Google Drive is the platform that offers the largest number of free concerts to users who create an account, with 15 GB. However, depending on the type of file, there is a size limit. For text documents, the limit is 1.02 million characters and, if converted to Google Docs, 50 MB.
In the case of downloading a spreadsheet, the limit is 5 million cells. For presentations, the limit is 100 MB. For Google Sites, there are up to 200,000 characters per page and 10,000 images per website, with up to 1,000 pages and 10 million characters.
For all other files, the limit is up to 5 TB, being the cloud storage platform that allows you to download larger files. In terms of bandwidth, you can download up to 750 GB of data per day. If a file exceeds 750 GB, the file will be downloaded regardless of size until you reach those 5 TB.
File sizes and formats compatible with Google Drive can be viewed on this page help.
Dropbox popularized cloud storage. However, the company has reduced the free space available to users by offering only 2 GB for users who download files in the free package.
Despite this, there is a big advantage: there is no limit on the size of the files which allow us to download if we use the desktop or mobile application. If we do it via the browser on Dropbox.com, the limit is 50 GB. If we download them via their API, the files can not exceed 350 GB. To download files of this size, it is obvious that you must have a larger storage account, because with the free 2GB, we can only download files up to 2GB.
In case you want to share a file, the limit currently tested by Dropbox is 100 GB per transfer.
In terms of bandwidth, free accounts can not use more than 20 GB per day for download, for 200 GB of paid users.
onedrive, Microsoft's cloud storage platform, offers 5GB of free storage, having reduced the maximum size from 15 to 5GB three years ago, while eliminating unlimited storage options.
Where we find the number 15 is the maximum size of the files that we can download, each individual file can occupy up to 15 GB. If you are using a browser older than Internet Explorer 10, the file limit that you can download is 300 MB. If you do it with a modern browser or from Windows 8.1 or 10, you will have no problem.
In terms of bandwidth, free accounts can not use more than 20 GB per day for download.
The maximum file size can be viewed on this OneDrive support page.
iCloud does not have a free model, it costs 1 euro a month, the cheapest with 50 GB. The files we download on iCloud, the Apple cloud, have a maximum size of 15 GB.
WeTransfer It has become the most convenient file-sharing platform because, even if it only allows the download of files up to 2 GB In your free package and these files are only available for 7 days, it's simple and fast. Plus, it only allows you to send a link up to three people.
In the case of WeTransfer Plus, paying users can download up to 20 GB per file, with no bandwidth limit or transfer. The data can be consulted on this WeTransfer support page.
Telegram is the most complete email application and allows you to send files of all kinds. Of course, each file can occupy up to 1.5 GB, while the maximum speed varies, but it is usually 15 MB / s.
In case you need to transfer large files over the Internet and you do not want to pay, you also have the option of create a torrent. Although you are sure to put the password in the file (compressing it in RAR for example), because if you use public trackers, anyone can take the link and download the file.
Google, the largest Internet search destination, can legally take advantage of the fraud generated on its platform and has little interest in fixing it. But this is not an easy problem to be solved by ethical or legal amendments, as current circumstances are extremely changing the status quo. Nevertheless, we can still do more to reduce Internet fraud.
Google is positioning itself in the search market with 63% of all queries on the Web. You could even have expected that number to be greater than Microsoft's, which recovers almost everything else and people have a real bias against Bing. No growing problems of trust, nearly two-thirds of the world's population still chooses Google for research and Chrome as a browser. With a clear dominance in the search market, the company's platform is an ideal target for fraud in the same way that viruses and other exploits target Windows systems more than any other. When you want to find the largest pool of victims, you start with the largest group of people.
Nevertheless, Google's efforts to fight fraud on its platform seem minimal and mostly ineffective. The Wall Street Journal recently told a story accusing Google of profiting from millions of fake and fraudulent addresses on his platform, but what appeared to be news for many should have looked like déjà vu. It was very public knowledge for over five years. More than five years ago, a cybersecurity expert and a hacker Bryan Seely used an exploit in Google Maps& # 39; Business listings to change the FBI and Secret Service phone numbers to listen to their calls. I've successfully registered 40 calls in a single day using this process to demonstrate the problem to the government. The government listened, told Google to stop, what Google did, then everything started again three months later.
Five years later, the WSJ tells the same story from another angle: the victims who are victims. Here is an example:
A man arrived at Ms. Carter's home in an unmarked van and stated that he was a contractor to the company. I was not there. After working on the garage door, I asked for $ 728, almost double the cost of previous repairs, Carter said. I asked for money or a personal check, but she refused. "I'm alone at home with this guy," she said. "He could have knocked me down fatally."
The repairman had hijacked the name of a legitimate business on Google Maps and listed his own phone number. I went back to Mrs. Carter's house again and again, seeking her for the payment of such a mediocre remedy that she had to be redone.
C & # 39; hardly an isolated incident and, as the WSJ also points out, Google has recognized the problem:
Mr. Russell, of Google, said the company had removed more than three million fake listings from companies in 2018. Last year, the company also deactivated 150,000 accounts that downloaded the invented lists , he said, up 50% from 2017. detail his countermeasures, citing security.
In the company's response, Ethan Russell, product director for Google Maps, wrote that among the more than 200 million ads added to Google Maps over the years, only a "low percentage" is a fake. He said that last year, Google had removed more than 3 million fake company profiles, of which more than 90% had been deleted before users could see them. Google's systems have identified 85% of deleted ads and 250,000 users. The company has also disabled 150,000 user accounts deemed abusive, representing a 50% increase over 2017.
If this text sounds familiar to you, it may be because Google has recycled the same information as WSJ cited in its article. Although Google has decided nothing at all, its efforts to fight fraud on its platform rely on a delicate balance between ethics and profit – two things that do not exist in many areas of business. Google activity.
Google has also received reviews for do not control ad click fraud. Waiting, he was accused by many to crush the competition maintain the dominance of the market that allows them to act in this way. He entertained numerous class actions as well as other notable disputes involving these issues and similar issues. The company remains under constant fire in its dubious privacy practices and its constant desire to benefit from the victimization of its users. After all, in 2018, Google had only generated $ 116 billion in advertising revenue, and solving many of these problems would reduce that revenue.
It may seem illegal for Google to profit from millions of fraudulent ads and virtually nothing about them, but that's not always a good thing. Article 230 of the American legal code (formally 47 U.S.C. 230) protects Google and any other company operating an online platform from legal liability for the activity of the users of this platform. Derek Bambauer, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, explains:
The actual action is described in 230 (c) (1), which indicates that no provider (eg Google) or user (perhaps Google) of an interactive computer service can be held responsible for the content created by another provider of information content. (The terms "interactive computer service" and "information content provider" are defined in section 230.) So, if I publish a review of your restaurant on, for example, Yelp, which falsely claims that the Place is invaded by cockroaches and rats, Yelp is safe from prosecution for defamation. (You can still sleep, of course – I am the provider of information content.) This remains true even if Yelp know that the examination is wrong.
An online platform makes it more difficult to detect the perpetrators of fraudulent activity, leaving little legal recourse for consumers and businesses involved. As Bambauer says, "to sue Google, it's like shooting at Superman's cloak: it's probably not the smartest thing." Google has a fleet of very good lawyers. The best option for companies is to start with public pressure on Google. "Unfortunately, there has been public pressure to talk about TED and the Wall Street Journal.
Article 230 is an almost impenetrable legal wall, with a few rare exceptions: trademark infringement and Amendment FOSTA-SESTA who has exempted cases of sex trafficking. Although this last solution may seem good at first glance, the amendment broadly outlines the circumstances in which a company assumes responsibility for the content of its platform. In response, many companies (such as Craigslist and Tumblr) completely removed and forbidden any sexual content. Many also have argued that the amendment endangers sex workers and does little to solve the problem of sex trafficking.
In the meantime, more common problems such as fraud have not prompted lawmakers to further amend Article 230. This could lead companies to close even larger portions of their platform that do not not part of the social policy of human sexuality. Without careful consideration, the changes made in Section 230 may be an incentive switch for what we are able to do online with consequences that affect the entire world. If we want to protect the freedom of the Internet, we must protect Article 230, but in doing so, we also look like Google companies that legally benefit from many frauds.
The current situation also encourages companies to do less to avoid creating new liabilities. For example, while Article 230 makes not protect online retailers from product liability claims (for example, batteries of cell phones that explode), Amazon uses its market to work around this problem. After all, the company does not sell the product directly to the consumer, but it simply takes a share of the trade it sells. This issue has become more complicated recently when a lower court decided that Amazon could share responsibility for defective products sold by a third party –but only if they warn consumers of the problem. For Amazon, choosing the most ethical option of notifying consumers could cost it millions of dollars in mandatory refunds.
Google could be facing a similar problem. More efforts to warn consumers of the risks of fraud on its platform are likely to create legal vulnerability that could bypass the protections provided by Article 230. In addition, any solution to the problem, whether in some or all of it, directly Google influences the results and Google has obligations to its shareholders as a publicly traded company. This creates a complex set of circumstances that cause Google to continue the current behavior. They are trying to develop better automatic detection methods to eradicate fraud in advance and rely on users to report any breach. Doing more could have an extremely negative impact on their business.
Should legal problems release Google from any liability? Is it ethical to exploit and take advantage of a platform that can cause significant harm to many of its users? It may seem simple to find an ethical answer to this dilemma, but the reality is the problem is much more difficult to solve. If Google tries a solution that is vulnerable to expensive court proceedings, it will be necessary to come up with an effective solution. In the worst case scenario, this would mean the end of Google Maps.
While such extreme results seemed very unlikely, we witnessed a massive shutdown of Internet services when FOSTA-SESTA became law. The companies did not wait for legal action but closed rather preventively. Google has already threatened to close its news service on the Adoption of Article 13 by the EU (later renamed Article 17) because of the potential costs.
No matter what could happen, Bryan Seely says Google still has options:
It is not in Google's internal interest to find all spam 100% of the time, as it takes a lot of time on a large scale, with a lot of ambiguous / difficult to determine content. Some are obvious, others not. Google is expected to interact and help different countries and states to develop a "legal" or "non-legal" business database API, so that entities such as the state department that grants business licenses are verified when they are not in compliance. a company is online. The reason we issue such licenses to organizations is for the responsibility and the protection of consumers; it's almost a complete bypass of this process.
For this to work, Google and the government should work together. In addition, Google may provide contextual tools to report fraud. For example, let's take this basic research for an electrician:
It should be noted that during the most common screen resolution 1280 × 800you will only see ads in your results unless you scroll. But let's look at the first option and how this company is positioned on Yelp:
If this company commits fraud, how would you report the problem to Google? Each search result has a small, easy-to-ignore menu, but even that does not provide the option:
You can find out why the ad was served, but you can not post it directly from the only contextual option you have. In addition, Google leaves a lot of leeway to provide useful tools to its users:
Google is not required to create a liability by warning you of potential fraud and may simply post a link to information and post information about how to protect yourself and report a problem. Meanwhile, the company's most important verification activity involves sending a postcard to the user who wants to claim an address and publish a list. By configuring mail forwarding, virtually anyone can redirect mail from the address of an existing business to itself to support that address on Google.
The same process works to create new lists. Seely believes that an individual could create hundreds of fake listings a day. I tried the process (without finalizing it) myself and it took less than five minutes to my first try. It's 12 lists per hour, or 84 per workday if you take a long break for lunch. With a little practice, and perhaps with the help of account generators easily purchased in darknet markets for as little as $ 10, it's not hard to see how to dedicate a person could handle hundreds of fake ads every day. Even using a manual process, you would exceed 100 lists by doing a few extra hours.
Google could strive to introduce better auditing processes, like the one suggested by Bryan Seely, but it's hard to believe that it will do so when it will not even bother. # 39; print. DO NOT FORWARD on his verification documents (photo above).
Even though Google will probably never eliminate fraud on its platform and do not know what additional methods would be most useful, but it's obvious that Google has spent at least half a decade ignoring the commendable efforts that no create no additional legal liability for the company. While it's not fair to regard greed as Google's only motivation, its behavior demonstrates a preference for profit over customer protection in several specific cases.
Complex and widespread problems torture us daily in the news and confidence in the media continues to decline. Even when you can believe what you read, hear, or see, you may feel that you can not do anything against problems as vast and complex as this one.
While fighting online fraud will require a lot of work from a lot of people, small efforts from each of us can bring us closer to a safer online experience for all. Here are some options to consider if you want to help Google do the right thing:
This may take some time, even with such exposure, but if we continue to press Google for it to further strive to solve this problem, we can improve the situation. These are just small ways everyone can help, but as Mark Baldino have made greater efforts to combat this problem. You should do what you feel is right. If you have another positive way to motivate Google to reduce the number of frauds on your platform, please share it in the comments. We only have a chance to do that with our combined efforts.
Top image credit: Adam Dachis
The proliferation of smart speakers makes it easier to listen to music and control smart devices, but also raises privacy issues. After all, they are microphones connected to the Internet capable of listening to your conversations at great distance. Amazon has been criticized for its voice data management Alexa and Google is facing similar issues after signing a contract gave reporters a chance to browse customer registrations.
The question comes into play with how Google uses these records. A contractor in the Netherlands gave VRT NWS journalists access to the recordings they were responsible for reviewing. The site claims that records contain personal information such as names and addresses, even if the data was not linked to user accounts.
So, that seems bad for Google. However, there are some important factors that are not subject to sufficient coverage in the initial report. On the one hand, the wizard only records your voice when he hears the "Hey Google" trigger phrase. You also have total control over what happens with your recordings. An account switch prevents Google from recording anything and you can choose to purge voice recordings after a set time. The real problem is that Google was too vague when he talked about using records to improve the service. Usual users probably did not expect others to listen to their voices.
Google responded to the report delete with force, pointing out that only about 0.2% of the wizard orders were verified by one person. Workers introduce their transcripts in Google 's algorithm to improve service for all. Google calls the disclosure of customer data to VRT NWS a violation of data security rules.
The company is committed to investigate the problem and take action against the manager. Google also states that it will improve the way it explains the privacy settings of the Assistant to People. If you want to change your privacy settings, see this topic. support page.
A new version of Android Q is deploy today, bringing us closer to the final version. This fifth beta is also the first version of Android Q. "publication candidate". Developers can test their apps against Beta 5 and be certain that they will work the same way with the final version launched later this summer. Although all the features of Android are pretty detailed at this point, there are some new features in Beta 5.
Google says all developers need to implement and test dark mode, gesture navigation, and collapsible optimizations. This last point seems terribly optimistic considering that Samsung has not yet managed to pull out its foldable phone.
Much of Google's Beta 5 effort revolves around refreshing motion navigation. As Google has announced to I / O this year, it will no longer be possible with clumsy two-button gesture navigation that debuted in Pie. Instead, Android will switch to an iOS style bar of gestures. This will however require some changes in the current operation of Android.
Beta 5 includes the new wizard shortcut that works well with gesture navigation. Previously, you would have long pressed the Home button to access Wizard. In Beta 5, you can slide your finger diagonally from the bottom left or right corner to access Wizard. Google's new gesture (swiping on the sides) seemed to break the navigation drawers in apps, but Google has a new peek behavior in version 5 that tells users to interact with the drawer rather than triggering the gesture. return.
Apparently, Google also admits that it does not have a good solution for third-party home screen launchers. Features such as the multitasking menu are part of the Home screen and therefore do not work properly with replacements like Nova or Action Launcher. Users will need to use traditional button navigation with these launchers until Google develops a solution, which will occur during a post-launch update for Android Q.
Android Q Beta works on all Pixel phones, as well as on some third-party devices. Google phones are getting OTA updates right now, but it will take a few days before the other preview program OEMs prepare the new versions. We expect that a new beta will be released in the coming weeks with very minor changes. After that, it will be the time of the final version. It's probably also when we discover what Google has decided to name Android Q – its options are far more numerous than those of previous letters.
Google's privacy history for Pixel phones is uneven at best. There are always leaks here and there, and last year, a 3 "XL pixel case" fell off a truck "in Russia. Nothing informative has happened this time, but there are some new renderings of the next Pixel 4 XL.
Unlike previous years, Google is not fooling with the upcoming launch of its phone. The Twitter account of the company Made by Google posted on shadow phone after the last series of rendering leaks. This image has left much to the imagination, but the new rendering leaks puts everything in value.
This leak comes from OnLeaks, which was very reliable in the past. OnLeaks has access to the CAD files disclosed for the phones, and then creates renderings based on them. Pixel's last leak was about the smallest Pixel 4, but this time it's the Pixel 4 XL. This one also includes the placement and the size of the screen, where the last leak is ignored on this part.
We already know what the back of the phone will look like – it was in Google's post Twitter. A square camera module has three sensors, two of which are probably cameras. The third is the most likely time flight sensor. There is no fingerprint sensor on the back. So have you switched to on-screen sensor technology or abandoned the fingerprint sensor in favor of 3D face unlocking?
On the front, the Pixel 4 XL would have a screen of 6.25 inches that marries the bottom of the device better than the top. There is no nick, however. The Pixel 3 XL was heavily criticized for the massive gash that was about half the status bar for no good reason: the phone still had a gigantic chin at the bottom. This year, Pixel avoids this with asymmetrical glasses. If it's an improvement, it's an aesthetic judgment.
The slightly larger upper bezel houses two front cameras and two other small sensors of unknown nature. A combination of cameras or other sensors could form the basis of Google's 3D face unlock system.
The total body of the phone is 160.4 x 75.2 x 8.2 mm. This makes it slightly larger in all dimensions than the Galaxy S10 +. So it will be a very big phone. We expect Google to announce Pixel 4 and 4 XL in October, when all Made by Google events took place.
Google knows our language because it is configured on the computer and on the mobile device. It's an information that can be & # 39; Inherit & # 39; directly from the operating system. It is the web browser itself that indicates this information to the search engine. For Google, it is not at all complex. s & # 39; adapt to our language and to serve us the research in the language we use in the usual way. Now, you also know the region from which we use our device and we automatically adapt to it. But in computers and mobile devices, we can change the country of Google manually, as follows on each platform:
On Android mobile devices, whether smartphones or tablets, we need to change the configuration by Google app. In Google's specific application, you have to click on More, in the icon with three points in horizontal orientation, and here to access the section of The configuration From there, we will have access to the Language and Region section and we will have to change it. Region of research.
As it is obvious that it will depend on the region of research that we configure here, in the Google application. Although we use Google from Spain, for example, we can change the settings in this section to use Google France, for example. And again, the results can continue to appear in our language instead, in this case, to appear in French.
If the change of settings we want to do from a computer, whether it is a desktop or a laptop, we can too. But in this case, we do not have a specific Google app, so we'll have to go to the menu Search parameters Google from any web browser and, from there, we will go to the bottom of the page to find the section Configuration of the region.
Just check the box corresponding to the desired region and, if it does not appear, click the Show More button to display the complete list. Once we have selected the region we want to use for the search engine, you just have to click on save. The result will be the same as what we get in mobile devices and, in the same way, we can reverse the change at any time.
In order to provide the best search results for each person, Mountain View uses several references to detect the location Automatically One of the key data is the IP address of the device. location history, in case we enabled this feature, and the other, the My Location feature in the Google Bar. But in addition to all this, Google can also use recently searched places to detect ours.