Note that any DRM content is subject to the same technical limitations. The DRM access can be switched off remotely.
In general I view this story as a positive. I don't support Google in this act but it means that whatever they were doing was not working. They are innovating to match a dynamic threat. Even if that innovation undercuts their public trust.
Our job is not to win every battle, but to put our adversaries into dilemmas where they only have bad options. If you have a strategy that you suspect will not accomplish its end goal, but to stop it the state will have to undermine its own stated values, then that is a strategy worth pursuing.
I gotta be honest, and maybe this is conspiratorial, but I feel like Plandemic is planned opposition. There are a lot of holes in it, her story is kind of strange, and the media started covering it immediately even though there's been all sorts of other scandalous stuff blowing the covid propaganda wide open.
I could be wrong, and I haven't looked deep into it, but my understanding is that it doesn't really dwell on just how faulty and problematic the PCR testing has been, and based on what I've learned that should be the big focus of anybody skeptical of the covid propaganda - the PCR tests are not at all surefire proof of the presence of a viral contagion, and it would appear they have an enormous false positive rate. Somebody please correct me on this if I'm wrong, I'm mostly just taking Monica Perez's word for it, as Monica Perez (and her show The Propaganda Report with cohost Brad Binkley) has been right on the money when it comes to covid, and they were covering event 201 and suggesting that it was the precursor to a massive propaganda campaign before covid was even a topic in the media, and sure enough they turned out to be 100% correct on that one (and many other things, frankly - she is absolutely my favorite radical libertarian doing daily political news).
And Monica's sense is that Mikovits and her story and this whole Plandemic thing are a way for the real culprits behind much of this tyranny to have some manner of control over their opposition. That's not uncommon at all when it comes to propaganda, we've seen it many times in the past, and even in event 201 the "conspiracy theorists" and how to deal with them is a prominent part of their simulation.
I tend to trust Monica Perez's instincts on stuff like this.
That said obviously I think censorship is terrible and should be called out, but many many many other covid related things are being censored right now, including testimony and research from all sorts of relevant scientists, medical practitioners, researchers, etc. But Plandemic, how to "debunk" Plandemic, censorship of Plandemic - this is what's being talked about in the mainstream press. It's kind of like the Edward Snowden thing, or that Miami Herald writer that "broke" the Epstein story - limited and controlled release of information to manage that which the segment of the population that is always going to be skeptical of our rulers believes and spreads around.
this is bullshit, it looks more like they were using drive to share the video then linking it from youtube videos to distribute it.
They didn't comb through private videos and delete it, they deleted the file because it was being publicly distributed via drive
In an article reporting on the takedown, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complains that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive.
She then notes that after The Washington Post contacted Google, Google Drive took down a file featuring the trailer for the Plandemic documentary.
It’s the same with the “other document” that gets mentioned in OPs other comments - once you are publicly sharing something it is no longer a “private” document.
At no point does this point to any private documents being removed or viewed - just publicly shared ones, which everyone knows is a different leave of scrutiny.
To be fair, in this instance Google Drive is used as a vehicle for spreading disinformation (by sharing access to a personal file). The article describes the conspiracist drivel of "Plandemic" repeatedly as a "documentary" (it is not, it's an assembly of lies and half-truths covered in conspiracist bullshit), which to me reeks of bias.
Also, while I agree that Google shouldn't remove a file from a user's personal drive except where such a file obviously breaks the law, in this case, there's at least probable cause that this is in fact the case.
Thirdly, don't use any online storage service as your sole repository for any file. Ever.
Fourthly, nobody should be using a free google service and expecting to have privacy within it. Well, nobody who has any connection with reality at least. But then, we are talking about conspiracy nuts here.
> Fourthly, nobody should be using a free google service and expecting to have privacy within it.
What if they are paying for more storage? Does the same sentiment apply?
> To be fair, in this instance Google Drive is used as a vehicle for spreading disinformation (by sharing access to a personal file).
I see a lot of people defending the actions of Google with this message and it's honestly scary AF. Not only is Google omnipresent (seriously, look at how hard one has to try to avoid Google and it is literally impossible other than going completely off grid), the issue is that there is not a thing illegal about conspiracy theories, not one bit. Regardless of a TOS issue, this is a serious breach of freedom of speech. If we make concessions only on the things that we happen to not like or agree with (meaning, it is OK in this instance because what they removed one feels is a good thing), we are giving them way too much power. Rights are absolute in the constitutional context, and we should all fight clear injustices against them, even if we don't like the speech being suppressed because one day something you do believe can simply be deemed "questionable" and removed as well.
This whole incident has nothing to do with the content removed and everything to do with the fact that a company so large that it infects aspects of every internet connected person on the planet in some way or another and who is the top player by a long shot in the flow and CONTROL of information who is now decided what truth and facts are. That is why this is scary AF and even scarier that so many are being the literal definition of sheep and essentially giving Google a pass and defending them simply because the content was indeed questionable.
Your link only says that the document was blocked from access for violating Google Docs' terms of service, not that anyone at Google was even aware of it, let alone that they understood and disliked the researcher's conclusions.
Seems equally (or more) likely that the raw content of the document (not its meaning) or the manner in which it was shared triggered some automated tool that blocked access.
I never thought this sub was full of conspiracy believers! I get the problem with Google, but if the information could harm people and violates terms and conditions, I can understand Google actions just like child pornography or revenge porn, etc.
However, not all types of encryption will remain (EFS is removed from files before upload to most cloud services, for example, and it even says this in the documentation, or used to).
I don't know what other encryption is (maybe it's only EFS), but that's at least one main encryption scheme used.
Password protected compressed/zip files are still good, though.
the earn it act would undercut Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) from certain apps and companies so that they could be held responsible for user-uploaded content. it wouldnt make me encrypting something on my computer a crime
This should be pinned to the top and you guys are downvoting it. Good luck with your data. Wait till Samsung decides to make their HDDs not save stuff China doesn't like. I mean if it saves lives why not?
Possibly the biggest threat to data backup on the cloud is happening and you guys downvote it. Oh well, I tried.
You're being downvoted because you're a fucking moron. Cloud services all have terms of service, and those always include the ability to delete prohibited content. Most commonly this is for DMCA, illegal content (i.e. child pornography, etc), and they will absolutely exercise that when notified of the content.
They don't want to be associated or assist with blatant lies that will get gullible people killed, so when notified of its existence *by the media*, they deleted it. Welcome to storing your data on someone else's computer.
Your hysterical SSD "example" further shows you're not exactly thinking rationally here.
Hard to say whether they do that. In this case the media contacted them after they found it, so Google was just responding to a direct notification.
That said, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they scanned content. There are many reasons - malware scanning is one, assisting copyright holders and law enforcement (however one may feel about that), and I wouldn't be surprised if things like this led them to search out and remove content proactively. That said, there's nothing yet showing them doing so.
If you truly hoard data, you have to have control over that data - local copies. If you're going to use the cloud, encrypt and only use it as a backup. Anything else is asking for disappointment.
> Hard to say whether they do that
They do, I've had files removed for "violation" minutes after uploading them. This to me is undeniable proof that they are scanning files to some extent
I completely agree that they shouldn't have to be able to host data that's illegal or dangerous, but at the same time it's an invasion of privacy to some degree
Thanks for that confirmation - a good reason to encrypt anything you think might be sensitive, or better yet just encrypt everything as best practice.
Invasion of privacy though, implies an expectation of privacy. Storing your files on someone else's computer without encryption certainly has no expectation of privacy, so no invasion.
You got downvoted, but I've always been concerned that one of these days Google will say "f it" and give notice that they're deleting all accounts over a certain extreme size. You know they have stats on "small % of users using large % of storage", and this free lunch (or nearly so) can't last forever. Remember Amazon Drive?
Problem is, they're the only game in town for storing a huge amount of data in the cloud without breaking the bank. At 40TB even the cheapest pay-per-GB reputable online storage (like B2, Glacier, etc) will be prohibitively expensive for an individual.