So they don’t take a stance on CISPA. Why is that? Goggle lobbying is set to overtake oil and finance lobbying.

Citations are for wimps and untermenschen. Some of us just know what’s correct, without needing to do any of this feeble ‘research’ or ‘fact-checking’.

“We think this is an important issue and we’re watching the process closely but we haven’t taken a formal position on any specific legislation,” the spokeswoman said. – From The Hill.

I don’t know, if a corporation lobbies congress about CISPA but doesn’t tell you their stance. That’s kind of deceitful no? Why would they not tell you what position they are lobbying congress for?

I have no idea. But that doesn’t change the fact you were lying about Google supporting CISPA. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t…but right now, we do not know.

Do not speak on things of which you know NOTHING about.

The vote is days away how do they not know their stance on it?

Marcus, you need to have a sit down with Glyn and Mike, because clearly you aren’t getting the memos:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/12342918635/acta-may-interfere-with-fundamental-freedoms-eu-data-protection-supervisor.shtml

It’s a story about “could” or “might” or “may”. Mike points to these things all the time. Heck, the whole argument against SOPA was based on what it MAY do.

Basically, what Google is asking for is an extreme license that allows them all rights to your content, including publishing your spreadsheets at will. It also means that any art work that your produce and put there is immediately and fully cross licensed to them – in all manners.

It’s a very, very wide ranging and unneeded grab for rights. I guess because it’s god Google doing it, it’s all good. Why give them such a large benefit of the doubt?

Like I said, I have no idea. Neither do you. You’re just jumping to conclusions. So you may want to retract your presumed-as-fact statement above. Shall I call you Chicken Little?

Thing is, they do have a stance they just won’t share it publicly. When you are keeping things like that private it is for a reason. But you know don’t believe me. You’ll see!

I’m laughing at the fact that people still think there is any semblance of privacy on the Internet.

Microsoft did a really good job spreading their usual FUD this time.

If there’s one thing you can count on Microsoft to do right, it’s exactly this: spreading FUD about their competitors.

And M$ and CrApple

To assume Google is JUST evil is delusional. If Google’s looking out for it’s interest and they happen to coincide with mine (as far as my rights go), then I don’t care. As long as they aren’t trying to walk all over me or my rights (ahem, unlike the RIAA/MPAA and other idiots) then I have no problem with that.

To assume though that everything is some vast conspiracy orchestrated by Google… well, if you need psychiatric help then just ask for it. There’s no judging here. Unless you’re being blatantly obtuse/ignorant. In which case you deserve what you have coming.

If you want something to stay private, _keep_it_off_of_the_internet_! It’s baffling that anyone can think that a system (the internet) that is simply _designed_ for sharing information could ever be truly private and absolutely secure. If you want secure, don’t let it out of your site. If you have anything that needs to be _that_ secure.. you’re lifing wrong.

Telling the Internet to “Calm Down” is like telling the Earth to stop spinning, time from moving forward in a linear fashion, or for the RIAA/MPAA to get a grip on reality.

Conspiracy theory implication score: 3/10

You need more shape-shifting lizard people and a tie-in with the JFK assassination to make your theory sound plausible.

Otherwise you just sound like a little kid in need of a logic class.

Alright then. But if you think it’s totally acceptable to give money to congress on an issue you won’t speak about publicly or say you have not stance on is not fair to the people who use their services. Google knows what their stance is internally to think otherwise is naive.

I didn’t say it’s acceptable or unacceptable to do that. Don’t put words in my mouth. We were discussing you and your false statement.

However, in my opinion, I honestly don’t care one way or another. At the end of the day, a company is going to do what a company is going to do. I have very little say in the matter.

Honestly, no offense, rewrite your sentence. I’m having difficulty understanding some of it. “you won’t speak about publicly or say you have not stance on is not fair to the people who use their services”. That’s English obviously, it just seems unclear. So I can’t properly respond.

I assume you’re saying something about Google and the people who use it’s services, but what exactly is unclear to me?

Nor did I say Google doesn’t know their own stance on a given issue. To think a person or company wouldn’t know their/it’s own stance on something is indeed naive, which is a good thing I didn’t say or think that. Again, we were discussing YOU. And your false statement about Google, for which you’ve presented no proof/evidence to support your original claim.

Now, let’s make it simple. Do you have evidence (of a verifiable nature) that “Google Supports CISPA, end of story.”?

If you do, present it please.

If you don’t, care to retract your statement? Or amend it to something like… “I believe Google supports CISPA, but I have no proof of such support. As such it is purely speculation on my part.”

The latter gets respect from me and others here because you’re stating your beliefs and acknowledging you have nothing to support them. The former will get you called out on, as it clearly did, and which you’re now trying to detract away from by changing the conversation and/or by putting words in my mouth, when clearly the focus was on you and your statement.

Google is increasingly becoming a very important player in lobbying Congress. I want to know what they are feeding the politicians so I as a consumer can make a choice I feel comfortable with.

There are no trolls in this comment section. I’m tired of people calling others trolls simply because they disagree.

I made a comment. Other commenters jumped on it. So really, how is the troll? Why couldn’t you just ignore my silly comment? Instead you blew it up and started insulting me! c’mon.

Yeah. I can see you’re kinda an asshole, too, aren’t you? You know if someone refuses to tell you something it means it’s none of your goddamned business. Doesn’t mean that it’s unpopular, or evil, just that you don’t need to know. Period, end statement. Anything else you read into it is completely on you.

It’s not that they want to use it “any way that they see fit” but they want to be able to provide their service. That may require them to copy or transform whatever you upload. The nature of copyright means that any of their transformations can run afoul of copyright law.

On a fundemental level, copyright law is somewhat at odds with just computing in general. That TOS can be considered a manifestation of this basic fundemental tension.

Computers and networks are CONSTANTLY copying things. Even when you aren’t “making a copy”, it’s copying things. It’s just the nature of the beast.

Google is a member of Silicon Valley Leadership, a group that supports CISPA and has lobbied and written letters in support. That certainly indicates its support absent any statement to the contrary.

Color me unimpressed with the author’s reasoning (and tone). I know it’s fun to mock (what seem like) ridiculuous concerns and the assertions that “everyone is doing it” and “no harm will come from it” may be sufficient to dismiss personal concerns… but businesses storing any sort of [customer] IP or otherwise sensitive data on Google Drive would due well to look their own Client Agreements and Terms of Service.

I think all of the worry could be mitigated by stating that Google guarantees not to do anything to prevent, willfully hurt or damage anybody or any works with said global ownership nor would it ever use it against someone who is, or is planning to, make profit for private works uploaded to Google for storage.