Slashdot Mirror
Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data? (infoworld.com)
Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service? An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld:
Many people worried that Google was scanning users' documents in real time to determine if they're being mean or somehow bad. You actually agree to such oversight in Google G Suite's terms of service. Those terms include personal conduct stipulations and copyright protection, as well as adhering to "program policies"... Even though this is spelled out in the terms of service, it's uncomfortably Big Brother-ish, and raises anew questions about how confidential and secure corporate information really is in the cloud.
So, do SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS providers make it their business to go through your data? If you read their privacy policies (as I have), the good news is that most don't seem to. But have you actually read through them to know who, like Google, does have the right to scan and act on your data? Most enterprises do a good legal review for enterprise-level agreements, but much of the use of cloud services is by individuals or departments who don't get such IT or legal review. Enterprises need to be proactive about reading the terms of service for cloud services used in their company, including those set up directly by individuals and departments. It's still your data, after all, and you should know how it is being used and could be used...
The article argues that "Chances are you or your employees have signed similar terms in the many agreements that people accept without reading."
So, do SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS providers make it their business to go through your data? If you read their privacy policies (as I have), the good news is that most don't seem to. But have you actually read through them to know who, like Google, does have the right to scan and act on your data? Most enterprises do a good legal review for enterprise-level agreements, but much of the use of cloud services is by individuals or departments who don't get such IT or legal review. Enterprises need to be proactive about reading the terms of service for cloud services used in their company, including those set up directly by individuals and departments. It's still your data, after all, and you should know how it is being used and could be used...
The article argues that "Chances are you or your employees have signed similar terms in the many agreements that people accept without reading."
Source: Ian Betteridge
For my secrets and crimes, I use encryption.
That's why I don't use google (and other) cloud services.
I have never been a fan of Google starting with gmail. Google's business from day one was to collect as much data on you as possible and either use that data themselves or sell it to others. It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues, but then realized that email was so hard to set up at the time that it was the path of least resistance for the masses. And in the process they gave up more than they realized. All of this goes for Facebook as well.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
It isn't only one thing, it's several. You can lose access to your data at any time for any reason they decide, so you've put someone else in control of veto power over your use of your own data. In addition you've given up any possibility of keeping the data private.
So no. Using cloud services is generally not recommended. The only exception is if you encrypt the data locally and use the cloud provider only for physical storage, but even then you better have a good local backup strat.
Cloud services are made to be "convenient" so that you will fork over all your data and someone else will get control over you. Don't fall for it.
If I use Google, I expect that I should be able to get my data back at some point. Perhaps when I log in to GMail, and maybe at other times. Providing that service without a few calls to read() seems infeasible.
Oh, did you mean something else by the headline?
When I put unencrypted data on a cloud drive, it doesn't matter what the legal agreement is. The underlying truth is that the data can be read. Act accordingly. Don't put unencrypted data on a cloud service drive that you don't want to be read by someone else, whether the service provider or some other entity (government, hacker, malcontent employee etc.).
When you are running a business, this is a tradeoff. The costs of hosting it yourself and making sure it's backed up, available and secure are significant. Do you care more about Google reading your stock report than you care about putting in time and money to host it yourself. In many cases it's a slam dunk and the data gets hosted on Google for a reasonable fee. In some cases, the data goes in a secure place in a secure manner, but it's a small fraction of the data.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
No I am not. I don't use Cloud Services I don't run. My Android Phone uses LineageOS with F-Droid and not GApps. I use eGroupware, I use OwnCloud.
Have a company NOT scanning documents on their servers for malware and childporn and you're open for all kinf of lawsuits, both criminal and civil.
I'm, not exactly happy with my documents being scanned, but if I was a lawyer in Google's compliance department, it would still be in place.
At least that bug showed that it's only an automated scanner and not someone actually reading through them.
Furthermore, did this actually happen in GSuite too or only the free version?
bickerdyke
Yes, I'm OK with Google reading my data... but only the data I *ALLOW* them to read by storing on their cloud service. For everything else, it's offline.
I would rather pay money for the services that I use.
1) Is either OP, or David Linthicum - author of the InfoWorld piece a lawyer? If not, why are they attempting to interpret a contract? Would they trust a lawyer to review their coding?
2) We're told that the terms of service have stipulations on personal conduct and copyright. How do they get from that to "google can read your documents"? Where's the language that they are interpreting such. It might be there, but they could at least quote the text.
There's a big difference between saying you won't do something and saying someone else can read your documents. What does the confidentiality provision say? Is it mutual?
Obviously to provide such services, Google must have some access to the data. Really the question to be asked is what are the restrictions on what they can do with it.
Lots of questions, and not enough information in the summary or article to make the determinations they are claiming.
Just saying
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Is this any different from Microsoft 365? Is Google specifically being called out for a reason other than being the biggest player?
I strongly discouraged my coworkers to share documents using Google Docs. We used it now and then for writing some scientific papers, but our work is too valuable to have somebody snooping it. We then came back to offline strong encryption and email file exchange. This of course does not ease collaborative writing anymore, but we found that actually - at least in our work - our present approach is much better. Next step will be to have coworkers give up Word for Latex, but this is not easy...
I, for myself, never used Chrome, and I stopped using Google search and email since last change of service agreement.
... someone outside your company could be reading the company's confidential data then maybe you shouldn't be putting it on someone else's computers. Just sayin'.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
They can go read the newspapers instead.
That's why I disable Javascript in the browser, however the ubiquitous spawn of urchin.js is called these days.
Here's a random quote of this very page's source, somewhat embellished for readability, for you to see what I mean:
function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script');
ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ?
'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
[...]
Of course, for searches, I go to DuckDuckGo, ixquick or similar.
They still do get too many data from me, but the less, the merrier. Hell, no.
Google has done a lot of good for the world, but also a lot of bad. It needs to be put into check, and that can only happen if users hold it to account and hit it in the pocketbook. That means if anyone really cares about this, they need to cut off the ability of Google to monetize them. Of course, that does NOT mean going to Microsoft or some other equally-dubious company. Pick strong, private alternatives.
1. Get away from Gmail. Use a privacy-friendly alternative e-mail service like Startmail or ProtonMail. Yes, you will probably have to pay. You are either paying cash or paying with your data.
2. Break off Google search. Use DuckDuckGo to keep your searches private. If you want Google results, use Startpage instead; it will search Google privately on your behalf, preventing it from monetizing you.
3. Ditch Chrome. If you love the UI, then use the open source Chromium instead. Otherwise use Firefox (which is about to get a LOT better with the new overhaul debuting later this month) or Brave. Use your browser with ad blockers like Disconnect, uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus and Privacy Badger to stop Google and others from serving you tracking ads.
4. If you use an Android, consider running CopperheadOS on your phone. It is built on Android code, but hardened for security and free of Google data mining.
5. Say no to Google cloud storage services. If you want a high security option, use SpiderOak. Otherwise, you can use Boxcryptor to locally encrypt your files before sending them to the cloud so that they cannot be data mined.
I don't need to read anything to understand once I upload a file from my computer I've relinquish any sole control over it.
I gave them my files with full permissions, why should I be shocked that they looked at them
I mean
DUH
Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service?
Yes, since it happened again yesterday.
But don't worry, you can now request a review of the blocked file, by opening the file that you cannot open and requesting a review from within it.
Yes.
Not only am I not ok with Google reading some of my data. I am not Ok with Intel and AMD potentially reading some of my data. The most obvious example is bitcoin wallet's private key. There is simply no way to prevent its anonymous theft without absolute guarantee that even the most benign organizations cannot access it. Because if any of its employees ever goes rogue, the theft would be anonymous. Some of the data would be ok though. My kids homework? Sure. Go for it. My description of a business plan? Uhm. As long as it doesn't compete with Google, may be it's ok. My plan for a competing ad agency, travel agency or anything else that Google is even tangentially involved in? No WAY.
...but I have some videos on there that may violate copyright. (They aren't publicly available and most of them are just reviews that use some film footage/audio).
Today Google is spending billions designing the miltary drones (semi-autonomous tanks) that Google's owners hope will persuade Congress to finally declare war on Iran and start real preparations for was on Russia. Google purchased every major military robot company a little while back, and this FACT is in the public record.
Meanwhile Google continues its standard NSA R+D operations. Of course Google offers a honey trap for your files where it then mines each files for every atom of recordable data. This is more of a social experiment for Google to see just how thick and/or lazy people are. You COULD encrypt files stored on Google's HDDs, using trivial free software whose encryption is unbreakable (countdown to the first NSA shill who tries a comment full of FUD telling you no encryption is 'trustworthy'). You COULD reject the idea of storing your files on the resources offered by known NSA partners like Google and Facebook and Microsoft. Or you could be one of those thickies who thinks Russia is the 'bad guy', and trust the commercial partners of the NSA.
Google, whose owners have never seen an atrocity in Gaza they didn't think was "delightful", and who howled in delight at every ISIS victory in Syria, has never been able to hide its pure evil agenda. So it doesn't really try. Instead it uses the 'too useful' method, and then pitches at the same dribblers who think the "Iraq has WMDs" mainstream media tells the 'truth'. You know, the types who think Slashdot is a 'good' place. The idiots who voted for war criminal Clinton, thinking her a 'liberal' after she exterminated the most socially advanced nation in Africa- Libya.
Only America could produce a Google.
A 3rd party that makes (not earns!) its money by selling personal data to advertisers at that.
And why would I then expect that 3rd party to not even take a peek at it?
Your logic is like the Content Mafia’s: Give your secret to the entire world, yet expect it to stay a secret.
That's not how reality works. I'm not sorry. Get off the cocaine.
It's YOU who watches the watchers, you know? It's always you, in the end. Nobody else!
Learn who to trust.
Hint: If you can't punch them in the face, don't trust them. If you can't even look them in the eyes, they'll not treat you as humans. Simple.
Scouring the neighborhood, looking for crime, is the police's job!
Not private corporations! EVER.
Because to be a cop, you need to have certain powerful privileges to do your job.
And they must come with equally powerful stakes! And requirements.
A private organization, by its very definition, cannot fulfill those.
Because profit conflicts with the job of the police, which has higher goals than feeding the golden calf.
And because if you, as a company, stop adhering to your profit God, your competition will eat you alive.
The problem below that is, that our polices have become so totalitarian and evil, that we forgot the original good, and more importantly, human intentions.
A cop in a small town, where everybody knows everybody, and cops and citizens see each other as people is a good thing. He can't abuse his power, and he can keep oversight over what's going on in town.
The problem even below that, is how to translate that to the Internet. Or even just to societies, so big, that you can’t see the people as individual humans anymore.
Especially when someone else's computers are in "the cloud". Clouds are made up of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide), and we all know how dangerous that chemical can be.
#DeleteFacebook
I've received legal documents, some clearly client confidential, on ongoing litigation in error. Beyond my not agreeing to any of the legal disclaimers on the email, if Google read it and retained a copy I wonder what the ramifications are for keeping it confidential.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
if you use Google's free services, they have a perpetual non-exclusive right to all your content, and they are ALL UP IN YOUR SHIT. They know everything about you that can be known from analyzing your documents, files, and communications, and they know part about the people you speak to. All this information is available to U.S. government and other parties, effectively collecting profiles on every computer user in the world.
Why are people still skeptical about this?
I expect all of my cloud data to be encrypted so nobody else other than me can ever see it.
A young blonde woman was so depressed that she decided to end her life by throwing herself from the Bourne Bridge. She was about to leap into the frigid water when a handsome young sailor saw her tottering on the edge of the bridge, crying. He took pity on her and said "Look, you have so much to live for. I'm off to Europe in the morning, and if you like, I can stow you away on my ship and you can start a new life in Europe ... I'll take good care of you and bring you food everyday"
. "How can I repay you for such kindness" she asked.
"Just let me make love to you each night..." The blonde agreed.
That night, the sailor brought her aboard and hid her in a lifeboat. From then on, every night he brought her three sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and they made passionate love until dawn. Three weeks later, during a routine inspection, she was discovered by the captain.
"What are you doing here?" the captain asked.
"I have an arrangement with one of the sailors, who stowed me away" she explained. "I get food and free passage to Europe and he's screwing me".
"He certainly is", the captain said. "This is the Nantucket Ferry."
Companies only stay good if they are still growing (customer goodwill) or within confines of (actually enforced) laws.
Look at Cable companies and what pieces of shit they are. Google will eventually morph into this.
"Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data?"
Never was, never will be. Next stupid question, please.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
At least they're not scanning/reading my emails for any reason. Of course, I'm paying $20 a year for Outlook premium, but I also get to use a custom domain as an added bonus.
Any documents you have stored in google cloud / docs / drive are already being scanned by their software - how else could those docs be displayed and indexed?
Further scanning for malware or whatever isn't done by humans - it's fully automated, implemented by software that in the recent case happened to be buggy.
See subject + APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlog trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking code vs. infection of program built-in)
You can keep "downmod hiding" my posts but as you can easily see? I just repost them & you blow those downmod point dry, Lol!
That's not how this works - that's not how any of this works. I just set my prefs here at +2. and buh-bye to you. I just figured I'd post before moving the slider to annoy ya.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I am a very senior engineer. Masters degree in mechanical engineering. Cum laude. Worked in pretty tough technical areas for a decade.
I have watched google take things that I wasn't able to follow up on from my email, and pursue them as if they were their own. There have been 2-3 things over the years. I'm still watching to see if they also steal my undergrad work in nuclear power.
While I can't get away from the personal parts quickly, I can put in some poison pills. If they attempt to drink more of my blood, integrity and intellectually speaking, there are some bombs in there. They look good on paper, and can sell to management, but are going to be decent resource sinks, and will not pan out in the long run.
It really is my only option. I'm still paying on student loans and mortgages, and I have no margin for lawsuits.
Personally, I am very sad about how they abandoned their "don't be evil" and have become the evil empire they hated when they were young. They are infected by the virus for which profit or brand appearance are the carriers.
I hope that, for their sins, as an immense power, they pay an immense price. Their soul was sold long ago, so the only currency that they have left is suffering. I hope, and am very sure, that the company will suffer. There are wolves at their doors too. All they have to do in order to be defeated is to have the slightly worse posture against even one of those wolves. They could consider IBM, whose only recent claim to fame is a reminder to the US goverment about qbits simulations.
-formerly Atrius
Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):
Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down/poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.
AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/
UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/
Hosts~6mb
Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/
NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!
No 1 addon does as much.
Stacked addons slowup.
ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/
APK
P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
No....
What starts as an offer of AV?
Then just for the worst files of interest to the police?
Then SJW suggestions and language corrections?
Stay away from the cloud and having your documents content examined by strangers.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes I'm okay with Google reading my data because their profit motive aligns with my desire for the data to not be shared to every idiot with a spare dollar. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services. To do this their secret sauce recipe is the data they collect from you. That makes them much more likely to keep your data private and properly anonymise it when external parties come and request services.
Compare that to a company like Samsung who make money by selling physical things. I have no doubt that they don't give a shit about my data (they don't even bother encrypting it in transit). The highest bidder will happily end up with the entire data base and who knows maybe all the bidders will.
My data is being shared with whichever cloud / service provider I use to go about my daily high-tech life. Out of all of them I find it hard to trust a company more than Google because for once their profit motive aligns with my goals.
no anally and being fucked betweent the gay legs of my bum hole is mildly relaxing by being a chick who fucks but born a poof guy wanker slut hole fucked bitch.
You can stop using GMail, but you'll probably still want to exchange emails with others who do use GMail, so Google still gets to read a significant percentage of your emails. You can't tell by the domain name either, since there are many domains that route their email through GMail.
You can stop using Google Search, but you'll still end up on a site that hosts Google ads, and therefore sends Google your browsing info. You can turn off javascript, but it doesn't matter, Google ads don't need javascript to track you. Even ad blockers won't help, because many sites willingly send Google your data in the name of analytics.
You can stop using Chrome, but the above tracking methods don't require Chrome.
You can reduce your exposure somewhat, but not by all that much. And if it's not Google you're sending your data to, it's probably Microsoft or Apple.
Is Google flagging specific files because it failed to identify them?
Probably none. The sender's use of the service entails an acceptance of the EULA and therefore any email sent over their service either:
a) grants Google the right to store, read and forward the email, or
b) if its a document that would legally require both parties' waiver for Google to perform those tasks, then the liability is on the sender for not understanding how the hell email works, never mind what Google does with the email behind the scenes.
In both cases, Google has no liability when it comes to confidential documents -- if its truly confidential, then the onus is on you to find a more private mode of transmission.
The only way Google could potentially have liability is if you could show that a confidential email went to the wrong recipient due to an actual technical error on their end.
And it is evidence to me of people's ignorance that so many are perfectly fine with it. Why did someone like Snowden bother addressing such a lazy, apathetic populace?
See subject & http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/17/ublock_origin_csp_reports/ & Ray Hill uBlock's dev apparently refuses to fix it (it's blocking browser warnings vs. being 'hacked').
APK
P.S.=> You can keep "downmod hiding" my posts but as you can easily see? I just repost them & you blow those downmod point dry, Lol!
You TIP YOUR HAND as to WHY you do - you CAN'T VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVE ME WRONG on points of fact I post of hosts files' HUGE superiority vs. browser addons... apk
Ol Olsoc FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a LIFE, see subject: My posts are back in place & I ran you DRY of "downmodpoints" as always, lol @ U.
* Keep projecting WHO is 'annoyed' (you are & out of 'bogus bullets' that just BOUNCE off me).
IF THIS ISN'T "HOW IT WORKS" THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP "DOWNMOD HIDING" THIS VERY POST?
(You actually PROVED MY POINT in what you quoted from me, by me doing exactly what I said... easily)
APK
P.S.=> LMAO, I truly LOVE "your kind" - you make ME look GOOD & you + those like you? Well - lol, "not so good" (stupid & weak)... apk
You're out of 'downmod bullets' that end up bouncing off me anyway! I merely repost, you run dry of downmodpoints (you or "your kind" (FAKE NAMES for FAKE LIVES) speaking always gives it away, lol).
* You're effete & WEAK... & you know it (whereas I prove I am literally IMPERVIOUS to your puny 'attacks').
APK
P.S.=> No "small wonder" /. doesn't "ID" who issues downmods ("we'd have 'flamewars'" is their BULLSHIT excuse - guess what dimwits? You HAVE THEM ANYWAY!) - it's a system BUILT by weasels FOR WEASELS (like you behind a FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIFE)... apk
See subject: As I said - WHEN you're forced to reply you prove you're out of "downmodpoints" (sockpuppet accounts help you know (plenty here use them, this I KNOW for a fact along w/ proxies or VPN to do so, also what I know for a fact)).
* As per usual? I win - it's just "what I do/how I roll"...
(I looked LONG AGO @ /.'s sourcecode, when it was available to figure this all out - that source isn't available/open now in its current form: Why? It's LOADED w/ things 'whipslash' put in to TRY 'stop me' - RoTfLmAo - THAT was a YEAR AGO & hasn't worked... & IF he tries to change it? It would be a MASSIVE "uprooting" of how /. works for users AND work for him to do it (it's foundational stuff is why)).
APK
P.S.=> In the end? It's fun for me, effort for you (but you're not very good @ proving YOUR point &? YOU PROVE MY POINT FOR ME, lmao - thanks!)... apk
See subject & as I said? When you're forced to reply you give away you're out of "downmodpoints" so you have to wait for tomorrow's next reload of them (or use your sockpuppets to issue them, no biggie, I'll exhaust them of them too).
* I.E. - There is NO WAY you can come out ontop - no way. This exchange has already proven that much easily for me in MY favor, lol... as always!
APK
P.S.=> See subject: It's more like "Blow Ol Olsoc, FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIFE, away bot"... apk
See subject: In the time you've spent online trolling me you could have built the foundations of a program. I get you're 'burying' my posts now, but, seriously - don't you have better things to do that you could actually profit by?
APK
P.S.=> Think about it. For your own sake (instead of acting like a 2 yr. old trolling me)... apk
I see Google and you tube - not tuned for copyrights and tube. may be un-trained staff let loose.
Trust is the essence of Time
That's naive, simplistic and, unfortunately, wrong. Running your own servers isn't enough - Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems, and therein lies the problem. Google is collecting data even if people have no direct interaction with Google or their properties. Are you checking Slashdot? Well, Slashdot reports you to Google, via calls to google-analytics and gstatic. Were you notified of this? Heck, no. Can you opt out? Only by not using Slashdot, or thousands of other sites. Are you using some WIFI somewhere? Chances are they use Google DNS, and Google will record your queries and correlate your patterns of use until they know it's you.
Hint to anybody who doesn't know (10% of Slashdot visitors I bet):You can simply block google-analytics and gstatic via plugins in your browser, or more elaborate, via hostfile editting and a number of other ways. I use Privacy Badger and NoScript. Most website (including slashdot) work perfectly well with google spyware disabled. But some websites do not.