I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far.<p>Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a comment?<p>Update: Recreated it. Most of them are now flagged. Took about an hour for that to happen. So far, all that have just one byte, being a "1", and also the one that contains "1\n".<p>The one with "1\r\n" hasn't been flagged. The file names of the flagged files: "one.txt", "onev2.txt", "output04.txt" and "output05.txt".<p>Screenshots of the email and Google drive: <a href="https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/RHnEJcj</a> (note the little flags on the Google drive view, and the file sizes)<p>Just added some files with "0" and "0\n", we'll see if "0" is copyrighted :)
All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction."<p>Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel movies from Google Drive! Thank you for your contributions to Disney+'s bottom line."
I experienced something similar building an internal tool on GSuite. I had a large file with sequences of 9 digit numbers specific to our use-case, all tied to names of people (employees). Whelp, at one point the tool I was working on stopped working, and it was flagged as apparently containing social security numbers (which I suppose matched the character length).<p>Whelp, on the admin panel, you can get a report of those files, and then mark it as a false positive. Which I did. But then nothing happened, and nothing changed. It was no use.<p>The hilarious bit: It did, of course, allow me to make a copy of the file in question, and then just point the resource I was building to the new file, which was exactly the same. Weeks later... so far, so good.
"A review cannot be requested for this restriction"<p>ML enforcing rules is bad enough, but not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. This is why I would never consider g-suite for any business application.<p>Otoh, I think there is a legitimate business to be made helping small businesses and individuals secure themselves against arbitrary behavior from big tech. This kind of thing can have serious consequences (imagine if it was something of real substance that got restricted without recourse) and people need to consider hardening their activities against google et al
Ironically, it may end up being one of these "tiny" scenarios which finally does Google in.<p>When trying to illustrate a problem or bug, one of the typically time consuming challenges is reducing the scenario to the minimal case which illustrates the problem. So thank you, @emilyldolson!<p>Aside from an empty file, you cannot reduce this any further. It brings to light in simple terms that non-techies can understand how absurd the "ML to solve everything" promise is -- and even moreso how wilfully negligent companies are by providing NO human intervention or support when the machines break down.
The fact that Google is scanning your files for "copyright infringement" is bad enough. They have no way of knowing that you don't legitimately own something. Then pair that with this example and if that isn't enough of a deal breaker for using Google drive I don't know what is.
"Thanks for helping google keep the web safe"<p>Interesting thing to add in there, how on earth does copyright stuff have anything to do with safety?
I have a pet theory that all of these recent Google bloopers could be explained easily if you start from the assumption that Google internal incentives promote efforts to cut costs such as storage.<p>"Garbage" docs, inactive email accounts, less search results etc can all be reasonably explained by a desire to not spend money on storage for "low value" data (i.e. data that is unlikely to be accessed in a way that translates to profit for Google). Users, having been trained to rely on free services and the magic of search to summon stuff, have zero incentives to clean up their digital "pollution", and at some point, something's gotta give.
Just call google support... oh... wait... right...<p>I wonder how many ads we need to watch before google implements something even remotely similar to user support? How many billions are enough before we get support?<p>I know I'm overreacting but I'm getting tired of these articles. We all know that google is messed up (to put it lightly). Some people here don't think that's the case and that's fine. Other people, including me, don't find it surprising at all.<p>Post something about google killing cute kittens.<p>I wouldn't be surprised but I would be interested in that story.
A quick note to anyone working to reproduce this: the automated stupidity that caused this is of the same variety that will CANCEL YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT without recourse if your stats lean a certain way. Tread carefully.
I remember when it was announced that this was going to be possible and people here on HN were defending Google's decision with comments along the lines of "this is fine, they're not reading your private files, they're just going to stop people that use Google Docs for distributing pirated content"<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858032</a>
"A review cannot be requested for this restriction"<p>I always did say that Franz Kafka never died. He is semi-retired working in google’s PM org, occasionally consulting for the UX teams as well.
Pretty weird that Google would be scanning files for copyright infringement in the first place, it's supposed to be a <i>Drive</i> not the enforcement arm of the copyright mafia.
It's so dystopian / Kafkaesque it's like a parody.<p>"Thankyou for helping google keep the web safe"<p>followed by...<p>"A review cannot be requested for this restriction"
Always operate under the assumption that iCloud (Apple), Microsoft and Google will delete any/all of your data, with no notice, and for no reason.<p>Because they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their TOSes.<p>Not your computer, not your data etc.<p>(<a href="https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/" rel="nofollow">https://www.quentb.com/posts/diy-cloud-backup/</a>)
Meanwhile my Mom uses Google Drive to share pirated movies with family members (despite my protests) and is yet to have a single file flagged.<p>Just need to name your file something like "Output04.S01E01.NumberOne.1080p.HEVC.x265-MeGusta" and you'll be fine /s<p>How can they get things so wrong?
File a DMCA counter-notice, of course.[1]<p>You may have to do this the hard way, via Google's address for service of process.[2] Use registered mail or FedEx.<p>There's also the option of taking Google to arbitration. Legal advice from one of those "free quick consult" services may be helpful.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-takedown-notice.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/responding-dmca-take...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275</a>
I am a small business owners. I pay for google one so that all my files are backed up and sync across devices. I also pay for backblaze to backup all my files (Just in the case google screws me).<p>Is there an alternative for encrypted backup & sync between different computers?
<i>Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on the Google Drive team specifically.</i><p>Sorry about the issue, folks! The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it.<p>And thank you all for the many test cases! :)
I guess the moral of the story is, never do business with a company that doesn't provide a mailing address to which you can mail a turd (at book rate.)
Maybe for those times when copyright infringers try to split an infringing file into separate files containing only one bit, represented as text, to avoid detection. No, I am not serious.<p>Try testing a file that contains more than a single 1 or 0, such as 01111000.
I've said it before, Google is trying to be the new Microsoft.<p><a href="https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663" rel="nofollow">https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-18195...</a>
I wonder if it's a part of some sort of cyberattack. Someone knows that deleting a file, containing a "1" or "0" from target's gdrive will break something they want, so they filed a false DMCA claim.
Google Drive answered:<p>"Hi Dr. Emily Dolson, thank you for letting us know about this issue! The Drive team is very much aware of this now thanks to all of you we're working on it!"
This seems like a really great case for property based testing and/or fuzzers. Randomly generated output should virtually never flag copyright (and would be rare enough that you could manually assess if it was accurate or not, likely). The core utility of system like this, which puts an enormous amount of leverage in the hands of automated decision making <i>must</i> be robust against things like this.
Google Drive also offers client side encryption, which would make this scanning ineffectual: <a href="https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspace-encryption/" rel="nofollow">https://flowcrypt.com/blog/article/2021-06-14-google-workspa...</a><p>So as long as you have a ton of money and are a corporation your privacy should be just fine
This is your annual reminder that you don't own your files if they're stored in someone else's computer (also known as "the cloud"). Keep offline backups, legislation has made it very easy to export literally everything from google.
Looks like the Google Drive team is aware of it. Wonder what happens next.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/MishaBrukman/status/1485804925561057291</a>
I feel bad for the new hire who wasn't entirely sure what he was doing. Something similar happened at reddit[0], wouldn't put it past google.<p>0: <a href="https://redd.it/m0rmux" rel="nofollow">https://redd.it/m0rmux</a>
Another example of why it is time to dump google. With google you are the product, not the customer. There are decent alternatives for everything that google offers. It feels really good to do.
Serious I'm upset that google drive can block files that you <i>own</i>, I feel my trust betrayed. We're really moving to an dystopian age where companies can control your personal data.
I wonder: is this a technical issue, or just a practical joke by someone who has managed to convince Google Drive that they have the copyright to files containing only "1"?
Copyright was always bizarre in the sense that any information can be expressed as numbers. So why are some numbers more copyrightable?<p>Also reminds me this ("Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes"): <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20100607151726/http://www.theoni...</a>
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Putting your data in a megacorp basket means it'll be treated primarily with consideration towards their legal liability first, other megacorps second, and you third or fourth.