Google Announces New Cloud Storage Plans Including 2TB for $9.99 a Month

[mi7chy]

Move your entire life to google so they can scan through it

Or, put it on iCloud so it can leak all your private pictures and data to the world. Watched UFC 224 over the weekend and couldn't believe Raquel Pennington is also another iCloud victim. Apple now hosts on Google Cloud so that should tell you something.

Wow, even her partner Tecia Torres is another iCloud victim along with other UFC participants. The question is no longer who is affected but rather who isn't affected.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Or, put it on iCloud so it can leak all your private pictures and data to the world. Watched UFC 224 over the weekend and couldn't believe Raquel Pennington is also another iCloud victim. Apple now hosts on Google Cloud so that should tell you something.

Didn't the "iCloud hack" have more to do with social engineering and weak passwords?

Or did someone actually penetrate Apple's servers in their data center?

It's been a while so I don't remember.

But I do recall hearing that the term "iCloud hack" wasn't exactly a good description for what happened.

 

[negativzero]

No doubt. I've been using the Office 365 package for quite a while now, as it's absolutely the best deal for the storage alone, and you get almost (no Access or Publisher for Mac users) the entire suite essentially for free. If you don't need any of the MS Office, then of course YMMV. I always buy my (legit) licenses for the "Home" package on EBay for under $70 for a year which include the full suite on 5 computers, 5 mobile devices, and 1 TB of storage each for 5 users. For the cost, Google and Apple can't come close to that, storage-wise, and depending on your suite needs (mine is primarily Excel), the software comes in a definite second and far distant third.

The One Drive app and web page service are relatively clunky and slow, especially compared to Google. MS has been steadily improving but it's still nothing like the ease, speed, and intuitiveness that Google nailed a long time ago. I've found the Apple experience to be somewhere in between, but with no real advantage, I see no reason to continue exploring it.

OneDrive is the best. Unfortunately its a pity they don't offer cloud syncing for Mac, or I'll migrate all my stuff off to Microsoft.

 

[jimthing]

Or, put it on iCloud so it can leak all your private pictures and data to the world. Watched UFC 224 over the weekend and couldn't believe Raquel Pennington is also another iCloud victim. Apple now hosts on Google Cloud so that should tell you something.

Wow, even her partner Tecia Torres is another iCloud victim along with other UFC participants. The question is no longer who is affected but rather who isn't affected.

Sorry, but as someone above mentioned, this is factually untrue.

It was bad passwords and/or social engineering, and nothing to do with "hacking" (i.e. breaking a computer systems code) to gain data access.

And as for iCloud on Google servers, Apple encrypt the data on the servers, so Google has zero access to the user data stored there. (I remember a month ago Bart Busshots on Nosillacast mentioning how even in China, Apple are legally forced to store data/keys in Chinese owned data centres. So what they do is, store the data with one company's data centre, and the encryption keys in one of their competitors data centres, as the best option to keep them separate.) I'm sure they likely do similar in less restrictive countries by say storing the data with Google, and encryption keys in their own centres, as it'd obviously solve the privacy problems.

As for scanning user data, under the new GDPR EU rules beginning on 25 May 2018 (often expanded by many companies into their global policy; both for their own ease, and as said rules offer good guidance given they were drafted over many years to be solid and workable) they have tighter controls on sharing/using data, and have to specifically allow user opt in/out without hiding it within blanket policies (such as "to use our services, you are opting in to us doing blah blah with your info/data").

I'd love to know if and how ANY cloud storage platform can search user data for illegal stuff (child porn, terrorist materials, sw, or anything else) given it's stored encrypted?
I can't see how that could possibly be true, as end-to-end encryption makes it not possible, unless said encryption becomes defeatable (so standard practice is to then use a newer better version).

 

[T Coma]

OneDrive is the best. Unfortunately its a pity they don't offer cloud syncing for Mac, or I'll migrate all my stuff off to Microsoft.

I hear ya. I love "set and forget", especially with backup. While I do run Time Machine and CCC on my JBOD toaster, I don't have an automatic cloud backup. I manually upload the "unreplaceable" stuff to appropriate folders on my OneDrive, via ExpanDrive app, which opens up both my OneDrive and Google Drive on startup, just like a local drive. Of course, the first time I started uploading critical data (in a personal use case: photos, home vids, protected docs) was a pain in the dupa since there were years of data to upload, and at standard package Comcast speed, that is taking a while. But like most any other project, the first conversion is the tough one and maintenance is pretty easy - I just upload once/month to an annual folder each in photos, vids, docs. Email is on the server, apps are in the store (or the registration code is in email), and music is either in the store or on CD.

So, no, that method isn't the cleanest or simplest, but it gets the job done.

 

[jarman92]

I find it ironic you mention backing up claims with evidence...yet I was the only one with a link...

The Google app is definitely not ONLY for 2FA. As matter a fact, the majority of people who use the app, use it for searches. Did the person have the Google App installed? If not, don't you think that would explain why SMS would be the default?

Fragmentation means nothing when devices still get monthly updates. Usually people bring that up when they are clueless on how Android updates work. And when it comes to the headlines pertaining to vulnerabilities, iOS and MacOS take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. There are literally news stories every week of exploits, bugs, gaining root without password, etc. I don't even have to provide links for that, as I'm sure you see numerous stories or users posting about this, on a day to day basis.

But without shifting the goalposts, lets get back on topic. Since you believe the article is biased, does this mean the copied and pasted policies were altered to fit your narrative of the article being "biased"? If they were altered, don't you think it would be easy to fact check for any disparities? Because the policies alone, kinda show a clear cut difference on how user data is handled. And for that, I am correct in saying Google handles user data better than Apple. No amount of cheering for Apple can change that fact.

First of all, that isn't irony.

Second, nothing I said requires citation since I merely provided a personal anecdote and analyzed only what was in the article you linked.

Third, that article is almost 2 years old and is definitely outdated since Apple just refreshed their policy in January (and probably before that as well).

Fourth, do you know what the word "biased" means? I ask because your comment makes it seem like you don't. Bias has nothing to do with altering content. For example, the author of that piece has written dozens of articles about Google products/services and none about Apple products/services, which indicates he is a Google user and likely biased against Apple. This doesn't mean he lied, or altered the content of each company's policies; it just means that his interpretation of each is colored by what he wants the outcome to be, or that he selectively chose examples to make Google look good and Apple look bad. The latter is exactly what I am accusing him of.

For example, the author selectively left out the end of the paragraph where Apple says "At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers." It ends with "Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes." The effect of his omission is to make Apple look like they give away users' personal data willy nilly to third parties for marketing; clearly, they don't. This is just one of many, many examples.

The article is outdated, poorly-written, poorly-researched garbage with a painfully obvious bias, period.

 

[Regime2008]

First of all, that isn't irony.

Second, nothing I said requires citation since I merely provided a personal anecdote and analyzed only what was in the article you linked.

Third, that article is almost 2 years old and is definitely outdated since Apple just refreshed their policy in January (and probably before that as well).

Fourth, do you know what the word "biased" means? I ask because your comment makes it seem like you don't. Bias has nothing to do with altering content. For example, the author of that piece has written dozens of articles about Google products/services and none about Apple products/services, which indicates he is a Google user and likely biased against Apple. This doesn't mean he lied, or altered the content of each company's policies; it just means that his interpretation of each is colored by what he wants the outcome to be, or that he selectively chose examples to make Google look good and Apple look bad. The latter is exactly what I am accusing him of.

For example, the author selectively left out the end of the paragraph where Apple says "At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers." It ends with "Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes." The effect of his omission is to make Apple look like they give away users' personal data willy nilly to third parties for marketing; clearly, they don't. This is just one of many, many examples.

The article is outdated, poorly-written, poorly-researched garbage with a painfully obvious bias, period.

Yawns, at the end of the day, Google has better privacy. Here is a more recent article from an apple fan site.
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/google-apple-differential-privacy/
It's perfectly fine to defend your beloved Apple, but the reality is still there. I'm pretty sure their security is just fine, it's just not as good as Google's implementation. No matter how you want to try and spin it, there are plenty of articles out there to back up factual data and statistics. There is even a pdf that you can check out. And lastly.... no offense, but you seem to be the biased person here, calling out other people, just because you disagree. Oh welp.

 

[jarman92]

Yawns, at the end of the day, Google has better privacy. Here is a more recent article from an apple fan site.
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/google-apple-differential-privacy/
It's perfectly fine to defend your beloved Apple, but the reality is still there. I'm pretty sure their security is just fine, it's just not as good as Google's implementation. No matter how you want to try and spin it, there are plenty of articles out there to back up factual data and statistics. There is even a pdf that you can check out. And lastly.... no offense, but you seem to be the biased person here, calling out other people, just because you disagree. Oh welp.

That article deals with differential privacy, which is an entirely separate topic than your previous article. You’re obviously just spinning your wheels here, spewing out all the nonsense you can to get out of this hole you’ve dug yourself into. Sure, I’ll look into “a pdf” for your elusive “factual data” and “statistics.”

Somehow I’m “calling out other people?” Actually I’m just responding to a horrendous and misleading article you posted, which is kinda the whole point of a forum.

 

[Regime2008]

That article deals with differential privacy, which is an entirely separate topic than your previous article. You’re obviously just spinning your wheels here, spewing out all the nonsense you can to get out of this hole you’ve dug yourself into. Sure, I’ll look into “a pdf” for your elusive “factual data” and “statistics.”

Somehow I’m “calling out other people?” Actually I’m just responding to a horrendous and misleading article you posted, which is kinda the whole point of a forum.

Sorry that you just don't seem to want to get it. Google has better privacy for it's users. You have not provided any information or contributed any factual data. Just rambling on about false things.

You can look up several articles online that also prove why Google has superior privacy. I'll let you do the searching since any form of privacy is contradicted by your opinions and you'll call it biased. So let's stick with the facts here. Any links or policies would be beneficial to your argument, but then again, you haven't shared any. Oh well...Maybe I can lend you a shovel to dig yourself out of this losing argument you have fallen into...

For the record I posted two different links that deal with privacy. You never mentioned what aspect of privacy, so I am showing you why Google is better on all aspects of privacy. Can you show me otherwise, or will you just go on about how I'm wrong, with absolutely nothing to back it up?