Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...</a><p>The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them."<p>All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifact of how our copyright law works. Google does a bad job of expressing that reality as nicely as others (like Dropbox), but with almost equivalent permissions, I'd put them pretty far down on the list of companies not to trust.

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights.<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...</a>

"Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.<p>When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.<p>You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you."

I do agree that Dropbox's wording is much friendlier, but I attribute most of the difference to Google having big plans (e.g., searching and sharing) and being careful that their terms will permit them. I suspect a big part of this is Google's intention to analyze your data to make it indexed/searchable (e.g., their 'search for Mt. Everest and get back your pictures of it' features).

If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox.<p>Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.

That's standard wording allowing them to provide the content to you on any device you access the services from over the internet (i.e. publicly).<p><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&#38;source=hp&#38;q=%22a+worldwide+license+to+use%2C+host%2C+store%2C+reproduce%2C+modify%2C+create+derivative+works%22+-Google" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&#38;source=hp&#38;q=%22a+w...</a>

Y no one compares them to skydrive?<p>«we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service.»<p>« we may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of [ppl]»

There's been several articles on this topic, and I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS: "Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."<p>These terms are across all of Google's services, and of course they need to state these sorts of things to keep themselves covered.

Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in.<p><a href="http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846</a> <a href="http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867</a>

The exact same language is in the <i>Google</i> terms of service, so if you use Gmail, your emails are covered by the same language.<p>Clearly, this is lawyer boilerplate being taken out of context.<p><a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/</a>

<i>We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example [..]. This includes [..]. It also includes [..]. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services.</i><p>So I give Dropbox full access to do <i>things with my stuff</i>? Seriously? IANAL, but doesn't that include more than what Google says?<p>Also note that Google has this line (you know, <i>just</i> above the paragraph that was quoted in the article): <i>Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.</i>

Looks like Google accidentally started two memes this month: #whitespace and #selectivelyquoteprivacypolicy

I'm actually not so worried about the privacy of the files I might put in GDrive. The handful of files I really care about (financial data etc) I store in other ways.<p>But I <i>am</i> worried about having my Google account yanked out from under me. I'm simply not willing to depend on one capricious company with no customer support for email, phone, storage, online collaboration, chat, social etc. Ironically the harder Google tries to squeeze all their services together the less inclined I am to use any individual service.

If I understand Google's ToS right, you are giving them a license to do pretty much anything with the data you upload to Drive. For instance, if you backup your git repo to Drive, Google's engineers have a license to take your source code and incorporate it into their own products. Now of course Google's not actually going to <i>do</i> that. So why not make the license say that?<p>Google is using a generic ToS for all their products, but it's not appropriate to products that host valuable intellectual property.

While it's obvious Google isn't planning to rape, pillage and publish your private files, their terms of service are starting on the wrong foot.<p>Ask for the base permissions you need and work from there. This is even more important when you're not a Google. Explain what you need and why to give them what they want from you, earn their trust and karma.<p>More importantly, if you sell off your company later, they will protect your users from those who might take a more liberal view of the TOS.

Dropbox writing their TOS in a way that non-lawyers can read it was a good move here. Neither TOS really effects anything being done with your data in a practical way but the PR Dropbox is getting from theirs is worth 100x the time they put into it. Nice investment.

It's the derivative works part of the T&#38;Cs for GDrive that makes it a little wonky, I don't want to give them full license to create <i>any</i> derivative work but I'm happy with them making changes for technical architecture.<p>But that's so selective and does miss the part where they say your content and copyright is all yours, so it justifies picking on Google for being supposedly creepy.

Amendment of a Privacy Policy doesn't retroactively apply the policy to all the data previously provided to the service without first consulting the user.<p>If that is the case then they need to make the user ACCEPT the new terms before this can be done. (This is what is happening whenever you are forced to accept an amended TOS before returning to a service.)

One thing is that the phrasing of Google's terms is more open, more importantly: I would rather like to store my files with someone that are in the business of storing files - than someone that is in the business of making "everything" searchable (for anyone?)

If any of this blather is an attempt to prevent me from giving my money to Google instead of Dropbox, mission failed. Pay 2 to 4 times as much for the same service? I don't think so. Google wins, T. K. O., pwned with a capital P.

can I encrypt it first...

I think this image nicely compares the TOS for Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft's Sky Drive: <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/photo/1" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/...</a>

Yup. This is EXACTLY what I knew Google would try to pull. There is no way I'm switching from Dropbox to one of the shadiest online companies out there.