5 ms·

Nope. I uploaded a legit Office ISO I downloaded from MSDN to SkyDrive (as it was called back then) to test throughput up and down. After 3-4 hours it was gon

by pling 12y ago

Nope. I uploaded a legit Office ISO I downloaded from MSDN to SkyDrive (as it was called back then) to test throughput up and down. After 3-4 hours it was gone. My data isn't going near it. Edit: just to clarify... I think they hash incoming files and delete known ones as part of a takedown system. This was an ISO that had been shared on TPB as well as MSDN. Of course their policy allows these measures but I'm not happy putting something up there on the basis that they can arbitrarily delete it.

mythealias 12y ago
There was also some discussion about metadata being changed once the files were uploaded to OneDrive. So if you plan to use it just for plain file storage then it might be an issue.
- sz4kerto 12y ago
  That was something completely different, and a result of Microsoft's naming screwup: Sharepoint adds/changes some metadata of MS Office files (for collaboration, etc.). OneDrive for Business is essentially Sharepoint in the cloud. This OneDrive does not change metadata, it's a 'simple' cloud storage. BTW: interesting, I've submitted this link an hour or so ago, and it was immediately flagged as dead. :)
- nickbarnwell 12y ago
  That's only OneDrive for Business [1], a product that (fortunately) shares nothing but branding with the consumer product. Not so say the latter doesn't have its own warts...simply that it doesn't have that particularly egregious one. 1: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/cloud-services/microsoft-secretly-alters-files-in-onedrive-for-business-1244538 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/cloud-services/micros...
jscheel 12y ago
Whoa, that's seriously messed up. Can anyone else confirm that this is still the case?
brador 12y ago
We're you notified of it's removal? Imagine having 10,000 files up there and they delete one...that would keep me up at night.
- pling 12y ago
  Nope. Not a sausage. If just disappeared.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
megaman821 12y ago
Where you sharing this file? Microsoft has stated several times that they don't mess with you private files other than scanning for child porn. I have several ISOs from TechNet and they are all still there.
- pling 12y ago
  I wasn't sharing it. To be honest if they're checking for CP then they're messing with your files. There isn't a sudden distinction when you bring in "think of the children"...
  - unreal37 12y ago
    I think there's a clear distinction between possessing child porn, which is illegal and subject to a jail term, and so-called "piracy", which is a civil dispute. There are very few digital things that are illegal to possess (and no, a digital copy of The Matrix is not illegal to possess), and I believe Microsoft has both a legal and moral obligation to ensure the files on its servers are not child porn.
    - aw3c2 12y ago
      Child porn is a "everything must be done against it" topic and while that is what should be done, it means that it makes a perfect "no arguments against it" argument for snooping. But it is my belief that file hosters have a legal and moral obligation not to know what they are hosting for their customers. It is not the obligation of a host to look at a customer's files and decide what is ok and what is not. It is the same thing with Tor nodes or if you decide to encrypt files. I actually think that any online sync host like this or like Dropbox should not have any chance of knowing what I store with them. That's my private business and there is zero reason for them to know, is there?
      - emn13 12y ago
        Well, there might actually be value in knowing the content for e.g. searching, analysis, compression, deduplication, and advertising purposes. I'm not terribly in favor of exploiting these uses, but there certainly are conceivable reasons for the online service to examine the content of the stored files.
m0dest 12y ago
Hey pling, I work on the OneDrive team. We definitely don't do the type of content scanning that you're describing. I wouldn't be comfortable with that. The only time we currently use file hashes for automated takedown is when known child pornography is re-uploaded to the service after being reported. For copyrighted content, we have to respond to DMCA notices like other services. Sharing content to the public and getting reported by a third party is the only path for that. And in those cases, you definitely get a specific notice about the takedown. The web UI would also show you exactly which file was affected, and prevent you from sharing it again. It doesn't just delete files. (That would be unacceptable.) Note that there's currently a 2 GB file size limit. It seems like the most likely explanation is that you put a large ISO in your SkyDrive folder, and it never succeeded in uploading because it exceeded the limit.
- megaman821 12y ago
  Will the file size limit ever be upped? I got dozens of movies, ISOs, and database backups that OneDrive can't sync.
  - timothya 12y ago
    They really need to increase the maximum file size to be competitive. As a comparison, Dropbox files can be up to 10 GB each[0], and Google Drive files can be up to 1 TB each[1]. [0]: https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en [1]: https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en
    - natdempk 12y ago
      Its disingenuous to say that Dropbox has a file size limit of 10GB, when the first thing written on that page you cited says otherwise... The 10GB limit only applies to files uploaded through the web interface. Files uploaded through the OS/mobile client have no file size restriction. [0] [0]: https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en
vonuebelgarten 12y ago
Last year a friend couple uploaded photos of their one-year son (I understand it were those "bathtub photos" parents like taking to embarrass the children when they grow up) just to get their paid account blocked. They panicked because they used Skydrive to "securely" store lot of pictures, including their travels, honeymoon, etc. The husband was a bit tech-savvy, but I failed to convince him to always PGP-encrypt the files and rename them to non-significative names before uploading. At least, I made them never trust these services again. I, personally, never use these file storage services to hold anything but encrypted data assuming that such data can disappear overnight without any warning.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Do you use a product like Boxcryptor or the like? I've always had problems getting these kind of tools to work across OSs (mainly mobile). If you roll your own solution, do you limit to desktop usage, or how do you get mobile support as well?
  - vonuebelgarten 12y ago
    I just use GnuPG with some specific temporary keys (eg. "Project P File Transfer Key"). All transfer are among desktop/laptop machines, so mobile apps are not a requirement. And I don't use GDrive to sync data to my phone.
- Infinitesimus 12y ago
  Hmm what you describe conflicts with what u/m0dest mentioned above. I'd like to hear word from him/her about the matter. If your friend's content wasn't shared, the the image must have been someone processed for known nudity patterns
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >The scanning policy used to be more aggressive and didn't exclude content that was unshared or only shared to a small set of people. >Last year No conflict.
  - 12y ago
cabbeer 12y ago
Was the ISO larger than 2gb?
- pling 12y ago
  It was 600Mb
esbonsa 12y ago
if it was not legit, it probably would have been a lot faster since they have it in their cache...

by pling 12y ago

mythealias 12y ago

There was also some discussion about metadata being changed once the files were uploaded to OneDrive. So if you plan to use it just for plain file storage then it might be an issue.

sz4kerto 12y ago
That was something completely different, and a result of Microsoft's naming screwup: Sharepoint adds/changes some metadata of MS Office files (for collaboration, etc.). OneDrive for Business is essentially Sharepoint in the cloud. This OneDrive does not change metadata, it's a 'simple' cloud storage. BTW: interesting, I've submitted this link an hour or so ago, and it was immediately flagged as dead. :)
nickbarnwell 12y ago
That's only OneDrive for Business [1], a product that (fortunately) shares nothing but branding with the consumer product. Not so say the latter doesn't have its own warts...simply that it doesn't have that particularly egregious one. 1: http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/cloud-services/microsoft-secretly-alters-files-in-onedrive-for-business-1244538 http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/cloud-services/micros...

jscheel 12y ago

Whoa, that's seriously messed up. Can anyone else confirm that this is still the case?

brador 12y ago

We're you notified of it's removal? Imagine having 10,000 files up there and they delete one...that would keep me up at night.

pling 12y ago
Nope. Not a sausage. If just disappeared.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

megaman821 12y ago

Where you sharing this file? Microsoft has stated several times that they don't mess with you private files other than scanning for child porn. I have several ISOs from TechNet and they are all still there.

pling 12y ago
I wasn't sharing it. To be honest if they're checking for CP then they're messing with your files. There isn't a sudden distinction when you bring in "think of the children"...
- unreal37 12y ago
  I think there's a clear distinction between possessing child porn, which is illegal and subject to a jail term, and so-called "piracy", which is a civil dispute. There are very few digital things that are illegal to possess (and no, a digital copy of The Matrix is not illegal to possess), and I believe Microsoft has both a legal and moral obligation to ensure the files on its servers are not child porn.
  - aw3c2 12y ago
    Child porn is a "everything must be done against it" topic and while that is what should be done, it means that it makes a perfect "no arguments against it" argument for snooping. But it is my belief that file hosters have a legal and moral obligation not to know what they are hosting for their customers. It is not the obligation of a host to look at a customer's files and decide what is ok and what is not. It is the same thing with Tor nodes or if you decide to encrypt files. I actually think that any online sync host like this or like Dropbox should not have any chance of knowing what I store with them. That's my private business and there is zero reason for them to know, is there?
    - emn13 12y ago
      Well, there might actually be value in knowing the content for e.g. searching, analysis, compression, deduplication, and advertising purposes. I'm not terribly in favor of exploiting these uses, but there certainly are conceivable reasons for the online service to examine the content of the stored files.

m0dest 12y ago

Hey pling, I work on the OneDrive team. We definitely don't do the type of content scanning that you're describing. I wouldn't be comfortable with that. The only time we currently use file hashes for automated takedown is when known child pornography is re-uploaded to the service after being reported. For copyrighted content, we have to respond to DMCA notices like other services. Sharing content to the public and getting reported by a third party is the only path for that. And in those cases, you definitely get a specific notice about the takedown. The web UI would also show you exactly which file was affected, and prevent you from sharing it again. It doesn't just delete files. (That would be unacceptable.) Note that there's currently a 2 GB file size limit. It seems like the most likely explanation is that you put a large ISO in your SkyDrive folder, and it never succeeded in uploading because it exceeded the limit.

megaman821 12y ago
Will the file size limit ever be upped? I got dozens of movies, ISOs, and database backups that OneDrive can't sync.
- timothya 12y ago
  They really need to increase the maximum file size to be competitive. As a comparison, Dropbox files can be up to 10 GB each[0], and Google Drive files can be up to 1 TB each[1]. [0]: https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en [1]: https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en
  - natdempk 12y ago
    Its disingenuous to say that Dropbox has a file size limit of 10GB, when the first thing written on that page you cited says otherwise... The 10GB limit only applies to files uploaded through the web interface. Files uploaded through the OS/mobile client have no file size restriction. [0] [0]: https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en https://www.dropbox.com/help/5/en

vonuebelgarten 12y ago

Last year a friend couple uploaded photos of their one-year son (I understand it were those "bathtub photos" parents like taking to embarrass the children when they grow up) just to get their paid account blocked. They panicked because they used Skydrive to "securely" store lot of pictures, including their travels, honeymoon, etc. The husband was a bit tech-savvy, but I failed to convince him to always PGP-encrypt the files and rename them to non-significative names before uploading. At least, I made them never trust these services again. I, personally, never use these file storage services to hold anything but encrypted data assuming that such data can disappear overnight without any warning.

r00fus 12y ago
Do you use a product like Boxcryptor or the like? I've always had problems getting these kind of tools to work across OSs (mainly mobile). If you roll your own solution, do you limit to desktop usage, or how do you get mobile support as well?
- vonuebelgarten 12y ago
  I just use GnuPG with some specific temporary keys (eg. "Project P File Transfer Key"). All transfer are among desktop/laptop machines, so mobile apps are not a requirement. And I don't use GDrive to sync data to my phone.
Infinitesimus 12y ago
Hmm what you describe conflicts with what u/m0dest mentioned above. I'd like to hear word from him/her about the matter. If your friend's content wasn't shared, the the image must have been someone processed for known nudity patterns
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >The scanning policy used to be more aggressive and didn't exclude content that was unshared or only shared to a small set of people. >Last year No conflict.
- 12y ago

cabbeer 12y ago

Was the ISO larger than 2gb?

pling 12y ago
It was 600Mb

esbonsa 12y ago

if it was not legit, it probably would have been a lot faster since they have it in their cache...