Slashdot Mirror


Sex Workers Say Porn On Google Drive Is Suddenly Disappearing (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Porn performer Avey Moon was trying to send the lucky winner of her Chaturbate contest his prize -- one of her videos, titled "POV Blowjob" -- through her Google Drive account. But it wouldn't send, and Google wasn't telling her why. "I thought there was something wrong with my file and I got rather worried," Moon told me in a Twitter message. "I had promised this guy his content and he was so good to me. I was panicked because I thought if I couldn't give him his prize, he would feel like he got ripped off and never come back again or worse, he could actually file a complaint with Chaturbate about me and they can take money from me." She's not alone. Six porn performers I talked to and more on social media said that they suddenly can't download adult content they keep on Google Drive. They also said they can't a share that content with other accounts or send to clients. In some cases, the adult content is disappearing from Drive without warning or explanation. The porn performers I talked to started sounding the alarm on Twitter last week. They said that Google Drive no longer seemed sex-trade friendly, detailing error messages and sharing cloud storage alternatives with each other.

When I asked about sexual content being blocked on Drive, a spokesperson for Google directed me to the Drive policy page -- specifically the section on sexually explicit material, which says, "Do not publish sexually explicit or pornographic images or videos.... Additionally, we do not allow content that drives traffic to commercial pornography." Writing about porn and sex is permitted, the policy states, as long as it's not accompanied by sexually explicit images or videos. According to Google, Drive uses a combination of automated systems and manual review to decide what's in violation.
One worker said they've been using Google Drive for most of the last five and a half years but just recently received an error message when sending a video, saying that the item may violate Google's Terms of Service, with a link to request a review. In this case, the video title was explicit, but other adult performers report similar messages when sending content with non-explicit titles. "Some sex workers are wondering if this has something to do with the impending vote on the SESTA-FOSTA bill," reports Motherboard. We now have learned that the Senate has passed the bill.

356 comments

  1. Not just sex workers, any explicitly named images by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    I follow a few cosplay people on Twitter, and some have been saying that even files that have no nudity but just filenames that contain explicit terms, are being locked such that they cannot be accessed nor downloaded.

    Some people were storing their ONLY copy of an image on Google Drive, for the cosplayers these may represent the results of expensive photoshoots they paid for...

    I never really got into using Google Drive and I'm pretty thankful I never did. It is absurd that any file you uploaded may suddenly be seized such that you will never see it again.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  2. These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    than the Left...

    1. Re:These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if that is so, then why do conservatives not like the Left? I guess logical thinking is not your strength.

    2. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Because thier motto was always "leave people alone." The left is the exact opposite. Thier concept of morality and ethics must be imposed. You have that element in the religious right as well.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because thier motto was always "leave people alone."

      It never was. It never, ever was. It was always "those people are different from us, let's get 'em!" Or of course, it has also been "those people aren't really people, so it's okay to enslave them".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave people alone, meaning:

      Let gay people get married?

      Let countries not be bombed by us?

      Let people consume whatever substances they want recreationally?

      Let people protest?

      I could go on, but I think I'll stop here.

    5. Re:These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have to hand it to the conservative overlords.

      The greatest magic trick of the last 25 years has been to convince lower-middle class white people that these ideas come from "the left", and "liberals". Anyone who experienced the 50's and 60's in the U.S knows this bullshit originated with right wing McCarthy era thugs and religious wing nuts who were terrified of beatniks, rock stars, and communists.

    6. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Force gay agenda into laws, sit by idle as foreign counties work against us, watch rioters loot and destroy small businesses...

      Your spin is fucking stupid.

    7. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because thier motto was always "leave people alone."

      It never was. It never, ever was. It was always "those people are different from us, let's get 'em!" Or of course, it has also been "those people aren't really people, so it's okay to enslave them".

      The Democrats- the left- have always been the slave party. That 'southern strategy' tale about everybody switching sides in the 60's has always been a bunch of rubbish that Democrats tell each other, as they promulgate endlessly racist and racial policies. Your pals on the left have switched from racial malevolence to racial condescension, which I suppose is a small improvement. Maybe in another 60 years you'll actually treat people like people, instead of grievance groups to be pitted against each other for electoral gain.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    8. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These days". Not 50 years ago.

    9. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was always "those people are different from us, let's get 'em!" Or of course, it has also been "those people aren't really people, so it's okay to enslave them".

      That has almost always been the attitude of tribes or nations of people towards other tribes or nations. Tribe that internally had a tendency to leave tribe members alone were often very successful, which made them rather horrifyingly good at killing or enslaving other tribes. The best course of action is to either leave other tribes alone, or consider everyone a single tribe. The political right will gravitate towards the former, the left towards the latter, and we can fight about it on the soap box and at the ballot box.

    10. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      The Democrats- the left- have always been the slave party. That 'southern strategy' tale about everybody switching sides in the 60's has always been a bunch of rubbish that Democrats tell each other, as they promulgate endlessly racist and racial policies.

      Oh, my sweet, summer child. We've seen anti-affirmative action trolls here on Slashdot before. You'll have to get up earlier in the morning than that to troll here.

      Maybe in another 60 years you'll actually treat people like people, instead of grievance groups to be pitted against each other for electoral gain.

      The conservatives are the gerrymanderers. 'nuff said.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is not about left of right, is more about authocracy and self-righteousness in a failed society (failed in the sense that we're still working on it) and a bunch of lazy corrupt people that want to hide their of the reality of the world and are too lazy to work in real things that actually matter and need to show to some few people that they "work hard" for them, so you see lots of times politicians voting in useless topics like prayer days, stupid bans or the official logo or mascott of the town, you never heard them working on banning real dangers like pesticides, assault weapons, infrastructure maintenance (unless they can get some money on it).

      Sex and other natural pleasures are the lowest hanging fruits of politics.

    12. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's people like you that are making folks switch to Republicans. Keep it up.

    13. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to spend your *entire life* posting this same post again and again on slashdot. It must be a very sad and empty one. Why don't you actually go and eat some shit, it's obvious to anyone that's what you want.

    14. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      People, organized into groups, are the problems. This group vs that group. This government vs that government. That religion vs the other religion (or lack thereof).

      People are the problem. Every one of us is a problem as long as we want something from someone else. Once you realize that people are the problem, then you'll understand why laws don't stop people from being problems.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      It's people like you that are making folks switch to Republicans. Keep it up.

      O RLY?

      "The percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican or lean that way has dropped since Donald Trump was elected president, a Gallup poll found."

      The one bright spot for the Republicans is that they've actually been a minority for awhile but have been able to outmaneuver the Democrats for most of the past two decades because the Democrats are incompetent. So becoming even more of a minority isn't necessarily a death knell for the Republicans.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    16. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've summarized the entire history of right wing politics quite well. The only part you forgot is stealing terms and even entire ideologies from the left and making them much shittier and more hateful.

    17. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that extremely well documented history triggers you so much. Did you know that some of us were alive during that time to actually witness the Southern Strategy and the political parties ideological switching? Did you know there are news clips from that time documenting it in minute detail? Do you know the entire narrative of "it's fake" came from a right wing think tank trying to clean up history to be more nice to the right? And that is well documented as well? And that the entire belief that Hitler was a leftwing socialist started in the late 70's when that think tank decided they had to portray Hitler as a leftist even though all recorded knowledge shows him to be irrefutably a right winger?

      You probably don't. But luckily your kids will, and your quarrel with easily demonstrated reality will end when you die, and so too will your childish notions that you can rewrite history and nobody will notice.

    18. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . allow blacks to drink from the white's only fountain, women to walk about with their heads uncovered, etc.

    19. Re: These days, nobody more conservative by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You might want to look into actual facts sometime. The Southern Strategy was a deliberate Republican attempt to turn racists into Republicans. Since then, Republicans have resisted efforts that would erode racial inequality. I'm not claiming that the Democrats have always been right in their efforts, but (since the 1960s) they've consistently pushed for racial equality.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. do not trust the cloud by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

    And this is exactly why people should not trust the cloud.

    'The cloud' is a fancy way of saying, "somebody else's computer". And they can control what stays on their computer. They control what security (if any) is in place to protect your data.

    These services and companies can not be trusted.

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
    1. Re:do not trust the cloud by DivineKnight · · Score: 2

      Nice to see the sysadmin role will be coming back into vogue soon.

    2. Re:do not trust the cloud by admin7087 · · Score: 2

      Nah, It's just the US cloud you shouldn't trust. Mega works fine, I use it daily, and any other non-US cloud service works fine, too, I suppose.

    3. Re:do not trust the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mega is a chinese company lol... Anyways, good ole sdcards and usb sticks. Or just buy a cheap nas with hdds.

    4. Re:do not trust the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mega is the company of Kim Dotcom's wife, a New Zealand company.

    5. Re: do not trust the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, New Zealand is a vassal state of the US.

    6. Re:do not trust the cloud by mysidia · · Score: 1

      AWS, Dropbox, and a bunch of other services work work fine too -- Google's the only one known to be censorship-interfering with your private files and small scale one-to-one sharing.

    7. Re:do not trust the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cant trust any cloud because the americans might send an aircraft carrier into it anyway

  4. With clouds it rains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Data stored on the cloud = not yours. Always keep physical backups.

  5. You get what you pay for? by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not clear whether or not those accounts are the free accounts, or if they are paid for.

    I switched from Drive to Dropbox a while ago. I wasn't cool with having a fair amount of important data locked up in a 'free' solution that could be turned off at any time. I'd rather pay the couple of dollars a month for Dropbox.

    1. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not clear whether or not those accounts are the free accounts, or if they are paid for.

      I switched from Drive to Dropbox a while ago. I wasn't cool with having a fair amount of important data locked up in a 'free' solution that could be turned off at any time. I'd rather pay the couple of dollars a month for Dropbox.

      It doesn't matter. The take away message I get from this is that whatever you store in Google drive is subject to "manual review" by Google employees. It makes me wonder they bother with HTTPS or encryption at rest.

    2. Re:You get what you pay for? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it won't disappear or be subject to content 'shadow bans.'

    3. Re:You get what you pay for? by PeterGM · · Score: 1

      Agreed with the fear of just having it turned off but there's always someone to tell you that your backups are not sufficient. Today, for you, that is me!

      Online backups are great but if you invest in a hardware backup system that you have control of then you'll get a lot more peace of mind and control. External hard disks are not expensive! Doesn't have to be a fancy RAID setup with redundancies. Dropbox + external disk = more than 99% of people seem to use and gives two layers of reassurance.

      I'm not even going to drop in an affiliate link or anything so you know I'm on the level.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
    4. Re:You get what you pay for? by dave562 · · Score: 2

      I'm not so worried about shadow bans of my spread sheets and family photos.

      If they start banning VeraCrypt containers, then I've got a real problem.

    5. Re: You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. This story reveals a violation of assumptions I had made about Googleâ(TM)s handling of my data

    6. Re:You get what you pay for? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I have a bin full of 1TB USB 3.0 drives.

      As naïve as this might sound, I have a lot more peace of mind in Dropbox. If I experience a drive failure, I lose what is on there. They have SANs.

      TBH, I am saving up for a 4 drive Synology NAS. With 4TB @ RAID5 I will get 12TB of storage. That's more than enough for what I am backing up.

    7. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you pay for it, you have a contract and a reasonable basis to sue someone.

      The 'free' services give you a lot less leeway.

    8. Re:You get what you pay for? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Well, that's next, if those running these companies wish to push their political agendas strongly enough. You should be concerned about shadow deletes of any content on the service.

    9. Re:You get what you pay for? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      The issue with google is political (and possibly legal) not technological.

    10. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I switched from Drive to Dropbox a while ago.

      Once what Google does becomes the industry standard, expect other companies to have to hire their services or duplicate them wholesale in order to avoid lawsuits and to comply with governments. As long as the remote side has the plaintext, this will happen eventually, guaranteed.

    11. Re:You get what you pay for? by svanheulen · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Encryption at rest" is a technically correct but intentionally misleading buzzword. It means that the hard drive your data is stored on is encrypted, but the service provider has the encryption keys. If you want your data to only be readable by you, that's called end-to-end encryption, which is not the same as encryption at rest. Goolge Drive, OneDrive, and Dropbox only provide encryption at rest and they can snoop through your data all they want. I know MEGA provides end-to-encryption but I'm sure there are others.

    12. Re:You get what you pay for? by mikael · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time before they try and ban animated ASCII art.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:You get what you pay for? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      "Just because you pay for it" absolutely gives you a basis for a lawsuit.

      Generally, if you get something for free, you have no basis for a lawsuit.

      I'm not aware of companies taking things away from their customers without being sued. Do you have any evidence this is a thing?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    14. Re:You get what you pay for? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      subject to whatever's in the TOS though, right?

    15. Re: You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your situation is when the controller on your synology dies, sure your data is safe on the drives but you have to "save up" and try to locate another similar model machine.

    16. Re:You get what you pay for? by PeterGM · · Score: 2

      Good for you! I use three external disks as my backup, I had a bunch of SATA to USB converters lying around after a work project so I stacked them up and put them to use.

      I figure the chances of three drives failing simultaneously are pretty slim. It's not like they're all Western Digital. Only one of them is.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
    17. Re:You get what you pay for? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it won't disappear or be subject to content 'shadow bans.'

      No it doesn't, but paying for something does form a stronger legal contract between two parties which makes it far easier to win a court case.

    18. Re: You get what you pay for? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. This story reveals a violation of assumptions I had made about Googleâ(TM)s handling of my data

      Really? Their terms of service say that anything you upload or store in their service belongs to them. Did you build your assumptions based off of what they wrote down they would do?

    19. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you run a business... you cannot rely on Google infrastructure. It's that simple.

      Google is now run by blue-haired nutjobs who will shut you down if they think your stuff if offensive... right now that's porn. It will end up anything that supports a political stance they disagree with.

      Are you a firm that does the catering for NRA events? Gone
      Are you a firm that produce plates commemorating a civil war general? Gone
      and so on

      I'll repeat... if you run a business, Google is now an unacceptable risk. Take steps now.

    20. Re:You get what you pay for? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. A TOS or any other contract is only as valid as are the contents of it. Just because a company says, "We can take your money and screw you over" in the TOS doesn't mean that it's enforceable.

      Regardless, you have no basis, whatsoever, if you're using a free service. Basic law 101: consideration.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    21. Re:You get what you pay for? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they start banning VeraCrypt containers, then I've got a real problem.

      And it might happen. After all, they can't tell what your encrypted content is--it could be anything. Maybe they'll decide they just better play it safe...

    22. Re:You get what you pay for? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The big, immediate issue with Google is political. Doesn't mean there aren't any possible technical issues If you think Google Drive is 100% bulletproof, you're fooling yourself, because nothing is 100% bulletproof. Especially not anything offered for free.

    23. Re: You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Its standard linux MD-RAID. Any linux system should be fine. Esp. if you use RAID 10. Even hardware RAID controllers like Adaptec have standards across various products.

    24. Re:You get what you pay for? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Both are needed; the cloud is a quick and dirty offsite backup. When a house or apartment burns down / floods / is sucked into oz by a tornado, there's no time to take the SAN, especially if no one is home when it happens.

      Sneakernet-ing a hard drive swap to a safe deposit box gets old after a while... and knowing my luck the guy one box over will be storing his rare earth magnet collection in there.

    25. Re:You get what you pay for? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Keep a second backup on encrypted SSD at the office.

    26. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just because you pay for it" absolutely gives you a basis for a lawsuit.

      Which is great if I can get a Pro Bono Lawyer. Otherwise, I'm well fucked because they'll argue I'm only out the money of the cost of the service at worst case, which is way more than the cost of any lawyer and hence no on-commission is liable to take up the suit with a 10 foot pole.

      I'm not aware of companies taking things away from their customers without being sued. Do you have any evidence this is a thing?

      Happens all the time, in a meaningful sense. If 99.999% of your customers won't sue and that last 0.001% can't form a class-action suit, then companies get away pretty scot-free. Even with a class-action lawsuit where the class wins, companies rarely lose out more than they gain, the lawyers get most the money, and the actual plaintiffs get virtually nothing. Add in the current situation where contracts have now made mandatory arbitrage the norm, and you're only making the situation worse for most costumers.

      But, yes, I agree that at least in theory paying gets you some leverage.

    27. Re:You get what you pay for? by war4peace · · Score: 5, Informative

      SpiderOak offers End-to-end encyption and Zero-Knowledge Encryption too.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    28. Re: You get what you pay for? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Really? Their terms of service say that anything you upload or store in their service belongs to them.

      Gogle is careful _not_ to assume ownership of Google Drive content. See the actual terms of use at: https://support.google.com/dri...

      There are many business and legal reasons for Google to avoid claiming ownership of that content. One of the simpler reasons is to avoid responsibility for it.

    29. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual story mentions the problem on paid storage. Read the fucking story, eg:

      in an email that she’s been using a paid version of Drive with 1 TB of storage, which costs $9.99 a month, for five years, but she just started getting error messages last week

    30. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had dropbox push their moral athority on a few files that I use for rooting android phones and several MP3s that I own. They do not provide a way to turn this off either. In the end I am paying to store files on Someone Else's Computer(tm).

    31. Re:You get what you pay for? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Oh believe me, I don't think they're foolproof and I'm well aware of their political shenanigans.

    32. Re: You get what you pay for? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      They should probably sunset that service then. Its going to be nothing but drama hosting joe six packs files.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    33. Re: You get what you pay for? by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      They WILL play it safe.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    34. Re: You get what you pay for? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Then why save up?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    35. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have "a bin full of 1TB USB 3.0 drives" you can make your own NAS with RAID.

      You are on slashdot. You should know that a NAS is just a prebuilt tiny file server with limited features.

    36. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they are hit by a meteorite, earthquake, flash flood or Godzilla. You are better off having multiple copies on electrically isolated HD drives.

    37. Re:You get what you pay for? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      HTTPS is what protects the content moving around the web to the brand.
      So other brands don't get to see user data for free.
      Once the brand has the content that crypto is what the brand offered.
      Content then has to be sorted for ads that are going to make that user buy things.
      Ads that have to understand what the content was.
      Content is scanned for words and images so ads will be useful. Useful to the brands, on message for the user.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    38. Re:You get what you pay for? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Get all images and work backed up. Anything can change on social media sites for any reason.
      Party politics, US laws.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    39. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep a second backup on encrypted SSD at the office.

      That's how I make sure my family photos stay safe. GPGed on a 256GB flash drive in my desk lap drawer.

    40. Re: You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit OT, but what is with the renaissance of 90's-style horrible website names? SpiderOak? That's as bad as Pink Gorilla or Atomic Tangerine.

    41. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather pay the couple of dollars a month for Dropbox.

      Dropbox is $9.99/month, Google Drive is literally a "couple of dollars".

    42. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just because you pay for it" absolutely gives you a basis for a lawsuit.

      Generally, if you get something for free, you have no basis for a lawsuit.

      Sure, it makes it easy to prove damages.
      You will probably get refunded for the duration you stored the files that are now lost.
      You won't have more money than you had with a free service, but at least you don't have less either if you didn't get lawyer costs.

    43. Re: You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why go on the internet and tell lies?

    44. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know Google doesn't claim that they rumble through your data and remove things they don't like.
      To play it safe we should assume that they may have both political and technological issues until they have clarified what is going on.
      Until we know what data can get lost it is probably a good idea to not use Google Drive.
      As far as we know they could be experimenting with filesystems with compressed filenames that can't handle three of the same letter in a row.

    45. Re: You get what you pay for? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      They've started in late 2007, so they might be inspired by some 90s website names.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    46. Re:You get what you pay for? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you want your data to only be readable by you, that's called end-to-end encryption

      No, that just means the data is encrypted when travelling from your computer to the cloud computer. Once it arrives at the other end it isn't encrypted any more. Google, OneDrive and Dropbox all support that via HTTPS.

      What you want is client side encryption. Everything is encrypted/decrypted on the client (your computer), and that's it. It's just a bunch of random numbers to the cloud server. The down side is that you can't use cloud services to operate on the data (e.g. Google Photos to view/edit/enhance) but your privacy is assured.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re: You get what you pay for? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Filed under "Something Must Be Done! This is Something, Therefore It Must Be Done!!!!"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    48. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, RAID is over rated for a backup device. Your better off with slightly out of sync mirrors of your data, IMHO. Gives you time to recover from a mistake before it gets replicated.
      I use a backup drive with btrfs so I can snapshot it.

    49. Re:You get what you pay for? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily their political agendas. Political agendas of people in Congress and the White House matter also, and large targets like Google might well not want to leave openings for attack.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's the problem. Don't store your only copy of expensive data on Someone Else's Computer aka The Cloud(tm). At least have a local backup.

    If it's on someone else's computer, they can impose their rules, laws, and religious superstitions on you.

  7. If you need cloud hosting... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you need cloud hosting, go with a non-US provider. The US is gradually reverting to a pit of Puritanism and religious zealotry. More evolved societies only worry about what can actually harm people (i.e. terrorist recruitment material), not about the naked human body.

    Seems like violence and gunplay is fine in US media and TV shows, but the moment you see one-fifth of an areola, the Puritans get up in arms.

    1. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      It was the Puritans who started the war on Christmas (or any European festivals). It's thanks to the raucous and irreverent waves of immigrants who arrived later that people in the USA are allowed to celebrate and enjoy themselves.

      I wonder if Google are also blocking images from art and literature that show the naked human form?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    2. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's radical leftist feminists who are pushing for porn censorship these days because it "promotes sexual violence" and "objectifies women." The whole religious right puritan push died decades ago.

      I wonder if you even live here.

    3. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nutbar Puritan zealots come from both sides of the left-right spectrum. The problem isn't the left-right axis for the libertarian-authoritarian one. The US is moving to the authoritarian side.

    4. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's radical leftist feminists who are pushing for porn censorship these days

      Yes, they're currently the bigger enemy of free speech, but the religious kind has never stopped. We're being hit from both sides.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other governments have their own hangups to deal with; some European countries are trying very hard to make expressing conservative opinions illegal. And the various MAFIAA companies pay a lot of money to harmonize copyright regulations globally.

      In the long run, what's needed is distributed, peer-to-peer flow of information. Not centralized points of control that can easily be shut down by fascists. Something like IPFS is on the right track.

    6. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      At the same time, I'm meeting more women than ever who are into porn, both consumption and production.

      I do live in Portland, Oregon though so my sample population is likely skewed from the 'norm' for America.

    7. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      That's true. Ideologues come in many forms spouting many doctrines.

    8. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by nadass · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Google are also blocking images from art and literature that show the naked human form?

      From my direct interactions with Google employees, to use a term Anonymous Coward uses below your comment, it is "radial leftist feminists" who are pushing for porn censorship. In other words, it is the RLF from within Google itself who are pushing and enforcing their agenda upon the rest of the world.

      Would Google/Alphabet ever admit this? Of course not. But they exist, and they hate you both virtually and IRL.

    9. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's radical leftist feminists who are pushing for porn censorship these days because it "promotes sexual violence" and "objectifies women." The whole religious right puritan push died decades ago.

      I wonder if you even live here.

      Indeed. President Trump's campaign and election did a lot to drain the Religious Right gasbags. That, along with terminating the Bush and Clinton dynasties, is one of the best things coming out of his presidency.

    10. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That's part of the problem. The *U.S.* isn't. A minority of citizens (and I think a shrinking minority) has temporarily managed to grab power due to the timing that big data arrived (allowing republicans to lock in gerrymandering gains for a decade- in my state we are 55%R,45%D... our state house is almost 70%R. We are being screwed.

      Likewise, red states adopt policies that either take the right to vote away from minorities or drive them from the state. We have states that are over 90% white still. And they are grossly over represented in the Senate and the Electoral college.

      Crossing my fingers the majority can take back the House later this year in the 2018 elections. Republicans have been tossing aside precedence going back over a hundred years to push their power. But by doing so, once it flips back they have no protection either.

      Demographic trends are not in their favor in particular states like Texas (probably Blue again soon based on presidential year election percentages) but smaller states are an issue. It would *really* benefit California to ship about 40,000 of it's minority, gay, etc. citizens to Wyoming. It would flip two senate and one house seats Blue. That 568,000 citizen state has 2 senators. California with 38,000,000 citizens has 2 senators. It's really not democratic any more.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Dude its ALWAYS been that way, hell Joe Bob Briggs said way back in the early 80s "In the US you can't show a tit unless there is a knife in it". It was that way then, its that way now.

      The bitch is we are due for a VERY HARD right shift, the Tumblrinas and SJWs have screamed wolf one too many times by calling everyone for everything an "ist!" that middle America is more than willing to swing as far right as they can if it means the regressives get kicked to the curb. It really reminds me of the late 70s, Carter came off as such a wuss and the media was pushing the left as hard as they possibly could and then bam, the entire country just took a hard right shift for the next dozen years and honestly never really swung completely back.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      "Sad is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another." -- A wise person

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Would you visit planet if the people acted like that? Hell no. Total waste of time.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    14. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Being white is not a political stance. WTF?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    15. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's allowed to be racist against whites, especially white males, boys in education in particular are easiest to repress.

    16. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything old is new again...

      Us old farts remember the antics of Andrea Dworkin and Phyllis Schlafly and their minions. They were vehemently against porn and "objectifying" women. Once again we have a vocal minority of women who think they speak for the rest of women everywhere. For every #MeToo, there are literally hundreds of girls and women taking nude selfies and sending them to their partners. Professional porn has gotten to the point where it holds almost no value since there are so many people willing to share their own videos and photos for free.

      Now we are lectured by far left "progressives" about Donald Trumps "horrible behavior" with a Playboy Bunny and a porn star. Yet we are somehow expected to overlook the women involved as innocent bystanders in Trump's egregious antics as though they had no part to play. The left has major cognitive dissonance.

    17. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nicer way to put it would be that American Puritan's largest holiday were Election Day and Commencement Day, to celebrate democracy and education. They rejected Christmas and many Christian holidays as being Catholic and ahistorical. This is all fucking awesome and it's too bad America didn't stick with it.

      It's also possible to over-state the religious leanings of the early US, where even in the Puritan colonies most of the colonists were there for economic reasons, and anyway it was just one of a number of different colonies.

    18. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for those who want to try to pigeonhole this as a right-left thing, recall that "Andrea Dworkin" is typically preceded in print by "radical feminist author," whereas "Phylis Schlafly" is paired with "late conservative pundit" and "vocal anti-E.R.A activist."

    19. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right?

      In Massachuasets, epicenter of Puritan America, no less August an educational institution than Harvard constantly had to fend off political attacks from Puritans who found education ungodly, and woebetide anyone who tried to run for election who wasn't one of the "correct elect." Giles Corey and the gang can tell you that these weren't exactly unsuperstitious, freethinking people.

      Their problems with Christmas, etc. had a lot more to do with hating Papey than any kind of refinement of intellect.

    20. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet in the same breath the feminists will tell us sex work is liberating for women. Theyâ(TM)re so fucking deluded they canâ(TM)t have a logically consistent position.

    21. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what a rapist might say.

    22. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giggity

    23. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. People who have spent their whole lives on the left are finding themselves under brutal attack for simply asking some very reasonable questions about some of the things the left is advocating.

      The LGBT movement is tearing itself apart right now and taking much of the left with it. People I knew 5+ years ago who were die-hard pro-gay marriage are now jumping ship. They look at the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and say, "This isn't what I signed up for." They wanted "Live and let live", not "Agree with us or be destroyed, heretic".

      An increasing number of them are hitting "Peak Trans". They are at the point of the Orwell novel where the left is demanding them accept that 2+2=5. They are being made to accept that a man can become a women because they say so. That pumping children full of off-label drugs, whose long term health effects are unknown, to suppress puberty, sterilizing them permanently, is perfectly okay. They are looking at the left and saying, "Yea, perhaps marriage really is between a man and a woman for the benefit of the children raised in that manage. See ya." and running as fast as they can to the right and center. To where they can at least have a discussion without being doxed and bullied into silence.

      http://www.theamericanconserva...

      Your recent post about leftists being pushed right by transgender activism and gender identity politics was laughed at by a lot of commenters who think a hyper-liberal woman is unlikely to turn conservative. Well, the joke is on them, because I am one and I am far, far from alone.

      I was as far left as you can get without being a full-on Marxist. I thought prostitution was empowering, polyamory was fine, witchcraft was a positive spirituality, and that men who identify as transgender were my sisters. I voted Greens and Democrats all the way...

      ...My friends and I went from sharing articles by Olbermann and Maddow to following Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Our female role models became academics like Dr. Deborah Savage who actually acknowledge biological reality in their examination of gender...


      So keep an eye out, the "T" is probably gonna get lopped off "LGBT" before too long. The entire movement is beginning to collapse under it's contradictions. Much like the Soviet Union or the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 80s, it will be here one day and gone the next.

    24. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nutbar Puritan zealots come from both sides of the left-right spectrum. The problem isn't the left-right axis for the libertarian-authoritarian one. The US is moving to the authoritarian side.

      Everyone you have ever known and grown up with is a right-wing piece of shit. They just come from slightly different points on that spectrum.

      This has led to a situation where you are looking at different parts of this spectrum and referring to them as "left and right" when what you are actually looking at is "right and far-right". This is a problem because it makes you look like a cunt.

    25. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 568,000 citizen state has 2 senators. California with 38,000,000 citizens has 2 senators. It's really not democratic any more.

      The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. The Senate, specifically, is the chamber where all states have equal representation. This is because, as a Republic, the Senate represents the States, not the People. You know what else will bake your noodle? Article V also gives each state exactly one vote in amending the Constitution. Meaning all those millions of liberals in California would be better served by moving to those "flyover" states if they want meaningful change on any of their issues such as changing the second amendment.

      That will not happen anytime soon, however. Instead we will continue with divisiveness, vitriol, and legislative and political gridlock.

    26. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly how are Religious Right gasbags drained? All they had to do was throw away all their moral principles and laud Trump's morals, and they're in. Trump caters to their publicly expressed views.

      The hypocrisy is going to bite them eventually, but right now they're riding high.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re: If you need cloud hosting... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's allowed to be racist against blacks. Until recently, it was expressed either in private or using euphemism, but the Republicans are trying to Make American Racist Again.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Oh its worse than that, or haven't you heard several on the left pushing for it to be called "LGBTPQ"? The Q is for gender queer and the P? You're gonna love this...PEDOsexual. Yup the kiddie fiddlers are jumping on the bandwagon because they have seen how well the Oppression Olympics has worked for others.

      But honestly it doesn't surprise me, because in the 70s and 80s? I was as left as you could possibly get. I have no problem with gays getting hitched (why should we be the only ones that have to deal with divorce? Let 'em have a big chunk of that misery says I) and was all for helping the poor and stopping the neocon wars for the profit of the megacorps...but then it stopped being about that and became nothing but gender politics. Didn't matter if an idea was batshit, didn't matter if we can plainly see with our own two peepers that others have tried something and it didn't work, nope all that matters is what skin color a person is and what gender they identify with...and the left wonders why you are seeing more and more of the map turn blood red?

      I don't support most of what the right stands for, I don't support the war on drugs, don't support wars period, and don't support attacking social nets that help keep poor folks from starving...but the left has gone full bore whack-a-doodle man, we're talking Mad Hatter and March Hare levels of nuts. I may not like a lot of what the right stands for but I have to say...they don't come off as totally fucking batshit bananas and don't expect me to buy shit my own two eyes tell me is a lie.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re:If you need cloud hosting... by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Oh the Pedos have always been a big part of the LGBT lobby. Why do you think they spent so much time to promote teaching children in school to be accepting of everything LGBT? Makes it a lot easier for the older men to pluck a ripe 12-17 year old when the school has already done all the grooming for them. Hell, Hollywood is making and throwing awards at films glorifying sexual predators.

      The sad, but obvious, consequence of this is that the HIV/AIDS rate in teens and young adults has skyrocketed since this nonsense first started getting phased in around 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/...

      They know full well that "Born that way" is bullshit. It's just an excuse used to deflect criticism. Pretty much everyone has quietly given up looking for the "Gay gene" because they just aren't finding anything. (Imagine if they actually did find a "Gay Gene" and they could test for it like Downs Syndrome? The LGBT community would become pro-life literally overnight.) The best they've been able to do is show their might be a small biological influence, but that still means it's mostly nurture and not nature. Anyone that has done enough church counseling work will have run across someone who "used to be gay". Chewed up and spit out once they were no longer useful. Pretty much all of them want to get on with their lives and have zero interest in painting a target on them by challenging the propaganda.

      The fatal flaw in all of this, of course, is that a lie can't sit still. It always has to keep moving and keep getting bigger. The cognitive dissonance of the far left at this point is getting quite amusing to watch and pushing more people to the center and right. How far will things swing? We'll just have to wait and find out.

  8. First they came for... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone knows how that ends. Everyone who cheers when the big companies clamp down on thinking the wrong thoughts will soon find that no one will support them when they are silenced.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    1. Re:First they came for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Growing up, I used to think about how far we had come in the freedom to express ourselves and how the right to express yourself had simply become something that everyone had without question. And how racism, even, was a thing that while it existed in a few pockets, was decried by all as we decided collectively that all that mattered was what was inside a person.

      My grandparents saw a time when jazz music was the devil's music, reefer was evil, women tidied up the home, and a dress above the ankles was scandalous and blacks may still be lynched if they looked wrong in the wrong country.

      My parents saw a time when heavy metal was the devil's music, crack and coke were evil, both men and women were expected to go to school and work, and racism was something to truly be ashamed of and not accepted as people were finally judged primarily on content of character. We'd gotten over Elvis shaking his hips, girls fainting over the Beatles, dancing naked at Woodstock, and women wearing little more than a string between their asscheeks in public.

      I saw a time when rap and industrial/goth music was the devil's music, heroine and meth were evil, most men and women both went to college and had careers, and it was no longer socially acceptable to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. The right to suicide had basically become a given, weed became legalized, being all but nude was acceptable, all sorts of porn was available and people were shunned mornfor kink-shaming than having kings.

      Growing up, I sometimes wondered what life in the future would be like. Each generation brought in an extension of the type of speech, dressing, music, sex, drugs, and so on was acceptable. Who knew what crazy free world would be here in twenty more years?

      But then, the next generation had their turn.

      Suddenly, everyone was segretated and categorized by their race, gender, sex, ethnicity, religion, mental disability, physical disability. Smoking was banned everywhere and in th verge of being illegal. Smoking age was increased, along with the desire to increase drinking age. Men were suddenly no longer going to college and/or graduating (women are two thirds). Porn is evil, sex is evil, showing skin is evil, fictional depictions of violence or sex is evil, music is evil, the internet and free exchange of information is evil, women having autonomy over their own bodies is evil... we’re back to the fucking puritanical nonsense that my grandparents were born into over a century ago. Instead of seeing society progress, I’ve watched it peak and then regress.

    2. Re:First they came for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. First they came for sex, but I didn't speak up because I was created by artificial insemination.
      You indeed have to wonder which functions essential to sustaining life on this planet will come next. Eating? Breathing?
      Regarding eating, I wonder if breastfeeding is already banned, since there seems to be something wrong with showing nipples IF there are milk glands behind them (which you cannot see), or IF the nipple in question shares the body with a cunt instead of a dick (which you cannot see either).

      In this regard the USA is much worse than here in the Netherlands, many would tell you.
      But here, a few years ago some guy was convicted for being naked/masturbating in his own house with the curtains open.
      "Yeah but that's just wrong" I hear some people think. And so it goes on.

  9. Encryption by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you can store encrypted files on Drive? If so just email the key to the person you share it with.

    1. Re:Encryption by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      And lo and behold here's the easy way to do it. https://arstechnica.com/inform...

    2. Re: Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why would anyone store files unencrypted on google or any other drive?

    3. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used a number of cloud services (Google drive, Onedrive, iCloud, etc) in the past years, to share hundreds of files of all kind, for business or pleasure. Never once have I ever uploaded an unencrypted file to any of these services. My files are always encrypted, and always with completely nondescript names (i.e. random sequence of letters and/or numbers). That's the only wise way to use these services.

    4. Re:Encryption by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      ...or just use an end-to-end encrypted cloud service to begin with, e.g. https://mega.nz/ Also, the allowances are much more generous, starting at 50GB for free accounts. P.S. I don't work for them or have any affiliation with them.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    5. Re:Encryption by bobstreo · · Score: 2

      I wonder if you can store encrypted files on Drive? If so just email the key to the person you share it with.

      You forgot the important step of naming the encrypted videos

      CuteFluffyKitten00x

    6. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an unlimited Google drive and have been encrypting movies/videos/random files I've uploaded to ensure they can't be scanned. I also disemvowel the filenames so they won't match anything.

      But I don't store porn on it. There's no point since so much porn is free on the web.

    7. Re: Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To share it with others. Encrypting your data means you'll either get blank stares from people who don't know what that means or disinterested shrugs from those who can't be bother to install whatever program you used.

    8. Re: Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely not with a known file extension. I used to email send encrypted 7zip files to my Gmail account but now cannot download the attachments as they are detected as potentially malicious. Simply rename the file to remove extension or change extension to something allowed.

    9. Re: Encryption by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Im sorry but this is not an option for joe six pack chaturbate winners. I work with people who have a over a decade of experience in IT and software development who can barely set up TLS.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    10. Re: Encryption by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      So, you want a fucking cookie?

    11. Re:Encryption by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Ack! Wrong link. This is the right one. Damn I hate when I do that. https://shift.newco.co/you-don...

    12. Re: Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people can cope with password protected zip files. Not the best encryption in the world, but enough to stop an automated content scanner

    13. Re:Encryption by sheramil · · Score: 1

      I recently discovered that there's a small town in Central Victoria named Poowong. I am not making this up. I wonder if I visited the town and took some photos and uploaded them to Google Drive with the appropriate titles if they'd get the ky-bosh? Perhaps someone with more spare time than me could explore the limits of what bored Google staffers consider to be pornographic names.

  10. Re:Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Instead of the religious right, it's the feminist left that's pushing for this.

  11. Google warned them, so what's the problem by technomom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seriously, Google has a policy in place and it's their service. They have every right to throw you off if you violate their policy. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Take your business and move it to somewhere else that doesn't have this policy. What's the problem here?

    1. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      OK, hands up who's read Google Drive's terms of service?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    2. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I would agree mostly, that if you dont like a TOS go somewhere else, but google and apple phones use their own services.

      Microsoft apps want to backup to microsoft drive. Google apps want to backup to gdrive. Apple to idrive. You get the idea.

      It's very dishonest when a company owns a majority of a market like android phones, combines services then tries to tell you how to use it.

      If they didn't like LGBT and started removing your LGBT apps would that be an issue? How about your hunting pictures, your state legal pot, your protest photos?

      Damn slippery slope for the Internet generation. These companies are basically public services, if you own A PC, A MAC or a Android device, they are a defacto monopoly to their platform. You wouldn't want your ISP to block you, your Telecom to block you, your Power company to block you, why would you want your storage device to block you, your email app to block you, your social media site to block you, your free speech goes all along those lines.

      Stallman was only partially correct, its not copyright that will be used to control you, its the Terms of Service.

      Demand a free and open internet, free speech, free use, no censorship.

    3. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn slippery slope for the Internet generation.

      Google passed the slippery slope years ago. It's already a full downhill slalom with them.

      The more they ban the better. Maybe more people will start caring about free speech and all that, instead of reframing it as a political issue that only right-wingers care about anymore.

    4. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Nobody is being forced to use a "smart phone" or a "free" Google or Apple service. If you don't want to agree to (or read) the TOS, then you don't have to use the device. It's your choice.

      ISP's should be a public service.

      Whatever else you're blathering on about "free speech" doesn't really make any sense.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the postoffice had a 20 page tos, mentioning that they can confiscate your parcel, if it contains porn?

    6. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by ChatHuant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn slippery slope for the Internet generation.

      What really makes me sad is how many of the younger generation in the USA are perfectly ok with censorship, as long as the people censored are the ones they dislike. This seems to happen more and more, in universities, in public forums, in social media.

      I used to live in one of the former Iron Curtain countries, and freedom of speech was something we could only dream of. After the fall of communism, being able to speak one's mind in public was pure joy. I can't believe people born with the right to free speech can be so dismissive of it.

    7. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Denmark there is a system called NemID (EasyID, if you want to translate it) which is used for ALL COMMUNICATION with the authorities, banks, etc.

      And as of 2018 they're phasing out the physical one-time pads in favor of a smart phone app. I assure you, using a smart phone is something Danish citizens are very soon FORCED to do.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    8. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nobody is being forced to use a "smart phone" or a "free" Google or Apple service.

      I assure you, using a smart phone is something Danish citizens are very soon FORCED to do.

      Even when you're not forced to do it, not having a smartphone with internet access makes you a second-class citizen. So many functions are faster and easier on a cellphone than any other way, anyone who doesn't have one is now effectively penalized. You can get away with only using it on wifi in a lot of places, but not having one at all? Bananas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by DogDude · · Score: 1

      That's a shame, if they're not offering their own, non-profit phone OS for people to use. If you're forced to buy from either Apple or Google, you're truly fucked.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re: Google warned them, so what's the problem by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Rate of adoption is directly proportional to the number of people who do not read the TOS.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And if the government offered their own homemade OS, not only would it likely be full of security holes due to a lack of decades of expertise in making software, who would honestly TRUST that OS?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    12. Re: Google warned them, so what's the problem by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That stupid overuse of "first they came" quote needs to end, and there is a very simple Occam razor for deciding what does this metaphor stand for.

      It stands for stuff that matters, not just all kinda crap. It stands for something people are ready to give up their lives for and they did so noticeably historically.

      In original quote it was Trade Unionists, Socialists, Jews and Catholics.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    13. Re: Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It stands for stuff that matters
      Ha ha oh wow. "It didn't matter to me, so I did not speak."

      If a protection only extends to arbitrarily-chosen groups (ie chosen by an arbiter, such as your inflated opinions) it's not a freedom, it's a house of cards.

    14. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Frankly I didn't have to.
      The stuff I upload all follows common sense, isn't offensive, obeys the laws. And if that kind of stuff is against the EULA, it means the EULA is shit and watchdog groups would cry foul long before I would even realize.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    15. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't want your ISP to block you, your Telecom to block you, your Power company to block you, why would you want your storage device to block you, your email app to block you, your social media site to block you, your free speech goes all along those lines.

      Telecom blocks certain things.
      Power companies started banning cryptominers because "they use too much power".
      ISPs block certain services, e.g. http(s) servers' and FTP servers' ports. I have to make a request to unblock those ports, and they would do it, but they're blocked by default.

      Just saying we're already there...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    16. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      What really makes me sad is how many of the younger generation in the USA are perfectly ok with censorship, as long as the people censored are the ones they dislike.

      It's not just the US.

      You can go to jail in the UK for a facebook post expressing unapproved thoughts, for pete's sake.

    17. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can go to jail in the UK for a facebook post expressing unapproved thoughts, for pete's sake.

      I thought it meant a trip to Room 101 in the Ministry of Love over there in Airstrip One.

    18. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      OK, here it is: https://www.facebook.com/legal... Oh, and don't forget to keep checking up on it and re-reading it in case they've changed something, which they can do at any time.

      And BTW, ToS aren't for users, they're there to create legal loopholes to evade legal action against Facebook.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    19. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was Facebook's. Here's Twitter's https://twitter.com/en/tos And don't forget to keep checking that one for changes too. Did I say Twitter? Oh no, I meant Google Drive's https://www.google.com/drive/t... And yeah, keep checking that one too. Oh, and don't forget to check GMail's ToS too, since you need a GMail account to use Google Drive: http://www.google.com/intl/en/... That should keep you busy for a while.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    20. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't believe people born with the right to free speech can be so dismissive of it."

      Its actually pretty easy to believe because those born with free speech rights do not know what it is like to be with out them. This is why we are starting to get people actually clamping down on free speech, they think that the only free speech should be their speech (see the latest tomfoolery about speakers from each end of the spectrum being shut down by violence).

      Its simple, until you have lost you will never truly appreciate winning.

      Sidenote: this is why parents are supposed to be more authoritarian than their children's friends, teach them what its like to have no freedoms and they will appreciate them better.

    21. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're dismissive because they take it as for-granted as the air they breathe.
      A fish doesn't think about the water it swims in.
      Most people calling for censorship believe they are in the right and have nothing to fear from censorship.

    22. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash your Check Tovaritch.
      The White Power Clique who whine about "Freedom" on campus always try to sell LESS freedom for brown or female Americans.
      So, since you sell hate, screw off.

    23. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      how many of the younger generation

      Or the older generations. What's changed is not so much the desire for censorship, as the censorship people in general want. When I was young, different things were censored.

      I can't believe people born with the right to free speech can be so dismissive of it.

      Actually, that's quite predictable. People in the US take free speech for granted, and don't support it because they feel like it's the natural order of things. You've had experience with lacking freedom of speech, so you know what it's like when it doesn't exist.

      It's much like the reaction against the EPA. Somebody of my age remembers what the US was like before it, while someone my son's age has no memory, and might want the regulations dismantled and subconsciously believe that the air and water will still be clean.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The power companies in question wanted cryptominers to pay what they cost. Not all ISPs block outgoing ports, and you can easily set up a server on AWS or some other host, and that's probably got better connectivity than you have. It's not that bad yet.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They used to do that. My father managed the PO Box section at the main post office here for years, and by law or regulation parcels or envelopes suspected of containing porn had to be opened in his presence and the recipient's presence. Dad made a point of not judging it, and just declaring what it was not porn, since it was his call.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by war4peace · · Score: 1

      The power companies in question wanted cryptominers to pay what they cost.

      Sorry, I don't understand what you meant.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:Google warned them, so what's the problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There was a Slashdot article not long ago, in which a city was having problems with cryptocoin miners. The city got a certain amount of power at a reduced rate, as part of a deal with a hydro company wanting to build a nearby power station, and the miners blew through that like it wasn't there, dramatically raising electrical bills for everybody. The city then got permission to charge different rates based on use, and things seemed to settle down. That's the only reference I've seen to power companies wanting to shut down miners. Power companies are used to places wanting very large amounts of electricity. It's not unusual.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. What's new? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Don't think for one nano second that your data is private on Google Drive.

  13. Legit surprised it lasted this long by PeterGM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been in the hosting market for a while and even though I've never had any directly pornographic contracts to fill I've had some that touch the edges, so to speak. One project I had was for a sex toy seller looking for a website, online transactions, marketing materials etc. I learned a lot in a few days reading T's and C's from hosting providers about what does and does not fly with certain providers. Given that the hosting sphere is basically dominated four or five big players and many thousands of their re-sellers it's not surprising to find that most web content hosts are very adult-theme sensitive. If the big players are against it then so are the vast majority of smaller ones.

    I'd been of the understanding for a long time that Google Drive didn't want adult content on its service. As the title states: I'm genuinely surprised people had been successfully using Google Drive in such a fashion for such a long time by what appears to be a lot of people.

    Ah well, there are alternatives at least. I feel like it would have been nice to tell users about exactly why their content is no longer allowed, but that's far too much for a consumer peon to ask from a faceless & soulless corporate golem.

    Bonus: while typing out that last sentence the word golem flags my spell checker as being incorrect. The word "golem" has the spell check autocorrect suggestion of Google. I'm using Chrome. Irony levels are over 9000.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  14. First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First they banned racists, and I did not speak out because I was not a racist.
    Then they banned gun owners, and I did not speak out because I was not a gun owner.
    Then they banned porn, and I did not speak out because I did not distribute porn.
    Then then banned me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

    This is why if you believe in freedom of speech, you have to protect even speech you find reprehensible. If you do not, you are giving the morality police control over what speech is allowed. Reprehensible speech should be deemed reprehensible because people have viewed or listened to it and deemed it reprehensible. Not because someone in a position of power in government or some company has deemed it reprehensible and prevented the public from viewing or hearing it.

    1. Re:First they banned by PeterGM · · Score: 1

      Then then banned me, and there was no one left to speak for me

      Ban evasion is a bannable offence.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
    2. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Home address? Times of coming and going? Fortunately, doxing is mostly legal. There are specific exceptions for people with special circumstances (under protection orders, undercover, government officials) but in general it's legal. And this is a good thing - just look at all the Neo-Nazis that were identified from the Charlottesville protests.

      Bank details? Depends on how you got the information, and how it is posted. There is nothing inherently illegal about posting someone else's bank account details, but if you acquired the information illegally or if you intend to use it to injure or harass someone, it's a crime.

      School your kids go to? Entirely legal to post. Why would you even question this? It shows up in news articles all the time.

      To tell people how to make nukes? Again, there are specific exceptions for certain details of nukes, but in general, post away! Of course, you'd have to get the info legally, so good luck with that...

      Advocate for child pornography? There are entire organizations dedicated to it. Entirely legal to talk about, or advocate for it.

      Someone else's speech does not infringe on your rights. The fact that you think it does shows that you have a very basic misunderstanding of what rights are, or who they work, but Free Speech allows you to advocate your idiotic ideas, just like anyone else.

    3. Re: First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you listed is a crime.

      Everything he listed isn't.

      You need to work on your skills. Because this post is ultra weak.

    4. Re:First they banned by nadass · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech - is it ok if I distribute your home address, times of coming and going etc? What about your bank details, the school your kids go to? Is it ok if I tell people how to make nukes? To advocate for child pornography?

      We live in a society, and that means limits on my freedoms so that I don't impinge on yours, and vice-versa. Get used to it.

      In the US, legally speaking, every citizen has a reasonable *expectation* of privacy but absolutely nothing witnessed *while in public* is restricted from being spoken about *in public*.

      There are different constitutional amendments related to these topics, notably freedom of speech and rights to privacy. Interpreting the constitution to an actual lawsuit relating to an edge case of invasion of privacy versus censorship, for instance, is the exact role of the SCOTUS... that's why they provide opinions, not final verdicts. The judges of the US Federal Court of Appeals, however, do render the final judgments that are legally-binding; the SCOTUS is essentially their supervisors who can only be brought into a case when the affected parties files an appeal requesting the SCOTUS to actually step in -- the SCOTUS doesn't just opine cuz they're bored.

    5. Re: First they banned by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      At what point overused metaphor loses all meaning? The more you use it, the more people realize the limits of application of it.

      You just compared trash to serious ideological movements or simply ethnicity to which many people sacrificied their lives: trade unionists, socialists, Jews.

      You are a dumbass, and, unfortunately, your name is Legion.

      The poem quote is still applicable today: becausr they, indeed, already came for Muslim bloggers, for example, or people like James Damore.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:First they banned by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC the sensitive data question got tested in the USA.
      Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The main problem for people doing that kind of publication in the USA is they:
      Once worked for the US gov, mil, as a contractor. They never get released from the security clearances and their publications get looked over by the US gov/mil before publication.

      A person who works as an academic at a US university who enjoys a lot of US gov/mil funding and who has security clearances.
      Who then wants to publish on topics they needed that security review for.

      AC in the USA you are free to look at other books and content all over the USA and create a book on a topic you want. The history of US mil systems is fine to talk about.

      Freedom of speech, freedom after speech AC.
      --

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We live in a society, and that means limits on my freedoms so that I don't impinge on yours, and vice-versa.

      And how exactly do pictures of boobs 'impinge' on your freedom?

    8. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you think Google, a private company, should be forced by the government to store your porn etc. for free?
      In other words, you believe in forced speech, the *complete opposite* of free speech.

    9. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly do pictures of boobs 'impinge' on your freedom?

      They don't. But they *do* impinge on Google's freedom to decide not to host them on *their* computers.

    10. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why if you believe in freedom of speech, you have to protect even speech you find reprehensible. If you do not, you are giving the morality police control over what speech is allowed. Reprehensible speech should be deemed reprehensible because people have viewed or listened to it and deemed it reprehensible. Not because someone in a position of power in government or some company has deemed it reprehensible and prevented the public from viewing or hearing it.

      Freedom of Speech is exactly this: The government does not arrest you and throw you in prison for saying/writing something they don't like.

      Google set their terms of service. If you don't like it, use something else.

      It's not anybody's right to use somebody else's computer to store/host files.

    11. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit earlier they banned North Korea, and I did not speak out because I was not a North Korean.
      Well, it just pissed me off to come back and see thousands videos deleted! (most rather harmless songs). There was the UN sanctions excuses but no evidence that so-called "official" channels are really official, since anyone (who would care enough) can record TV broadcasts and pretend.

      I didn't expect this would be a precedent for e.g. banning US videos about guns, and as much as I don't like "gun nuts" much or I think AR-15 should be sold at gas stations or between the candy and booze aisles etc. (or sold at all!), I find this concerning.

    12. Re:First they banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *should not be sold

  15. Religion? Google's Religion is Money by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right, and knows it I even read someplace that Utah is the state with the largest number of porn downloads, on the average. Porn *IS* terrified that the #MeToo and #KillHarvey and whatever other movements percolating up from the feminist Left that demonize the objectification of women will begin to impact porn consumption.

    1. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right, and knows it I even read someplace that Utah is the state with the largest number of porn downloads, on the average.

      No offense, but are you stupid? Here is something the (Republican) governor of Utah and the (Republican) legislature of Utah did just a few years ago. In case your intellectual disability precludes you from being able to click on a link, Utah was the first state to pass laws declaring pornography a public health hazard.

      http://www.newsweek.com/utah-p...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Republicans think porn is pretty dangerous.

      https://www.gq.com/story/flori...

      Then again I heard someone claim Theresa May is a communist the other day so who knows what left and right mean any more.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know how much porn the Utah government downloads, but according to a researcher at Harvard, the *people* of Utah are quite the dawgs, which was my point.

    4. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And the Puritans thought liquor was pretty dangerous, too, and actually outlawed it here in the 1920s. Prohibition was an enormous failure, back then, because you cannot legislate morality. You can, however, today, hashtag something from benign to "evil," because most all of the sheep are corralled in the same social media/mainstream media pens. In the end it is not a government ban on Porn that should scare you, it's the SJW turning of Porn into a thought crime that is the real danger.

    5. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know how much porn the Utah government downloads, but according to a researcher at Harvard [deseretnews.com], the *people* of Utah are quite the dawgs, which was my point.

      No dude, your point was that "Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right". But the fact is, people who are going after pornography are almost exclusively on the Right. Feminist opposition to pornography has been steadily shrinking since the 1970s. Now you will find that most feminists' only concerns about pornography is that women making pornography are kept safe from the violent tendencies of their male cohorts.

      Now the current President's propensity for giving high-paying work to porn stars may change that, but for the time being, porn has everything to worry about from the Right. Perhaps the First Lady's own past will change people's perception of sex workers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by haruchai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know how much porn the Utah government downloads, but according to a researcher at Harvard, the *people* of Utah are quite the dawgs, which was my point.

      No, that wasn't your point at all. You were smearing the "feminist Left" as being the greatest incipient threat to porn.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put too much stock in hashtags. #KillHarvey is fake, for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely wrong the main resistance to pornography is now coming from the hard left feminists. You are misinformed.

    9. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think a sixteenth and seventeenth century religious movement banned anything in the 1920s

    10. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Absolutely wrong the main resistance to pornography is now coming from the hard left feminists. You are misinformed.

      Let us now compare influence on society: hard left feminists vs. conservative politicians.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably an idiot if you actually think this.

    12. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Absolutely wrong the main resistance to pornography is now coming from the hard left feminists. You are misinformed.

      No sir. Did you know, for example, that the 2016 Republican Party platform, which was formed at the RNC convention that nominated Donald Trump declared pornography a pubic health hazard?

      Here is the language from the official party platform:

      "Pornography, with its harmful effects,
      especially on children, has become a public health
      crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage
      states to continue to fight this public menace
      and pledge our commitment to children’s safety
      and well-being."

      https://prod-cdn-static.gop.co...

      The Democratic Party, which as we know is controlled by the radical feminists, had no such language.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right

      So how do you explain the 114 Republicans who voted for FOSTA?

      FOSTA makes websites responsible for misuse by users, so one set of nudes that turns out to be a prostitute advertising makes the website owners into felons. FOSTA does nothing to the people actually committing the crimes, either, as it's sole purpose is to take away the section 230 protections that website owners had up until now.

      The House passed FOSTA a few weeks ago and the Senate passed it four days ago. It's not a coincidence that Google started taking down anything that might be pornographic before Trump signs it and it becomes law.

      So tell us again why porn sites have nothing to fear from the right.

    14. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      It is the outbreak of hairy palms and blindness that is the driver for this kinda of mania...

    15. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Porn *IS* terrified that the #MeToo and #KillHarvey and whatever other movements percolating up from the feminist Left that demonize the objectification of women will begin to impact porn consumption.

      I'm not sure how many people remember my little Google search experiment vs DucKDuckGo. In it, I chose a topic that might be deemed offensive to sex negative feminists. The search term was "Jillin" which of course refers to female masturbation. In both search engines, with safesearch turned off, DuckDuckGo returned hundreds of images, while Google - almost nothing.

      This is all representative of the third wave Feminist and social Justice sex negative ideology that Google and their underlings at Youtube have undertaken. And given their new enforcement of ideology, looks like these sex worker's images going bye-bye is just another bit of the evidence.

      It isn't like they haven't been up front about this.

      The upshot of all of this is that it is opening financial possibilities for groups who aren't so repressive in nature. As for Porn consumption, there is a lot of the world that doesn't really care about #metoo.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Porn has nothing to worry about from the Right, and knows it I even read someplace that Utah is the state with the largest number of porn downloads, on the average.

      No offense, but are you stupid? Here is something the (Republican) governor of Utah and the (Republican) legislature of Utah did just a few years ago. In case your intellectual disability precludes you from being able to click on a link, Utah was the first state to pass laws declaring pornography a public health hazard.

      http://www.newsweek.com/utah-p...

      Remember, Republicans like the forbidden nature of Pr0n.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

      94% of Democrats voted for the bill. It was introduced by a member of the centists who are big on embracing liberal social policy. The reasoning behind the bill and the title is to stop sex trafficking which is a cause mostly championed by the left over recent years. Prostitution has slowly been banned from many European countries due to the efforts of feminists. The 'moral majority' doesn't have really any influence except over a faction of politicians who would of course support this bill for different reasons. But it is the left that has influence over the wider society which is ultimately more important.

    18. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It is the outbreak of hairy palms and blindness that is the driver for this kinda of mania...

      Doood! You gotta stop at the point that you just need glasses!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Republicans think porn is pretty dangerous.

      https://www.gq.com/story/flori...

      Then again I heard someone claim Theresa May is a communist the other day so who knows what left and right mean any more.

      There is the old trope about projection, and it is quite true. It's how family values and conservative people are often found to have some sexual orientations that differ from what they rail about, and often are into some nasty pron habits as well.

      BTW, on the topic of Idaho and porn, they come in at number 49 in the Pages viewed per capita (88) in a PornHub breakdown of their data. http://www.westword.com/news/p...

      Arkansas was last at 77 Page Views per capita, and Kansas was number one at 194 page views per capita.

      Not sure if Google wants to take on PornHub et al, and their army of one arm stronger than the other fans.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't seem to return porn unless you look explicitly for it, like by adding "porn" to the search criteria. Safesearch seem to make searching child safe and Google is by default safe for work for the most part.

    21. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Liquor was outlawed shortly after women got the vote. This is no coincidence, as the anti-drinking societies were mostly made up of women. FEMENISM STRIKES AGAIN.

    22. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very interesting how they define 'harm' as 'encouraging other people to think/act in a way I don't like.'

    23. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet it is the left that is tightening the grip over freedom of choice lol

    24. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You are replying to the wrong person. He said feminism wasn't the problem for porn. The AC did.

    25. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how many people remember my little Google search experiment vs DucKDuckGo. In it, I chose a topic that might be deemed offensive to sex negative feminists. The search term was "Jillin" which of course refers to female masturbation. In both search engines, with safesearch turned off, DuckDuckGo returned hundreds of images, while Google - almost nothing.

      Google went to shit a few years ago for porn searching when the SJWs and Puritans took over. Sad to say, Bing seems to be the far better search engine for porn. And it pains me greatly to say it.

      And the captha is *fondle* LOL

    26. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I don't see RightWingNutJob celebrating here, while AmiMojo, PopeRatzo and some so-called "humanist" are busy defending the act.

    27. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is Idaho suffers from an epidemic of premature ejaculation?

    28. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is this not upvoted +5 informative? It is the ONLY post here that reads the situation right. This is ALL about FOSTA.

    29. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's *both* and the dipshits who're blind to the fact are primarily the ones allowing it to happen.

    30. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You are replying to the wrong person. He said feminism wasn't the problem for porn. The AC did.

      No, I'm not. Here's what RobotRunAmok said above

      https://slashdot.org/comments....
      "Porn *IS* terrified that the #MeToo and #KillHarvey and whatever other movements percolating up from the feminist Left that demonize the objectification of women will begin to impact porn consumption"

      and elsewhere
      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      "You can, however, today, hashtag something from benign to "evil," because most all of the sheep are corralled in the same social media/mainstream media pens. In the end it is not a government ban on Porn that should scare you, it's the SJW turning of Porn into a thought crime that is the real danger."

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    31. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      declared pornography a pubic health hazard

      ...That has got to be intentional.

    32. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a "fake hashtag"?

    33. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is Idaho suffers from an epidemic of premature ejaculation?

      that's the secret behind their great potatoes.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides are bad!
      Both sides are bad!

      Get that Russian troll hand out of your ass and pick the obvious lesser evil.

    35. Re: Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit that's delusional. Democrats are so far right of center that they wouldn't be viable politicians in Europe and to think the right wing people are centrists?

      What kind of fucked up shit do you expect from them that you think they aren't far enough right?

    36. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don';t see why you think this is primarily a feminist thing. The more vocal opponents to porn tend to be evangelicals and people appealing to them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don';t see why you think this is primarily a feminist thing. The more vocal opponents to porn tend to be evangelicals and people appealing to them.

      They become the strange bedfellows. And remember, I'm only talking about sex negative feminists. And there might be connection with who thinks who should access the pr0n as well, as many of my search results were from same sex pages on tumblr. I'm not at all certain about the last, but tumblr has a large community of 3rd wave feminists and same sex women. Youtube is largely male - but I think that they are working on changing that.

      Sex positive feminists have no issue with pornography. But they aren't the ones doing the yelling. My wife knows some strippers, and rather than fit the stereotype of the damaged woman with the daddy issues, they are no one's fools, and actually rather strong women. Sex positive feminists in fact. Interesting thing is, they do not hate men.

      The present day culture at Google and Youtube is sex negative in the aspect that the assumption is that any disagreement with their narrative is somehow destructive to women, so it must be eliminated. Actual strong women laugh at such a sexist opinion that women are mentally unstable and easily destroyed. Because yes, third wave feminists and theor sycophants are some of the most sexist people ever put on this earth.

      And just as an example of this... while I stand up for strong women - I would be fired for my opinion if I worked at Google. My opinion is not allowed there. My opinion is terribley damaging to women in their sexist bigoted narrative. Women are too weak - hey believe.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've seen no cases of Google firing someone for disagreeing with them. Damore was fired because he made a nuisance of himself, pushing his essay on people in a way that could reasonably be foreseen to get out of Google.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I've seen no cases of Google firing someone for disagreeing with them. Damore was fired because he made a nuisance of himself, pushing his essay on people in a way that could reasonably be foreseen to get out of Google.

      Now thst's a fine bit of wordsmithing. His opinion was exactly why he was considered a nuisance. In today's world, where it is considered appropriate to destroy a man because a woman goes on a date with him and doesn't enjoy the evening, yes. Wordsmithing can validate many things. https://www.dailynews.com/2018...

      This is where we have come to - I'm certain that Mr Ansari made a nuisance of himself - eve if he broke no laws - but he needs destroyed because he was a nuisance and she didn't enjoy thd evening. This is not debateable in today's world.

      Wordsmithing can validate many things even when completely wrong. But it's your narrative, and your ideology is strong and impervious, if my other conversations with you bear any resemblance of your actual opinions.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    40. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. You're missing the difference. I've seen no evidence that Damore would have been fired if he'd just posted his essay where it belonged. He wasn't fired because of his views. Look up the Labor Relations board findings.

      Damore was pushing his essay on other employees, who weren't interested. He pushed it on people who were made uncomfortable by it. At that point, he was creating a disturbance, and got fired for it. His actual ideas don't matter in that. I'm sure that, if I were to repeatedly push an ideological statement on people here, no matter what the ideology, I'd face consequences.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      He pushed it on people who were made uncomfortable by it.

      I wish I could have fired everyone who made me uncomfortable at work.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Damore apparently actively made a significant number of people uncomfortable. That's disrupting the work environment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Damore apparently actively made a significant number of people uncomfortable. That's disrupting the work environment.

      Here's an alternative question, made relevant by #metoo.

      Years ago on our campus, when the first wave of sexual harassment indoctrinations were going on, the question was asked of the representative of the Women's studies program in charge, "What defines sexual harassment". The answer without a moment's hesitation was "Anything a women says is sexual harassment."

      After that bit of definition got around campus, men would actively avoid any unnecessary interactions with women. It was considered a major failure, especially considering that it was the men who were least likely to be a problem for the women who were pulling well away from women. The creeps didn't miss a beat.

      Why did this happen? Easy. When you can be destroyed by anything, you are made really uncomfortable, and will make certain to avoid that which has the power to terminate your career. Men who would never dream of harassing or sexually assaulting a woman being pre-judged being made exceedingly uncomfortable. Seems like that would fit your metric as a fireable offense.

      Having worked through that period, I only interacted with those women who I knew long enough to trust. Many of us considered the situation as reminiscent of working around radioactive substances with no protective gear. Maybe you'll die, maybe you won't. You'd have no idea if saying hello was going to end your career.

      Am I correct that you only support women who are made uncomfortable? Eagerly awaiting how you rationalize the difference.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    44. Re:Religion? Google's Religion is Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Depends on how they're made uncomfortable. People who insist on pushing their somewhat misogynous views on others at the workplace, as Damore apparently did, are either deliberately or recklessly making women uncomfortable. That's a workplace problem. Obviously, there's going to be misunderstandings between men and women who are neither person's fault. There's also men who like harassing women while maintaining plausible deniability, and I'm not going to support them. (I appears to be mostly, not completely, one-way.)

      Damore's firing was not because of his views. It was about his behavior.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Google enforces policy by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Troll

    Non story. See the subject line.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Google enforces policy by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      "Google enforces policy"

      Mine workers that have to shop at the company store was policy too. Policy is fucking policy, not law and is not a definition of peoples rights in society.

      American companies have far too much power for unelected, private, profit focused entities.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Google enforces policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The policy refers to publicly posting things with Drive. Sharing a file with Everyone on Drive is sort of like making a web site, and that very reasonably invokes a different set of policies than sending a file privately through GMail. Public hosting of porn at $0 might not be feasible or interesting, but privately moving it around needs to remain possible if Docs/GMail is to be a trustworthy, legitimate business tool.

      I suspect either pornographers are being obtuse, or have gotten confused by Google's rude zero-feedback talk-to-the-hand banhammer. They publicly posted something and are pretending/confused that it was private activity invoking the ban.

      or SJWs, wowzers, feminists are running off the rails with "enthusiasm" again, like they did in Bloggergate.

      Either way, Google has a problem to fix. In the first case, they need to be able to hold the line against spammers while giving users enough feedback to feel in control of their accounts. Just disappearing files without telling you they're gone is amateur hour. In the second, the entire company cannot be trusted with anything. It undermines their whole cloud platform.

  17. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @Anonymous: "Hello, let me know if you ever need a hand with assisted suicide, since I'm sure someone such as yourself has few if any friends, I'd gladly be of service. No need to thank me. Just a samaritan eager to do my part in helping to make the world a better place by removing people like you from it"

    One handed typing is an acquired skill: FAP .... FAP FAP ... FAP FAP FAP .. UUURGH SPLONK

  18. Work-Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just post encrypted zip files and share the password with the other parties.

    Oh, and Google just open themselves to lawsuits, IMHO, since now they're policing content owned by other people.

    1. Re:Work-Around by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      No lawsuits, they're enforcing terms already agreed to. Terms that have been in place for many years.

    2. Re:Work-Around by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Since at least 30/09/2014
      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

    3. Re:Work-Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just post encrypted zip files and share the password with the other parties.

      And make sure to obscure the filenames inside the ZIP archive, because you see them even when 'encrypted' (you just can't unpack)!

  19. Re:What the fuck is a "sex worker"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The oldest profession.

  20. Other V word by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story reveals a violation of assumptions I had made about Google(TM)'s handling of my data

    This story reveals a VALIDATION of assumptions I had made about Google's handling of my data. Which is why I try not to let Google have anything I care about.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Other V word by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Im going to move my data to block storage u der my own cloud account on Azure. If they know what is in there they have viilated the TOS.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re: Other V word by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Yeah something like that or AWS storage seems like a better idea... I have to say DropBox still seems OK though, they just seem to act as a file transport and not really care what you have.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re: Other V word by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think Dropbox is golden unless you're intending on Sharing malware to the public from DB, or something that will generate completes, they don't care --- they're what Google Drive should be like.

  21. encryption, anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did google violate privacy when did check out someone's files?

  22. Get a clue- zip your files with a password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Excellent google proof file compressors are FREE and LEGAL and trivial to install and use.

    7-zip. Grown up software with constant updates and source code if you want it. Not this pre-packaged, corporate approved shit from apple, microsoft of google stores.

    If you use the software (apps) that come with your OS, you're a fucking cretin. Worse, you help turn the world to shit.

    The most fantastic thing about the computer revolution is that it is a people's revolution. The computer empowers everyone who cares to make even the slightest effort. Wanna code and create- the most insanely powerful hardware is cheap, and the most insanely powerful software is frequently free. But if you won't make even the slightest effort, there are monsters in the woods always waiting to lead you astray.

    The New Puritanism is a terrifying movement, originally sold by the right in the 1980s, and now fully adopted and infinitely more weaponised by the left. It plays on the Human weakness known as 'guilt'- not guilt of something real, but guilt of things like one's own sexuality.

    Images of the female breast are now even starting to be banned in Germany and France. The neo-liberal movement (a creation of Orwell's actual Ingsoc, the fabian movement of the UK, currently headed by Tony Blair) has fully subsumed the neo-con movement, and is now represented by the major left and right political parties of the West (Trump is 100% neo-liberal, as is Obama and Clinton).

    What can the ordinary decent Human do? Not be a dumb-dumb. Disengage from all mainstream media outlets, and avoid all Soros fake indy ones. Seek information (pull) rather than allowing the gatekeeprs select and push 'information' at you.

    And the computer world is a playground for GOOD, if only you make the tiniest of efforts. Install that ad-blocker (and subscibe to better filter lists as well). Use open source and free programs where possible- especially the portable and light weight apps- coders should be rewarded for efficiency and convenience.

    Use FAKE NAMES for your accounts where you may want to say something political or controversial- otherwise the state will 100% use your words against you in the future if you ever become 'important'. There is no shame in using 'anonymous' as a shield when the enemies of humanity are so remorseless and vicious.

    And NEVER EVER store your files unencrypted in 'the cloud'. Learn how automated tools 'scan' your files, and how to ensure your data is not visible to scanning. Zipping with a password is super fast and simple on modern hardware. Video containers should have included encryption options from the get-go, but for various reasons they did not, outsisde of DRM riddled streaming formats.

    You may need to change the file extension for google MAY ban certain types of file that seem incorrectly formed down to the encryption- but believe me google will never dare restrict files to a list of known authorised types. A .mp4 that does not register as a .mp4 cos it is now encrypted may fail on googe drive, but in this case change the extension to an unknown type (like, say, .zkz) - cos google will always accept that it doesn't know about personal file projects and apps.

    For sure this means changing your .mp4 into a .zip, then renaming .zip to say .zkz, but wow, what a little effort.

    If google dares to move to the next stage of banning .zip files with passwords by examining every file, then the files will have to be fully encrypted - which means no headers within the files that reveal its type- ie., fully random data. Google can do nothing about fully random data except WHITELIST- that is only allow file types that Google can parse. Google will NEVER whitelist.

    1. Re:Get a clue- zip your files with a password by PeterGM · · Score: 1

      I bought WinRAR. I feel an obligation to use nothing else now.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
    2. Re: Get a clue- zip your files with a password by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to use TOR and/or VPNs to obscure your identity. Posting anon will not hide anything.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:Get a clue- zip your files with a password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, if Google can whitelist and only lose 5% of their "customers" I don't see why that would be such a big hurdle.

  23. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An expensive photo set gets you multiple copies.

  24. PMRC Senate Hearing 1985 by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    It was Tipper Gore who started it.

    And Dee Snider, Frank Zappa and John Denver who ended it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:PMRC Senate Hearing 1985 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dee Snider is still married after (IIRC) 37 years and none of his children have been arrested. Al Gore can't say either.

  25. Pretentious Slashdot is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several sites that have started their own sharing / hosting service as a direct result of shit like this.

    Regardless of what moral judgement you place on Porn, get over it. There's nothing wrong with the content. We're not talking about child porn or any exploitation. Not even talking about prostitution or solicitation.

    Yes, there are sites like manyvids however they act more like pimps.

  26. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After you strip the porn angle you've got what, a damsel in distress over the provider deciding to enforce their terms and conditions? As another post noted she could (and should) have encrypted her files. There are other options as well.

  27. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where else would I find pictures the latest fondleslab of mobile and gaming technology.

  28. I'm just a bill, stuck on capitol hill..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I learned from Schoolhouse Rocks is that passing a bill doesn't make it a law. The House and The Senate need to pass similar bills and then go into a meeting to hammer out any points that don't match and then submit it to the President. The President can choose to veto it, and thereby sending it back to congress or sign it thus making it a law.

    If this bill was snuck into that massive "avoid-a-shutdown" spending bill (which is ALWAYS an excellent way to sneak through new laws) that Trump at first said he wouldn't sign but then said he would sign in order to avoid a government shutdown, then yes, this is a law now.

    I guess we all need to get girlfriends now. We can't use Craigslist for that anymore too.

    1. Re:I'm just a bill, stuck on capitol hill..... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      How it really works now:
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=JU...

  29. Use Openload or Mega or Bittorrent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or any of the sites that the likes of kinox.to or watchepisodes .com or rmz.cr use to upload videos.
    And Bittorrent even works in web operating systems (formerly knows as "browsers") nowadays.

    If they can keep videos up that the government-backed organized crime, like the Content Mafia, doesn't want up, then certainly they can keep your mere porn up.

    (Btw: I heard Openload would be slow and have many ads by several people, but I use uBlock Origin, am in central Europe, and always download instead of mere streaming, because every good video player can play partial files (e.g. Firefox names them something.mp4.part), and I never had problem with Openload at all. So I'd take those complaints with a grain of salt.)

  30. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by war4peace · · Score: 0

    For that, I'm thankful.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  31. So encrypt it by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're going to store anything in " The Cloud ", encrypt the file prior to upload and change the name to something that doesn't make it obvious as to what the file may contain.

    IE: Insane Blowjob while smeared in Green Jello -> Cat Video #3

    This really should be common sense by now.

    1. Re:So encrypt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      It's trivial to RAR / 7zip a file, encrypt filenames and upload it as holiday photos.ext
      Just be sure to NOT put the password in the email, put it in your private messages to that person in question.
      Or, if you want to, use abstract passwords that machine-learning cannot interpret.
      Say, upload an image along with it and say "to unlock, type in the number of [thing]" or something along those lines if you can't private message people. (although, I am 99% sure you can on almost every porn-cam site. I have checked many out over the years)

      I suggest you all start doing this, even for non-porn files.
      Google absolutely 100% scans your files and likely keeps copies of useful info for scummy purposes.

  32. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by slazzy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  33. Re:Windows 10 Could Be Next To Delete Files by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    In the new world all this means is that you have something to hide. You don't have anything to hide, do you, citizen? Surely not.

    You'll have no complaints to being watched then, since you're not doing anything wrong.

    It's like 1982 was an instruction manual... and so many people are clamouring for it, as this is a good thing, it gives me chills.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  34. Re:Windows 10 Could Be Next To Delete Files by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    ... off by 2... I was using the numpad too. I offer no excuse.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  35. Re:Fuck Google by DivineKnight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is actually a good way to get doctors to stop using the service.

  36. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    The little bit of data I dump on Dropbox goes through Boxcrypter first. It scrambles file names too. Nothing incriminating, but why would I upload my Office docs without securing them first? And I always have a local copy with Dropbox.

  37. Google looks at private images/videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether they use an automated tool is irrelevant. Drive is defined as a storage service. I understand if they block sharing of a file over the internet with multiple people. That's a problem. But if they have an automated censorship system that decides which one of my files is "good" that's the problem of everyone.

    Today it's porn, tomorrow the Chinese government demands that google scan every file to see if there is any bit of decent against the government and inform them. It's a slippery slope...

    1. Re:Google looks at private images/videos by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      All part of the hazards of storing your data on servers you don't own.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Google looks at private images/videos by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      "All part of the hazards of storing your data on servers you don't own."

      That's extremely obtuse to think that the only people that deserve privacy are people technically competent enough to maintain it. Because that is a losing battle as your skills will fall out of tech eventually, unless you make it your lifes work to stay under the radar.

      You need a very friendly ISP to change your reverse DNS for your mailserver for instance. Elsewise, everyone rejects your mail. This is just one example. It is extremely hard to maintain your privacy at all costs, all on your own. Especially when you are fighting with soulless corporations for these rights.

      Thats the whole point of making laws against this kind of behaviour. So we all dont have to be watching our backs 24x7, hoping we never fuck up somehow, like sharing a personal photo with a non technical relative using a cloud service. The tech companies deserve the lions share of the blame here, for being allowed to view thier customers "private" data! Used to be that was sacrosanct, till the new generation of tech companies came along.

      --
      -
    3. Re:Google looks at private images/videos by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes so many public, private "security" partnerships now scan over every video, image.
      Looking for checksums of data, filenames, data sets seen before. Adding a new checksum to all content not yet seen.
      Add in machine ways to detect for patterns and content to find out what any new video, image could be about.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  38. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that horseshoe theory just a meme, again?

  39. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Honestly I was thinking they could go back to the photographer and get more copies. But it was the only copy of images they had, presumably because they thought being on Google it could not be lost the same way it could be on local physical media...

    It probably was the case they had some photos they had taken themselves of outfits or the process of building, that may be gone. Though it seems like the building process might have less explicit names, unless something was like "fucking-hard-shoulder-armor.jpg".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  40. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this what slashdot is reduced to, giving free advertising to some wank site?

    Slashdot's motto has always been: "Nudes for Nerds!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  41. The Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why to not use the cloud for backup and sending files

  42. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's the problem. Don't store your only copy of expensive data on Someone Else's Computer aka The Cloud(tm). At least have a local backup.

    It’s irrelevant whether we’re talking about something controversial, or photos from your kid’s christening - it’s simply stupid to keep your only copy on a cloud drive. You’ve got to have at least one backup that’s under your own control. More than one is even better.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  43. It's not YOUR drive by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    It belongs to Google. They can change the TOS any time they want.

  44. Only the immediate problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, don't trust the cloud, ever.

    But at the same time, we now know that google noses in your bits and diddles them. Their morality is now your morality, quietly and fuck you, but keep your clothes on and don't tell anybody.

  45. Yeah, "more evolved societies" my ass by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2

    More evolved societies only worry about what can actually harm people

    Like the UK which is about to send a comedian to prison for teaching his joke Nazi jokes or France where Le Pen is about to be prosecuted for sharing pictures of what ISIS does to remind me people to oppose any measure that lets jihad into France?

    1. Re:Yeah, "more evolved societies" my ass by bongey · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about everyone knows the UK and France are champions of Freedom of Speech, I mean Freedom of Expression as long it is doesn't offend anyone. /sarcasm

  46. Re:What the fuck is a "sex worker"? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone who has sex for their job.
    Like a construction worker does construction for their job.

    How stupid can you be?

  47. how about a POV of the TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google: "we said no porn. buh bye"

  48. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please. To the average user who sees google drive or microsoft cloud, or any "default" application installed they have NO IDEA. They likely assume it's part of the OS, not some third party.

    Don't even get me started on applications that intercept attachments and host them. Skype, Discord, etc all do this.

  49. You guys just noticed GDrive blocking stuff now?!! by BLToday · · Score: 1

    I guess it took porn for people to notice that Google blocks file they deem unacceptable. Google have been blocking .exe, .com, .bat and other extensions for years, even if you change the extension. You have to encrypt the files.

  50. Your comment has been rejected for being stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately you used one or more of the following terms which has marked you as a someone of little imagination and not worth listening to -

    1) Sheep
    2) Sheeple

    Thanks for attempting to communicate and feel free to try again when you have expanded your vocabulary.

  51. Kill the only value.... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    The ONLY values of using cloud services over an encrypted USB drive on your keychain is the always there/always reliable/easily shared point.

    I also enjoy the auto-cloud sync when taking pictured on my mobile. I guess I'm only allowed to photo "approved" things now eh?

    This move kills every single cloud use case I can come up with.

    Good thing thumbdrives have become such popular promo items. My cloud is on my keys.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  52. Re:You guys just noticed GDrive blocking stuff now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's to prevent people from spreading malware around. That's reasonable.

  53. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's stupid that people think you need a corporate sponsor or patron to just put stuff online.

    I've had a website since the 90s, and for most of the time that's been the case, I've just been paying my $100/yr for hosting. Google might decide they don't want to support me, but my site will keep going regardless.

    Sure, my particular host might go away (it's happened), but there are thousands of hosts in dozens of countries. Great thing is that companies are happy to take cash. They aren't doing you a favor, they do owe you something, and you are the customer.

  54. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Well, see the photographer was probably storing their images on the cloud, don't you know. ;-)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  55. Re:Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In one of the recent updates to the Google app on my phone, it secretly installed the Google Assistant engine, even though Google Assistant is listed as a totally separate app on the Play store. The file size for Google Assistant is listed as a mere 800kb, so it must just be some symbolic front end or something, with the core of it embedded right in the Google app itself. The only reason I noticed it is because it replaced the functionality of my home button in my launcher (Nova Launcher) and made it try to open Google Assistant, even though I never installed the app labeled "Google Assistant" from the Play store.

    This is just another abusive action on Google's part in a very long and tiring list of them. I've decided that was the last straw and removed the few remaining Google apps (Google, Translate, Webview and the Play store) I had on my phone. From now on, it's strictly apps from F-Droid.

  56. The difference is the left by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    don't give their nut jobs a seat at the big boy's table. When you're talking left wing puritanicals you're talking feminists. Outside of your local community college's women's studies program they're powerless. When was the last time you heard of Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren or even Obama meeting with one of them? Meanwhile Trump meets with radical evangelicals all the time.

    Now to be fair those evangelicals meeting Trump are mostly just charlatans. But there again is the difference between the left and right. The right have politically mobilized their nut jobs to vote against their own economic interests. Meanwhile they left's nut jobs just buy artisanal enemas from Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The difference is the left by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you're talking left wing puritanicals you're talking feminists. Outside of your local community college's women's studies program they're powerless.

      Nope. They're in charge at Google.

    2. Re:The difference is the left by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      don't give their nut jobs a seat at the big boy's table. When you're talking left wing puritanicals you're talking feminists. Outside of your local community college's women's studies program they're powerless. When was the last time you heard of Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren or even Obama meeting with one of them? Meanwhile Trump meets with radical evangelicals all the time [google.com].
      They don't need a seat at the table if everybody already agrees with them. Don't believe me, take a look at Obama's Title IX kangaroo courts. That's radical feminism.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  57. Re:Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, It's the Holy Dollar behind this. It's always the Holy Dollar.

  58. Bullshit by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    outside of a few radical feminazis nobody on the left listens to Porn made and consumed between consenting adults is accepted and allowed for by the left. The #MeToo movement has nothing to do with attacking porn, it's about sexual harassment and abuse; particularly by powerful men against powerless women who's cries for help were ignored.

    Yes, the left would like women to stop being objectified. _Any_ humanist should want that. Humans are not objects and should not be treated as such. Why isn't there more being done to stop male objectification? Because you fight battles in order of severity. We did slavery first. Then civil rights. Sufferage was done too. Putting a stop to sexual abuse is now on the plate. It's a sign of how far we've come that it can even be tackled.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's about moral busybodies inflicting their whims on others as a power trip... And no side has a monopoly on that. Third wave feminists, social justice fanatics, Google/Twitter, evangelicals, Republicans, etc... All of them desperately want to tell me who I can be, what I can say, who I can fuck, what I can read, what I can see, and so on.

      This is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are so critically important to uphold. It isn't just old paper. It's an enumeration of our freedom and protections, which would be stolen and destroyed by those listed above if we let them.

  59. That sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's all I got

  60. Re: Fuck Google by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Nothing stopping anyone from creating a service like DropBox on AWS or Azure. Probably best to spin up your own service in the cloud to avoid the puritanical state.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  61. sex workers? by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    lipstick on a pig

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:sex workers? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      That's not the reason, the term refers to prostitutes, strippers and porn actresses. They are different jobs.

    2. Re:sex workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like most sex workers are much better humans than yourself!

  62. Re:You guys just noticed GDrive blocking stuff now by BLToday · · Score: 1

    That's to prevent people from spreading malware around. That's reasonable.

    And some people would say porn is worse than malware. The point is Google has always been blocking content and yet people are only getting upset about it now. I don’t see how .bat could spread malware though. Made running old DOS games on an old system a pain when I can’t just have a friend send over his .bat. Of course, this was like a decade ago.

  63. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sane way is make your own copies. Backup to multiple locations. Don't rely on somebody else's computer.

  64. Google cares about money by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread. They are in no way puritanical. Rather they're concerned about the financial implications of google drive being used to swap porn.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  65. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I follow a few cosplay people

    Eww, why?

  66. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look, dude, You're welcome to your fetish if it's consensual and all that. But the combination of scat play and sniffing H1B workers is just fucking weird, even by Slashdot standards.

  67. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.

    Thank you, I came here to say this. ^^

    Is Google going to forbid uploading/downloading encrypted (by a non-Google encryption algorithm they have no keys for) numerically-named files on GD now?

    It's time for Alphabet and Twitter/FB to go quietly into that good night. They are enemies of individual liberty.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  68. TOS by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So technically she was in violation of GDrive TOS for 5 and a half years then.

    I'm no friend of Google snooping in your data that you entrusted them with, but with the threat of criminal prosecution for NOT doing it, I can't blame them for following the laws.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So technically she was in violation of GDrive TOS for 5 and a half years then.

      I'm no friend of Google snooping in your data that you entrusted them with, but with the threat of criminal prosecution for NOT doing it, I can't blame them for following the laws.

      It's not illegal so they aren't following any law and it's a little strange you think there is a law forcing Google to remove legal content. It's against their terms of service which are arbitrarily enforced when Google feels like it. Apparently Google is getting out of the cloud storage business because that's the only outcome for doing crap like this. It's not like there aren't tons of other options. I've never used Google Drive to store anything but I definitely won't now and I certainly would guide others away. Dropbox only has a policy against things that are illegal which for the moment does NOT include porn though you may just be trading one big brother for another.

    2. Re:TOS by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The problem is with the new laws coming out it might be illegal for them not to look. Once they've looked, then if you violate their TOS of course they're going to remove it.

  69. Re:Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Google imposing their religion on us all.

    I know it! Who do they think they are, following the law like that? The nerve of some companies.

  70. Re: Fuck Google by sabri · · Score: 1

    Nothing stopping anyone from creating a service like DropBox on AWS or Azure. Probably best to spin up your own service in the cloud to avoid the puritanical state.

    Scrolled way too long for this comment. I've been avoiding all those services and use my own. Literally. First I used owncloud, but when they started to become all fascist, I switched to nextcloud. Google it and do your thing. They are trivial to install.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  71. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by jd · · Score: 2

    Because it's safer than walking next to them?

    Or maybe because some people really care about good art and cosplay is excellent art.

    One LARP group in Britain had to close down because too many members were hired by film studios to work on costuming.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  72. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the encypted, renamed files will be fine.

    In general though, there's no way a data storage service with any restrictions at all is going to survive the coming competition. Between projects like IPFS and Sia, I suspect Drive will be under pressure for cost alone.

  73. Oh so google view your files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All my stuff is coming off ASAP

  74. Re:Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is racist and evil. Do a Google image search for "white couple", "american inventors" or "historical european art" and you'll see them censoring and trying to rewrite history.

    Oh and to do my part to fight the tyranny:

    Why do the police hate googles? Why are there so many googles in prison? Googles with attitude. South central googles.

  75. Three things by daq+man · · Score: 2

    1) This implies that Google takes a look at EVERYTHING that goes on Google Drive, otherwise how did they know it was porn? This may be obvious to some but there is a difference between secure and private. Secure means no third party can see your stuff, private means the storage provider doesn't get to look.

    2) It is just plain wrong that the file would disappear. Block sharing and notify the user that the file should be removed.

    3) If terms of service say don't do something then don't do it.

    1. Re:Three things by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Of course Google looks at everything. It is right in their TOU. That they do more than look is pretty evil on top of being despicable (for looking).

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  76. Re: Fuck Google by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Which is why they don't want to host it.

  77. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named im by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    How does the sharing work? Provide a key offline for a one off customer?

  78. Re:Windows 10 Could Be Next To Delete Files by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Only every use Microsoft for computer games.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  79. Not even the point .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Pay for a non-US hosted cloud service and be subject to the whims of their socialist or communist governments, who can arbitrarily decide your content violates THEIR standards. Really .. what's the difference? Bottom line is just as others posted; don't keep your only copy of anything you need in the cloud.

    Even if nobody is censoring the content, you never know when a service will go out of business and take your data with it.

  80. Re: You guys just noticed GDrive blocking stuff no by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Renaming to .eze works without encryption. You almost don't even have to point that out to the recipient if they are a nerd, they'll just figure it out and fix when saving.

  81. Re:What the fuck is a "sex worker"? by _merlin · · Score: 1

    It's someone who works providing sexual services. It includes prostitution, pornography, and a few other categories. It's a less specific umbrella term.

  82. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by flopsquad · · Score: 2

    I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.

    I can see the headlines now: "Tech Site Solves Dirty Download Dillemma, Advises Pornographers to Zip It Up"

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  83. Re: Your comment has been rejected for being stupi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, "sheep" is a lot easier to type than "lumpenproletariat."

  84. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    Between projects like IPFS and Sia, I suspect Drive will be under pressure for cost alone.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the US government passed laws, Acts, or regulations to make those illegal if they began to receive serious adoption numbers among the US population, both to protect the politician's owners (Google, etc) and to make certain people have no way to securely communicate that government can't decrypt and read. To their way of thinking, livestock has no need for privacy or security, after all.

    Hell, there's yet *another* article here on /. about the government again insisting on backdoors for encrypted smartphones after it was explained ad nauseam that there's either security or not because math.

    I'm waiting to hear the first serious calls for a US 'Great Firewall'. That's where this is headed if they continue down this path.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  85. "Don't be evil" by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2

    .... not much else to say here. This is pretty breathtaking.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  86. An that is why "the cloud" is bad by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Or one reason for it: Somebody else's (usually screwed-up) morality suddenly determines what files you can have or what computations you can run.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  87. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, without a doubt, knows that to five significant figures. The internet is 98.032% porn.

  88. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by atrex · · Score: 1

    There's the problem. Don't store your only copy of expensive data on Someone Else's Computer aka The Cloud(tm). At least have a local backup.

    It’s irrelevant whether we’re talking about something controversial, or photos from your kid’s christening - it’s simply stupid to keep your only copy on a cloud drive. You’ve got to have at least one backup that’s under your own control. More than one is even better.

    Good advice for the ones that aren't technically savvy, problem is, these cloud services are advertised to individuals as if they are the only backup they need. So they end up duped into letting the cloud "protect" their precious data, then they find out that that data isn't their's anymore after they lose their original copy of it.

  89. Sex Worker Google Groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they are going to start shutting down groups as well. For example priestessguild@googlegroups.com is for sexworksers communicating about client references, police activity, apartment sharing, etc.

  90. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez. Itâ(TM)s a simple matter of zipping it up and slapping a password on it. And im not talking about pants either. If google canâ(TM)t read it then theyâ(TM)ll assume itâ(TM)s fine. And donâ(TM)t name it blatantly what it is. Maybe more clever names?
    âoeThe view that is from the viewers vantage point - mouth loveâ

  91. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's the problem. Don't store your only copy of expensive data on Someone Else's Computer aka The Cloud(tm). At least have a local backup.

    If it's on someone else's computer, they can impose their rules, laws, and religious superstitions on you.

    That could have been easily resolved if Google didn't have ulterior motives with their backup service.
    For cloud based backup services there is no reason to why person owning the drives should be able to rumble through the data.
    It should have been encrypted on the client side before uploading.

    Also, until we get an official statement from Google that says that they are intentionally removing specific data perhaps it is safer to just assume that they have serious issues with their cloud storage and that any data can be lost.
    Your data is probably safer on your own drive even if you don't have backups.

  92. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sniff H1B shitty chimps, is that why you are so fond of them?

  93. Grab a copy of 7zip and encrypt your files. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has the added benefit of some file compression so you can store more stuff on your Gspot er i mean Gdrive.

  94. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Google support won't budge, then I would suggest they file a lawsuit against Google then, and settle the matter in court.

    Google's rule about "Do not publish sexually explicit or pornographic images or videos" --- doesn't say ANYTHING against using their storage service for Private, Non-Published storage of files and selective distribution or sharing between team members.

  95. Wait, you are saying ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a company actually here and there enforces their ToS that they clearly state?

  96. Re:What the fuck is a "sex worker"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex workers offer far more than just sex. Many end up providing counseling or social skills education. They take people out on low pressure, practice dates. Sometimes clients just want someone to hold them while they fall asleep. Etc... They the provide the last line of emotional support to people who can't/won't use standard health services (if I go into counseling I have to report it to my job, which means next year I'll be let go.) There's no one else you can go to get services like this. One off dating consultants are expensive and hard to find, the free-hugs people don't keep consistent hours nor offer extended, emotional hugs. Licensed counseling sessions adds data to your medical record which will follow you for life. If you say anything concerning, they're also legally bound to report you to the police.

    Sew workers offer support in the odd ways standard services are unable to do so. Every town needs such people.

  97. Re:Lucky winner of Chaturbate contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I wanted to say "vids or it didn't happen", but I guess Google already deleted it. :D

  98. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Backup is only backup if you have it in three different locations, in at least two different formats. Cloud is only one format. Hard Drive (local), CD/DVD, Tape, are all other formats. Everything else is something less than backup. And backups are a bitch to manage, because formats become unusable. Who has a 8 inch floppy drive I can borrow?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  99. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just sex workers,

    Called this bum for what they are: prostitutes, low lives, marginals. Don't give me this sex worker crap, you miserable communist.

  100. User Error by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    So she's complaining that she specifically broke their Terms of Service on a Free Service? I mean wow, how silly can you get? Here's a hint use another service or pay for another service that might cater to this. Or encrypt the data ahead of time if you think your clients are smart enough to decode it at their convenience. Also realize that cloud storage is convenient but it's never been super safe. Google might be pretty decent at protecting data but all it takes is one mistake on your part or someone else's and that data goes from private to public.

  101. Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least153% of the Drive team watches porn daily. It's in the Bible.

  102. Two things: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    1. Encrypt your content so only the people with the key(s) can access it.
    2. Don't put explicit terms in the filename.

  103. Common Sense, what happened to it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks, c'mon. Google is an extremist company with an agenda to push. Unless you fit their agenda, expect to be harassed by them.

    Prostitution does not fit in wit the current liberal fads.

  104. Re:What the fuck is a "sex worker"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How stupid can you be?

    There is no lower limit to that question. Welcome to the new world.

  105. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by eionmac · · Score: 1

    "any file you uploaded may suddenly be seized such that you will never see it again."
    Except to be used by others in evidence against you in perpetuity!

    --
    Regards Eion MacDonald
  106. It's so convenient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Drive is like a hard drive where other people get to decide if my files stay saved on it.

  107. Re: Fuck Google by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    I guess that's not really the point but a valid one none the less.
    gpg2 --symmetric my-stuff.tar.gz.safe

    gpg2 --decrypt my-stuff.tar.gz

  108. Re: Not just sex workers, any explicitly named ima by jd · · Score: 1

    You're anonymous so I won't bother with more than the slight mocking laugh.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  109. In that case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should have flagged the file, notified the user(s) that the infringing file was no longer available for distribution, and they have x day to download a copy if they need it before it will automatically be purged.

    While violating the ToS is bad, suddenly automating the flagging and removal of files is worse, especially when the users were not notified ahead of time that it was happening and what the possible consequences of it would be for their data.

    Given that this user was apparently on it quite regularly, it soulds like Google didn't do its due diligence in notifying its users in a change of enforcement, nor in finding a balance to both protect users ability to recover data they had entrusted to it, while also limiting redistribution that could result in legal consequences for google.

  110. Re: Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumb ass white boy, the reason that happens is that nobody puts "white" in the description unless it's "black and white couple"

    I'd you just search "couple" then it's white people all the fucking way.

    How the fuck do you think "searching titles accurately" is racist but "no specification always equals white" isn't?

  111. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photos of your kid's Christening is also controversial; at least in the parts of the world where the kid is naked...

  112. Re:Not just sex workers, any explicitly named imag by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Good advice for the ones that aren't technically savvy, problem is, these cloud services are advertised to individuals as if they are the only backup they need.

    A fool and their data are soon parted.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"