose data if a storage device
| dies. Depending on how important the data is you might consider
| as many backups as you can manage.
|
| 2: encrypt, encrypt, encrypt. If you store even so much as a text
| file unencrypted you're making a mistake. Use archives, double
| compressed, use the myraid of tools out there to ensure your
| files can't be read by anyone but you and who you decide to give
| the key to.
|
| Is this more work? Absolutely, but at the end of the day
| regulations mean Google need to scan content, and they will have
| a false positive match, and then it goes on HN and magically
| Google restore the data.
|
| I hope they get the data back but sometimes being burnt is
| actually a lesson in remembering best practice, why oh why your
| only copy of family photos are on one user hostile data-mining
| platform is beyond me, but it's a terrible idea.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| From the post:
|
| >Google Drive which I used to back up all of my data
|
| "back up" rather than "only copy".
| judge2020 wrote:
| Yes, the entire business model is Google offering a service to
| everyone, hiring the bare minimum number of moderators,
| automate most moderation, and treat the <0.001% of people
| caught in the cross-fire as as a negligible loss.
| staticelf wrote:
| To be fair it probably works tho.
| franczesko wrote:
| + never rely on login with [provider_name]
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Why the heck do people still store their important documents
| (that they absolutely can't do without) somewhere where they have
| no control over and where they could be kicked out at any moment
| is beyond me.
|
| Obviously it's always sad to see such a great amount of work go
| to waste, but at what point are we just going to start blaming
| people like that who are just careless with their data.
|
| Don't use a cloud you don't have total control over for something
| that you absolutely need control over. At the very least don't
| use fucking google.
| wil421 wrote:
| Most people are not technology savvy let alone HN elitists.
| When I talk to non tech people about stuff like this I get a
| lot of blank stares. Whenever I've said if the service is free
| then your are the product I get even blanker stares.
|
| Most normal people wouldn't consider using Google Drive as
| being careless with there data. They would actually considering
| it being smart as Google is one of the largest tech companies.
|
| Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. People who
| have these kids of hobbies do it because it's their passion and
| a lot of times, the best ones at least, don't have a lot of
| disposable income to spend on said hobby.
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm curious if _" has locked my account"_ means just Google
| Drive, or if he also lost Gmail, Android functionality, Chrome
| profiles, Adwords, YouTube, YouTubeTV, purchased movies and tv
| shows, Fitbit, Nest, sites where he used federated login
| (DoorDash, Uber, etc).
|
| I see, for example, his YouTube channel is up, but it's
| associated with 'team@armouredarchives.com', and not the personal
| gmail account he posted in the linked forum.
|
| If it was the entire account, something really needs to be done
| with Google to force them to make these kind of actions as narrow
| as possible. They can really disrupt your life with a broad
| account lock.
| mig39 wrote:
| In the link, he says that he can't even use his account to post
| on the support forums, so is using an alternate account.
|
| So I assume it's the entire Google account.
| whymauri wrote:
| In my anecdotal experience, a locked account == locked
| everything else. That's why they had to make the post from a
| different account than the locked one.
| theodric wrote:
| The second line of his post indicates that he's unable to post
| using the email account in question, so I must assume that
| means that the account in its entirety has been blocked
| lom wrote:
| He said it in his description that his email is locked as well.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| If google really thinks he is a terrorist, which apparently
| they did, why on earth would they allow him to use gmail or
| android? It makes sense they would lock him out of everything
| possible.
|
| What we really should be asking is why is google examining user
| data at all. They should not be in the position where they can
| even find out who is a terrorist.
| tyingq wrote:
| I imagine Google takes business from lots of places and
| people that are unsavory to some. One man's terrorist is
| another man's freedom fighter.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| Terrorism is usually only defined by your allegiance, yes.
| In this case google is a US company so in the case they
| know violent islamic extremists use their platform, their
| allegiance is with the Americans, even if it happens to be
| the Americans blow up innocent Arabs and the extremists may
| just be engaging in self defense.
| filoleg wrote:
| > What we really should be asking is why is google examining
| user data at all.
|
| Without reading into the details, I don't think that google
| arbitrarily examines all user files on Google Drive (and
| please correct me if I am wrong, but that's what I remember
| since the last time this discussion was had).
|
| Google only examines files that were shared with other users
| or were made accessible to others through a shareable link.
| Which, sorta makes sense, because that's how a lot of people
| shared illegal content or streamed videofiles (sort of like a
| personal youtube). And if you don't share those files with
| anyone and just keep it as your personal cloud drive, I don't
| think they examine it.
|
| >why on earth would they allow him to use gmail or android?
|
| Google is essentially your mail service (gmail), video
| platform (youtube), cloud storage (gdrive), and tons of other
| completely separate services. In physical world, violation of
| terms of one of the services leads you to being banned only
| from that service, unless criminal law gets involved. If the
| law gets involved, then the law can get you banned from using
| quite a lot of services. But until the law makes the
| judgement, being banned from a grocery store cannot
| automatically and without any recourse get you banned from
| your bank, your car insurance, your mail service, and many
| other things.
|
| I guess my point on the latter is that no private business
| (but law) should be able to prevent a person from using
| multiple completely unrelated vital services. Here are a few
| scenarios I thought of that would illustrate how it would
| work:
|
| * An airline banning you for being an asshole on a flight by
| adding you to a denylist used by other airlines as well?
| That's congruent with my idea, because it is all within the
| same service (airlines), and it won't be done automatically.
|
| *A judge completely blocking you from flying by locking you
| up for participating in terrorist activities? Sure, because
| the law did it after an investigation and followed proper
| legal processes.
|
| *Wells Fargo closing down your account because you were an
| asshole at Kroger when shopping for groceries and got banned
| from that store? That would be crazy talk.
|
| The only difference between the google scenario and the
| kroger+Wells Fargo scenario is that kroger+WF are not a part
| of the same company. But would it be acceptable for WF to
| close down your account if WF and Kroger were a part of the
| same parent company? In my opinion, it wouldn't be ok.
| Avicebron wrote:
| I hope I'm not the only one who got a little squeamish at
| this...I understand the logic, "don't let people
| transfer/share things that are illegal". But it doesn't sit
| right that 1) A gigantic private company operating across
| most of the world/laws/jurisdictions/precedents etc...is in
| charge of determining (with little to no human oversight)
| what can and can't be shared between individuals. Who might
| even be in competing legal jurisdictions. Seems wonky. 2)
| that it's commonly accepted that they get to look into it
| period. It's similar to having every package/letter you
| ever send opened and looked through and judged (ik postal
| services sometimes scan) but I can't imagine they open
| every single envelope
| filoleg wrote:
| >But it doesn't sit right
|
| Your argument makes sense, and I share your feelings on
| an emotional level, but at this point, the whole argument
| can be reduced to "sharing video files streamed from
| google drive is an equivalent of hosting a video on
| youtube, so the same rules apply", and that's hard to
| beat.
|
| If you want to store whatever material you want for
| personal consumption, you are welcome to. But if you
| enable sharing, that's when all those extra rules start
| applying, because you are effectively turning it into a
| personal youtube that is still hosted by google, and DMCA
| strikes and other stuff will apply just the same.
|
| Similarly, you can make backup copies of a DVD movie for
| yourself by burning them onto writeable DVDs. The
| legality of it is dubious due to copyright law being
| plain awful at times, but you won't get prosecuted for
| that if you truly had it only for personal backup
| reasons. The second you start distributing those DVDs in
| massive amounts to people, you start inviting a pretty
| legal trouble to your doorstep.
|
| Mind you, I absolutely disagree with the ban of both the
| historical footage, as well as the whole google account
| just because of that footage. However, I do believe that
| making video public via a shareable link or otherwise
| puts it in the territory where content rules similar to
| youtube might get reasonably applied.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| A better analogy would be if you made terroristic remarks
| to the sporting goods clerk, and walmart banned you not
| just from sporting goods but the entire store. Gmail and
| Google Drive are just different departments of the same
| place.
|
| But in this case it's just that walmart zoomed in on your
| notebook with a security camera, saw some arabic scribbles
| about allah on a tank drawing you were sharing with your
| friend, and decided you were a terrorist. Sure, they
| absolutely should toss you out the store if they think you
| are one, but they shouldn't have been zooming in your
| notebook in the first place.
| tyingq wrote:
| Not a fan of that analogy. Walmart can't brick your home
| thermostat, voice assistant, tv box, cable service,
| federated logins to Uber, DoorDash, your email account,
| cloud storage account, and so on.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist
| that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a
| big difference between having no idea terrorists use your
| platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those
| you believe to be terrorists.
| filoleg wrote:
| All of those walmart departments are doing the same
| thing: they sell you different kinds of consumer goods in
| a single marketplace.
|
| If you get banned from the entirety of Amazon marketplace
| by harassing sellers in the gardening equipment
| department, that seems fair. If you get your AWS account
| banned for doing the same thing that has nothing to do
| with AWS, that's a different story. One thing is a
| consumer goods store, the other is a cloud service
| provider.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| We're not talking about harrassment, we're talking about
| google thinking this is a violent terrorist who is
| sharing pictures of their armored vehicles.
|
| Can you really say with a straight face that once google
| thinks they have a terrorist, they should just go on
| supporting that person in any way whatsoever? There can
| be very serious penalties for knowingly aiding
| terroristic acts.
| bserge wrote:
| You lose access to everything, yes. Which is really fucking
| dumb.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| I know this is avoidable, and I know it's a semi-regular
| occurrence, and I can recognize Google's moderation problem is
| non-trivial, but I really can't shake the feeling that Orwell was
| off by a letter and the future will truly just be a bot stamping
| on a human face forever.
| closetohome wrote:
| You'd think Google breaks into your house, uploads your data,
| and deletes the originals.
|
| Think of cloud accounts like any other form of backup. Two is
| one, one is none.
|
| Hard drives die, cloud services come and go. No backup is
| forever.
| quantified wrote:
| Skynet doesn't need Terminators. Software bots can keep us busy
| all on their own.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| You don't even need bots - simple sorting algorithms do more
| damage. It shows human vulnerability more than anything else.
| All it took was a single fake message to get 600 people
| killed in Burma.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Do you have a good reference for this? I'd like to use it
| in future discussions :-)
| stevens37 wrote:
| Encrypt everything before uploading.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Tips and tricks for doing this the easiest way possible?
| symlinkk wrote:
| Deja Dup on Linux supports this. Just pick a directory to
| back up, sign in with your Google Account, and check a box to
| encrypt your stuff before uploading. Google Drive just sees
| encrypted chunks with file names like "duplicity.gpg".
| mNovak wrote:
| Cryptomator has overall a nice clean interface, I find
| cdumler wrote:
| Rclone. It has multiple backends and you can chain them:
| encrypt -> cache locally for performance -> store on backend.
| zibzab wrote:
| This is your daily reminder that nothing in your digital life
| should EVER entierly depend on any Google services.
|
| Im writing this from an android phone. It is not de-googled per
| se, but uses a replacement for every single Google service
| (files, books, maps, search, movies, ...). Yes I pay money for
| those replacements, but God its good to not my life in the hand
| of a overzealous ML algorithm.
| tyingq wrote:
| There's a middle ground too. I use lots of cloud services, but
| I also spent $300 on a home NAS device to sync copies of the
| stuff I can't live without. Not affiliated with them, but I
| bought a Synology unit, and the UI lets you pretty easily sync
| things like Google drive.
|
| I'd still be scrambling around a bit to fix stuff if Google
| banned me, but I'd at least have copies of the most important
| things.
| narrator wrote:
| Google is too successful. Their primary preoccupation these days
| is how to lose users they don't want.
| Goety wrote:
| We need an alternative to the internet as an actual timeline
| keeper. This is ridiculous
| jeffbee wrote:
| As a person who formerly worked on the technical side of anti-
| abuse (both content and account) at Google, I urge you to read
| these kinds of reports critically. There is no reason to believe
| any of the details given in the post, which incorporates a lot of
| supposition about how this system works. For example, we have no
| rational basis for believing that this was done by some robot at
| Google. It is at least as likely that the content was flagged by
| some other user.
|
| Anyway, Google will never ever comment on the reason for account
| disabled in public, therefore whining about it in public is not
| going to work. The way to get accounts enabled is
| https://support.google.com/accounts/contact/disabled2
| Nicksil wrote:
| >As a person who formerly worked on the technical side of anti-
| abuse (both content and account) at Google, I urge you to read
| these kinds of reports critically. There is no reason to
| believe any of the details given in the post, which
| incorporates a lot of supposition about how this system works.
| For example, we have no rational basis for believing that this
| was done by sone robot at Google. It is at least as likely that
| the content was flagged by some other user.
|
| >Anyway, Google will never ever comment on the reason for
| account disabled in public, therefore whining about it in
| public is not going to work. The way to get accounts enabled is
| https://support.google.com/accounts/contact/disabled2
|
| No, Google has proven itself to be a pretty awful enterprise
| and deserves no benefit of doubt.
| joosters wrote:
| _The way to get accounts enabled
| ishttps://support.google.com/accounts/contact/disabled2_
|
| There have been plenty of reports that this doesn't work
| either, with a bot simply 'reviewing' your account and not
| enabling it.
|
| The OP is 'whining about it in public' because it's the only
| hope they have of getting a human being at google to notice the
| problem and save their data. If google had a functional support
| system that wasn't 100% bots, users wouldn't have to complain
| in public!
| tedunangst wrote:
| I'm supposed to believe it's better that a human reviewed this
| ban?
| [deleted]
| chapium wrote:
| Google locked a 10 year old email account of mine and never
| followed up.
| cgio wrote:
| A user flagging is not the same as banning. The process that
| follows a flag can have human intervention and the assumption
| is that it does not currently in Google. As someone who worked
| in this space you could provide information on the process that
| would be valuable. Or maybe not on the basis of NDA or policy.
| In the former please do, and let us know the human touch points
| in the process end to end. If the latter, similar to your
| criticism for taking what OP says as granted, we cannot also
| take what you say as granted just by virtue of work experience
| you claim in a forum.
|
| We actually do not care if Google comments or not, that is an
| internal policy decision for the time being. With legislation
| in Europe though I believe it will have to explain automated
| decisions and also will have to provide users with their
| content.
|
| I am inclined to believe, btw, that someone who stored
| terrorism or other questionable material, would not be bold and
| stupid enough to make noise about losing access to it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| You really should not believe what I say just because I said
| it, but neither should you just resign all your mental
| faculties every time you find some forum post that confirms
| your prior assumptions. Just read critically.
| Fiahil wrote:
| > As a person who formerly worked on the technical side of
| anti-abuse (both content and account) at Google
|
| oh well, did you "dogfooded" your own human-review system once
| flagged by your anti-abuse bots ? Of course not, and that's why
| your system suck. If your are/were working at google, you are
| part of the problem, and if you want to do something about it,
| you should come down from your ivory tower.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I would say that Googlers are pretty likely to get locked out
| of their accounts, it happened all the time when I was there,
| usually for exceeding rate limits of one kind or another
| (Googlers get orders of magnitude more emails than anyone
| else for some reason). Dogfooding is generally practiced at
| that company. Every major system I worked with had new
| releases inflicted on insiders first.
|
| https://testing.googleblog.com/2014/01/the-google-test-
| and-d...
| croes wrote:
| How many times does that have to happen before people realize
| there is no cloud, only other people's computers. The data that
| is stored there is no longer yours, just as thanks to Apple and
| Co. your hardware no longer really belongs to you, but you only
| enjoy a temporary right of use. It will be interesting to see
| when hardly anything remains of an entire generation because
| everything comes from the cloud: Photos, videos, games, film,
| music. No more treasure troves in the attic, no more of grandma's
| record collection or dad's DVD collection or uncle's old console
| games. Everything just rented and when removed from the catalog,
| they are gone forever. Only our plastic waste remains.
| scohesc wrote:
| That's honestly really scary and I never thought of that.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I worked as an intern for an archive digitizing old letters
| among other things. Many aspects of key historical figures
| are available -- letters, etc. You know what they were
| thinking because you can read some of their personal
| thoughts.
|
| In this day and age, if you're lucky emails exist, but due to
| discovery, etc many entities just purge everything. Bad news,
| this era will be a black hole for future generations to
| understand. Good news is that the idiocy of this era will be
| toned down.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Maybe Google's history department will make some money from
| their monopoly on the primary sources.
| x0 wrote:
| OTOH, if that sort of data is not purged, it could be far
| richer than any letter. Many people pretty much use their
| phones/devices as extensions of their minds, and phones are
| a very personal, private place.
| N00bN00b wrote:
| There is a counter movement, for example, these guys place a
| significant role (and as far as I know primarily with a
| practical focus): https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/
| bserge wrote:
| They are the worst pirates I've ever heard of.
| jjulius wrote:
| What a terribly inaccurate, sweeping generalization.
| bserge wrote:
| Ah, but you have heard of them!
|
| (gotta do everything myself, but I can go to sleep now
| :D)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| This is HN; best jokes are like apples - hard, but not
| too hard, and in moderation.
| LivelyTortoise wrote:
| If it makes you feel better, I immediately spoke this
| line in my head after reading your post :-)
| kbenson wrote:
| Post in the top 5 of the subreddit currently: "Is there a
| good self hosted, cross platform OneNote / SimpleNote
| like app out there ?"
|
| Yep, scum of the earth. /s
| theodric wrote:
| If everything I've paid for and supposedly own some right
| to access can be taken away from me by a wayward
| algorithm at a moment's notice with zero recourse, you
| bet your ass I'm going to "pirate" content, even if I
| still buy it first!
| bserge wrote:
| Never heard of Amazon and Apple removing files from users'
| accounts? It was kinda big news. For a day.
| spicybright wrote:
| It's not that, it's the risk of permanently losing
| culturally significant media because of it.
|
| Not everyone is a techie that can switch from google's
| friendly UI, and transfer everything to another safer
| service that operates differently.
| 13415 wrote:
| We have to be able to rely on _some_ cloud services, though, if
| we want georedundant backup of local files. I agree that
| relying on Google drive without additional backups is a bad
| idea, and it 's generally a bad idea to store unencrypted files
| on cloud servers (or rely on _their_ encryption), but the
| problem is more general.
|
| It should be prohibited by law for cloud service providers to
| snoop around in other people's data without a warrant, no
| matter whether that snooping is automated or done by humans.
| gorwell wrote:
| This is why I've stopped buying books on kindle. It gives
| Amazon the power to censor your book library, and it would not
| surprise me at all if we see them exercise that power soon.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I personally find a rip of the book online to drop onto my
| reMarkable then purchase it through some ebook marketplace.
| Now I have a DRM-free copy and the author gets their cut.
| Underphil wrote:
| That's certainly noble, but it doesn't send the message
| that you're unhappy with DRM. You're ultimately engaging in
| piracy and at the same time _not_ voting with your wallet.
|
| I don't see any alternative, but just wanted to make that
| point.
| edoceo wrote:
| Steal the content and Venmo the creator?
| barbazoo wrote:
| Whenever I buy an ebook I go through the painful process of
| downloading it to my laptop either directly from the store
| (e.g. Kobo) or via Calibre [0] if I bought it from Amazon
| which I try to avoid, removing DRM via some tool I found
| somewhere and uploading it to the ebook again via Calibre.
| It's annoying an probably illegal but no one can take my
| ebooks away that way.
|
| [0] https://calibre-ebook.com/
| kubanczyk wrote:
| Me too. Just to be sure I've also put my Kindle on Airplane
| mode as soon as I got it. It has been working like this for
| years.
| nitrogen wrote:
| They already have, when they remotely deleted copies of 1984,
| IIRC whose copyright had expired in one country, but not in
| another.
| j1dopeman wrote:
| They have pulled books before I believe. However there are
| many good drm free ebooks. I still use a Kindle because I
| like the device but I keep it in airplane mode nearly all the
| time and copies of drm free books on my pc. Edit: I manage my
| library with calibre and the device plugged in. You never
| have to take it off airplane and it gets better battery life.
| hughrr wrote:
| I actually really don't care about kindle because it's only
| useful for certain formats I tend not to keep anyway and is a
| lot more convenient and cheaper than hunting down physical
| copies of stuff.
|
| I originally had over 200 books, all read, gathering dust so
| I gave them away. They took up space and attention and were a
| pain in the ass when I had to move house.
|
| As for the convenience, I do a lot of hiking and it's not
| much fun dragging two books from the expanse series with you
| versus a kindle in a ziplock bag.
|
| I have physical copies and PDFs for technical books and
| reference material though. And a lot of text files.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Amazon banned me (for something completely unrelated to
| Kindle books), and I lost access to everything on Kindle as a
| result. It's a good thing I hadn't spent much money there,
| and obviously I'm not buying any ebooks going forward.
| jwalton wrote:
| Buy ebooks from Baen directly, or from Tor on your service
| of choice. These publishers release books DRM free, so you
| actually own the file. Any other ebooks you "buy", you're
| renting.
| uncoder0 wrote:
| Alternatively if it's not available DRM free I'll just
| buy it and support the author from wherever and then
| pirate a DRM free copy and archive it.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Apple is still ok, just don't use iCloud.
| ajklsdhfniuwehf wrote:
| /facepalm
| hi5eyes wrote:
| you will own nothing and be happy
|
| tell yourselves a decade ago: everything is streamed, if
| something doesn't meet the most up-to-date social guidelines
| created by a mob of microbloggers it's removed from a
| storefront or completely kicked off most of the internet, oh
| and privacy? too radical!
|
| clown world
| andrea81 wrote:
| I won't click because I don't trust Google anymore, and really
| never trusted
| himinlomax wrote:
| At least in Europe he could file a complaint with the data
| protection authority, and at the very least request a copy of all
| his data.
| kwijibob wrote:
| Google Takeout is good insurance. I backup my full google dataset
| every 6 months or so.
|
| When Google AI blocks an account, why don't they offer a window
| of using Google Takeout to get a .zip of all their stuff?
| the_snooze wrote:
| Given the siloed disjointed nature of various Google products,
| it's probably because the security and Takeout teams don't care
| to deal with with one another.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-22 23:00 UTC)