In some other ways, Roxane Gay barely scratched the surface of the information control issue.
Dennis Cooper might have thought to protect himself by keeping copies of his work. But on what media? Google Docs? Google drive? They're owned by the same corporation that removed his blog. Microsoft products? When you use Microsoft software, you don't *own* your copy, the way you'd own a book you'd purchased: you *license the right* to use the software, and thus remain at the mercy of the legal owner (Microsoft). It's analogous to building a home, when the land it sits on is owned by a corporation (there actually are places like that).
Our nation has blundered into the Information Age thoughtlessly (quite literally so), seduced by "free" goods and with government "leaders" who are intimidated because of their laziness and ignorance of the basics of modern technologies.
We're in trouble. Enjoy playing games, twitting, and getting sucked further into Facebook's maw.
Dennis Cooper might have thought to protect himself by keeping copies of his work. But on what media? Google Docs? Google drive? They're owned by the same corporation that removed his blog. Microsoft products? When you use Microsoft software, you don't *own* your copy, the way you'd own a book you'd purchased: you *license the right* to use the software, and thus remain at the mercy of the legal owner (Microsoft). It's analogous to building a home, when the land it sits on is owned by a corporation (there actually are places like that).
Our nation has blundered into the Information Age thoughtlessly (quite literally so), seduced by "free" goods and with government "leaders" who are intimidated because of their laziness and ignorance of the basics of modern technologies.
We're in trouble. Enjoy playing games, twitting, and getting sucked further into Facebook's maw.
12
An easily preventable non-issue. You took advantage of a convenient system without thinking ahead to this exact, predictable scenario.
9
You need goggles to read the gaggle of fine print in Google's terms of agreement. You can't trust them with your gig. That's why Google is under a gag order. (Giggle).
4
The best advice is "Don't be Google". You can use iXQuick for searches. Other comments have suggested paying for a web site. The best advice is to back up everything. Large amounts of storage are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Check out Barbara's comment in NYT Picks.
5
I'm sorry. Even though the intended takeaway is "Google Bad", and even though many commenters seem t treat this as "censorship", or "data theft", that's not the lesson.
The lesson is to back up your own stuff, whether you use the cloud, Google, or anything else. Leaving 14 YEARS worth of data on someone else's server is simply poor caretaking of your own data.
The lesson is to back up your own stuff, whether you use the cloud, Google, or anything else. Leaving 14 YEARS worth of data on someone else's server is simply poor caretaking of your own data.
22
I always knew someone would have problems with the cloud...
5
WordPress with a backup plugin installed. Could have been so easy....
8
My wife and I were system development engineers, each for 44+ years, doing systems programming, systems development and design, Database management and design, data architecture, and much more during those many years before our retirement.
There is NO WAY that we would commit our personal work (financial information, writing, music, photos) to any cloud system where we can avoid it. (With email it is unavoidable, but at least you can commit your email to your own computer.) ANYTHING in the cloud is accessible to the cloud owner, whatever their 'privacy' statements say. Never write an email that you do not want the world to see.
This is why the personal computer should never go away. All these efforts to make everyone use 'thin clients' are disastrous attempts to turn over ALL our personal info to corporations. Do not accept this. We know from our professional experience how straightforward it is for these corporations to get at your data.
Things you want to keep private should be kept on your personal computer. Things that give access to your accounts (user IDs, passwords, etc.) should be kept on flash drives that you plug in when you need a password, and they should be copied and pasted so that no 'key following malware' can get the password keystrokes. NEVER click on a web address (URL) in an email. NEVER! Go to the site yourself through your browser. Phishing expeditions are rampant, and VERY believable.
We are in the Medieval phase of computing.
There is NO WAY that we would commit our personal work (financial information, writing, music, photos) to any cloud system where we can avoid it. (With email it is unavoidable, but at least you can commit your email to your own computer.) ANYTHING in the cloud is accessible to the cloud owner, whatever their 'privacy' statements say. Never write an email that you do not want the world to see.
This is why the personal computer should never go away. All these efforts to make everyone use 'thin clients' are disastrous attempts to turn over ALL our personal info to corporations. Do not accept this. We know from our professional experience how straightforward it is for these corporations to get at your data.
Things you want to keep private should be kept on your personal computer. Things that give access to your accounts (user IDs, passwords, etc.) should be kept on flash drives that you plug in when you need a password, and they should be copied and pasted so that no 'key following malware' can get the password keystrokes. NEVER click on a web address (URL) in an email. NEVER! Go to the site yourself through your browser. Phishing expeditions are rampant, and VERY believable.
We are in the Medieval phase of computing.
57
What an incredible loss! I just read a Wiki-statistic that says as a much as 2.5% of the US population is certifiably psychopathic. Other than the obviously and endlessly discriminatory portrayals PSM (psychopathy, sociopathy and megalomania) in the media, this identifies another minority getting a raw deal!
People unite against persecution of PSM (#PSMM), you have nothing to lose but your sanity!
People unite against persecution of PSM (#PSMM), you have nothing to lose but your sanity!
1
It boggles one's mind that someone like this blogger of discussion doesn't keep his own work on his own computer and THAT backed up via Carbonite or Crash Plan.
As a writer and a photo archivist www.vphotoestate.com I don't trust anything with moving parts (hard drive) or out of my control. I have a second hard drive in my computer that I back up weekly. I have a third hard drive in the trunk of my car that I back up monthly. My computer is constantly backing up to Crash Plan, which in turn backs up to two more international servers they own.
I lost a number of photos in a fire once. Lesson learned. The good news is that although I could lose every physical photo or slide I own, I will always have the images, which is what matters.
Backup, backup, backup.
As a writer and a photo archivist www.vphotoestate.com I don't trust anything with moving parts (hard drive) or out of my control. I have a second hard drive in my computer that I back up weekly. I have a third hard drive in the trunk of my car that I back up monthly. My computer is constantly backing up to Crash Plan, which in turn backs up to two more international servers they own.
I lost a number of photos in a fire once. Lesson learned. The good news is that although I could lose every physical photo or slide I own, I will always have the images, which is what matters.
Backup, backup, backup.
12
As someone who used to manage the purchase of tens of millions of dollars worth of pay-per-click advertising on Google, I can tell you that they are responsive to no one. It doesn't matter if your claim is just and moral, or if you carry a lot of economic clout - they could not care less. You're just a problem to them, and only after they left Google would many of the people I dealt with there admit that that was their attitude. They had their own agendas, their own to-do lists, their own boss-pleasing projects, and nothing that happened in the outside world was going to disrupt that.
Their corporate motto is not "Don't be evil"; it's "Don't worry about anyone but Google."
Their corporate motto is not "Don't be evil"; it's "Don't worry about anyone but Google."
7
The Cloud is not yours. Nothing you place on The Cloud is not yours.
Neither your blog, your music, nor social media chitchat are yours if they exist only on The Cloud. That is true because The Cloud is a proprietary platform owned by a corporation and secured by policies that offer private users little more than a virtual jukebox or a stage on which to strut. What that corporation does with that content is out of your control.
Read the user's agreement: censorship and revocation of privileges are all over it. And you agreed when you pushed the button to accept the terms of usage.
Neither your blog, your music, nor social media chitchat are yours if they exist only on The Cloud. That is true because The Cloud is a proprietary platform owned by a corporation and secured by policies that offer private users little more than a virtual jukebox or a stage on which to strut. What that corporation does with that content is out of your control.
Read the user's agreement: censorship and revocation of privileges are all over it. And you agreed when you pushed the button to accept the terms of usage.
6
The lurid nature of the first few paragraphs in this piece are not worthy of the NYT. It's bait, and it is below you.
Beyond that, I fail to see the basis for argument this purported artist (a word misused here, surely) has against Google. Does anyone ever bother to read the Terms of Service for any internet service? I have plowed my way through many of those contracts, and most of them can be summed up in thse few words: you use this service at our discretion. These companies have armies of lawyers to back that up. In using the service, one agrees to the terms. End of discussion.
Beyond that, I fail to see the basis for argument this purported artist (a word misused here, surely) has against Google. Does anyone ever bother to read the Terms of Service for any internet service? I have plowed my way through many of those contracts, and most of them can be summed up in thse few words: you use this service at our discretion. These companies have armies of lawyers to back that up. In using the service, one agrees to the terms. End of discussion.
9
I searched the cloud for how many butts grow fatter every day sitting in front of a computer screen. I didn't like the answer: it was too inclusive.
6
Google is making a big mistake stonewalling inquiries about Mr. Cooper's account. Perhaps they're doing in under advice from their lawyers, which might be good legal advice but is very bad public relations. I've been somewhat agnostic about whether Google uses its power in acceptable ways. This is a tipping point. It's become clear that it's just another abusive big company.
3
Keeping your content on personally run infrastructure is perilous in its own ways. Hardware failures, viruses, software that is buggy or out of date are all more likely to destroy your content than overzealous enforcement of terms of service from a cloud vendor.
1
My problem is the technology itself. It's like the so-called self-driving car: technology created by people who are too much in love with the concept and do not realize that 'what could possibly go wrong?' is neither an ironic joke - preferably one intoned, a la Westworld, 'what could possibly go wrong [click] go wrong [click] go wrong [click]' - nor a dismissal, but an imperative to think as hard as you can. E.g., I've queried how a self-driving car's software would make decisions in a situation where there are no good alternatives, e.g, does your car steer into the opposite lane (and a head-on crash) rather than hit a child on a bike who's swerved into your path? If the software's imperative is to cause the least possible damage to the human in its passenger compartment, it will 'choose' to kill the child. Also what happens when someone hacks it for fun and/or profit, or a software 'bug' becomes evident only in a pileup. Similarly, I don't think the Cloud is anywhere near robust enough to trust with anything I wouldn't be willing to lose forever (or to share with hackers in Albania). Stupidity and carelessness cause far more havoc in the world than deliberate malice, and naïve overenthusiasm is a great soil in which to grow those noxious weeds.
4
Note: This is an argument for running a private server (as I do). The cloud is simply defined as someone else's computer accessible over the internet, which you are (temporarily) permitted to use. Its owners can terminate access and delete files on a whim.
6
I think Google could have avoided much of this debate by allowing Mr. Cooper to download his data. The message would have been something like "We no longer believe you blog follows our rules necessary to get a table under our umbrella; please take your data and leave the premises"
If that had been their course, one might see Google "only" as a censor but at least not a confiscator and seemingly a destroyer of data.
Few of us look twice at a store sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or the better one (that at least gives the refusal criteria) - "no shirt, no shoes, no service". The principal seems basically fair in any particular example: my business, my rules. As a business, Google should have some rights on what is hosted under it's umbrella - after all, all content reflects directly on indirectly on Google's public image. However, the lack of transparency on invoking the "right to refuse" service is most troubling (pointing to a lengthy T&C is not transparency). Google is occupying the same bias space as the shop keeper refusing services for vague 'religious beliefs". There must be a line... and lines are only visible with transparency.
Regarding Mr. Cooper's data. While somewhere in all the click-through agreements might be statements that give Google all rights and Mr. Cooper none, even Google believes it is "your account, your data". By violating this precept Google has lost any moral stance it might have had.
If that had been their course, one might see Google "only" as a censor but at least not a confiscator and seemingly a destroyer of data.
Few of us look twice at a store sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or the better one (that at least gives the refusal criteria) - "no shirt, no shoes, no service". The principal seems basically fair in any particular example: my business, my rules. As a business, Google should have some rights on what is hosted under it's umbrella - after all, all content reflects directly on indirectly on Google's public image. However, the lack of transparency on invoking the "right to refuse" service is most troubling (pointing to a lengthy T&C is not transparency). Google is occupying the same bias space as the shop keeper refusing services for vague 'religious beliefs". There must be a line... and lines are only visible with transparency.
Regarding Mr. Cooper's data. While somewhere in all the click-through agreements might be statements that give Google all rights and Mr. Cooper none, even Google believes it is "your account, your data". By violating this precept Google has lost any moral stance it might have had.
11
Certain commenters miss a fundamental point. Google tells users you don't have to go through the work of creating your own website, getting your site hosted, providing for cybersecurity, and data backup, we do all that for you, faster, and more easily. But then, Google unilaterally, and without notice, or explanation deletes the websites it has encouraged users to construct, in certain cases years of work is lost. Google isn't affording such users any opportunity to copy their data before termination of service, rather its actions inflict maximum loss on these users without warning, which certainly violates the principles on which these relationships are undertaken.
7
the "terms of service" are so onerous, that if we actually read them, we would not be doing very much at all in the electronic world--or elsewhere. They are too complicated for the average person to understand, they are too long and in too fine a type, and with "arbitration" as the final frontier, we're going to lose anyway.
and finally, when we accepted "one size fits all" we lost the batle to control our own lives.
and finally, when we accepted "one size fits all" we lost the batle to control our own lives.
1
So many have written of the failure of responsibility in taking backups. While these comments are very apropos, I see a different failure of responsibility -- the responsibility to know the environment in which you choose to publish your work.
It is absolutely true that Terms of Service agreements may be lengthy and difficult to understand, but even those who say that mock them with a summation: "We have total control". Another similarity between all these ToS agreements is that they general are quite clear about what kind of content is acceptable and what is not, and the types of content that are prohibited are pretty uniform, and also well known.
While I am not familiar with the content of Mr. Cooper's site, I find it incredible based on the description that he should not have known that his content was at least skirting the line of acceptability and have been aware of the risk. The surprise here seems to me the equivalent of choosing to paint on materials that are not acid-free because they are cheaper, and then expressing shock and dismay that they didn't last.
It is absolutely true that Terms of Service agreements may be lengthy and difficult to understand, but even those who say that mock them with a summation: "We have total control". Another similarity between all these ToS agreements is that they general are quite clear about what kind of content is acceptable and what is not, and the types of content that are prohibited are pretty uniform, and also well known.
While I am not familiar with the content of Mr. Cooper's site, I find it incredible based on the description that he should not have known that his content was at least skirting the line of acceptability and have been aware of the risk. The surprise here seems to me the equivalent of choosing to paint on materials that are not acid-free because they are cheaper, and then expressing shock and dismay that they didn't last.
8
I guess it's the responsibility of the blogger to archive his data before posting it, in a way that will make it easy to rebuild the blog should the host change its mind about hosting it. Harder to do than you'd think, since we rely on external entities like Google to keep our data in the cloud in case our local backup proves faulty.
You guys never heard of the Internet Archive?
6
I wonder - if I could talk to my great-grandpa who fought in WWI, and I said, "Gramps - in 2016, I can publish my own newspaper, with a circulation of millions & millions & millions, For FREE! I don't have to hire employees, or operate a printing press, or anything, because America requires corporations to hire the employees and do all the publishing for me. All I have to do is type whatever pops into my head." - and then - if I dared to complain about "Freedom of Speech" - I wonder what Grandpa would say?
3
Ann, I wonder what your grandfather would say about the immense value to a company of people's personal data. Or about how a company monetizes the work of these many "newspapers," but isn't sharing that ad revenue with the content creator. It might all come as a shock, but the simplistic story you propose is a false narrative.
2
Google Blogger (If that's the one used here) and Gmail are free. For that matter, so is its search engine itself. The company's customers are its advertisers, not users of its free services. As a blogger myself, I sympathize with Dennis for his loss. He could have backed up all his files, though.
There are many ways to create a blog, or establish your own website without Google. The company does have the right to control what is attached to their product and, by implication, their company. If you survey Blogger sites, you'll, see an incredibly vast array of information and opinions, so one could argue they are not necessarily biased.
Yes, concern over how our lives have become transparent, with our personal data available for mining, is real. We do have some choice how to manage that, but it seems increasingly difficult and frustrating.
You can use other search engines. The products are free; so is your right to choose. I don't have an answer to the questions regarding use of personal data that is evolving at the speed of light. I do, though, regarding Google. If you don't like them, don't use them.
There are many ways to create a blog, or establish your own website without Google. The company does have the right to control what is attached to their product and, by implication, their company. If you survey Blogger sites, you'll, see an incredibly vast array of information and opinions, so one could argue they are not necessarily biased.
Yes, concern over how our lives have become transparent, with our personal data available for mining, is real. We do have some choice how to manage that, but it seems increasingly difficult and frustrating.
You can use other search engines. The products are free; so is your right to choose. I don't have an answer to the questions regarding use of personal data that is evolving at the speed of light. I do, though, regarding Google. If you don't like them, don't use them.
3
Gee, that two terabyte external drive feels pretty smug right now.
3
One would hope that an editorial in the New York Times would result in Dennis Cooper being able to retrieve his blog, but objectionable content which violates the "terms of service" "end user licensing agreement" of the various media conglomerates that "govern" our media landscape can often be specious and their gatekeepers unforgiving. I have taught and advised others in the past that while a blogger account may seem like a way to develop a blog, anyone putting really "interesting" information out there might want to consider a personal domain, private hosting, personal backups, and redundant backups elsewhere in order to maintain autonomy. In some respects, Mr. Cooper has very little recourse - as "publisher," Google essentially owns that material.
4
Take the time to read the Microsoft Windows 10 user agreement and find out how far the implacable erosion of our privacy has gone.
1
I did look at it. It sufficed to persuade me to turn down the persistent pestering to download Windows 10 for free. As the saying goes, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
Google has simply decided not to stock a particular product, i.e., Mr Cooper. (Query, since the column doesn't make it clear, whether Mr Cooper's art is professional, that is, does he charge for a subscription, solicit ads for his site, or otherwise make money from his online Mutter Museum or Cabinet of Wonders or sideshow or whatever?)
Google has simply decided not to stock a particular product, i.e., Mr Cooper. (Query, since the column doesn't make it clear, whether Mr Cooper's art is professional, that is, does he charge for a subscription, solicit ads for his site, or otherwise make money from his online Mutter Museum or Cabinet of Wonders or sideshow or whatever?)
A huge corporation not playing by the rules. Sounds familiar...sounds like...the norm!
The Cloud always made me wary. Its very name also...The Cloud...like the ones that were there, then weren't?
Of course we all rely on "it", cant be online without "it", but at the end of the day, we should always be wary of the things that impact us, but which we cant see, dont truly understand, and especially when its being "offered for free".
This story reminds me of the mantra of the early days of computing at the college computer lab..."Don't forget to Back-up Your work!" Everyone would be pecking away, uneasy that at any moment, anything could go wrong and you'd lose all your work. And it often did. Same thing when PC's came into the home in a real way. We all put up a more then one sign; "Back it up!" The primary use of the Post-it note in those days.
The Cloud always made me wary. Its very name also...The Cloud...like the ones that were there, then weren't?
Of course we all rely on "it", cant be online without "it", but at the end of the day, we should always be wary of the things that impact us, but which we cant see, dont truly understand, and especially when its being "offered for free".
This story reminds me of the mantra of the early days of computing at the college computer lab..."Don't forget to Back-up Your work!" Everyone would be pecking away, uneasy that at any moment, anything could go wrong and you'd lose all your work. And it often did. Same thing when PC's came into the home in a real way. We all put up a more then one sign; "Back it up!" The primary use of the Post-it note in those days.
1
GOOGLE Must be called to account for its failure to seemingly play according to its own rules. Their terms of service include a statement, "If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service." It looks to me as if Google is choosing not to honor its own terms of service by reportedly failing to provide "reasonable advance notice nor the chance to get the information out of that Service" in the case of the removal of Dennis Cooper's blog. Let Google's inconsistent application of terms of service stand as a warning to everyone who fails to back up copies of everything in a non-Google format. It looks to me as if Google fears that it stands to lose big bucks if Dennis Cooper brings suit and wins. As well it should. I hope that the ACLU and other organizations will rally to the cause of Dennis Cooper. For next time, the blog you lose may be your own. It's always possible to download your documents and to save them in different formats, including PDF and Rich Text, that are universal and can be decoded by widely available software. My personal opinion is that if Dennis Cooper chose to include ads by male escorts, he knew that the material was controversial and highly provocative. Still, I believe that he should have been given a warning and have had the opportunity to download the files for safekeeping. I believe that for all our sakes, Google must restore his files.
2
Thomas Jefferson backed up many of his documents with a copy written mechanically with a second quill attached robotically to his own quill. If he knew the worth of troubling to back up his work, how much more so should we mistrust our cloudy cyber world.
2
Much information "disappears" from the net, raising the question of when you can refer to net information in scientific or other publications. There needs to be some mechanism by which significant information can be "hardened" or preserved for subsequent access. Not sure how this can be done.
1
As others have said, you must back up your work. If you had one copy of a painting kept at home, and your home burned down, you wouldn't blame the canvas manufacturer. Or if it was defaced, or stolen, or...
The shame here is that the art isn't physical. Copies are worth exactly the same as the, well, all there are are copies! How much fun would Baudriallard have with this story?
Blogger has a simple, if slightly hidden, backup feature. If he'd run it once a year, he'd be in exceptionally better shape than he is now. From here (https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41387?hl=en):
"Back up your blog
When you back up your blog, you get an .xml file of the posts and comments:
1. Sign in to Blogger.
2. Click the blog to back up.
3. In the left menu, click Settings and then Other.
4. In the "Import & back up" section, click Back up Content and then Save to your computer."
That's it. Text is really quite small. A few megs later -- one USB stick would be overkill -- and you're done.
Important adage for the digital age: If you don't have three copies of your content, you don't have your content at all.
The shame here is that the art isn't physical. Copies are worth exactly the same as the, well, all there are are copies! How much fun would Baudriallard have with this story?
Blogger has a simple, if slightly hidden, backup feature. If he'd run it once a year, he'd be in exceptionally better shape than he is now. From here (https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41387?hl=en):
"Back up your blog
When you back up your blog, you get an .xml file of the posts and comments:
1. Sign in to Blogger.
2. Click the blog to back up.
3. In the left menu, click Settings and then Other.
4. In the "Import & back up" section, click Back up Content and then Save to your computer."
That's it. Text is really quite small. A few megs later -- one USB stick would be overkill -- and you're done.
Important adage for the digital age: If you don't have three copies of your content, you don't have your content at all.
5
Kenneth Ellman Responds to NYT article “The Blog That Disappeared”
July 30, 2016, kennethellman.com
I am surprised with the misunderstanding so many people have about use of the Internet and Servers holding data. When you post anything on a server that does not belong to you, whether as physical property or by contract use, then why would you think you have any control of what the owner of the server does. Most important is to own your domain, which is cheap, then to own by paid contract or outright, the operation of your server and put your own data for public or private use on it. Most important is to back up the Server so when it fails, and at some point it will, then you can restore it.
The NYTimes employs people who delete comments they do not like when posted on NYT Comment areas. Google owns the Servers where people are posting their creations. The least you can do to protect yourself is to back up on your own computer the entire contents of your creations so they can be put elsewhere in case your Server is attacked either by the “owner” or malicious programing. Use of Google for posting anything is to me an exercise in blowing in the wind. Server backup and retaining printed copies in storage and other backup methods in only answer. Remember you are nothing to the Server and Data Center, nothing at all. Build your own web site that you control. You only.
Kenneth Ellman, email:[email protected], Box 18, Newton, New Jersey 07860
July 30, 2016, kennethellman.com
I am surprised with the misunderstanding so many people have about use of the Internet and Servers holding data. When you post anything on a server that does not belong to you, whether as physical property or by contract use, then why would you think you have any control of what the owner of the server does. Most important is to own your domain, which is cheap, then to own by paid contract or outright, the operation of your server and put your own data for public or private use on it. Most important is to back up the Server so when it fails, and at some point it will, then you can restore it.
The NYTimes employs people who delete comments they do not like when posted on NYT Comment areas. Google owns the Servers where people are posting their creations. The least you can do to protect yourself is to back up on your own computer the entire contents of your creations so they can be put elsewhere in case your Server is attacked either by the “owner” or malicious programing. Use of Google for posting anything is to me an exercise in blowing in the wind. Server backup and retaining printed copies in storage and other backup methods in only answer. Remember you are nothing to the Server and Data Center, nothing at all. Build your own web site that you control. You only.
Kenneth Ellman, email:[email protected], Box 18, Newton, New Jersey 07860
3
What the writer does not mention, and the commenters cannot see because the blog is gone, is that the blog was apparently controversial in some very unpleasant ways. A more complete discussion of the nature of the content can be found here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099757
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099757
3
Oh, I think he makes it clear that the content of the blog was controversial. The problem is that Google refuses to say exactly what prompted it to intervene. This has a chilling effect on expression, whether or not that was Google's intention.
I'm quite sure I have nothing to say that would trigger a similar response, but I have never been enticed by the Cloud--it sounds like there would be too many chances for data to be lost or hacked, and its very name suggests that it is ill-defined and shifty.
I'm quite sure I have nothing to say that would trigger a similar response, but I have never been enticed by the Cloud--it sounds like there would be too many chances for data to be lost or hacked, and its very name suggests that it is ill-defined and shifty.
1
Is it a generational gap between those who first think "this is censorship" and those who first think "why didn't he back it up?"
When I was working on my thesis back in the late 1980s on little beige Macs in the college's computer center, anguished cries of "Where's my file?" were common. Servers failed. Floppy disks were soaked in spilled coffee. Screens went blank. Files were corrupted. During one late night of revisions, I looked down to see that some sage had penciled on the desktop, "JESUS SAVES OFTEN."
When I was working on my thesis back in the late 1980s on little beige Macs in the college's computer center, anguished cries of "Where's my file?" were common. Servers failed. Floppy disks were soaked in spilled coffee. Screens went blank. Files were corrupted. During one late night of revisions, I looked down to see that some sage had penciled on the desktop, "JESUS SAVES OFTEN."
6
Wow! The peasants still don't understand that they live in a neo-feutal system. Whether made of iron, gold or zero's and one's, it's still serfdom, and, yes I'm referring to the "terms of agreement" [sic].
I was reading some S-gen (Sociopathic), self-adoiring libertarian blogger complaining about YouTube cutting him off and so many commenters whining about something called "freedom of speech".
Here is a hint: Contract Law. Google it!
I was reading some S-gen (Sociopathic), self-adoiring libertarian blogger complaining about YouTube cutting him off and so many commenters whining about something called "freedom of speech".
Here is a hint: Contract Law. Google it!
Constitutional freedom of speech has nothing to do with prohibitions on speech between individuals but the prohibition of it by the federal government.
Does anyone today understand that the government grants no rights to the individual but that those rights are assumed to be ours inherently? Do they understand that the constitution prohibits the government from taking those rights without due process?
Does anyone today understand that the government grants no rights to the individual but that those rights are assumed to be ours inherently? Do they understand that the constitution prohibits the government from taking those rights without due process?
2
Hasn't he heard of backing up his data?
4
It is very disturbing that Google has decided to make itself the arbiter of decency.
I wonder where Michelangelo would be today had Google been in charge of the appropriateness of statuary back during the Enlightenment?
I do not now and never will trust anything in "The Cloud." My data stays on my hardware.Courts have consistently ruled that data stored on servers belongs to the owners of those servers and not to the creator of the data.
I wonder where Michelangelo would be today had Google been in charge of the appropriateness of statuary back during the Enlightenment?
I do not now and never will trust anything in "The Cloud." My data stays on my hardware.Courts have consistently ruled that data stored on servers belongs to the owners of those servers and not to the creator of the data.
4
Anyone who does not store local copies and backups of their work has their head in the clouds.
Do yourself a favor - lose the Chrome and the gmail. They are little more than free Google tools used to figure out who you know, what you say to them and they to you, where you go on the web and what you do there, what you search for, where you shop and what you buy.
Google is evil incarnate. Their tech support is farmed out to volunteers. They do not respond to inquiries or complaints unless you can show they are hosting stolen or otherwise illegal content. They are the great modern-day sphinx of silence.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird for browsing and email, respectively. Both are produced by Mozilla Corp. which is one of the few technology companies that maintain high ethical standards and help protect the little guy from the forces of darkness prying into their private life.
Do yourself a favor - lose the Chrome and the gmail. They are little more than free Google tools used to figure out who you know, what you say to them and they to you, where you go on the web and what you do there, what you search for, where you shop and what you buy.
Google is evil incarnate. Their tech support is farmed out to volunteers. They do not respond to inquiries or complaints unless you can show they are hosting stolen or otherwise illegal content. They are the great modern-day sphinx of silence.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird for browsing and email, respectively. Both are produced by Mozilla Corp. which is one of the few technology companies that maintain high ethical standards and help protect the little guy from the forces of darkness prying into their private life.
6
If you rely on "the cloud" to access or store your personal music and information you better be prepared to not be able to access your personal music and information. Go to Staples and buy a back up drive if need be.
10
I tuust the cloud to be exacly what it is; a storage and access device that someone else owns and controls. I'll use it when convenient, but my data lives on my hard drive and its backup. What you see of mine on the cloud is either trivial, or a copy. And now I have a message for Google and its advertisers: you're stupid. I researched cars and inflatable kayaks online recently, and bought one of each. There is zero chance that I'm going to buy another of either in the near future. You're wasting your advertising dollars showing them to me.
11
Outrageous. Google's flaks and their revolting passive-aggressive reaction ought to pay a heavy price. Let's hope that Congress drags Google's management before a hearing and then the regulatory agencies hit them with a massive fine. This sort of nonsense is utterly unacceptable. Luckily, there are alternatives to Google. If they keep up with this behavior, its customers will flee to rivals.
"Google’s relative silence is deafening and disturbing. Mr. Cooper is reluctant to call this deletion censorship, but given the nature of his work that is what it feels like."
yup. When you don't know the reason for something, assume the worst. that will make people like you
yup. When you don't know the reason for something, assume the worst. that will make people like you
3
The "free speech" whining here is pathetic.
If you want freedom of speech, create your own website. Quit whining: "I'm too busy volunteering at the park, so 'someone' must give me a free website and let me post whatever I want..." Create your own website - it's almost as easy as making a sandwich - and backup, which is as easy as putting the mayo back in the fridge.
If you want freedom of speech, create your own website. Quit whining: "I'm too busy volunteering at the park, so 'someone' must give me a free website and let me post whatever I want..." Create your own website - it's almost as easy as making a sandwich - and backup, which is as easy as putting the mayo back in the fridge.
5
Ann your many comments and arguments simply miss the point repeatedly. Google tells users you don't have to go through the work of creating your own website, getting your site hosted, providing for cybersecurity, and data backup, we do all that for you, faster, and more easily. But then, Google unilaterally, and without notice, or explanation deletes the websites it has encouraged users to construct, in certain cases years of work is lost. Google isn't affording such users any notice, which inflicts maximum harm to these users, for which Google has yet to provide any rationale. This isn't a problem of constitutional dimensions, but it is not in keeping with Google's statements to users.
3
Readers may be interested in Brazil (1985) from director/co-screenwriter Terry Gilliam for predictive assumptions about where the cloud leads us.
3
That's why it's wise to use your personal server... Oops!
1
Many of Cooper's posts can still be found on https://web.archive.org/web/*/denniscooper-theweaklings.blogspot.com
4
After your description, I am quite glad that youngsters won't be exposed to this person and when I was growing up, the library had a children's section.
Trust the cloud? I program computers for a living and pay for my hosted sites. You don't know what you're talking about.
Trust the cloud? I program computers for a living and pay for my hosted sites. You don't know what you're talking about.
1
This op-ed piece appearing in the *New York Times* bemoans the disappearance of information into the murky realm of Google’s “Terms of Service”.
Yet one might also contemplate the disappearance of so many comments written to this newspaper regarding articles it publishes, which disappear into the *Times’* own netherworld of digital darkness, without appearing, without a trace, without comment, and in complete silence…like this one probably will.
The *New York Times* has its own issues with “Terms of Service”, yet, through the deflection of this op-ed piece, casts a first stone here at Google.
Yet one might also contemplate the disappearance of so many comments written to this newspaper regarding articles it publishes, which disappear into the *Times’* own netherworld of digital darkness, without appearing, without a trace, without comment, and in complete silence…like this one probably will.
The *New York Times* has its own issues with “Terms of Service”, yet, through the deflection of this op-ed piece, casts a first stone here at Google.
2
Did Mr Cooper never consider backing up his blog? External hard drive...
4
Wasn't Google's motto originally, "Dont be evil"?
2
If something is important, back it up.
Never trust a solitary spot in the cloud.
Never trust a solitary spot in the cloud.
3
NEVER trust any storage anywhere on the internet. For heaven's sake, servers go down, any location can be flooded or caught on fire or hacked... Always keep backups. Using the "cloud" is just like storing your valuable stuff in someone else's garage. Do you trust that a garage is good enough to safeguard your stuff? It's not a private vault. Get real, it's not safe.
7
One would think that upon reaching adulthood one would know:
No corporation cares a wit about you.
The network/cloud is not secure.
Backup anything you do not wish to lose.
Do not put anything on any computer that you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times.
No corporation cares a wit about you.
The network/cloud is not secure.
Backup anything you do not wish to lose.
Do not put anything on any computer that you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times.
7
The cloud? Not me. I have NOTHING in a cloud. What is mine is MINE. And clouds that are not mine can stay in the clouds. Hard drives are so cheap now...
2
From the New York Times "Terms of Service" - to which there is a link on the website...
USER GENERATED CONTENT: SUBMISSIONS INCLUDING COMMENTS, READER REVIEWS AND MORE
You acknowledge that any submissions you make to the Services (i.e., user-generated content including but not limited to: comments, forum messages, reviews, text, video, audio and photographs, as well as computer code and applications) (each, a "Submission") may be edited, removed, modified, published, transmitted, and displayed by The New York Times Company and you waive any rights you may have in having the material altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you...
You grant NYT a perpetual, nonexclusive, world-wide, royalty free, sub-licensable license to the Submissions, which includes without limitation the right for NYT or any third party it designates, to use, copy, transmit, excerpt, publish, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, create derivative works of, host, index, cache, tag, encode, modify and adapt (including without limitation the right to adapt to streaming, downloading, broadcast, mobile, digital, thumbnail, scanning or other technologies) in any form or media now known or hereinafter developed, any Submission posted by you on or to the Services or any other Web site owned by NYT...
As a friend of mine likes to say - "Back up early, back up often" -
USER GENERATED CONTENT: SUBMISSIONS INCLUDING COMMENTS, READER REVIEWS AND MORE
You acknowledge that any submissions you make to the Services (i.e., user-generated content including but not limited to: comments, forum messages, reviews, text, video, audio and photographs, as well as computer code and applications) (each, a "Submission") may be edited, removed, modified, published, transmitted, and displayed by The New York Times Company and you waive any rights you may have in having the material altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you...
You grant NYT a perpetual, nonexclusive, world-wide, royalty free, sub-licensable license to the Submissions, which includes without limitation the right for NYT or any third party it designates, to use, copy, transmit, excerpt, publish, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, create derivative works of, host, index, cache, tag, encode, modify and adapt (including without limitation the right to adapt to streaming, downloading, broadcast, mobile, digital, thumbnail, scanning or other technologies) in any form or media now known or hereinafter developed, any Submission posted by you on or to the Services or any other Web site owned by NYT...
As a friend of mine likes to say - "Back up early, back up often" -
2
Much of the work should still be on archive.org.
Anytime you hear or see the word "free" realize you are dealing with marketing. There is nothing that is free. There are many things available at "no additional charge". Ever see "free 2 liter soda with pizza"? Try and get the soda without the pizza. It is also a question of who paid for it. Some great computer utilities are available at no-charge to the user, but the developers paid for it.
As for data retention - the cloud is also marketing speak. It is users, hosts, servers and machinery with a gloss of paint and interface. If you want to keep your data then do the three things recommended since at least 8" floppy days, backup, Backup and BACKUP. Media is cheaper than ever and all it requires is discipline. The tools are out there, many at no-charge to the user.
Your data is more previous to you than it is to Google or anyone else.
Protect it or risk it.
As for data retention - the cloud is also marketing speak. It is users, hosts, servers and machinery with a gloss of paint and interface. If you want to keep your data then do the three things recommended since at least 8" floppy days, backup, Backup and BACKUP. Media is cheaper than ever and all it requires is discipline. The tools are out there, many at no-charge to the user.
Your data is more previous to you than it is to Google or anyone else.
Protect it or risk it.
2
Everyone should be taking full data backups regularly.
1
So, is this why Firefox suddenly won't let me onto Google and FB ('site is not configured correctly')?
I've never trusted 'the cloud', and it amazes me anyone would. Not just because I distrust the corporation's mercenary motives; the adage that 'if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product' is hardly new. I don't trust their competence.
I write sci-fi for fun, set partially in a not-quite-dystopia 'post-Cloudburst', in which scientists and historians are digging through landfills, exhuming deteriorated floppies, CDs, cassettes, books, etc. and rebuilding the obsolete technology they worked on, in the hope of reconstructing the fragmented culture. STEM survives. As for the arts, Shakespeare's OK, as is Stephen King. LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe). But Dennis Cooper ...? Why this catastrophe? No evil hackers. Just a pure 'oops, pushed the wrong button'.
And my work is saved on hard drives and thumb drives, thank you very much indeed.
I've never trusted 'the cloud', and it amazes me anyone would. Not just because I distrust the corporation's mercenary motives; the adage that 'if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product' is hardly new. I don't trust their competence.
I write sci-fi for fun, set partially in a not-quite-dystopia 'post-Cloudburst', in which scientists and historians are digging through landfills, exhuming deteriorated floppies, CDs, cassettes, books, etc. and rebuilding the obsolete technology they worked on, in the hope of reconstructing the fragmented culture. STEM survives. As for the arts, Shakespeare's OK, as is Stephen King. LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe). But Dennis Cooper ...? Why this catastrophe? No evil hackers. Just a pure 'oops, pushed the wrong button'.
And my work is saved on hard drives and thumb drives, thank you very much indeed.
And he didn't bother to have a personal harddrive backup? Bet he will next time!
He doesn't need Google to download his old work. It should all be available at archive.org's "wayback machine". Or maybe you knew this already, but chose to leave it out, because it lets most of the steam out of your fit of righteous indignation?
in any case, you'll be happy to learn that the internet has researched the situation you find yourself in. The community has determined that brutally mocking your butthurt is the right course of action. (In the long run, it is in the best interest of society. Tough Love, baby!)
in any case, you'll be happy to learn that the internet has researched the situation you find yourself in. The community has determined that brutally mocking your butthurt is the right course of action. (In the long run, it is in the best interest of society. Tough Love, baby!)
2
The blog has disappeared from archive.org as well.
Back up your data! Never trust some cloud! Why did this guy not play by these 30-year old rules?
1
This incident reminds me of:
1] "Gone with the disk"
2] There are no "Free Lunches in Life."
4] Father, Son and Grand Son [as in three separate backups]
5] It will never happen to me!
5] Trust me . . .
1] "Gone with the disk"
2] There are no "Free Lunches in Life."
4] Father, Son and Grand Son [as in three separate backups]
5] It will never happen to me!
5] Trust me . . .
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call that reminds people of something they already know: Don't be a sheep.
The internet allows us to do amazing things but, at the end of the day, you have to look after yourself. This should be just a natural reflex, especially if you are doing anything transgressive. There are service you can use, places you can go and things you can do that will keep you and your work safe. This may be anonymous/encrypted e-mail or it may be local back-ups of your work. If, for example, you are trusting everything to Apple -- and it is all too easy to do that -- you deserve whatever you get.
The Internet is the most empowering thing that has happened to humankind since the invention of language. But you have to own it. Don't get what you are given. Get what you need.
The internet allows us to do amazing things but, at the end of the day, you have to look after yourself. This should be just a natural reflex, especially if you are doing anything transgressive. There are service you can use, places you can go and things you can do that will keep you and your work safe. This may be anonymous/encrypted e-mail or it may be local back-ups of your work. If, for example, you are trusting everything to Apple -- and it is all too easy to do that -- you deserve whatever you get.
The Internet is the most empowering thing that has happened to humankind since the invention of language. But you have to own it. Don't get what you are given. Get what you need.
I'm an academic who has no choice other than to use Gmail, after my university (like many) farmed out its services to Google. The result, in my opinion, has been as tragic as that seen when our universities and colleges handed over our bookstores to Barnes and Noble: most campuses now have mediocre bookstores and ethically problematic software suites. Because of my own ethical qualms about Google's terms, I've made different choices for my personal use of technology: I STRONGLY recommend that those concerned about Google's terms use alternatives such as DUCKDUCKGO for their search engine and FASTMAIL for email. The latter is not free, but for a reasonable free you can be reasonably certain that, e.g., your email will not someday be released to third parties without your consent.
4
You may think it's your blog but only reading the ridiculously long terms of use on each site will tell you the real story. You might be surprised that you don't.
User generated content is called Internet 2.0 and it's ripe for regulation.
User generated content is called Internet 2.0 and it's ripe for regulation.
At least some of the posts can still be found on archive.org - waybackmachine.
Anyone who believed that their "stuff" in he cloud was "safe" from anyone or anything has been living in some dreamworld.
If it appears in the NYT, it must be safe, right? Wrong.
Piqued by this article, I googled Dennis Cooper. If his deleted blog is anything like his personal webpage (I won't even provide the link because the NYT would surely censor this post), all I have to say is this: it's Mapplethorpe with 13 year old boys. It is child porn.
I am shocked it took Google so long to shut his blog down. I am shocked his current personal website is still up (so he DOES know how to create his own website and archive his stuff, he just wanted Google's free service and its wide audience). I am shocked the NYT printed this column.
NYT, don't even think you're being edgy and promoting avant garde art. At best, you're promoting very disturbing content involving minors.
Piqued by this article, I googled Dennis Cooper. If his deleted blog is anything like his personal webpage (I won't even provide the link because the NYT would surely censor this post), all I have to say is this: it's Mapplethorpe with 13 year old boys. It is child porn.
I am shocked it took Google so long to shut his blog down. I am shocked his current personal website is still up (so he DOES know how to create his own website and archive his stuff, he just wanted Google's free service and its wide audience). I am shocked the NYT printed this column.
NYT, don't even think you're being edgy and promoting avant garde art. At best, you're promoting very disturbing content involving minors.
11
I Googled him as well and there are images on his website that would lead to his arrest if he didn't shroud himself as an "artist." Good lord.
3
I agree that Google is in the wrong here, but why do people STILL not understand the concept of backing up their work? If you keep all your stuff in someone else's house, don't be shocked if one day they have a garage sale and all your stuff disappears.
3
I disagree. Google is doing exactly what it's TOS says it can do. We all "sign" these TOS agreements without reading and them sometimes I wonder what I've agreed to.
1
Tis a "duh" moment. you want to "own" it , keep it on your own hard drive or better yet on paper, multiple copies.
you know those numbers that appear on the screen when you access your bank account online? better have some cash and a gun or two for when you really need money. those online numbers can just disappear too. Big business cares about you less than big government.
The collar is shiny, comfortable, and free. Don't put it on.
you know those numbers that appear on the screen when you access your bank account online? better have some cash and a gun or two for when you really need money. those online numbers can just disappear too. Big business cares about you less than big government.
The collar is shiny, comfortable, and free. Don't put it on.
4
We all (should) know that we must back up our computer data to protect against a computer crash. The best backup is an off-site backup where a copy is kept in another location.
If your only copy is in the cloud, it would be a good practice to also keep a copy on your computer. This looks to be relatively simple to do with Google Blogger. The author of this article would have done her readers a service if she had referred them to: https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41387?hl=en (Back up your blog — When you back up your blog, you get an .xml file of the posts and comments)
Sign in to Blogger.
Click the blog to back up.
In the left menu, click Settingsand thenOther.
In the "Import & back up" section, click Back up Content and then Save to your computer.
If your only copy is in the cloud, it would be a good practice to also keep a copy on your computer. This looks to be relatively simple to do with Google Blogger. The author of this article would have done her readers a service if she had referred them to: https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41387?hl=en (Back up your blog — When you back up your blog, you get an .xml file of the posts and comments)
Sign in to Blogger.
Click the blog to back up.
In the left menu, click Settingsand thenOther.
In the "Import & back up" section, click Back up Content and then Save to your computer.
2
Another reminder that "the cloud" is just somebody else's hard drive, and it is susceptible both to failure and to the actual owner removing your connection to it.
is the blog still on the wayback machine?
1
No. It has disappeared there as well.
Information is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more information you provide these corporations, the more power you provide them to shape your life and the lives of others in unintended, and undemocratic, ways. Nothing is ever free, and the hidden price of information sharing is the loss of control over what is stored, shared, and said about you. Why would you ever transfer that power to an entity whose sole motivation is to profit at your expense?
3
The answer is simple: if you are paying for cloud computing, then you are entitled to unlimited access of your work.
When you use a free service, as gmail and some if their cloud storage products are, then they get to set their own rules.
When you use a free service, as gmail and some if their cloud storage products are, then they get to set their own rules.
5
The case that you are making is that Mr. Cooper's work is invaluable and irreplaceable, and that Google is an unethical corporation.
Yet you also seem to be arguing that the responsibility for safeguarding this material rests not with Mr. Cooper (i.e., the one person on the planet to whom the material is by far the most precious), but rather with Google, a faceless (and apparently heartless) business entity.
Gosh -- even my emails from the NY Times are automatically backed up onto an external hard drive and Dropbox. (Total cost, including hardware, for backing up all of my data: two dollars a day, if not less.)
I believe that it is possible that Google may be acting like a total jerk, but I have little sympathy for a blogger who can't be bothered to spend the $100 and the hour or two it would take to set up a rudimentary external backup.
I think a more fitting title for this piece would be: Trust in God, but lock your car.
Yet you also seem to be arguing that the responsibility for safeguarding this material rests not with Mr. Cooper (i.e., the one person on the planet to whom the material is by far the most precious), but rather with Google, a faceless (and apparently heartless) business entity.
Gosh -- even my emails from the NY Times are automatically backed up onto an external hard drive and Dropbox. (Total cost, including hardware, for backing up all of my data: two dollars a day, if not less.)
I believe that it is possible that Google may be acting like a total jerk, but I have little sympathy for a blogger who can't be bothered to spend the $100 and the hour or two it would take to set up a rudimentary external backup.
I think a more fitting title for this piece would be: Trust in God, but lock your car.
10
Mr. Cooper's fundamental mistake was to ignore the principle of redundancy. He should have had another cloud backup and backups on a hard drive at home and maybe in another location. Redundancy is one of few useful life lessons you can learn from an engineer.
The people who gave all their money to Bernie Madoff made the same type of mistake. One catastrophic system failure, and they lost everything.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
The people who gave all their money to Bernie Madoff made the same type of mistake. One catastrophic system failure, and they lost everything.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
5
as long as bernie does not share my email with hillary clinton, I can leave with the multiple $27 losses. Boy did I get Berned, the guy way never running for president.
"There is no 'cloud'. No magic place in the ether. Your stuff is in a room ... etc"
So right on. I don't discount the value of what has been written by the person this article talks about. Or the other Quadrillion opinions,ideas & blogs out there that minutes after it is posted to the Impermanent Cloud will never be seen again. The biggest file cabinet the universe has ever seen, holding what?
That most folks find this so important is almost laughable. This all important "Data". And the foolish human race that is seeming to put its faith in the storage of said Data. Never put all you eggs in one basket. We have a long LONG way to go before we achieve much of anything
So right on. I don't discount the value of what has been written by the person this article talks about. Or the other Quadrillion opinions,ideas & blogs out there that minutes after it is posted to the Impermanent Cloud will never be seen again. The biggest file cabinet the universe has ever seen, holding what?
That most folks find this so important is almost laughable. This all important "Data". And the foolish human race that is seeming to put its faith in the storage of said Data. Never put all you eggs in one basket. We have a long LONG way to go before we achieve much of anything
This person didn't have a SINGLE back-up of his work? That's the real lesson of this story.
Never trust just one entity to preserve your work--I don't care if it's a free service or paid, cloud or your own hard drive, Silicon Valley multi-billion company or a non-profit run by Bernie Sanders diehards--digital information is ephemeral and any single entity is vulnerable to data loss, whether deliberate or accidental. Redundancy is key.
If this sounds too hard then sorry--it really means you didn't think your work was that important in the first place.
Never trust just one entity to preserve your work--I don't care if it's a free service or paid, cloud or your own hard drive, Silicon Valley multi-billion company or a non-profit run by Bernie Sanders diehards--digital information is ephemeral and any single entity is vulnerable to data loss, whether deliberate or accidental. Redundancy is key.
If this sounds too hard then sorry--it really means you didn't think your work was that important in the first place.
5
Keep backups, and I do NOT mean in the "cloud" (which means on a machine owned by Google or Whoever), I mean on a hard drive on your desk. Update it often, and for safety have a backup of the backup, stored somewhere else. If the material is text, print it out.
A lot of trouble? Yes it is. If it's OK with you if your data suddenly "vanishes" or if Google decides for some reason of its own to eat it all, don't bother. If it really matters, don't trust Google or anyone else.
A lot of trouble? Yes it is. If it's OK with you if your data suddenly "vanishes" or if Google decides for some reason of its own to eat it all, don't bother. If it really matters, don't trust Google or anyone else.
1
From the article: "Google, it seems, doesn’t even play by its own rules."
How about a class-action suit (something they might respond to since they don't actually seem to pay any attention to any of us peons) with a high-profile lawyer to bring attention to these instances of corporate overlording. We need to elevate this conversation to force more balance to the issues of "rights" and "responsibilities" in the age of technology.
How about a class-action suit (something they might respond to since they don't actually seem to pay any attention to any of us peons) with a high-profile lawyer to bring attention to these instances of corporate overlording. We need to elevate this conversation to force more balance to the issues of "rights" and "responsibilities" in the age of technology.
2
I've always questioned "cloud" computing with meteorological questions: What happens to my stuff if the cloud evaporates? What if lightning hits the cloud? What if a plane flies through the cloud? In short, there is no substitute to a good hard drive on your computer in your home.
If Google didn't live up to its "We believe that you own your data and preserving your access to such data is important. If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service”, isn't that breach of contract and can't Mr. Cooper sue?
These terms of service requirements are a new phenomenon arisen along with this new technology and as it was when large-scale coal mining began, there is as yet no legislation that handles it. There should be. When I download a new OS from Apple, can I really say, "No, I don't accept" and then not have a smartphone? Same with email or any other cloud-based service. (At the same time, I can hardly imagine a candidate for office thundering from the pulpit "And I'll make sure when YOU download a NEW APP you will NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE!!" - cheers, etc.)
Here is the Wayback Machines back up
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://denniscooper-theweaklings.blogspot....
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://denniscooper-theweaklings.blogspot....
2
People are talking as if it were easy, or even trivial, to back up their data.
I started using Google in 2004.
One of the first things I did was to try to figure out a way to back it up.
I'm not an IT manager or programmer. But I do have some computer experience. I've programmed in Fortran, and written macros and batch files (including backup batch files). I'm typing this in Linux.
Google had explanations for exporting the messages, but I couldn't figure them out. What's IMAP? What do I do with the files after I download them? Email lists can be huge (for the hard drives of 2004). Can I convert Labels to Mailboxes? I spent hours trying to configure Thunderbird to be compatible with my Google setup, until I couldn't spend any more time.
Now Google has Takeout, which looks simpler. But it's still not trivial. I think I can download everything to a USB drive. But how do I manage incremental backups? How do I do a test restore to make sure it's actually backing up the way it's supposed to?
So I'm putting it on my todo list, but I still haven't backed up my Google account. It's a day's work to figure it out.
But please don't smugly tell people that they should have backed up.
If computer people were as smart as they think they are, Google and other systems would have made it difficult to avoid backing up, rather than making it difficult to back up.
As engineers say, blame the system, not the people.
I started using Google in 2004.
One of the first things I did was to try to figure out a way to back it up.
I'm not an IT manager or programmer. But I do have some computer experience. I've programmed in Fortran, and written macros and batch files (including backup batch files). I'm typing this in Linux.
Google had explanations for exporting the messages, but I couldn't figure them out. What's IMAP? What do I do with the files after I download them? Email lists can be huge (for the hard drives of 2004). Can I convert Labels to Mailboxes? I spent hours trying to configure Thunderbird to be compatible with my Google setup, until I couldn't spend any more time.
Now Google has Takeout, which looks simpler. But it's still not trivial. I think I can download everything to a USB drive. But how do I manage incremental backups? How do I do a test restore to make sure it's actually backing up the way it's supposed to?
So I'm putting it on my todo list, but I still haven't backed up my Google account. It's a day's work to figure it out.
But please don't smugly tell people that they should have backed up.
If computer people were as smart as they think they are, Google and other systems would have made it difficult to avoid backing up, rather than making it difficult to back up.
As engineers say, blame the system, not the people.
5
It's not "The Cloud" that shouldn't be trusted, it's Google! The Cloud is just a tool...it's another computer where things are stored. There are all kinds of clouds. I use Carbonite along with Google for example to get a second backup of my files.
The Cloud isn't some magic technology, it's just someone else's computer. Whether you can trust it depends who the other party, and what kind of agreement you have with them.
This is a disturbing case with Google, but is hardly an indictment of all "clouds."
The Cloud isn't some magic technology, it's just someone else's computer. Whether you can trust it depends who the other party, and what kind of agreement you have with them.
This is a disturbing case with Google, but is hardly an indictment of all "clouds."
2
"The Cloud isn't some magic technology, it's just someone else's computer."
Well said. For more on your point, see "Tubes : a journey to the center of the Internet" by Andrew Blum.
Well said. For more on your point, see "Tubes : a journey to the center of the Internet" by Andrew Blum.
1
Trust a corporation to do what it is designed to do, make money and seek power. Everything else done by corporate entities is in service to the accumulation of wealth and power.
1
I couldn't agree with this more. The call for a much more rigorous approach to examining the institutions that shape the internet is so often overlooked. While at MIT I saw that the only people who had a shadow of real "control" or agency over their own internet usage were those with a deep understanding of computer programming. While I know there is a large amount of work, policy-based, scholarly, journalism - being done on topics such as net neutrality - it is nowhere near enough. The deafening silence and lack of responsiveness or liability these company have is astonishing. Facebook, Google, it seems no one even has the limited expectation that these companies will be easy to get in touch with, provide any customer service, or fundamentally be anything other the final arbiter of right and wrong - and leave no room for any recourse. Why do we use these things but give up our expectations about our basic rights when using them? Why aren't there other alternatives?
This is not a problem with the cloud. This is a problem with thinking the free services Google offers are being given to you the same way a service that you pay for is. Using Google for more than its search engine, is more like putting your stuff on a public wall and expecting it to be there the next day.
22
I'm almost Google-free. I use their calendar as an intermediary as it's the only way I can get my Mozilla Thunderbird calendar and my phone to work together. I use Bing for my search engine, OneDrive for easily accessible from anywhere files.
While many people kvetch about that evil Microsoft, I have never observed the degree of evil that oozes from Google. Lots of stupidity and bad management, sure. Evil, no.
While many people kvetch about that evil Microsoft, I have never observed the degree of evil that oozes from Google. Lots of stupidity and bad management, sure. Evil, no.
1
You expect a huge conglomerate to share rule-making equally with you? That's astounding. I believe you just learned the lesson that when a business uses the phrase, "make the world a better place," it is an advertising come-on to use their product. They mean their own world, my dear. One must decide if the using the product is worth the trade of helping the company feel that good.
2
Should have made backups, should not have depended on technology only vaguely understood - yes, yes, all true; but were Lord Acton alive today he would find many corporate media targets for "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," not just (but including) Google.
2
If Google thinks Mr. Cooper violated their terms of service with his blog then they might have the right to shut it down, but if the Terms of Service specify that they will give reasonable notice of that action, then the company has the obligation to do just that. Additionally, Mr. Cooper should be given the opportunity to download his personal information, which the Terms of Service also states the company will do. I think Mr. Cooper and his lawyers have every right to force Google to comply with its own contract. Good luck to him.
3
As an IT worker, my best advice is to always have a backup. This one is on the blogger.
Backup - backup - backup. Backup your backups.
Never trust your mission critical data to others.
Never keep all your important stuff on only one machine or system or network.
Monolithic near-monopolies, like Google and Amazon, are convenient, but are not more trustworthy because of their size -- they should be trusted less for things that are more important -- it is an inverse relationship. They can handle my daily junk, throwaway email account-- no life and death matters there -- and even store that mail on their servers. My important personal email account gets stored and archived on my own machines.
The behavior displayed in DC's Blog's case is typical of monopolistic companies -- remember the old old days when AT&T would sneer at your service complaints and say: "Don't like our service? So, get another phone company!"
Never trust your mission critical data to others.
Never keep all your important stuff on only one machine or system or network.
Monolithic near-monopolies, like Google and Amazon, are convenient, but are not more trustworthy because of their size -- they should be trusted less for things that are more important -- it is an inverse relationship. They can handle my daily junk, throwaway email account-- no life and death matters there -- and even store that mail on their servers. My important personal email account gets stored and archived on my own machines.
The behavior displayed in DC's Blog's case is typical of monopolistic companies -- remember the old old days when AT&T would sneer at your service complaints and say: "Don't like our service? So, get another phone company!"
1
This can't be said often enough: public, for-profit corporations are amoral, and exist for no reason but to make money. Any claim to behavior based on morality is at best the fleeting impulse of an individual who is ultimately beholden to investors and whose employment is subject to profits, or worse, just public relations.
Our free enterprise system is a wonderful way to create wealth and nothing more. Lower your expectations of business and protect yourself from it's base instincts and you'll be happy with it.
Our free enterprise system is a wonderful way to create wealth and nothing more. Lower your expectations of business and protect yourself from it's base instincts and you'll be happy with it.
1
Hmm... so Google is giving you free stuff and then you complain when they make a decision that is good for their bottom line but ends up hurting you?
Even worse, you put stuff on a server without having any local backups of content you supposedly value?
First world problems of the technically illiterate!
Me? I work in IT and have my own storage server, an older PC running Linux. The folder I have with my files syncs to Dropbox, to Google Drive and to Microsoft One Drive.
These days one TB of online space is about $10 bucks a month. That means that three services is $30 bucks a month, about $1 a day.
Surely your precious data is worth $1 a day? Especially when a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs three times as much?
Of course to use Linux you need to have some technical chops, as the old saying goes: "Linux is only free if your time has no value"
But isn't your precious data worth the time it takes to learn how to how to better protect it? If you say no then don't cry when your data goes bye-bye.
If your time is too valuable to learn how to use Linux you can always run Windows or Mac OS-X and pay for a back up solution. If you are too cheap to do that then you must really not value your data.
Obviously Hillary Clinton falls in that camp, as attested by the 30,000+ missing emails:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/070.png
If it happens to a normal person it is bad luck, if it happens to Hillary it seems awfully suspicious given her sordid history.
Just saying...
Even worse, you put stuff on a server without having any local backups of content you supposedly value?
First world problems of the technically illiterate!
Me? I work in IT and have my own storage server, an older PC running Linux. The folder I have with my files syncs to Dropbox, to Google Drive and to Microsoft One Drive.
These days one TB of online space is about $10 bucks a month. That means that three services is $30 bucks a month, about $1 a day.
Surely your precious data is worth $1 a day? Especially when a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs three times as much?
Of course to use Linux you need to have some technical chops, as the old saying goes: "Linux is only free if your time has no value"
But isn't your precious data worth the time it takes to learn how to how to better protect it? If you say no then don't cry when your data goes bye-bye.
If your time is too valuable to learn how to use Linux you can always run Windows or Mac OS-X and pay for a back up solution. If you are too cheap to do that then you must really not value your data.
Obviously Hillary Clinton falls in that camp, as attested by the 30,000+ missing emails:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/070.png
If it happens to a normal person it is bad luck, if it happens to Hillary it seems awfully suspicious given her sordid history.
Just saying...
2
to a layman gets what I got: all you have to do is: dot your Is, cross your Ts, use invisible ink, turn in a circle twice, then close your eyes-- and all will be well. how simple!
1
"... you can always run Windows or Mac OS-X and pay for a back up solution."
Apple's Time Machine backup software is FREE. You do need to buy an external hard drive, though.
For more info, do a Google search for "Use Time Machine to back up or restore your Mac".
Apple's Time Machine backup software is FREE. You do need to buy an external hard drive, though.
For more info, do a Google search for "Use Time Machine to back up or restore your Mac".
Some of the blog (posts up until 2011) appear to be available at Archive.org's Wayback Machine. Here's an example: https://web.archive.org/web/20110917194315/http://denniscooper-theweakli...
4
If you really want your work to safe you should inscribe it on an obelisk and launch it into outer space. This planet is doomed.
9
The content of the blog seems like the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. One of the commenters stated that the blog contained images of underage boys in sexual situations. If that is the case, I can understand why Google would want to scoot away from it as quickly as possible.
10
Prof Gay seems to suggest one principle can trump all principles even though she herself states some of Mr Cooper's work is "a display that is hypnotic and disturbing."
So the question is really if Google/Alphabet can carry certain level of standard. As a free service, it is really up to Google, and any other host services, to carry your content. First Amendment and censorship are a non sequitur in private enterprise. Maybe discrimination but there is limit for tenant's liberty.
Mr Cooper can certainly employ other blog hosting services, from Trumblr to 4Chan. Some do cater to more disturbing clienteles. Considering the reach and popularity of Google, it does have the responsibility to be genuinely "fair and balance" without going far beyond one's sensibility, especially its area is available to everyone, including minors
So the question is really if Google/Alphabet can carry certain level of standard. As a free service, it is really up to Google, and any other host services, to carry your content. First Amendment and censorship are a non sequitur in private enterprise. Maybe discrimination but there is limit for tenant's liberty.
Mr Cooper can certainly employ other blog hosting services, from Trumblr to 4Chan. Some do cater to more disturbing clienteles. Considering the reach and popularity of Google, it does have the responsibility to be genuinely "fair and balance" without going far beyond one's sensibility, especially its area is available to everyone, including minors
1
They named this service over something that can disappear into thin air. Now people are surprised this happens?
3
There is no free lunch.
3
If corporations are people, here is a version of it only to be promoted and expanded in a Trump presidency. Danger Danger, Will Robinson!
This article about Mr. Cooper's blog comes at a good time for me - I am/was just ready to begin in earnest contributing to a google blog I started a while ago about the long term life effects of TBI related to a sexual assault suffered in the 1960's. Paper first!
Here are sobering facts I recently read in "The Nation:" between 2000 and 2007, 5 billion dollars in classified ads were lost to Craigslist. More disturbing: Google and Facebook received 76+% of digital advertising growth last year while newspaper ad revenue steadily fell. From what I've read on Facebook, extremist blogs featuring video clips from legit news sources are being touted as legit news sources by referring to themselves as news outlets.
Commercialism has always limited journalism, but now, non-journalistic delivery platforms provide ads AND limit content without any accountability or reliability. That is evil.
I hope Mr. Cooper's blog is restored; I'd like to look at it.
Here are sobering facts I recently read in "The Nation:" between 2000 and 2007, 5 billion dollars in classified ads were lost to Craigslist. More disturbing: Google and Facebook received 76+% of digital advertising growth last year while newspaper ad revenue steadily fell. From what I've read on Facebook, extremist blogs featuring video clips from legit news sources are being touted as legit news sources by referring to themselves as news outlets.
Commercialism has always limited journalism, but now, non-journalistic delivery platforms provide ads AND limit content without any accountability or reliability. That is evil.
I hope Mr. Cooper's blog is restored; I'd like to look at it.
Have you stopped to consider that Google acted out of legal reasons that, if it spoke about may, harm the reputation of the blogger?
Further, that the NY Times, by publishing this opinion, puts Google in the position of either protecting it's customer's reputation or its own.
Further, that the NY Times, by publishing this opinion, puts Google in the position of either protecting it's customer's reputation or its own.
3
Google doesn't have to worry about protecting its reputation, It's already a disaster.
That doesn't stop Google from returning the content to the blogger. And if they believe some of it is legally questionable, return the rest.
1
The only way to have complete freedom of speech on the Internet
is either to have your own website or to post your opinions to Usenet.
You'll need a modicum of software smarts to run a website.
Nobody looks at Usenet anymore, and anyway, the only access to it
that most people have nowadays is, uh-oh...through Google Groups.
My own story of Google's opaqueness involves its RSS feed for Google
News. Google cut off my access to it, presumably because I was,
admittedly, not following its rules of formatting when I used
its content on my website. (I knew that it wasn't a bug in my
software, because I could use it to access the feed from my home
computer, which has a different IP number.) But the cutoff wasn't
abrupt. Instead, it occurred seemingly randomly for increasingly
longer intervals, until it was permanent. Weird, huh?
is either to have your own website or to post your opinions to Usenet.
You'll need a modicum of software smarts to run a website.
Nobody looks at Usenet anymore, and anyway, the only access to it
that most people have nowadays is, uh-oh...through Google Groups.
My own story of Google's opaqueness involves its RSS feed for Google
News. Google cut off my access to it, presumably because I was,
admittedly, not following its rules of formatting when I used
its content on my website. (I knew that it wasn't a bug in my
software, because I could use it to access the feed from my home
computer, which has a different IP number.) But the cutoff wasn't
abrupt. Instead, it occurred seemingly randomly for increasingly
longer intervals, until it was permanent. Weird, huh?
1
Google is pretty open about creating the ability to program their system using open source software, much more-so than Apple, and even Microsoft. So there are generally capabilities of backup that can be used.
That said, we have a society in which what is perceived as serious illegality can be quickly squelched, and then figured out later. In every level of our system, if a serious illegal fault is found, any authorities or even citizens are allowed to take steps to end it. I wonder if this was the case here.
That said, we have a society in which what is perceived as serious illegality can be quickly squelched, and then figured out later. In every level of our system, if a serious illegal fault is found, any authorities or even citizens are allowed to take steps to end it. I wonder if this was the case here.
While I have great empathy for the situation, I'd like to point out that this is exactly the way many people are employed. They agree to some nebulous terms of service and then one day the company comes along to tell them they are through. No warning. Little explanation.
I'd suggest this type of "deal" is rife in our society. Most of us are dull rule followers. But woe betide to those who color outside the lines no matter what the reason.
I'd suggest this type of "deal" is rife in our society. Most of us are dull rule followers. But woe betide to those who color outside the lines no matter what the reason.
1
A reasonable person wanting their blog to exist forever would back it up or create copies of their posts. Obviously Google is a corporation and has no obligation to its users if they violate terms of service. My reading is that there were likely copyright violations by posting photos and ads of other sites, among other things (decency which is more gray); these copyright can't be ignored in the business world. Just because this blogger has some vocal readers doesn't mean squat. His blog sounded like a narcissistic endeavor anyway and this may be the best therapy for him.
2
I follow the advice my tech geek husband gave me a long time ago, before Google even existed:
(1) Back up everything that is important. Back it up in multiple ways, in multiple locations.
(2) If you want to say something, say it on your own website, where you can control the content. At that time, Angelfire, AOL, etc. were all the rage and he told me to never trust them with anything I cared about.
It is believing in the Birthday Fairy-type thinking to assume Google or any other corporation cares about our digital "stuff" or that they will hold onto it for us and release it when we ask them to. My guess is that someone clued Google into the fact that material that was potentially about human trafficking and/or child abuse was being uploaded to this person's blog. Google did exactly what you would expect it to: deleted the entire blog. It is a corporation. It doesn't care to debate the finer points of free speech. It simply doesn't want to be sued or charged legally because of something it permits a user to upload. It's not worth it to Google.
Get your own website, one that you own. They are incredibly cheap these days. Back up anything you send to the cloud. How much do a few flash drives cost? With a backup, even if your website somehow goes missing, you can reconstruct it somewhere else, as time-consuming as that might be. Knocking on Google's door and saying pretty please is not a good position to be in.
(1) Back up everything that is important. Back it up in multiple ways, in multiple locations.
(2) If you want to say something, say it on your own website, where you can control the content. At that time, Angelfire, AOL, etc. were all the rage and he told me to never trust them with anything I cared about.
It is believing in the Birthday Fairy-type thinking to assume Google or any other corporation cares about our digital "stuff" or that they will hold onto it for us and release it when we ask them to. My guess is that someone clued Google into the fact that material that was potentially about human trafficking and/or child abuse was being uploaded to this person's blog. Google did exactly what you would expect it to: deleted the entire blog. It is a corporation. It doesn't care to debate the finer points of free speech. It simply doesn't want to be sued or charged legally because of something it permits a user to upload. It's not worth it to Google.
Get your own website, one that you own. They are incredibly cheap these days. Back up anything you send to the cloud. How much do a few flash drives cost? With a backup, even if your website somehow goes missing, you can reconstruct it somewhere else, as time-consuming as that might be. Knocking on Google's door and saying pretty please is not a good position to be in.
8
I am a librarian. Print copies of materials you value. Don't trust computers, software, paid or free services. Just keep print copies. Simple. Printed books over 500 years old are still available. Disks from the 1990s are unreadable. Lesson: print.
14
That is the point behind cloud services. They are ethereal and constantly upgraded. Data doesn't become obsolete, and it isn't located on a "device" that can become damaged or corrupted.
It is extremely complex and evolving, but the concept is the data is located on a sufficient number of places and algorithmically redundant so even a relatively catastrophic disaster in any particular data center won't lose any data. It is located elsewhere as well.
By the way paper burns pretty easily and is about a billion times as big as data stored in the cloud. I doubt there are enough trees to produce the paper to print the data that exists today.
It is extremely complex and evolving, but the concept is the data is located on a sufficient number of places and algorithmically redundant so even a relatively catastrophic disaster in any particular data center won't lose any data. It is located elsewhere as well.
By the way paper burns pretty easily and is about a billion times as big as data stored in the cloud. I doubt there are enough trees to produce the paper to print the data that exists today.
3
There's enough paper to store the important stuff, and I highly recommend it. Acting as a private trustee of a trust likely to last 15+ years I am keeping paper copies of everything. In 2031 everything we have stored electronically in 2016 will be inaccessible. "Data doesn't become obsolete" but operating systems do.
Also the files in my (fire protected) storage cannot be hacked by an adversary, nor can Google decide to delete them.
"Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time. We believe that you own your data and preserving your access to such data is important. If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service."
And if it isn't "reasonably possible" (as defined by Google)? You're out of luck.
Also the files in my (fire protected) storage cannot be hacked by an adversary, nor can Google decide to delete them.
"Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time. We believe that you own your data and preserving your access to such data is important. If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service."
And if it isn't "reasonably possible" (as defined by Google)? You're out of luck.
2
"It was full of robust idealism including mandates like “don’t be evil” and “make the world a better place.”
Google made a slight change in its slogan "Don't be evil"
It eliminated the first word.
Google made a slight change in its slogan "Don't be evil"
It eliminated the first word.
4
The Emperor Nero taught that buring Rome was art. Well someone has to tell some artists that they are buring bridges of lives and ethical simple humane understanding with their own madness. Where your artist freedom starts my freedom of ethical standards for the children of today and sthe future has to end? I am sure that if this artist’s work was actual art it would have been preserved because history has often a way o preserving, against many odds, the best of human production otherwise it could be only trash. Google was supposed to tell the artist that his work was deleted but other than this I think the people of “Rome’ has to react against the maddens of artistic claims and Google has done it for some of us even if not correctly. The rest of us have no chance of claiming our own right to our freedom of being exposed to humane and meaningful repressions right now. Is every crazy person allowed to deviate the path of the young,, confused and susceptible such as with ISIS? Dictatorships have different ways of being coercive and one of them is the false claim of being an artist when artist you are not.
1
I feel for Mr. Cooper, but gee whiz! Where are his personal backups? My wife (a writer—buy her new children's book "The Elephant and the Bird Feeder") and I (photographer) use the cloud (Newspeak for "remote server") a great deal. But every single byte is backed up to multiple hard drives that we own, including off-site drives that are not connected to the Internet and that are not susceptible to hacking. Our method is not massive-asteroid proof, but it is absolutely safe against the whims of Google and all other providers of remote-storage services.
6
Answer, you don't back up the cloud. That's the point of the cloud.
1
One legal issue is monopoly.
I use Google, but I would like to have alternatives to all the Google services in case something happens to Google. But Google has dominated the market to the point where they drive everyone else out.
There was a similar situation in the 1950s and 1960s with IBM.
Several smaller competitors sprung up, and corporations used them because they realized the dangers of being dependent on a single source.
Customers could argue that IBM computers were more valuable if there were competitors available as backups or alternatives. I think IBM realized that, and tolerated or maybe even encouraged computers.
However, this economic dominance of Google goes beyond any concentration or dominance that IBM had.
Google would like to say, "It's a free market, you can do whatever you want." But it's not a free market.
I use Google, but I would like to have alternatives to all the Google services in case something happens to Google. But Google has dominated the market to the point where they drive everyone else out.
There was a similar situation in the 1950s and 1960s with IBM.
Several smaller competitors sprung up, and corporations used them because they realized the dangers of being dependent on a single source.
Customers could argue that IBM computers were more valuable if there were competitors available as backups or alternatives. I think IBM realized that, and tolerated or maybe even encouraged computers.
However, this economic dominance of Google goes beyond any concentration or dominance that IBM had.
Google would like to say, "It's a free market, you can do whatever you want." But it's not a free market.
2
"One legal issue is monopoly."
"I use Google, ..."
Google does not have a monopoly on web hosting services or blogging software.
"I use Google, ..."
Google does not have a monopoly on web hosting services or blogging software.
2
Related to this problem is how Facebook censors political discourse it doesn't agree with. It is 2016 but it also is 1984. Big Brother is watching and censoring.
5
Why do people believe they can trust large corporations?
2
Years ago a friend - a mechanical engineer - found it very humorous that people put so much trust, faith, reliance on something they knew absolutely nothing about, their personal automobile. Same with the blogger here - and anyone who relies on the 'cloud'. There is no 'cloud'. No magic place in the ether. Your stuff is in a room on a machine, connected to other machines and tended by nerdy boys, electrical storms, and businessmen beholden to stockholders and international law. Keep that in mind.
52
I don't know Mr. Cooper, nor do I know where he lives. But this is a leading edge data rights case if I've ever seen one. Hopefully it works its way all the way to federal appeals court so we get a ruling that can be used as precedent.
I'm having a similar, but less significant, argument with Fitbit over my heart rate data. They have it, they can display it to me, but won't provide the download ability. Fortunately, a 3rd party has produced a tool that lets us all do that. Hardly on the same level, but exactly the same thing. My data, I should have direct access to it.
I'm having a similar, but less significant, argument with Fitbit over my heart rate data. They have it, they can display it to me, but won't provide the download ability. Fortunately, a 3rd party has produced a tool that lets us all do that. Hardly on the same level, but exactly the same thing. My data, I should have direct access to it.
6
And to think that a great number of people claim we should the private sector, and distrust the government!
3
You are sanitizing the contents of the blog described and the issues it raises. What you call transgressive art many find exploitation that radically harms its victims, often people with no advocates and no voice. Perhaps that informed googles decision.
7
"... many find exploitation ..."
"Many" is uselessly vague. Please cite someone who actually criticized Cooper's blog for being "exploitative".
"Many" is uselessly vague. Please cite someone who actually criticized Cooper's blog for being "exploitative".
1
An $85 two-terabyte external hard drive is all you need to keep a lifetime of text and still images safe in your house. Indeed, put it in a small safe in your house, and in fact it's easy to copy everything onto two hard drives simultaneously while you're typing in case one of them goes bad. They do contain moving parts (the internal disc itself).
3
"An $85 two-terabyte external hard drive is all you need ..."
You also need backup software. Apple Time Machine writes backups to an external hard drive while you use your computer.
You also need backup software. Apple Time Machine writes backups to an external hard drive while you use your computer.
Silicon Valley is an Enabler Period.. any real concern with progress is Financial
2
It's called a backup. Almost anyone using a computer knows there are a myriad of ways to easily backup data and has heard legions of stories about lost data - for any of variety reasons- since they touched fingers to keyboard.
3
The world is full of privately owned public spaces.
They abound in urban centers, suburban malls, and online, and being privately owned insulates them from observing what many people think of as their rights.
Google can be as unfair and arbitrary as it cares to be: it's their space, their property. You don't like their TOS, go use...Yahoo?
The monetization and privatization of everything is bad for the public, common good.
They abound in urban centers, suburban malls, and online, and being privately owned insulates them from observing what many people think of as their rights.
Google can be as unfair and arbitrary as it cares to be: it's their space, their property. You don't like their TOS, go use...Yahoo?
The monetization and privatization of everything is bad for the public, common good.
7
It seems to me that if Google permitted his blog to continue for years, they ought to let him retrieve his work. Surely there must be a legal case here?
3
It sounds like a case of "reasonable reliance."
1
"Don't be evil" ... That's a joke and was always a joke. Unfortunately the joke is on the users not on Google.
The only reason Google gives away anything "free", is not because of the goodness of its heart, but because it wants to convert the billions of people on this planet into a 24X7 cash machine.
So, the more people use Google's products, the greater its chances of making the saps a cash machine!
The only reason Google gives away anything "free", is not because of the goodness of its heart, but because it wants to convert the billions of people on this planet into a 24X7 cash machine.
So, the more people use Google's products, the greater its chances of making the saps a cash machine!
5
What you are experiencing here is the idea (reality?) of impermanence. The problem isn't with Google, it is with your attachment to the blog.
This may be considered a welcomed opportunity for Mr. Cooper. The slate has been wiped clean. He can now start anew. That can be quite exhilarating.
This may be considered a welcomed opportunity for Mr. Cooper. The slate has been wiped clean. He can now start anew. That can be quite exhilarating.
1
I am beyond having any sympathy for anyone who actually believes that companies like Google and Facebook have their users best interests at heart. Anyone who takes more than five seconds to think about it knows that users of these services are simply commodities who are sold to advertisers - nothing more. If you have deluded yourself into thinking that your content is safe with these services, or is valued for anything more than what it can be sold to advertisers for, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Google's slogan may be "don't be evil," but the only way consumers can really protect themselves these companies is by adopting the slogan "don't be stupid" - advice that more than a billion users of these ad machines apparently ignore daily and routinely.
11
The google cloud is convenient, but it is essentially the same concept of a storage unit. Someone else has your stuff. It is cheap and convenient, but really, you have to decide how expendable it is before you stash it there.
You want guarantees, you are going to pay for them. Secure cloud is big business. Kind of the difference between stashing your gold bullion in a vault, or an EZ Storage unit.
(And if you want your thoughts to last for ever, acid-free paper is best.)
You want guarantees, you are going to pay for them. Secure cloud is big business. Kind of the difference between stashing your gold bullion in a vault, or an EZ Storage unit.
(And if you want your thoughts to last for ever, acid-free paper is best.)
6
No backups? That's not smart. That protects against system failures as well as account suspensions, arbitrary or not.
3
Without knowing precisely what caused Google to decide that it violated the TOS, what are we to say?
The only thing this article factually warns us about is that you should always maintain back-up copies of content. The cloud is subject to fierce winds.
The only thing this article factually warns us about is that you should always maintain back-up copies of content. The cloud is subject to fierce winds.
8
Google is probably the most transparent among the internet's landlords, but they all need to be more responsible stewards of their power. They don't want to wade into making decisions about content – geeks don't like problems algorithms can't solve – but they are no longer frontiersmen, they are governors of large terriorities of modern life.
For us users, this story illustrates how critical it is to claim one's own homestead on the web. There's an "Indie Web" movement among technologists to help that along (https://indieweb.org/), but even the digital laity can do the basics: don't put all your eggs in one digital basket, keep your own back ups, own your own domain (in both senses.)
For us users, this story illustrates how critical it is to claim one's own homestead on the web. There's an "Indie Web" movement among technologists to help that along (https://indieweb.org/), but even the digital laity can do the basics: don't put all your eggs in one digital basket, keep your own back ups, own your own domain (in both senses.)
3
Why wouldn't Cooper maintain copies of everything he does on some kind of external hard drive or some other format? I do not use the cloud (I make sure my devices are not cloud enabled ) for the simple reason that no one could ever explain to me what it is, how it works, who can have access to it, and who controls it. Now ... just imagine a powerful person with authoritarian tendencies who cannot abide personal criticism ... Just saying.
4
The point behind cloud services is that data isn't on one device that can break or lose integrity of the data. It takes a truly huge data structure to produce true cloud data services like this. That's why Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple are the leaders in cloud services.
Google clearly can't be trusted with data. That's what they have said loud and clear with this decision. They may have the "right" to do what they did, but to aim for universal cloud provision, they didn't do the right thing. Hopefully this severely hurts their credibility.
Google clearly can't be trusted with data. That's what they have said loud and clear with this decision. They may have the "right" to do what they did, but to aim for universal cloud provision, they didn't do the right thing. Hopefully this severely hurts their credibility.
1
What art? He copied and pasted escort ads. More like a pimping service.
Google could be prosecuted in certain states and countries.
Google could be prosecuted in certain states and countries.
6
It would be informative to know if complaints had been lodged against Mr. Cooper to Google.
1
I am not part of the Google, Facebook, Twitter or other collectives out there on the grid.
I highly recommend to anyone concerned about the issues discussed in this piece the novel The Traveller by John Twelve Hawks which was a 2005 NY Times best seller. It is a prescient description of the perils of civilization being on the grid, and though set in a fictional dystopian future, alarmingly describes
what is becoming reality.
I highly recommend to anyone concerned about the issues discussed in this piece the novel The Traveller by John Twelve Hawks which was a 2005 NY Times best seller. It is a prescient description of the perils of civilization being on the grid, and though set in a fictional dystopian future, alarmingly describes
what is becoming reality.
3
Simple failure to read and understand terms of service. Yes, users give up personal data in exchange for these (even the author admits) very useful services. If you cannot agree to the terms, don't use the service, or find a PAID product.
5
Wrong. Sorry if Google has a user for 15 years and then one day says he violates the terms of service, they have to allow data retrieval. That too is in the terms of service.
6
Law is not simple.
There are simple legal principles. Lawyers spend all their time dealing with the exceptions to those principles.
For one thing, there is reasonable reliance. If Google offers me something free, and I become dependent on it, relying on Google's written and implied contracts, and Google suddenly withdraws it, I can sue Google for the damages they've caused me, and to force them to return my data.
You didn't know about implied contracts, did you?
There are simple legal principles. Lawyers spend all their time dealing with the exceptions to those principles.
For one thing, there is reasonable reliance. If Google offers me something free, and I become dependent on it, relying on Google's written and implied contracts, and Google suddenly withdraws it, I can sue Google for the damages they've caused me, and to force them to return my data.
You didn't know about implied contracts, did you?
Mr. Smith, I don't believe that Google's rights in this case do or should extend beyond denying Cooper their services. Quarantining his files is irrelevant and malicious, except that large corporations are seldom malicious - just casually indifferent. But individuals are capable of malice, and I can't for the life of me understand why an individual would so maliciously and callously dismiss 14 years of a man's creative work. Cooper will win this case and get his files back, as he should. You, I am sure, will continue to weigh everything in life in terms of who PAID for what.
Strange that very few here are speculating as to why Google might have removed the account.
I would suggest that the reason may lie in Roxane Gay's second paragraph. Right or wrong, Google may have become uncomfortable with the content.
I would suggest that the reason may lie in Roxane Gay's second paragraph. Right or wrong, Google may have become uncomfortable with the content.
1
We have almost without question or complaint turned our lives and our "data" over to corporations who have no limits on what they can do. There is no free speech on the internet because the Internet is not the government...no constitutional protections apply!
Google doesn't care if you don't like what they do. They really don't. They define evil. Everything they do is by definition not evil. As a result, they are not evil. When they say reasonable notice, they decide what is reasonable ...you have no say or input. Can you sue to litigate that definition of reasonable sure if your a billionaire!
The Internet is a trap into which we have all walked. We have turned over our lives, our treasure and our sacred honor and all we received in the end is ephemera.
Google doesn't care if you don't like what they do. They really don't. They define evil. Everything they do is by definition not evil. As a result, they are not evil. When they say reasonable notice, they decide what is reasonable ...you have no say or input. Can you sue to litigate that definition of reasonable sure if your a billionaire!
The Internet is a trap into which we have all walked. We have turned over our lives, our treasure and our sacred honor and all we received in the end is ephemera.
3
Mr. Cooper can recover his archived blog at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://denniscooper-theweaklings.blogspot....
That said, may I (as a professional artist) ask why the author claims "there is an urgent need for art that pushes us and makes us uncomfortable because it forces us to think, to question, to give into it, to resist"? This has been much of history of art over the last century, with less and less skilled artists trying to outdo each other in pure shock value, often completely disregarding aesthetic value. Our culture has now completely exhausted shock value. "Artists" have smugly and famously called their excrement "art," making nothing but a mockery of artistry. This is not art, it's pure debasement of humanity.
No, there is an urgent need for art that reflects human skill and mastery and expresses original ideas and emotions worth expressing—that is art worth thinking about.
That said, may I (as a professional artist) ask why the author claims "there is an urgent need for art that pushes us and makes us uncomfortable because it forces us to think, to question, to give into it, to resist"? This has been much of history of art over the last century, with less and less skilled artists trying to outdo each other in pure shock value, often completely disregarding aesthetic value. Our culture has now completely exhausted shock value. "Artists" have smugly and famously called their excrement "art," making nothing but a mockery of artistry. This is not art, it's pure debasement of humanity.
No, there is an urgent need for art that reflects human skill and mastery and expresses original ideas and emotions worth expressing—that is art worth thinking about.
10
(I spoke too soon: It turns out the archived blog was somehow also deleted. I posted another comment to this effect.)
I should note that my ideas of taste and art should in no way be taken to mean that I disagree with the author's core argument that private corporations—ones whose businesses have nothing to do with art—should not be arbiters of art, certainly not to the point of deleting entire accounts (in this case not simply removing the blog but also private contacts, documents and email). Couldn't Google simply have flagged or removed the presumably offending content rather than take such a drastic step without warning? (I've never heard of Cooper before this article and have no idea what he wrote about, but taking this article at face value, I agree that this seems like too drastic a measure on Google's part.)
1
Cooper's older content is accessible at archive.org. Use the calendar view to look at snapshots before 2012.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't consider the consequences of "free" when they use a service.
7
Another example of how the Corpotocracy is running the world like a benevolent dictator, seducing us with platitudes such as "don't be evil" and "make the world a better place", while setting themselves up as the arbiters of "free" expression...which makes them evil in my eyes.
5
So Google's new mantra of "Do the right thing" only goes so far, and you'll never know what you did that was deemed a violation of ToS. Never mind the fact that Google indexes the information that is posted on the blog so it's freely found using Google's capabilities.
The only advantage hosting things on Google's "free" services is the bandwidth provided. Home connections have miserable upload speeds, something ignored by consumers when they hear what fantastical download speeds are offered by a provider when in reality, there's nothing out there that you'll find which will saturate a 60 Meg download connection.
There are multitudes of hosting services out there, domains are cheap, and content management apps are plentiful and free. One needs to know when to put a redirect up and migrate over to your own setup.
That said, Google is the worst possible platform to use, for just such a reason. Combined with their filtering that removes valid links to content that has nothing to do with DMCA, people use it for convenience and click on the first link that pops up - and you better hope it's not one of those fake ads that redirect you to some malware-laden website.
It's very unfortunate the blog has been removed and I hope the data can be recovered - there's no reason it shouldn't be. But if you have the funds for a lawyer, spend a little more and be the master of your domain. $50K for a blog? Richard must use Trump Internet Services.
The only advantage hosting things on Google's "free" services is the bandwidth provided. Home connections have miserable upload speeds, something ignored by consumers when they hear what fantastical download speeds are offered by a provider when in reality, there's nothing out there that you'll find which will saturate a 60 Meg download connection.
There are multitudes of hosting services out there, domains are cheap, and content management apps are plentiful and free. One needs to know when to put a redirect up and migrate over to your own setup.
That said, Google is the worst possible platform to use, for just such a reason. Combined with their filtering that removes valid links to content that has nothing to do with DMCA, people use it for convenience and click on the first link that pops up - and you better hope it's not one of those fake ads that redirect you to some malware-laden website.
It's very unfortunate the blog has been removed and I hope the data can be recovered - there's no reason it shouldn't be. But if you have the funds for a lawyer, spend a little more and be the master of your domain. $50K for a blog? Richard must use Trump Internet Services.
Caveat emptor, before committing (or allowing to accumulate) one's life work on a "free" cloud platform, one should perform basic due diligence, including, at the very least, keeping an incremental backup copy on storage media one controls personally, such as hard disks, usb flash drives, or CD ROMs.
Just opens the door for other people to deliver services without "terms of service". Enterprise moves forward and the human user gets to choose.
Is it really any surprise that Google, which has completely abandoned it's once touted motto "Do no evil" has become one of the most obnoxious players on the internet, and like most doesn't provide easy access to "customer service." Do they even have a Customer Service dept?
1
If it is so easy to permanently remove stuff from the Internet why isn't the U.S. Government removing/blocking ISIS blogs, websites and other information conduits on a minute by minute basis? Why is cyber warfare not in our arsenal?
2
The "U.S. Government" does not have jurisdiction over the whole internet. And, anyway, there is valuable intelligence to be found on propaganda web sites.
1
All he needed to do was create his own website. End of story. I too hate the cloud so I create my own websites, store my own data and write my own software. I mean these are computers, use them!
When you go into an advertiser owned virtual space (FB, Google, etc) remember you are there at the behest of the advertisers and basically have no rights at all. The answer for an artist is to simply build your own and not be a slave to ad based media.
When you go into an advertiser owned virtual space (FB, Google, etc) remember you are there at the behest of the advertisers and basically have no rights at all. The answer for an artist is to simply build your own and not be a slave to ad based media.
6
"End of story."
Not the way you told it. Who owns the hard drives with your data? How much do you pay for a domain name and internet connectivity? How many years did you spend learning to "write [your] own software"?
Not the way you told it. Who owns the hard drives with your data? How much do you pay for a domain name and internet connectivity? How many years did you spend learning to "write [your] own software"?
"with none of the blunt ignorance found in most comment sections."
Sounds familiar
Sounds familiar
1
If you really want to protect your information from being wiped out from your computers or l clouds, the answer is very simple. Keep your hard copies, multiple duplicates or originals in a number of places. Anyone who is stupid enough to put all his eggs in one basket is also naïve. I clouds in the near future might be blown away by people or countries that want to hurt us.
Literally, anything that is not in your own safekeeping could be stolen, tampered or totally wiped out. This gives new meaning to the expression"written in stone". There is zero privacy when information leaves the brain.
Literally, anything that is not in your own safekeeping could be stolen, tampered or totally wiped out. This gives new meaning to the expression"written in stone". There is zero privacy when information leaves the brain.
2
Everything online eventually "goes away" whether it is your own stuff or someone else's. Sometimes it physcially goes away and other times the address changes which can be effectively as final.
I learned that lesson back in the days of USENET in the 1980s and the early days of the Internet in the 1990s reinforced it. However, knowing this and taking all the necessary steps to capture your data or data important to you, are two very different things!
I learned that lesson back in the days of USENET in the 1980s and the early days of the Internet in the 1990s reinforced it. However, knowing this and taking all the necessary steps to capture your data or data important to you, are two very different things!
1
Maybe what consumers need is their own terms of service; something modern day deities like Google had to take into account before merrily absconding with the goods.
3
I've never trusted the cloud as a storage area because it is outside of my computer or any external drive. I'm glad now that I did. If I lose stuff I want it to be my fault not someone who doesn't care what they do with regard to the information entrusted to them.
2
One also never knows when a cloud service company is bought out or simply ceases to exist. There is usually no warning or retrieval after the fact. USB sticks used to be reliable but many devices no longer have the necessary ports. Perhaps pen and paper is not such a bad idea after all.
3
This is akin to book burning. Google's action, as described here, is very disturbing, especially the blog "owner's" lack of recourse and lack of explanation. No corporation should be allowed this kind of arbitrary power, akin to that of a dictator. This could happen to any of us. We need legislation that outlines clear rules and parameters and respects our first amendment rights. Companies that cannot clearly artuculate why they are deleting material and give ample warning or face very stiff penalties. We also need a tax-payer funded cloud.
This underscores my extreme reluctance to use a cloud, convenient as that would be, and the importance of backing up my own work on my hard drive, and ultimately on a hard drive not connected to the internet.
This connects to the bigger picture of the completely legal corporate raiding and robbery across the board which inspires my young adult students to keep their savings a safe deposit box rather than a savings account, get their health care under the table (whilst paying for Obamacare) for fear of big copays and teaching their children, as one young mother told me, always to live as if all you are earning is minimum wage. We won't have the world that has been so lucrative to big business if people are afraid to participate in it.
This underscores my extreme reluctance to use a cloud, convenient as that would be, and the importance of backing up my own work on my hard drive, and ultimately on a hard drive not connected to the internet.
This connects to the bigger picture of the completely legal corporate raiding and robbery across the board which inspires my young adult students to keep their savings a safe deposit box rather than a savings account, get their health care under the table (whilst paying for Obamacare) for fear of big copays and teaching their children, as one young mother told me, always to live as if all you are earning is minimum wage. We won't have the world that has been so lucrative to big business if people are afraid to participate in it.
2
Trusting a large corporation was your most important prized information is not wise. Information storage is cheap. There is no reason not to have a backup of every piece of information of value in physical form.
There have been other cases of content creators having all of their content wiped out by a cloud service (e.g. musicians with Apple Music). The bottom line is you cannot trust the cloud. You can use it but not be dependent on it. There is a big difference.
There have been other cases of content creators having all of their content wiped out by a cloud service (e.g. musicians with Apple Music). The bottom line is you cannot trust the cloud. You can use it but not be dependent on it. There is a big difference.
6
Why is space being taken in this forum to act as if this was anything other than a failure of a content creator to actually create a backup? Why does anyone trust google (or microsoft, or dropbox, or their OWN hard drive) to not fail. Why is this story different than if a flood destroyed an entire google data center and rendered some data unrecoverable?
There is certainly a story here about a denial of medium access, but it is not about destruction of content - destruction of content that doesn't have backups is a certainty, not a tragedy. There is also a story here about the importance of backing up your data. These are not the same story, and neither has the cultural or social significance that you are giving this story.
Also, a deliberate misreading of the Google Terms of Service is a strong disservice to your readers. Where the ToS states:
"If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service."
They mean the *entire* service, not the access to that service to a user. They have generally held to this (Google Reader, etc.), and you or your lawyers are certainly aware this is what it means, and using it to score cheap points here is, well, cheap.
There is certainly a story here about a denial of medium access, but it is not about destruction of content - destruction of content that doesn't have backups is a certainty, not a tragedy. There is also a story here about the importance of backing up your data. These are not the same story, and neither has the cultural or social significance that you are giving this story.
Also, a deliberate misreading of the Google Terms of Service is a strong disservice to your readers. Where the ToS states:
"If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service."
They mean the *entire* service, not the access to that service to a user. They have generally held to this (Google Reader, etc.), and you or your lawyers are certainly aware this is what it means, and using it to score cheap points here is, well, cheap.
36
This particular situation is rooted in a hatred of gay people. If Mr. Cooper. whose work I have read in book form, and find intriguing and often difficult to read by its disturbing nature, if Mr. Cooper were blogging heterosexual content as damaging and degrading as The Kardashians do weekly on millions of television sets that reach young women and condition them to be a negative stereotype, it is celebrated. But, let it analyze male sexuality and it's shut down. Many people, most of whom those are left leaning defenders of free speech are big phonies. The left has always been for censorship whenever they hear something they don't like or relate to. The Right is intolerant, the Left wants you eliminated.
7
Just as a test, I printed out a terms of service contract for one of the big services -- I won't name which, but it was not Google. I just wanted to see how much fine print there actually was there. Not that I could abide to read it. The print-out came to 60 pages. Just sayin....
4
What did you all think you were doing -- except not thinking at all -- when you willingly & voluntarily & powerlessly turned all your stuff, your whole life's stuff, and that of your kids & all else you've got, over to Zuckerberg & Jobs & "Alphabet" & Gates and all the rest your enemies, including James Clapper, in the evil empire.
Does any of it exist for you? Are you the billionaires? or the serfs? the fodder, the content, the product, the wheat & the chaff, the output, the stuff that gets sold and sliced and dices and commercialized and trashed arbitrarily. Why would it be any other way?
Does any of it exist for you? Are you the billionaires? or the serfs? the fodder, the content, the product, the wheat & the chaff, the output, the stuff that gets sold and sliced and dices and commercialized and trashed arbitrarily. Why would it be any other way?
4
"I am all for conversations about art and its limits, but I do not want a corporation to be the arbiter of those limits."
Corporations have always been arbiters of shared conversations. If you wanted your thoughts printed, the publisher was an arbiter. If you aired views on TV, the station was the arbiter. There were ways around these arbiters, just as there were for Dennis Cooper.
Corporations have always been arbiters of shared conversations. If you wanted your thoughts printed, the publisher was an arbiter. If you aired views on TV, the station was the arbiter. There were ways around these arbiters, just as there were for Dennis Cooper.
1
Every writer should be aware of the temporary nature of Internet and social media postings. They can disappear at any time. It is relatively simple to keep backups. Write your blog in Word (or similar program) and keep a copy on your hard drive. Then back up the hard drive.
Although requiring a little more effort, it is easy to download a copy of email correspondence. Another way to do this is to have every email you send or receive automatically bcc'd to a second email account. Then also send yourself copies of your Word documents.
Finally, all services like Google should give users the opportunity to save the data in their account before deleting the account. This is just common sense, and good customer service.
Although requiring a little more effort, it is easy to download a copy of email correspondence. Another way to do this is to have every email you send or receive automatically bcc'd to a second email account. Then also send yourself copies of your Word documents.
Finally, all services like Google should give users the opportunity to save the data in their account before deleting the account. This is just common sense, and good customer service.
35
Even more scary is the non-temporary nature of the Internet and social media postings and why whole businesses have sprung up that can "scrub" your online profile before you apply for that job you're wanting. Every teen and young adult in America should be super-aware that whatever they post may be there forever and is easily found!
I have two domains that I pay for, one for my poetry, one for the magazine I publish. I would never use anything that was "free". Back in the day, I kept back-ups on floppy disks in a safety deposit box at the bank. What happened to Mr. Cooper should be a wake-up call to everyone who values their work. Also I use MacMail to access my Gmail. That way all my e-mails are on my computer's hard disk and on my three back-up disks, which are kept in different places in my house. It's just one less thing to worry about.
44
If you want to use technology services, you need to learn the basics of how they work and what can go wrong, just as if you want to use a car, you have to learn about gasoline and how to be safe around it.
Google might be at fault for how they interpret TOS violations, but the rest of the problem here lies with the user and the reporter (who clearly didn't bother to check with anyone with any level of reasonable knowledge on "cancellation of Services" language and what it means).
Google might be at fault for how they interpret TOS violations, but the rest of the problem here lies with the user and the reporter (who clearly didn't bother to check with anyone with any level of reasonable knowledge on "cancellation of Services" language and what it means).
3
I surprised you did not point out the extreme terms Facebook terms we accept. In the meantime, everything seems to be moving to that yucky service, from the baseball hall of fame, to just about everything else.
What ever happened to keeping files in directories on our computers? And how do we set limits on what companies will allow on their cloud based offerings? I understand the horrific loss to Mr. Cooper. It's somewhat similar to when my blog got hacked, but much more substantial a loss for him and his readers. But maybe this will help people to realize that sometimes, being retro, and writing on your own hard disks while old skill, is still the best way to own what you make.
What ever happened to keeping files in directories on our computers? And how do we set limits on what companies will allow on their cloud based offerings? I understand the horrific loss to Mr. Cooper. It's somewhat similar to when my blog got hacked, but much more substantial a loss for him and his readers. But maybe this will help people to realize that sometimes, being retro, and writing on your own hard disks while old skill, is still the best way to own what you make.
1
My interactions with Google -- and Apple as well -- have proven to me they are authoritarians with no conscience -- they are mini-Trumps wearing indie-rock t-shirts. Try contacting a human being at Google to help you with a problem. If you're lucky you'll get someone who works for free advising other Google users on a chat page and who has no power over anything substantial. Like virtually every other corporation, they believe in hierarchies, bosses and -- above all else -- profit. When someone tells you their first obligation is to their stockholders, check your wallet.
Incidentally, these are the same human facsimiles who are currently ruining San Francisco. Google -- and Apple and all the rest -- are EVIL.
Incidentally, these are the same human facsimiles who are currently ruining San Francisco. Google -- and Apple and all the rest -- are EVIL.
5
I haven't been able to log in to my Google account in over two years. They refuse to help beyond their automated help screens, which make no sense to me in terms of what it is they want me to do. (Believe me, I have tried everything I can think of. Many times.)
I wonder if they take seriously the notion that their slogan, "Don't be evil," should apply to themselves.
I wonder if they take seriously the notion that their slogan, "Don't be evil," should apply to themselves.
3
I had the same problem with Yahoo after having email with them for three decades. There was no explanation, just a reference to the terms of service. Legal but not good PR.
To blog or not to blog...
It's a good thing that Shakespeare wrote stuff down.
It's a good thing that Shakespeare wrote stuff down.
1
The problem is the blog was on Google's "Blogger" platform. That means they host it and provide the technology that powers it.
The best option is to run your blog on WordPress (the majority of blogs are on this platform). It can't be "deleted" because it's open source technology. I could be wrong but I think k the NYT is WordPress. What's more, you blog can be backed up nightly with the server company. No need to manually backup. It's done automatically.
The best option is to run your blog on WordPress (the majority of blogs are on this platform). It can't be "deleted" because it's open source technology. I could be wrong but I think k the NYT is WordPress. What's more, you blog can be backed up nightly with the server company. No need to manually backup. It's done automatically.
This is outrageous behavior. People trust these services and don't always back up their content elsewhere. Even if the site's owners don't approve of the content, they shouldn't be able to just delete it. This person has been adding posts to this blog for years. They put in endless hours of time into its creation, and then it just was deleted without warning? Provide the person with a copy of the data and then delete it, but don't just delete it without even giving them a copy of their own data. I don't even know this blog, I've never been there, and I may not even have liked what was on it, but I still understand the simple fact that even if I owned the servers it's on, it wouldn't be my right to delete this user's data without warning. I, for one, will be taking this into full consideration when dealing with Google in the future -- or when deciding not to. If a company is going to use someone's behavior and content to make them money, the least they can do is treat them with respect as is due a human being. If they can't even manage that, I'd be happy to go to a company that will.
15
Facebook makes you download Messenger on Android phones(dunno about iPhones) to receive and write pms. I have refused. Have to go to the computer to read them as I refuse to be coerced into agreeing to giving all the information they want...there's a long long list!
Is it their own data once on the cloud?
This Op-Ed should serve as a reminder to anyone using Google's free services - that they should consistently back up their data with a service other than Google.
As a writer and a blogger I use Google docs for writing, and their blogger platform to host and publish a blog. These services are free, and accepting the service provider's terms are implicit with utilizing a free service.
I can't tell you how much I empathize with Mr. Cooper's plight, and also know from my own experience, that I have to backup my photos, blog posts, spreadsheets, and documents, with a service other than Google. It's a pain in the butt to maintain three plus backup services, but that's what I need to do in order to ensure continued access to my own creations.
We can speculate that his blog was taken down due to escort adverts, while it could be a copyright violation or multiple DMCA take down notices.
Google's free services provide a platform for almost anyone to express an opinion about a range of subjects. If you violate their terms, you need lots of money to hire a lawyer and fight back, and that is UNJUST. Google plays judge and jury and doesn't provide due process or transparency in how they manage these services. They don't provide any recourse for a content creator to appeal a decision to censor or take down a blog.
Google can be unjust and act with impunity. Who is going to tell them otherwise?
Roy Steele
San Francisco, California
jiveinthe415.com
As a writer and a blogger I use Google docs for writing, and their blogger platform to host and publish a blog. These services are free, and accepting the service provider's terms are implicit with utilizing a free service.
I can't tell you how much I empathize with Mr. Cooper's plight, and also know from my own experience, that I have to backup my photos, blog posts, spreadsheets, and documents, with a service other than Google. It's a pain in the butt to maintain three plus backup services, but that's what I need to do in order to ensure continued access to my own creations.
We can speculate that his blog was taken down due to escort adverts, while it could be a copyright violation or multiple DMCA take down notices.
Google's free services provide a platform for almost anyone to express an opinion about a range of subjects. If you violate their terms, you need lots of money to hire a lawyer and fight back, and that is UNJUST. Google plays judge and jury and doesn't provide due process or transparency in how they manage these services. They don't provide any recourse for a content creator to appeal a decision to censor or take down a blog.
Google can be unjust and act with impunity. Who is going to tell them otherwise?
Roy Steele
San Francisco, California
jiveinthe415.com
1
I knew nothing of Cooper's blog, so of course never accessed it. But Google's actions are shameful, and in contravention of their policy to allow people to retrieve their stuff before terminating their accounts.
I use nothing from Google except for their search (mediated by DuckDuckGo of course), and am unlikely to ever engage with them further. I have my alternate email connections that I "trust", sorta, to not store and exploit my correspondence. Gmail would never qualify.
I use nothing from Google except for their search (mediated by DuckDuckGo of course), and am unlikely to ever engage with them further. I have my alternate email connections that I "trust", sorta, to not store and exploit my correspondence. Gmail would never qualify.
Google has always played by the same rules as all the other companies that have been successful, whether in China, at home with its Gmail accounts, or wherever Google wants to satisfy the powers that be, and still make money: do what preserves your revenue (right or wrong).
1
This is chilling. It gave me a flash of understanding as to why a certain segment of the population would like to go back to a simpler time, say, before computer domination. It also made me think that keeping a private server is actually a really smart idea.
This is awful. I work a lot with google drive docs but now I'm no longer feeling secure that my information is safe.
I also checked and the gdoc documents only contain metadata so their presence in my drive folder on my physical filesystem is meaningless if google is hacked, or decides to deactivate my account. I guess I have no choice other than looking for an alternative service.
I also checked and the gdoc documents only contain metadata so their presence in my drive folder on my physical filesystem is meaningless if google is hacked, or decides to deactivate my account. I guess I have no choice other than looking for an alternative service.
Call me old school, but this is why I never, ever keep base files saved in servers or drives which are not within walking distance to my office. Perhaps it makes me a simpleton, but I like to know I can go over and "look at" where my files are.
Cloud computing gives power to a third party that can only use their possession of your property as leverage against you (for enforcing outrageous one-off increases in use fees, for example). DC's problem only fortifies my view. Log live old-fashioned hard drives!
Cloud computing gives power to a third party that can only use their possession of your property as leverage against you (for enforcing outrageous one-off increases in use fees, for example). DC's problem only fortifies my view. Log live old-fashioned hard drives!
1
We need to stand up for private mail servers and private web servers. Of course I happen to be in the business of providing those things on a very small scale so I didn't fall prey to the current idea that private servers are evil. But I also knew to start with that I didn't want my valuable IP in someone else's hands. Sure, the cloud is a great and good thing, and I keep a boatload of stuff there. But it's *MY* cloud, my servers, my connections in the cloud, not Googles, or Amazon's, or Microsoft's.
Should I ever need to serve a truly staggering amount of content, I'll gladly take advantage of AWS or Azure for a temporary peak. But a blog? Never. I host my own.
Van
Should I ever need to serve a truly staggering amount of content, I'll gladly take advantage of AWS or Azure for a temporary peak. But a blog? Never. I host my own.
Van
3
I envy you. But my question is, how long does one need to learn how to,do this? Me second question is, if you were a brain surgeon, would you choose, if needed, to operate on you own brain?
you must know that you can't trust anyone, certainly not the infamous cloud. i have accidentally during a revision deleted my work. when i got in touch with google, they reinstalled all my files within a day. my work as a writer was saved, how? i have no idea, excepting that there must have been a back-up. as i apparently requested in a timely manner to have my files returned, google in their very own file system allowed the return of my work.
i am very grateful, yet i also think that important work ought to be saved several ways, in the cloud, certainly, possibly on 2 variant cloud systems, but on a private thumbdrive as well.
i am very grateful, yet i also think that important work ought to be saved several ways, in the cloud, certainly, possibly on 2 variant cloud systems, but on a private thumbdrive as well.
Oh dear, he violated the terms of service.
I guess he should have plowed through 60 pages of self-contradictory, CYA, everything mine is mine and everything yours is mine pseudo-legal child language Terms of Service to determine that what violates the Terms of Service.
And then discover that what violates the terms of service is what violates it, and interpretation is only in the hands of Google.
Perhaps we could regulate such a thing so that companies that have gotten rich off of all of us are also required to play by some reasonably fair rules rather than what they make up on their own, whenever they feel like it?
Oops. Sorry. That would clearly be communism.
I guess he should have plowed through 60 pages of self-contradictory, CYA, everything mine is mine and everything yours is mine pseudo-legal child language Terms of Service to determine that what violates the Terms of Service.
And then discover that what violates the terms of service is what violates it, and interpretation is only in the hands of Google.
Perhaps we could regulate such a thing so that companies that have gotten rich off of all of us are also required to play by some reasonably fair rules rather than what they make up on their own, whenever they feel like it?
Oops. Sorry. That would clearly be communism.
5
Myth-information. Thinking about that for awhile I came to agree with the term as it may pertain to human connections and real transparency.
Who are Larry Page and Sergey Brin? They presented themselves a simple of deed and pure in purpose, but... Is there a dark side to them like there is with Julian Assange?
There are always two sides to new technology. One is often an amazing jump forward that at first look presents new possibilities, tools and platforms that seem astounding in their ease of use. There is also, often realized too late. a disruptive residue the transition.
I have built websites and had to deal with the fact that there is no one to talk to about anything. Google is the most removed and disconnected monster in the digital world. The decisions they make cannot be addressed without going to court.
Google provides great and efficient gifts for us, but always on their terms. Orwellian at best. They are like ride-share startups Uber and Lyft who's brilliant awareness of a need and GPS skills to provide access for individual transportation that is fast, cheap and efficient. But behind the scenes they are destroying the Cabby industry, (a simple target buried in an analog world) the car rental business, (down 15% and that's just the beginning). Uber is valued at $62+ Billion! Just like google, they are a cloud entity - no humans to deal with. Such distance allows abuse like happened to Cooper.
Who are Larry Page and Sergey Brin? They presented themselves a simple of deed and pure in purpose, but... Is there a dark side to them like there is with Julian Assange?
There are always two sides to new technology. One is often an amazing jump forward that at first look presents new possibilities, tools and platforms that seem astounding in their ease of use. There is also, often realized too late. a disruptive residue the transition.
I have built websites and had to deal with the fact that there is no one to talk to about anything. Google is the most removed and disconnected monster in the digital world. The decisions they make cannot be addressed without going to court.
Google provides great and efficient gifts for us, but always on their terms. Orwellian at best. They are like ride-share startups Uber and Lyft who's brilliant awareness of a need and GPS skills to provide access for individual transportation that is fast, cheap and efficient. But behind the scenes they are destroying the Cabby industry, (a simple target buried in an analog world) the car rental business, (down 15% and that's just the beginning). Uber is valued at $62+ Billion! Just like google, they are a cloud entity - no humans to deal with. Such distance allows abuse like happened to Cooper.
4
I am sympathetic to his loss, but if this is important, he should have backed up his content. I have a personal website and I back up all the content, including the databases.
I have no proof that my internet provide will remain in business or that they will not lose my content, but I don't care, I have backups.
I have no proof that my internet provide will remain in business or that they will not lose my content, but I don't care, I have backups.
5
Why, pray tell, is there "an urgent need for art that pushes us and makes us uncomfortable because it forces us to think, to question, to give into it, to resist"? This has been much of history of art over the last century, with less and less skilled artists trying to outdo each other in pure shock value, often completely disregarding aesthetic value. Our culture has now completely exhausted shock value. "Artists" have smugly and famously called their excrement "art," making nothing but a mockery of artistry. This is not art, it's pure debasement of humanity.
No, there is an urgent need for art that reflects human skill and mastery and expresses ideas and emotions worth expressing—that is art worth thinking about.
No, there is an urgent need for art that reflects human skill and mastery and expresses ideas and emotions worth expressing—that is art worth thinking about.
2
'"Artists" have smugly and famously called their excrement "art," making nothing but a mockery of artistry.'
Please quote an artist who called his or her "excrement" art.
Please quote an artist who called his or her "excrement" art.
The only surprising thing is that anybody still believes in the internet, that it is private, secure, and content reliable. It amazes me that even Sanders supporters will defend Google, Facebook, Apple, and their ilk as if they were in some magical way different from Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Chase, and their ilk.
Why is it that people who can recite all the things that not only can but have gone wrong on the internet somehow pretend to themselves that they are immune?
Why is it that people who can recite all the things that not only can but have gone wrong on the internet somehow pretend to themselves that they are immune?
6
Not to come across as unsympathetic (believe me, I am - I just have paper files), this leads me to question the idea of "electronic" anything, personal or public. I have brought the question(s) up repeatedly with peers in academic library-land. Mostly, the queries are moot because sources are simply digital: there is no other choice. Secondly, the retort to any questioning of the wisdom of holdings, of archiving, of Etc. in digital form *only* eventually, inevitably comes to "gosh, Mr. Mutchler, get with the times! Digital is the way to go!"
Indeed. And apparently it can go at any time and one is out of luck.
Bet a dime there is an arbitration clause, if anything, in respect to Mr. Cooper's recourse. Good luck with that.
Personally, to entrust anyone with my data, with work I have done, is beyond my abilities for this very reason. I have data due to my own mistakes; why would I believe someone else could do it better? The idea of storage in the cloud, in that magical land of Always Safe and Sound (and secure) has always, to me, been what it is: a lie.
Likely, these deletions are but the tip of the potential iceberg.
Indeed. And apparently it can go at any time and one is out of luck.
Bet a dime there is an arbitration clause, if anything, in respect to Mr. Cooper's recourse. Good luck with that.
Personally, to entrust anyone with my data, with work I have done, is beyond my abilities for this very reason. I have data due to my own mistakes; why would I believe someone else could do it better? The idea of storage in the cloud, in that magical land of Always Safe and Sound (and secure) has always, to me, been what it is: a lie.
Likely, these deletions are but the tip of the potential iceberg.
9
We don't allow government censorship, why do we tolerate corporate censorship?
Part of the problem with the Internet and technology is the idea that everything is cool, hip and young and you've got to be tuned in, hooked up, locked in to everything new or you are fading, out of touch. hopeless. You don't spend four hours starting at your smartphone when you are out of the house for five? What's wrong with you?
I am a technologist, which means I have spent thousands of hours in my life thinking about technology, its applications and potential benefits. I say this: unless we endeavor to control technology in a careful, intelligent way, it will wind up controlling us.
The mania for driverless cars is one glaring example. If we were to go with such technology, the car would decide how fast we could go (would there by an override for emergencies?) and the need for safety over everything else would determine how the car would drive itself. A 15 min. journey now could take 20 to 30 minutes in such a vehicle, a 2 hour trip 3 to 4. Yet, there has been very little pushback in the media, almost none until recently.
These ubiquitous "terms of service" agreements are a joke, a bad one. There should be a principle of law established whereby the inability of the "consumer" (bad term) to make any changes lessens the ability to enforce the contract. A one way contract stinks.
Wake up. We are the generations that will set, or ignore, the course of technology for the next 100 to 200 yrs.
Part of the problem with the Internet and technology is the idea that everything is cool, hip and young and you've got to be tuned in, hooked up, locked in to everything new or you are fading, out of touch. hopeless. You don't spend four hours starting at your smartphone when you are out of the house for five? What's wrong with you?
I am a technologist, which means I have spent thousands of hours in my life thinking about technology, its applications and potential benefits. I say this: unless we endeavor to control technology in a careful, intelligent way, it will wind up controlling us.
The mania for driverless cars is one glaring example. If we were to go with such technology, the car would decide how fast we could go (would there by an override for emergencies?) and the need for safety over everything else would determine how the car would drive itself. A 15 min. journey now could take 20 to 30 minutes in such a vehicle, a 2 hour trip 3 to 4. Yet, there has been very little pushback in the media, almost none until recently.
These ubiquitous "terms of service" agreements are a joke, a bad one. There should be a principle of law established whereby the inability of the "consumer" (bad term) to make any changes lessens the ability to enforce the contract. A one way contract stinks.
Wake up. We are the generations that will set, or ignore, the course of technology for the next 100 to 200 yrs.
8
Google has become a menace entrenching more and more into areas where they demand the surrender of our most personal information. Our personal relations which are in our email, our text, our pictures our blogs. They now also want our information about our health, or work, and they never have been accountable to anyone, marketing our information when its suit them and ignoring us whenever its suit them. Our laws have not kept up with the electronic age and Terms of Service that can take away everything we are is not acceptable. It is for our lawmakers to start looking at this seriously that if we entrust the cloud with our information, it should be owned by us, not by Google, Microsoft or anybody who hosts such information.
Let it be clear, the fact that Google offers a free email services, does not mean that they mine our data and make money of it. The moment we upload a photo to facebook, they are claiming this as property and you have to agree that the use it just by sending you a little change in terms, which most of us just agree to. It has Implications, and it should not this way. Google, Facebook and whoever have grown so large because of the information we are giving to them. The law should catch up, protect us under the 4th amendment that we own our information and when we sent an email we are not automatically willing to have Google snoop through it and when they invoke their terms, we have a right to get our data back.
Let it be clear, the fact that Google offers a free email services, does not mean that they mine our data and make money of it. The moment we upload a photo to facebook, they are claiming this as property and you have to agree that the use it just by sending you a little change in terms, which most of us just agree to. It has Implications, and it should not this way. Google, Facebook and whoever have grown so large because of the information we are giving to them. The law should catch up, protect us under the 4th amendment that we own our information and when we sent an email we are not automatically willing to have Google snoop through it and when they invoke their terms, we have a right to get our data back.
6
Having your data on free cloud services or using anything free on the internet implies that free will end, terminate or go out of business. My guess is Mr. Cooper's activity or site reached a traffic volume that drew google's attention on supporting it. The writer indicates Mr Cooper's Google's terms of services and or policies were breached. Simple enough, a google blog is attached to an initial basic email account, which includes documents, cloud storage and many more great services many of us rely on. Mr Cooper was not forthcoming what terms he breached to be locked out of his blog but I am sure he received warnings. I very much doubt his content was the cause but rather the cumulative overall storage of all his content probably began to greatly exceed the terms and was unwilling to upgrade as a commercial ($50 per year - sic) enterprise or ignored the warnings until it was shut down. As I also suspect, Mr. Cooper did not invest in a $100 drive to back up all of the work he produced. I suspect the lament is he is an entitled creative talent who exploited a free service to host his blog and reap a few bucks on gay prostitute ads revenues and coast. Lett this be a lesson to those who the rest of the world already what free means? It's not forever.
7
Bingo...likely his "business" (was it ad supported?) began to exceed the capacity of the Google offer and was shut down. The key question (unanswered in the article) was exactly WHY he was shut down. Perhaps the author is trying to cloak a simple business dispute in some sort of first amendment garb?
1
In a slightly more dinosaur age of hardware, where ethernet connections were rare, we typically had to backup information in multiple formats to ensure that at least one format was readable and therefore recoverable.
It is a bit strange to think that anyone would be surprised by google's actions on a blog that posts adds from any sort of escort. I'm not even sure that the motto "don't be evil" is particularly violated. I grant that there is freedom of speech to write this complaint to the NYT. However, other people have the _equal_ right to complain that google is indirectly creating a public nuisance or promoting prostitution by allowing such smut to be published and accessed using _their_ services. Nobody knows who is going to go to those sites, but at least some of them are surely children.
The only thing that is maybe a little cruel is that google provides no means of appeal. The action seems immediate, draconian and permanent. However, all these services have to contend with a far worse problem of jihad propaganda. Any remotely sincere democratically minded soul would probably agree that any such hornswoggling swindle of young people should be treated in exactly this "immediate, draconian and permanent" way.
It is a bit strange to think that anyone would be surprised by google's actions on a blog that posts adds from any sort of escort. I'm not even sure that the motto "don't be evil" is particularly violated. I grant that there is freedom of speech to write this complaint to the NYT. However, other people have the _equal_ right to complain that google is indirectly creating a public nuisance or promoting prostitution by allowing such smut to be published and accessed using _their_ services. Nobody knows who is going to go to those sites, but at least some of them are surely children.
The only thing that is maybe a little cruel is that google provides no means of appeal. The action seems immediate, draconian and permanent. However, all these services have to contend with a far worse problem of jihad propaganda. Any remotely sincere democratically minded soul would probably agree that any such hornswoggling swindle of young people should be treated in exactly this "immediate, draconian and permanent" way.
6
This is something that, forgetting Google's terms of service, could sound in traditional bailment law. Putting that aside, I have never thought I totally owned any electronic media that was not inscribed on my hard drive and beyond reach of anyone else once I disconnected from the net. When I am connected I assume that my pockets can be picked.
10
2004? So Orwell was off by 20 years. Big Brother is watching. The NSA, Facebook, Google, is there a difference with a significance? In our culture, "google" has become a well known active verb; lesser known are its synonyms, "gobble" and "ogle."
In the early chapters of the story of mankind, technology has been a progressive tool, ever advancing to serve us. Over the past 100 years we have started a new chapter, 'The Machine' ("The Machine Stops", E. M. Forster). If we are not on guard, this may be the final chapter in our history. We needn't be paranoid, but neither should we be naive.
In the early chapters of the story of mankind, technology has been a progressive tool, ever advancing to serve us. Over the past 100 years we have started a new chapter, 'The Machine' ("The Machine Stops", E. M. Forster). If we are not on guard, this may be the final chapter in our history. We needn't be paranoid, but neither should we be naive.
6
Yes there is a difference. In Orwell's world, "Big Brother" was not just monitoring communication it was a totalitarian system of control and enforcement in which even thinking a certain way lead to brutal punishment in the physical world. We are not there yet, not even in the ballpark.
Sloppily throwing around the word Orwellian at minor issues of contract violation or even censorship weakens its meaning.
Sloppily throwing around the word Orwellian at minor issues of contract violation or even censorship weakens its meaning.
Please add Amazon and the purveyors of debit cards to your list of " Big Borther watchers" .
1
If it's important, keep copies on disc and on paper. Trusting a cloud that belongs to someone else is foolish. The degree to which an item is important is the degree of importance attached to keeping a paper copy. The original discs of a book I wrote in 1995 are no longer readable on contemporary computers and have not been for quite some time. It cost me a tidy sum to get those discs translated to an up to date format. Also, discs and flash drives may decay with time. Had all else failed, I did have a paper copy. Computers do not eliminate the need for paper. They just lull you into a false sense of security. As for trusting a huge, notoriously unresponsive corporation such as google, famous for not wanting to have any meaningful conversations with users, you'd have to be either really uniformed or simply crazy.
22
the Web is a unique convergence of the public and the private. Never before has the mode of private communication been so privately owned, controlled and exploited
5
To those who chide someone like myself that I am too lazy to learn the basics (that i can have my own space for $10/month) - sorry, I have enough to do with a week of work, and volunteer gigs (choir and a park where i help visitors). So I remain a customer of facebook and google. That's ok.
Before the internet, I was dependent on a local newspaper to print my opinions, which they did rarely.
We need real laws to protect us - to force web services to have real accountability. We won't get it though, because Congress seem averse to most business regulation.
Before the internet, I was dependent on a local newspaper to print my opinions, which they did rarely.
We need real laws to protect us - to force web services to have real accountability. We won't get it though, because Congress seem averse to most business regulation.
30
Better consumer protections in the digital world are, of course, a good and needed thing. But, please, "the basics" of Wordpress, the most common blog software offered installed for $10/month, are not difficult to learn. They are nearly identical to Google's Blogger offering, and only more complex than Facebook in that you are not constrained to the Facebook layout and not led by the nose to construct a point&click advertiser and police blotter profile of yourself, your "likes," and your network of friends. Just about any kid in America, including your own, can help you through. It's not laziness or lack of time or lack of aptitude that keeps you and others in the corral, posting content for someone else's profit and at the mercy of their policies. It's marketing to the herd. You have been sold.
1
So long as you consume services of Facebook and Google for free, you are not "a customer of facebook and google." Rather, you are the product; to be sold and traded for ad revenue. This is The Matrix.
if you read the fine print, yu will see that you have NO rights. You gave them all away to get your "free" time. There are laws to protect you, but once you knowingly sign them away, you can't get them back. That's the law.
So I gather the outrage here is the Google took away the Free Lunch when the value of information derived from tracking Mr Cooper's visitors was outweighed by potential liability for what he and his commenters were posting.
Not having a backup, not paying for a domain and hosting...hopelessly naive. My natural impulse toward sympathy is challenged by the fact that it's always amusing to see rebels without a clue stamping their feet in indignation when the society they wish to shock rudely stops underwriting their efforts.
Not having a backup, not paying for a domain and hosting...hopelessly naive. My natural impulse toward sympathy is challenged by the fact that it's always amusing to see rebels without a clue stamping their feet in indignation when the society they wish to shock rudely stops underwriting their efforts.
67
Google evidently felt that the "free" deal was advantageous to them, when they made it -- for reasons outlined in other comments. Any business deal depends on a certain amount of good faith on both sides. Google has basically destroyed one person's significant good faith investment of time and effort. That should be a surprise, and it should get attention and concern.
1
In theory it should be possible to recover historical information from a site from archive.org, which automatically archives websites periodically. However, I just checked Mr. Cooper's archive and it seems it has somehow been retroactively deleted. Archives dated well before Google revoked his account last month now say "This blog has been removed." This seems rather nefarious, as I don't see why or how a historical snapshot in an archive should be changed (and especially not deleted) after the fact.
86
'Archives dated well before Google revoked his account last month now say "This blog has been removed."'
Thanks for pointing that out.
"This seems rather nefarious, ..."
Maybe not. If you go back further in time at archive.org, you will find some of Cooper's content. Use the calendar view. The latest date for which content is available appears to be 2012-01-03. That suggests that Cooper had over four years to find an alternative service, and that we are not being told the whole story.
Thanks for pointing that out.
"This seems rather nefarious, ..."
Maybe not. If you go back further in time at archive.org, you will find some of Cooper's content. Use the calendar view. The latest date for which content is available appears to be 2012-01-03. That suggests that Cooper had over four years to find an alternative service, and that we are not being told the whole story.
Like something from a sci-fi novel.
1
Well, just the same way that history was changed by the state in Orwell's 1984.
Routinely, secretly, irrevocably.
And we are now nearly there--constant surveillance (which doesn't do us much good because it can help catch transgressors, but not stop them before they kill) and the state decides if and when to release the tapes.
We have made a terrible bargain. Can we break it? Maybe only the devil who breaks so many bargains, uses bankruptcy to cheat his creditors so often, can or will show us how.
Routinely, secretly, irrevocably.
And we are now nearly there--constant surveillance (which doesn't do us much good because it can help catch transgressors, but not stop them before they kill) and the state decides if and when to release the tapes.
We have made a terrible bargain. Can we break it? Maybe only the devil who breaks so many bargains, uses bankruptcy to cheat his creditors so often, can or will show us how.
1
When I saw this was not about the Internet cloud in general, but, yet another anti-Google op-ed piece, I was a bit disappointed. It isn't that I think Google is some wonderful purveyor of "free" software for our use, but that so many of us have no idea what sort of bargain we have made with yet another giant corporation with gobs of cash coming out of its gills. Essentially this same op-ed piece could be written about Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, or any of hundreds of tech companies.
Nobody reads the terms of service, and even if they do, they are almost the same for each company: we have all the rights & you don't have any. If you agree with these terms, use our ____________ (fill in the blanks) operating system, computer, mobile phone, website, etc. This is the tech deal we make with Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
Once, many years ago, I used software from an Israeli company that saved entire Webpages for viewing later. I bought their product and saved hundreds of news article with that software. I thought it was great. Then, they saw there was no money in what they were due to the emerging cheap Web storage market. They stopped developing that software, abandoned it, and it stopped working correctly. I had nothing to say re the matter and all the news articles I had saved were worthless. If I had saved all those articles on my own in a Word or Microsoft-related format, at least I could view them now. Water under the bridge now. Live and learn.
33
It seems people still don't get it when it comes to Google and Facebook: You are NOT the customer, you are the product. Product doesn't get a say in how it's sold.
Actual web hosting cost $10/month. Can't afford that? Can't be bothered to learn the basics? Be content as the product.
Actual web hosting cost $10/month. Can't afford that? Can't be bothered to learn the basics? Be content as the product.
249
You put it as well as I've ever heard it! For a long time I've been uncomfortable with my 'relationship' with the corporate internet but couldn't put my discontent into the proper context - because I was stuck in the wrong mode. I was stuck thinking I was the customer: But as you pointed out…I'm not. Rethinking of ourselves as a product is a powerful concept.
I guess the next question for me is: Since the modern world demands connectivity - is my free access reasonable compensation for unfettered use of my 'product?' We have seen the same internet model play out over the years: A startup provides a free service then finds ways to monetize users.
In fact, I'm thinking of how interesting it would be to have an unconnected app on our devices that allowed us to see over time what our 'product' looked like to Amazon, Google and Facebook and allow us to alter it, devaluing the data they mine. Then they could pay us by category (gender, age, reading, streaming, searches outside of their sites) to get the real data. Which in turn would have a higher value for them and their actual customers.
Cheap or free use of a product or service leads to abusive practices; It cuts both ways. I would love to see a conversation about the self-monetization of an individual's data.
I guess the next question for me is: Since the modern world demands connectivity - is my free access reasonable compensation for unfettered use of my 'product?' We have seen the same internet model play out over the years: A startup provides a free service then finds ways to monetize users.
In fact, I'm thinking of how interesting it would be to have an unconnected app on our devices that allowed us to see over time what our 'product' looked like to Amazon, Google and Facebook and allow us to alter it, devaluing the data they mine. Then they could pay us by category (gender, age, reading, streaming, searches outside of their sites) to get the real data. Which in turn would have a higher value for them and their actual customers.
Cheap or free use of a product or service leads to abusive practices; It cuts both ways. I would love to see a conversation about the self-monetization of an individual's data.
Exactly. With Google and Facebook, you are not the customer. You are the product.
1
sorry to be so ignorant, but how exactly are you saying one can liberate one's self from this trap?
I could go,on and on, but I'll just say this: "don't be evil" is actually a pretty low bar.
148
You'd think so, wouldn't you, but looking at the history of the world a lot of people seem to have found that an impossibly high hurdle.
1
And one google failed to clear, in this case.
2
I have never trusted the cloud or those who are pushing it. Obviously, neither should anyone else. Corporations like Google, despite their pious pronouncements like "don't be evil", are self-interested, profit-oriented entities. They only care about you and your concerns to the extent that it serves their interests and pads their bottom line. What they did here shows that they will crush a customer and his work like a bug, with never a second thought.
Hello folks? This is the real world calling...
Hello folks? This is the real world calling...
124
If it's important, back it up locally. This is obvious. When others store your data, they control your data, they can look at your data, and they can throw away your data. That's the cloud.
22
Larry Page and Sergey Brin likely believe google does no evil. Low-end clerical workers that monitor algorithms do evil all the time. The take down of the blog run by Dennis Cooper is only one instance of a great many websites vanishing. Top management are so far removed from the operational level of Google that they know not what goes one, day to day. This is not to exonerate top management, as it's ultimately responsible for all the company does, but to suggest how the lowest level employees can muck up a well -meaning service.
1
The cloud is a great place to gather all information of Corporate America so it can be hacked and stolen with ease. We went from dumb terminal to Client/Server to Interanlly hosted to externally hosted on the cloud which really is dumb terminal. All these changes enrich consulting companies and software companies but does little to improve bottom line.
6
If nothing else, Hillary Clinton's experiences should be very clear evidence even if you are a high level government official....you have little or no privacy on the internet, and hackers can get into anything, including top secret high-level government stuff.
If they can do that....your pathetic little blog surely has no power and you have no "rights".
If they can do that....your pathetic little blog surely has no power and you have no "rights".
"Twice a month, he posts personal ads from international male escorts, young men detailing what they like to do sexually, what they will allow to be done to them..."
Why exactly should this be of interest to the normal citizen?
Why exactly should this be of interest to the normal citizen?
9
Has anyone asked the Russians if they made a backup?
- (sorry couldn't resist)
14
somebody please explain to Dr. Krugman that this *is* facetiousness (a joke)
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
1
He should contact the NSA to get a copy of all his stuff.
19
Though Gay is entirely persuasive about Google's chilling silence and Orwellian control, DC's is/was a disturbing blog for someone like me who's troubled by some adults' enjoyment of sexualized kids. When I perused Dennis' blog a couple years back, I saw entirely sexual/sexualized, mostly nude poses of boys alone and coupling; they were definitely under 18. I assumed the blog author or his friends had photographed them. I see now that he didn't. The images did not lead me to question our culture's puritanism in regard to kids and sex, the way some art does. They mostly seemed to evince an eagerness about the boys, which put me off. I suppose now I'm thinking about the issue more, but I understand Google's pov in removing them. Googs should've replied to Dennis's queries, though.
20
My guess is that someone complained about the ads, which apparently show sex trafficking of minor children. This is illegal. DUH!
1
Play by it's own rules? Oh please, does anyone here believe they don't just make it up as they go along? Seriously?
9
I stopped using Google more than two years ago, except for a Google Voice account that runs on a second PC, because I decided that I did not like the terms of agreement enforced by my using Google's services.
As of August 15th, the company I've worked at for more than a decade (a private tech company) will complete it's migration off the Google platform entirely.
I understand how easy and appealing it is for so many people who love "free" software and services, but I've been in IT for 30+ years and I can assure you that none of it is ever free. You may not recognize the costs at first, but they are there nonetheless. Unfortunately for Dennis Cooper, he just got a very large bill from Google that cost him dearly.
As of August 15th, the company I've worked at for more than a decade (a private tech company) will complete it's migration off the Google platform entirely.
I understand how easy and appealing it is for so many people who love "free" software and services, but I've been in IT for 30+ years and I can assure you that none of it is ever free. You may not recognize the costs at first, but they are there nonetheless. Unfortunately for Dennis Cooper, he just got a very large bill from Google that cost him dearly.
21
Are you kidding me?
He kept ALL of his intellectual property on a Google server?
He kept ALL of his intellectual property on a Google server?
53
Did he fail to backup his files?
The little USB drives now hold multiple terabytes.
The little USB drives now hold multiple terabytes.
1
Google and Facebook are not the cloud. They use it for storage. You do not purchase cloud service when you join Google or Facebook. Buy some Cloud space from a reputable vendor and that is a different business. If I were Google and I decided I did not want you in my space anymore I would delete your binary existence in a keystroke. It's my sandbox.
I know, I was pretty gobsmacked by that myself. Fourteen YEARS of files? And he had no backup system, no hard drive, no hard copies of ANYTHING?
That's like typing your entire "great American novel" of 1500 pages, onto your laptop and never clicking the "save" button.
When the power goes off, and your entire novel that you worked on for years disappears....whose fault is that?
That's like typing your entire "great American novel" of 1500 pages, onto your laptop and never clicking the "save" button.
When the power goes off, and your entire novel that you worked on for years disappears....whose fault is that?
To me this is obviously censorship and outrageous. Blogging has become a de facto publishing platform. Google shut down an important artistic forum because they felt like it, without recourse or explanation. This implies that the explanation was without merit, or they would share it. This also shows that technology companies should not be trusted. Hey, Google, maybe we should charge you for the use of our data, if you are going to be this sort of corporate citizen.
73
Google is a private company, and they can do anything they want. Tomorrow, they can start charging for their service! Maybe a 1/2 cent per search or something. It will add up -- they will become even more obscenely rich!
They can decide they don't want to store ANYTHING in the cloud anymore -- or charge for it -- or dump every bit of data there.
They are not obligated to serve you and if you THINK they are a public utility that you are "entitled to", you are very sadly mistaken.
They don't have to host ANY artistic forums, and they don't owe you or Dennis Cooper or Roxanne Gay an explanation of why or how.
Don't like it? Find another search engine or service provider. There are plenty out there.
They can decide they don't want to store ANYTHING in the cloud anymore -- or charge for it -- or dump every bit of data there.
They are not obligated to serve you and if you THINK they are a public utility that you are "entitled to", you are very sadly mistaken.
They don't have to host ANY artistic forums, and they don't owe you or Dennis Cooper or Roxanne Gay an explanation of why or how.
Don't like it? Find another search engine or service provider. There are plenty out there.
Commenters often ask why I don’t launch my own blog, just as Rima Regas has done. When I respond, it’s usually to point out that it’s not a simple thing to do properly. “The blog that disappeared” is a cautionary tale of what can happen when Cloud hostages to fortune are given too blithely (and I’ve written as well about the risks attendant to over-reliance on the conveniences of the Cloud, as well).
You can launch a passable blog for $50,000 or less and maintain it with minimal financial resources, even if you’re not technical – and for far less if you are. But to do it properly, in a manner that snaps dependencies such as those imposed by Google and others and protects not only your own work but the very substantial efforts of others who comment on your material is another level of requirement entirely. To design then implement the technology infrastructure that makes you your own master of the content you create and maintain reliably can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If it needs to sustain formidable user volume with reliable performance it could run into the millions. If you’re serious, you need to be willing to make these kinds of substantial one-time and perpetual investments.
This commentariat and all the others provided by reputable journals such as the NYT and WSJ and many others are sustained by the formidable investments of those journals, without which we’d all be talking to ourselves.
You can launch a passable blog for $50,000 or less and maintain it with minimal financial resources, even if you’re not technical – and for far less if you are. But to do it properly, in a manner that snaps dependencies such as those imposed by Google and others and protects not only your own work but the very substantial efforts of others who comment on your material is another level of requirement entirely. To design then implement the technology infrastructure that makes you your own master of the content you create and maintain reliably can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If it needs to sustain formidable user volume with reliable performance it could run into the millions. If you’re serious, you need to be willing to make these kinds of substantial one-time and perpetual investments.
This commentariat and all the others provided by reputable journals such as the NYT and WSJ and many others are sustained by the formidable investments of those journals, without which we’d all be talking to ourselves.
15
How many people do you think actually have a few tens of thousands of dollars that they can spend to launch their own blog? I'm not going to take money out of my retirement fund so that I can start a blog. And I don't have that kind of money just lying around that I can spend on what amounts to a whim.
@Richard Luettgen: "You can launch a passable blog for $50,000 or less and maintain it with minimal financial resources, even if you’re not technical . . ." This is insane. Paying $50,000 to blog? Writing without being paid for it is the mark of someone with minimal talent, maximal ego and too much time on his hands. As Samuel Johnson said, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."
3
If you've been told you need $50,000 to start your own free-standing blog someone may be trying to take advantage of you. You can rent reliable server space with database access for little money (I pay $20/month) and install a free, robust and stable blogging platform like Wordpress. The "technical" portion of it is no more complicated than using a word processing application - and the software has a feature to back up your entire blog to a local disk with one click.
2
This is completely unfair to anyone who uses this service. It isn't just denying the service, it is wiping out the data, a taking of what the blogger owns.
It is done without notice, and without any right to explanation, and without any appeal. Intellectual property simply vanishes.
Sometimes there is no good reason. A unfounded complaint, not investigated, can be enough deny service.
If it was just a refusal to do business, then they could claim their right to freedom to run their business. However, it is also a taking of property, valuable property, years of work in this case.
This may be the highest profile case, but it is not the only, not the first, not by a long way. This has been happening to a lot of people in recent years. Many blogs get this treatment, and not just from Google.
It has become near a standard practice. It is wrong, very wrong, a serious abuse of rights to property, and a serious abuse of trust.
It is done without notice, and without any right to explanation, and without any appeal. Intellectual property simply vanishes.
Sometimes there is no good reason. A unfounded complaint, not investigated, can be enough deny service.
If it was just a refusal to do business, then they could claim their right to freedom to run their business. However, it is also a taking of property, valuable property, years of work in this case.
This may be the highest profile case, but it is not the only, not the first, not by a long way. This has been happening to a lot of people in recent years. Many blogs get this treatment, and not just from Google.
It has become near a standard practice. It is wrong, very wrong, a serious abuse of rights to property, and a serious abuse of trust.
150
Mark:
Like Roxane, you infer ... and imply ... an entitlement that doesn't exist. Others have made immense investments of their own capital to create a forum in which we can share our thoughts with a multitude. But make no mistake that they do this for some Kumbaya purpose -- Google does it for its own purposes. So long as we depend on the kindness of strangers and not on our own resources, we are as at-risk as Europe is when it depends so thoroughly on the U.S. to defend it.
It's not your money, it's not my money, it's not Roxane's money and, sadly, it's not Dennis Cooper's money.
Like Roxane, you infer ... and imply ... an entitlement that doesn't exist. Others have made immense investments of their own capital to create a forum in which we can share our thoughts with a multitude. But make no mistake that they do this for some Kumbaya purpose -- Google does it for its own purposes. So long as we depend on the kindness of strangers and not on our own resources, we are as at-risk as Europe is when it depends so thoroughly on the U.S. to defend it.
It's not your money, it's not my money, it's not Roxane's money and, sadly, it's not Dennis Cooper's money.
8
Alphabet, Inc., the parent company of Google, is in fact a publicly traded company, and so for many of us it may well be "our" money. That truth aside, the company DOES have ethical obligations to society, even as the scope and nature of these obligations may be unclear.
Paying for services occurs in different ways. When we use Google's email or put our data into the cloud, they are mining it and selling our information and making money of it. It is our information that is Google's money and even our health information which the deep mine in order to to develop their revenue streams.
1
If you are at all controversial, host your stuff on computers you own and control. If your content is legal, you cannot be shut down. Under FCC regulations, the network connection is a common carrier, and cannot take your content into consideration.
If it turns out that your content is illegal, then expect a visit from the authorities. They'll shut down your site and your servers, but what do you expect? At least you can defend yourself in court.
If it turns out that your content is illegal, then expect a visit from the authorities. They'll shut down your site and your servers, but what do you expect? At least you can defend yourself in court.
25
Not everyone can afford their own servers. That is why Google exists. It markets itself as a cheap way to do this, as practical. Then without warning or appeal or even response it just destroys everything.
22
@Mark - Everything nowadays is dirt cheap. You can take a $100 computer, install Free BSD, install Apache, and you have a server. The software is all free. Hook it up to your router, forward port 80, and you're online. It's not like you're going to attract thousands of simultaneous users.
I more than agree with Jonathan. Almost every Apple and Linux computer comes with an Apache web server already installed. It may take a a day or two or a week or a month to learn how to install blog software, and related things like PHP and Mysql, but just think this... if you spend more time writing securing what you create on your own computer is good insurance Be sure to perform backup. If your blog is popular, sure, you can pay a company to host it. Just up load what your creation to the host server. If they cut you off, you still have the original and the backup copies. No writing time lost. And yes, you can direct traffic to your home internet connected computer. In the early days, our WWW server was on line via dial up. Google and others did not exist. So... yes. Go for it.
We're amazed that someone posting material that might be related to human trafficking or sexual abuse of children didn't have a plan B for archiving his 'art'.
There must be someone out there who would've hosted his material. People have been wallowing in the macabre, grotesque, squishy side of our ids since before the Marquis de Sade, so DC wasn't really pushing any boundaries....just servicing the same old to the current audience. How could he not have known that some of it skirted the boundaries of legality?
There must be someone out there who would've hosted his material. People have been wallowing in the macabre, grotesque, squishy side of our ids since before the Marquis de Sade, so DC wasn't really pushing any boundaries....just servicing the same old to the current audience. How could he not have known that some of it skirted the boundaries of legality?
63
For heaven's sake we are really in trouble when we give a for profit corporation the power to enforce the law. Dennis Cooper never attracted any legal attention so this argument is fatuous.
3
Boundaries of legality? You apparently don't know the difference between a Terms of Services contract and the law itself.
4
There is no "law" that applies to this. The technology outstripped our laws years ago and people have struggled to even think about keeping up with it.
You have no inherent "right" to the internet, nor to free blogs or cloud storage.
Theoretically, Google could decide to go out of business tomorrow, and dump 100% of everything stored on their servers.
Expecting someone else to store all your data -- for free -- forever -- is extremely foolish, and Mr. Cooper has learned a valuable (if costly) experience.
You have no inherent "right" to the internet, nor to free blogs or cloud storage.
Theoretically, Google could decide to go out of business tomorrow, and dump 100% of everything stored on their servers.
Expecting someone else to store all your data -- for free -- forever -- is extremely foolish, and Mr. Cooper has learned a valuable (if costly) experience.
I sympathize with Mr. Cooper's loss, but as others have commented, we should always back up work that is meaningful to us. If you can't afford to lose something, then back up to two different locations. Just a guess, but if your content contains possible evidence of human trafficking and you can't afford to lose it then maybe back up to three locations.
39
I'll just pass by the fact that Mr. Cooper seems never to have made a backup if the problem is as bad as Ms. Gay and other reporters about this event are saying.
If you want to have complete control over the material you share on the Internet, you need to own the servers on which it is stored. Put your materials on a box you own and connect the box to the Internet. Yes, it's more expensive and less convenient than using a cloud provider, but if it's that important, you need to own it. And you most certainly need to own multiple copies of the materials stored there as well.
If you want to have complete control over the material you share on the Internet, you need to own the servers on which it is stored. Put your materials on a box you own and connect the box to the Internet. Yes, it's more expensive and less convenient than using a cloud provider, but if it's that important, you need to own it. And you most certainly need to own multiple copies of the materials stored there as well.
178
“We are aware of this matter, but the specific Terms of Service violations are ones we cannot discuss further due to legal considerations.”
Somewhat reminiscent of Animal House: "Double secret probation" [or something along those lines]
LOL! Should be relabeled "Terms of Subservience" - users unwittingly [?] work for their benefit.
Somewhat reminiscent of Animal House: "Double secret probation" [or something along those lines]
LOL! Should be relabeled "Terms of Subservience" - users unwittingly [?] work for their benefit.
50
Google is a corporation, not a government entity. You're sounding like the Trumpsters who scream about Google violating "first amendment rights". Come on, get with the program.
3
Google is a horrible company to deal with. Very unresponsive, assuming you can even find a way to contact them. They were publishing (for free) on Google Books one of my copyrighted books. I finally found a way to contact Google... and they didn't seem to care, not even a bit. Maddening, really, like trying to communicate with a monster... no ethics, no pretense of fairness. My wife, who comes from Eastern Europe, compares it to dealing in the old days with a communist bureaucracy. You'd think Google would care to have a better reputation than that. You'd think.
262
Google's motto is repotedly "Don't be evil.". Whenever a corporation says something like this, assume the opposite is true. Why else would they even think they need to say it.
91
@Doked: thanks -- I've been saying that since the beginning.
People who are NOT evil never have to say "don't be evil". It goes without saying amongst civilized human beings.
My guess is that Sergey Brin and Larry Page planned all this up front, and the comment is a kind of shorthand versions of "Mein Kampf".
People who are NOT evil never have to say "don't be evil". It goes without saying amongst civilized human beings.
My guess is that Sergey Brin and Larry Page planned all this up front, and the comment is a kind of shorthand versions of "Mein Kampf".
1
Too powerful to care. Too useful for me to do without.
It's crushing that the people who talk about "freedom" most of the time are those who define it by having instant access to the capacity to take someone else's life (2A), while oblivious to the need to re-illuminate the First Amendment in light of new media.
Good column, Ms. Gay. Thanks for standing up for Dennis Cooper. Wish I'd known about his blog before it was too late.
It's crushing that the people who talk about "freedom" most of the time are those who define it by having instant access to the capacity to take someone else's life (2A), while oblivious to the need to re-illuminate the First Amendment in light of new media.
Good column, Ms. Gay. Thanks for standing up for Dennis Cooper. Wish I'd known about his blog before it was too late.
They called it ‘The Cloud’ to evoke a fluffy sanctuary in the sky as if your data is safely stored in Heaven protected by angels. In reality, this Cloud is the thick, putrid, acidic mist that hangs over the River Styx. It's not for nothing that you have to pay a Troll to cross the river into Hades.
124
Huh? We call it the cloud because that is the symbol we used on design diagrams for 20 years before you even heard of it.
3
Actually, "cloud" is a long-standing electrical engineering term --
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/cloud_computing.html
" .. Cloud computing is a type of computing that relies on sharing computing resources rather than having local servers or personal devices to handle applications .."
Sorry for intruding with reality and facts. Prepared for the FBI to investigate the servers in my bathroom.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/cloud_computing.html
" .. Cloud computing is a type of computing that relies on sharing computing resources rather than having local servers or personal devices to handle applications .."
Sorry for intruding with reality and facts. Prepared for the FBI to investigate the servers in my bathroom.
Great reply. Nothing is new under the sun.
He put all that work into it and didn't back it up? If it was so critical why wouldn't he host it on his own domain? Seems careless to me. I'm sorry for him, but it's not like the concept of a backup is new.
123
"When we use their services, we trust that companies like Google will preserve some of the most personal things we have to share." Who is "we"? One must be terribly naive _and_ careless not to retain copies of one's own creative work, including duplicate backups stored elsewhere than in one's home. It's not just a question of whether one trusts Google or other cloud-based services, or of whether their terms of service enable them to delete an account. Online services can be hacked! How many people have lost all their e-mail to a malicious attack because they didn't bother to download it, or their entire Contacts list for the same reason? Or for that matter, quite aside from the cloud, how many people have lost all their photos when a hard drive failed or a smartphone broke or got stolen. If there's data you don't want to lose, back it up!
It is alarming that a whole opus of 14 years can disappear without a trace. Very alarming. Electronic archiving is not like physical archiving. That is a concern (but less so) in academic research as well.
A grammatical quibble: One can say "as of Tuesday" or "as of now" but not "as of yet". "Yet" is not a time. It's "as yet". "As of" requires a time.
A grammatical quibble: One can say "as of Tuesday" or "as of now" but not "as of yet". "Yet" is not a time. It's "as yet". "As of" requires a time.
33
Yet is now, and now is a time.
The pre-cloud Internet of the 1990s was very libertarian with its rules: You are the only one responsible for your data, and once you publish it, this data is entirely out of your control, whether embarrassing bits be preserved or important bits be lost. With free services omnipresent and the cloud ever-ready to offer "eternal" data storage, it's easy to forget this part of the ethos and culture that helped form Google in the 90s.
I don't agree with the reasons for censoring Dennis Cooper, whom I first read in the early 90s when a friend recommended Closer, and I'm not much of a libertarian in general, but I do believe in the maxim that the only cloud you can fully trust is the cloud whose service address is your home. You are responsible for your data, and nobody else is.
It's unfortunate that DC's valuable work was lost, but the lesson for everyone to take away is that while the computer that crashes or burns can be replaced, the data on it cannot be repurchased from Apple or Google or anyone. All Internet and computer users absolutely must sufficiently plan the long-term protection of their data.
I don't agree with the reasons for censoring Dennis Cooper, whom I first read in the early 90s when a friend recommended Closer, and I'm not much of a libertarian in general, but I do believe in the maxim that the only cloud you can fully trust is the cloud whose service address is your home. You are responsible for your data, and nobody else is.
It's unfortunate that DC's valuable work was lost, but the lesson for everyone to take away is that while the computer that crashes or burns can be replaced, the data on it cannot be repurchased from Apple or Google or anyone. All Internet and computer users absolutely must sufficiently plan the long-term protection of their data.
26
Is the work actually lost, or is it being held hostage in some cyber-gulag?
This opinion piece seems to be pushing a lot of the "mythinformation" it seems so fearful of. Google and other "Cloud" service providers explicitly state the terms, conditions, limits, and guarantees around the use of heir services. While I don't know the specifics of Mr. Cooper's case, it seems apparent that his violation of these terms is what lead to the suspension of his account.
The "Cloud" is not some etheral datastore beyond the realm of physical limitations. Using it as the primary AND ONLY system to manage, what in Cooper's situation appears to be information crucial to his livelihood, is foolish and shortsighted. I hope I don't need to explain why a single point of failure is a bad idea.
As a separate critique on the piece, the paragraph starting "I am all for conversations about art and its limits..." and the ensuing thoughts are very undeveloped. You pose that corporations should not be the arbiters of artistic expression, but then go on to rebuke that in the very next sentence, explaining that Google specifies its terms, and users are free to disengage.
You close by making the dubious claim that Google doesn't play by its own rules, but provide nothing in the way of supporting that point. I presume you mean to say they did not provide 'reasonable advance notice' to Mr Cooper, but nowhere do you cite whether this is fact or not.
The "Cloud" is not some etheral datastore beyond the realm of physical limitations. Using it as the primary AND ONLY system to manage, what in Cooper's situation appears to be information crucial to his livelihood, is foolish and shortsighted. I hope I don't need to explain why a single point of failure is a bad idea.
As a separate critique on the piece, the paragraph starting "I am all for conversations about art and its limits..." and the ensuing thoughts are very undeveloped. You pose that corporations should not be the arbiters of artistic expression, but then go on to rebuke that in the very next sentence, explaining that Google specifies its terms, and users are free to disengage.
You close by making the dubious claim that Google doesn't play by its own rules, but provide nothing in the way of supporting that point. I presume you mean to say they did not provide 'reasonable advance notice' to Mr Cooper, but nowhere do you cite whether this is fact or not.
17
Farquad, exactly how does a normal user, not having a server or a domain name, do all the archiving for themselves without depending on some organization's terms of service?
And how does a company justify stonewalling the person whose account they deleted? I am not talking about law; I'm talking about elementary justice.
And how does a company justify stonewalling the person whose account they deleted? I am not talking about law; I'm talking about elementary justice.
63
If the author has not a single friend in the world then I can imagine that no one suggested hosting this life's work on an owned domain. That is not a groundbreaking concept for someone who places their work on the internet. Registering a domain costs $3 to $12 per year. No excuses, this is carelessness.
25
One buys a flash drive for under $20 and saves one's work to it at the same time as one posts it. No organization, no TOS, and no chance of the data being disappeared.
5
Boycott Google. There are alternatives for its services. The alternatives are not always better, but at least they do not "burn" blogs.
17
Sorry but they do burn blogs. It is actually common.
7
You cannot use "takeout service" if your domain administrator disables it. I have two Google accounts; although both are in .edu domains, only one will allow me to download an archive. Data stored under my other account can't be archived.
I started using computers back when data resided in a definite physical location -- a strip of paper tape, a reel of magnetic tape, or a hard disk with removable platters the size of dinner plates. In my mind, data still exists in that way; the etherial variety which lives "in the cloud" seems slightly unreal, and I'm always, at some gut level, slightly surprised when I access it.
Now it would seem that this surprise is not entirely misplaced. It's NOT comforting to know that Google or other services can deny someone access to their own data for essentially arbitrary reasons. One might hope that copyright law would be applicable, but if a work must exist in tangible form to be copyrighted, maybe even now some clever lawyer is arguing that works created entirely in the cloud are not protected.
Perhaps Gary Trudeau put it best: "Don't be Google" (http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2014/06/01).
I started using computers back when data resided in a definite physical location -- a strip of paper tape, a reel of magnetic tape, or a hard disk with removable platters the size of dinner plates. In my mind, data still exists in that way; the etherial variety which lives "in the cloud" seems slightly unreal, and I'm always, at some gut level, slightly surprised when I access it.
Now it would seem that this surprise is not entirely misplaced. It's NOT comforting to know that Google or other services can deny someone access to their own data for essentially arbitrary reasons. One might hope that copyright law would be applicable, but if a work must exist in tangible form to be copyrighted, maybe even now some clever lawyer is arguing that works created entirely in the cloud are not protected.
Perhaps Gary Trudeau put it best: "Don't be Google" (http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2014/06/01).
104
Josh--
you probably also remember when your desk-top keyboard was a terminal connected to a large mainframe somewhere. Apple Computer's selling point was that a mainframe was like an octopus with it's tentacles reaching into your home and with an Apple Computer, you can have privacy with your own personal computer.
To me, "The Cloud" is a reincarnated octopus with it's tentacles reaching into my home.
you probably also remember when your desk-top keyboard was a terminal connected to a large mainframe somewhere. Apple Computer's selling point was that a mainframe was like an octopus with it's tentacles reaching into your home and with an Apple Computer, you can have privacy with your own personal computer.
To me, "The Cloud" is a reincarnated octopus with it's tentacles reaching into my home.
24
Thanks for the Doonesbury. I never use their cloud or any other for this reason. All backup is on Hard Drive with a secondary of the most valuable family stuff on Fash.
2
Great comments people!
2
A mistaken belief seems to be common among the comments. Well, if it's "free" service they provide, then.... Nothing could be further from the truth. The business of Google is data mining from all of it's users, then selling that data to other corporations for advertising and DTC selling. They have made a fortune off their "free" service. Just another individual or corporation that thinks it can rule the world. Free speech is not like free advertising, take it or leave it. Shame on Google/Alphabet. I'm quitting Gmail!
185
It is free because you don't pay for it. Part of the agreement to use Google (or Facebook, etc.) is to AGREE to be data-mined.
You don't have to use Google. There are other search engines, and other sources of email.
If they made a fortune, it is thanks to folks like you.
You don't have to use Google. There are other search engines, and other sources of email.
If they made a fortune, it is thanks to folks like you.
Wish I could quit Gmail. No courage. Thinking of quitting the Times. The NYT is vastly less powerful than Google and just reprted a quarterly loss. But the Times extracts a subscription fee AND sells your info.
This has nothing to do with whether Google monetizes its users. Of course it does. The questions raised concern fair access and censorship. In my option what Google did fell within the parameters of its Terms of Service.
While I sympathize with Dr. Cooper's situation, I am hard pressed to fault Google. Google is a business who offers their services for free and their terms of service clearly allow them to delete an account for violations. The idea that this guy didn't backup his work anywhere is his fault and his fault alone. This should be a lesson to everyone. Make multiple backups of things you care about and store them in different places. The cloud, your hard drive, your email... while we can hope these last forever, don't bet on it.
52
Just another confirming reason to keep my head (and everything else) out of the cloud. I have never, and never will, trust a contraption or company that can "disappear" my stuff! I go so far as to continue receiving paper copies of bank statements. And I back up everything with an external drive. There may come a day when cyberspying will shut down a variety of things that can never be fully restored or recovered. Trust paper; trust (some) people; but never put your full trust in corporations or computerization.
205
"And I back up everything with an external drive"
If that is a USB drive with a mechanical hard drive I hope you keep it plugged in and powered up all the time. A hard drive gets the most stress and is most apt to fail when a computer starts up. It is not easy going from 0 to 5.4K or 7.2K or even 10K RPM!
Encrypt your data properly and you should have no problems putting stuff in the cloud. I personally don't bother because even if I could prevent an over-reaching NSA all the government has to do is buy my personal data from private companies.
I'm looking at you Facebook, who has tracking scripts on the majority of websites out there. So FB does an effective job of tracking me even though I have never been a FB user.
And FB is not the only offender. At least with Google I have a quid pro quo arrangement, they give me free stuff and I give them SOME of my data.
Paper fades and many insects love to eat paper. I assume you are storing your paper in a sealed temperature- and humidity-controlled room?
It is also hard to verify the accuracy of paper because it can be faked so easily. With digital documents a checksum can be generated to verify if they have been altered in any way.
The solution is not becoming a digital Luddite but to become better with computers in order to protect your personal privacy. Isn't your privacy worth it?
LOL the right to privacy does not even exist in the Constitution, what the Supreme Court gives the Supreme Court can take away!
If that is a USB drive with a mechanical hard drive I hope you keep it plugged in and powered up all the time. A hard drive gets the most stress and is most apt to fail when a computer starts up. It is not easy going from 0 to 5.4K or 7.2K or even 10K RPM!
Encrypt your data properly and you should have no problems putting stuff in the cloud. I personally don't bother because even if I could prevent an over-reaching NSA all the government has to do is buy my personal data from private companies.
I'm looking at you Facebook, who has tracking scripts on the majority of websites out there. So FB does an effective job of tracking me even though I have never been a FB user.
And FB is not the only offender. At least with Google I have a quid pro quo arrangement, they give me free stuff and I give them SOME of my data.
Paper fades and many insects love to eat paper. I assume you are storing your paper in a sealed temperature- and humidity-controlled room?
It is also hard to verify the accuracy of paper because it can be faked so easily. With digital documents a checksum can be generated to verify if they have been altered in any way.
The solution is not becoming a digital Luddite but to become better with computers in order to protect your personal privacy. Isn't your privacy worth it?
LOL the right to privacy does not even exist in the Constitution, what the Supreme Court gives the Supreme Court can take away!
The point of the cloud is to have secure and redundant storage of information.
I think in all the words I've read "don't trust Google."
And lastly, please don't print things, we kill enough trees without backing up our data onto paper.
I think in all the words I've read "don't trust Google."
And lastly, please don't print things, we kill enough trees without backing up our data onto paper.
1
This is disturbing and needs to be vigorously litigated. Google's action should not and cannot become the precedent in case law.
27
What case law do you think could possibly apply here? The technology has moved far, far beyond case law.
Google offers services for FREE. Therefore, there is no real "contract" of any kind. They can discontinue services tomorrow, dump all your data and the owners decide to retire with their billions.
You are displaying exactly the mentality that got us into this mess -- that Google or the internet are some kind of public utility, and you are "entitled" to them -- without paying for them.
Google offers services for FREE. Therefore, there is no real "contract" of any kind. They can discontinue services tomorrow, dump all your data and the owners decide to retire with their billions.
You are displaying exactly the mentality that got us into this mess -- that Google or the internet are some kind of public utility, and you are "entitled" to them -- without paying for them.
"This is disturbing and needs to be vigorously litigated. Google's action should not and cannot become the precedent in case law."
Plaintiff: Your honor, I was using Google's FREE product and they deleted all my content.
Judge: then you got your money's worth?
Google: we move for dismissal due to the Plaintiff's failure to state a claim:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/failure_to_state_a_claim
Judge: case dismissed.
Plaintiff: Waaaaaah!
You have to have standing and a real controversy to be able to even file a law suit. If he managed to get a law suit filed then most likely he would get laughed out of court.
This is a tempest in a teapot that only occurred because the user in question was too cheap to pay proper hosting for his blog.
Plaintiff: Your honor, I was using Google's FREE product and they deleted all my content.
Judge: then you got your money's worth?
Google: we move for dismissal due to the Plaintiff's failure to state a claim:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/failure_to_state_a_claim
Judge: case dismissed.
Plaintiff: Waaaaaah!
You have to have standing and a real controversy to be able to even file a law suit. If he managed to get a law suit filed then most likely he would get laughed out of court.
This is a tempest in a teapot that only occurred because the user in question was too cheap to pay proper hosting for his blog.
1
Concerned Citizen -- A contract requires consideration on both sides, but that need not be payment of money. Google profits from hosting this. Cooper and millions of other benefit from accepting the offer to be hosted in that way. That is consideration on both sides. It does not matter if it is free, there is a contract.
Google posts terms of that contract. Again, that proves a contract.
Every contract has terms implied in law, including good faith and fair dealing. Massive destruction of intellectual property wihout notice, explanation, appeal, or recovery possible is over reaching.
Google's published terms is an archtypical contract of adhesion, to be construed strictly against them, not however they want.
Google posts terms of that contract. Again, that proves a contract.
Every contract has terms implied in law, including good faith and fair dealing. Massive destruction of intellectual property wihout notice, explanation, appeal, or recovery possible is over reaching.
Google's published terms is an archtypical contract of adhesion, to be construed strictly against them, not however they want.
Just how much paranoia is not paranoia at all? Simply the new reality?
5
Word to the wise: get an internet service provider other than Google in order to retain control over your material. Yes you have to pay, but the terms of service will be clear and there will be an office staffed by human beings that you can contact to resolve problems.
The "free" services - Google, Facebook, etc. are anything **but** free - they own rights to anything you publish on their sites and they can do anything they wish with your material. Mr. Cooper should definitely sue for the return of his archive and immediately move it to his own URL hosted by an independent ISP. I wish him luck.
The "free" services - Google, Facebook, etc. are anything **but** free - they own rights to anything you publish on their sites and they can do anything they wish with your material. Mr. Cooper should definitely sue for the return of his archive and immediately move it to his own URL hosted by an independent ISP. I wish him luck.
115
An ISP is a different thing from a server hosting a domain. An ISP offers an IP address and a pipe into the internet. It is up to you to acquire a domain, and configure and maintain your server.
9
What I said, get your URL and set it up on an ISP host you can trust
With freedom and independence come responsibility.
As other readers have stated, if you use Google or a social media site to post a blog on the Internet you are subject to their terms of service.
Also anybody that has any significant intellectual property on a computer should have a backup of that material and if it's really important have two backups. Storage technology is amazingly cheap these days.
As other readers have stated, if you use Google or a social media site to post a blog on the Internet you are subject to their terms of service.
Also anybody that has any significant intellectual property on a computer should have a backup of that material and if it's really important have two backups. Storage technology is amazingly cheap these days.
"I am all for conversations about art and its limits, but I do not want a corporation to be the arbiter of those limits."
Well - I guess we are - until we are not.
I am sure you are all in favor of banning those internet trolls who live on Twitter and harass women and minorities among a long list of others. In this case - it is good that companies exert their ownership of 'their' corporate space.
In the end - if you naively rent intellectual space from a public company and you never back things up - then you have combined two of the stupidest acts known to man.
Well - I guess we are - until we are not.
I am sure you are all in favor of banning those internet trolls who live on Twitter and harass women and minorities among a long list of others. In this case - it is good that companies exert their ownership of 'their' corporate space.
In the end - if you naively rent intellectual space from a public company and you never back things up - then you have combined two of the stupidest acts known to man.
33
"In the end - if you naively rent intellectual space from a public company and you never back things up - then you have combined two of the stupidest acts known to man."
What you said. Interestingly, Ms. Gay works for the NYT, which practices rigorous censorship. She would never, ever post "ads for international prostitutes"! The NYT would never print this, and she might ruin her career here. She is so fearful of this, she won't even show a single example of the ads that got Cooper in trouble with Google.
I am equally in favor of banning internet trolls....but publications such as this one use that power to ALSO censor and delete comments from anyone who has different viewpoints or won't sign onto the lefty liberal agenda. They do this to make it look (in the letter forums) as if "everyone" agrees with their POV or supports their candidates. So censorship online cuts both ways -- and Ms. Gay is perfectly delighted when censorship benefits her and those of her ilk.
What you said. Interestingly, Ms. Gay works for the NYT, which practices rigorous censorship. She would never, ever post "ads for international prostitutes"! The NYT would never print this, and she might ruin her career here. She is so fearful of this, she won't even show a single example of the ads that got Cooper in trouble with Google.
I am equally in favor of banning internet trolls....but publications such as this one use that power to ALSO censor and delete comments from anyone who has different viewpoints or won't sign onto the lefty liberal agenda. They do this to make it look (in the letter forums) as if "everyone" agrees with their POV or supports their candidates. So censorship online cuts both ways -- and Ms. Gay is perfectly delighted when censorship benefits her and those of her ilk.
My personal Google account was deactivated due to a TOS violation last weekend.
I was baffled and horrified that my account which is connected to all my apps, my reminders in Keep, the association with my Android Gear watch, my calendar, my books in Google Play, my private diary hosted on Blogger, my bookmarks in Chrome...
I saw my digital life flash before my eyes.
I have no idea what flagged my account, though the action I took seconds before the deactivation was merely sharing a calendar from the personal account with my other Google Apps for Work account.
Fortunately, this cloud had a silver lining (forgive the pun.) I appealed it from the form linked in the deactivation email and magically, or algorithmically, my account was restored within minutes.
The power that Google has over my digital lifestyle has left me reeling still. And I only lost access for a few minutes, long enough to realize the implications. Google is quite god-like, awesome and fearsome. Unsettling...
I was baffled and horrified that my account which is connected to all my apps, my reminders in Keep, the association with my Android Gear watch, my calendar, my books in Google Play, my private diary hosted on Blogger, my bookmarks in Chrome...
I saw my digital life flash before my eyes.
I have no idea what flagged my account, though the action I took seconds before the deactivation was merely sharing a calendar from the personal account with my other Google Apps for Work account.
Fortunately, this cloud had a silver lining (forgive the pun.) I appealed it from the form linked in the deactivation email and magically, or algorithmically, my account was restored within minutes.
The power that Google has over my digital lifestyle has left me reeling still. And I only lost access for a few minutes, long enough to realize the implications. Google is quite god-like, awesome and fearsome. Unsettling...
196
Facebook as well. I move around too much to have my own full time server(s), but at least I have more than one hosted server. Google is, Skype, Facebook,Baidu and one paid box in yet another country. Carry on.
You deliberately misconstrue the terms of service -- you quote them as sahying if they discontinue a service they will notify users, not if they kick you off their free service for violating the terms of agreement.
Sad but true -- if I want to guarantee keeping copies of my data, photos, etc then I have to back them up either on my own media or on a backup site. Depending on businesses that can act in their own behalf, or close suddenly due to a bankruptcy or stop a service due to downsizing is a mistake that many of us blithely make. What happened here is a reminder not to depend on either large corporations or small start-ups to safeguard our data.
Sad but true -- if I want to guarantee keeping copies of my data, photos, etc then I have to back them up either on my own media or on a backup site. Depending on businesses that can act in their own behalf, or close suddenly due to a bankruptcy or stop a service due to downsizing is a mistake that many of us blithely make. What happened here is a reminder not to depend on either large corporations or small start-ups to safeguard our data.
53
Roxanne hits it out of the park with this great commentary on the dangers of the whims of technology/web companies that are our voice to and from the world, and their role in it.
When Google, or FB or Twitter or Reddit or any of the myriad companies that claim that they want to revolutionize the world, secrecy, censorship and manipulating feeds to push or suppress news and opinion, it calls into question their role and right to be a platform for discussion.
I love the conclusion, that "Google, it seems, doesn’t even play by its own rules." since it's true, and they can't defend it anymore.
Thanks for shining a light for the right of all voices to have the right to be heard, even if you are a web company.
When Google, or FB or Twitter or Reddit or any of the myriad companies that claim that they want to revolutionize the world, secrecy, censorship and manipulating feeds to push or suppress news and opinion, it calls into question their role and right to be a platform for discussion.
I love the conclusion, that "Google, it seems, doesn’t even play by its own rules." since it's true, and they can't defend it anymore.
Thanks for shining a light for the right of all voices to have the right to be heard, even if you are a web company.
79
"When Google, or FB or Twitter or Reddit or any of the myriad companies that claim that they want to revolutionize the world, secrecy, censorship and manipulating feeds to push or suppress news and opinion, it calls into question their role and right to be a platform for discussion."
Welcome to the USA in 2016 Rip Van Winkle!
While you were sleeping corporations have taken over the government of USA by 1) getting the Supreme Court to declare them to be people and 2) by getting the Supreme Court to equate money to speech.
This is really not surprising as Albert Einstein foresaw the evils of unrestrained capitalism over 60 years ago:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/036.png
It is called capitalism, if you don't like a particular product or company don't give your business to them.
Welcome to the USA in 2016 Rip Van Winkle!
While you were sleeping corporations have taken over the government of USA by 1) getting the Supreme Court to declare them to be people and 2) by getting the Supreme Court to equate money to speech.
This is really not surprising as Albert Einstein foresaw the evils of unrestrained capitalism over 60 years ago:
http://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/036.png
It is called capitalism, if you don't like a particular product or company don't give your business to them.
3
its googles ball, its googles bat, and its googles gloves
they can take them and go home whenever they want
whinge as you may