And less than 24 hours later, here we are.
And in one little error it can all disappear with no recourse.
I continue to struggle today to find a silver bullet solution for someone like me who just wants to hurl money somewhere and say, "use this money to guarantee that my cherished photos and videos will be here in 30 years"
Second to that is getting locked out of my Gmail. I'd consider that more irritating than losing my wallet.
I'm kinda hoping for some open-source solution to emerge based on IPFS or the like, which would let me easily control replication of my photos & vids over a few local disks (probably via some local NAS machine[s]), and some online paid pinning service.
There are apparently some efforts towards something like that in the IPFS community , but no clear winner yet I think, or at least especially no good UI/UX for this yet.
edit: some random service/startup which I just googled up which apparently tries to fit into this area, linking here to hopefully match them with potentially interested users, and thus maybe help them reach critical mass: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/846e64/photo_backup_a...
What I want is a holistic solution. "I have money and I have data that I want taken care of. I don't want to do much work and I don't want to think about it more than once a year or two."
The Google Drive files are exported as you would expect and you can just copy them into some other sync folder as is. Takeout transforms any Google Docs and Sheets into Word and Excel formats (configurable), so you don't end up with links into your disabled Google account (contrary to how their Backup and Sync client works).
Emails are exported as mbox files, calendars in ics format. It's pretty easy to import everything using widely available email and calendar clients. It's also pretty easy to put it all back into another Google account, but you're right, it's not as simple as importing the entire takeout zip file in one piece.
What I haven't tried is what happens to files that were shared with you. I would expect that they don't get exported because it's someone else's data after all.
I think if the purpose is to let you move all your data to a different provider and avoid any lock-in, then Google Takeout is an honest and practical solution.
It's clearly not meant as a routine backup solution though.
Despite being able to supply google with the creation date (they ask), the fact that my name/birthday is the same on both accounts, I’ve attached the same visa to both google accounts, I’ve logged on to them from the same ips, and the fact that it’s forwarding everything to me, I still haven’t been able to get it unlocked.
I’m not sure I’ve really spoken to anything but an automated process either.
It’s entirely my fault for losing the two-factor restoration keys, but it’s been a little frightening to realize that you can’t just contact google and have them help you.
I was in the same situation, having the correct logon credentials for my account, but the system refused to believe it's me and asked for proof, but I forgot the security answer.
Ended up filing a bogus copyright complaint, knowing they can't handle that automatically.
I told them there was a copyright violation and proof was in my locked account (a picture of a seven-legged spider...).
They unlocked the account long enough for me to move my accounts elsewhere.
I find both options to be not ideal, since I'd like a simple, secure and safe way of storing my pictures. But that's the way the market is.
That's very much missing the point. The non-technical option is inside that post: Backblaze. Do that twice, the second time with crashplan or carbonite, and you can keep your files safe without any trouble.
The real problem is that it can only protect the files on your computer. If you have data that's fed directly to google, there's no simple software to get it back out to where it can be backed up.
Plenty of uncomfortable chances for failure, but a few heaped handfuls of error reporting would probably be mitigation enough.
Getting the initial clone done might be a little fun, you might need to actually download the Drive folder structure to somewhere spacious so you don't run into transfer ratelimiting for the initial upload.
Anyways, print recovery keys for your account, use 2FA with yubikey or other U2F provider.
If I were to get banned from Google, I'd still have my folder as a backup which I can then upload to Dropbox or whatever alternative.
If I were to lose my folder (My hard drive went bust!) my folder is one resync away.
What is the problem you have with photos, and videos in that sense?
Or are you talking about the Free "Google Photo" thing for lower resolution images?
Email is the single most important thing, and I can't understand why people use Google for that in 2018.
Very few people think that every single shot will be meaningful in 30 years. But it's hard to know what will be and won't be.
So, follow the backup instructions very very very carefully people!
switch to apple
Anyone using a free service anywhere provided by anyone should be worried.
I pay to use gmail and their service is incredible. Whether it's been support chat, phone calls, etc... I've always received very prompt support from Google.
Google seems to just be an exceptionally bad actor - I’ve been starting to move away from dependence on them as a result, as they’ve proven to me that I cannot rely on them to be honest/transparent in the most important ways.
Talking costs money, a lot of money, far more than computers.
It seems that Google One will have paid support, so your problem is solved!
Have you looked at moving off gmail?
I can already see the followup HN news: "Google attacking developers on Chrome Web Store and breaking free web!"
To the author: Thanks for the extension. I'm a happy user on FF for a long time.
The "Google search link fix" extension by Wladimir Palant has existed for many years. (Source: I use it in Firefox.)
one of the worse parts about this is that they auto update without you knowing. So an extension might've been safe when you first installed it then a month later its infested.
All in all, this is nothing new and it seems to be a lot of huff about a simple mistake.
This happened despite tens of thousands of users, years of good reviews, and an extension so useful that Google's own accessibility team demos it at conferences.
I was only able to get the situation sorted because I know people who work at Google on the Chrome team. Even with all this, it took weeks to get the previous version restored, and after that weeks more before we could push an update without having it get automatically rejected.
The only "good" news is they didn't uninstall our existing user base.
Do you know if there's a way that your company can report this as an inappropriate block to FortiMail? I will try to reach out to them also, but my guess is they'll be more receptive to a customer request than to one of their blacklisted websites!
BTW, we're not publicizing this, but right now we're testing out a "BeeLine Advocate" program. Basically, if you install the extension and complete the free trial (2 wks), you'll be invited to get free access to our Pro tier in exchange for filling out periodic surveys.
We've just opened up this program, and it'll probably be open to new users for 3 weeks or so. Thought I'd share with the community here, since HNers are great for feedback (as you've just shown with your comment!).
Our corporate email is outsourced to another company, where they apparently use FortiMail as a packaged solution. So I don't think it's very likely that they'll listen to me - but I'll try anyway. Good luck with the new campaign!
Hehe, one thing all successfully resolved issues have in common - a friend inside of Google. Maybe that's by design... Google employees are not friends with bad guys!
One of the big frustrations for me was that their system was run from an anonymous mailbox, and seemed to have different folks responding different times. Also, if they sent you a message and you replied immediately, you might not hear back for days. At times, it seemed like I was either corresponding with a bot or someone with very bad English.
Maybe a tech journalist can write a story about what’s going on, and actually get some answers from them?
I even submitted our extension to Opera. Months went by with no response. Dev forums show that this is a common experience.
We’re also on iOS, but since extensions don’t really exist on mobile, this isn’t a great substitute.
I’d welcome suggestions for another platform that we should be on!
Maybe a nudge toward Firefox can be part of that message.
Every company does what is in their best interest not particular customer.
There's also a huge difference in scale. There's not that many browser extensions to consider, but they have millions of videos on YouTube. It's not really comparable.
I don't even know the reason why they took it down.
I just had to re-publish my extension:
Tweets from users:
Tweets I sent;
It was active for many years with great reviews and a few hundred users.
Google pulled it early this year because Facebook asked them to... They claimed it violated copyright. There was no option to appeal.
Not trying to make a point here. Just offering another anecdote.
When people started hashtagging on FB, I thought it was the stupidest thing. Then, when FB made it a feature, I just had to shrug and go "I guess the hashtaggers are the ones in the right, now..."
And yes, it would. The Chrome Web Store isn’t exactly a high traffic destination. We just want to prevent the thing from stealing data since it asks for domain permissions.
Why have the form specifically for this if you’re not going to process it? Oh wait, it’s Google... never mind.
Google makes most of their money from ads. If you interfere with that then of course you'll be in trouble.
Protecting users from malicious actors serves in the best interests of the Chrome Web Store, certainly, but there's nothing stopping users from running their own security software.
In a more ideal world a developer would distribute an extension from their own platform and the user would run a security check against it (and all future versions). Until we get to that world, though, a store that is focused on integrity of security and expresses its right to remove things that don't fit it's model is convenient.
That'd let external places create collections of extensions/addon's, which would probably open things up enough.
I've never been involved with that kind of thing, so I'm just guessing. Feel free to correct me.
- https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-search-link... is still in the store
- it IS missing the picture
Edit: Got a mail now, supposedly the issue here was an internal miscommunication resulting in a rejection. So all is good again and all I have to do is resubmit that screenshot.
Browsers ignore cert pinning when the CA certificate was manually installed, so this is not a problem either.
I have no idea what HSTS is doing on your list.
Something similar to hiddenfromgoogle.com but for extensions (doesn't appear to work anymore) 
It's not longer a case of "don't put your time into a closed ecosystem, for your own sake", but "you have the moral duty not to contribute to a closed ecosystem, for everyone's sake".
The developer was doing something imoral and something bad happened to him. It's karma, Kramer.
The other way around. The OP must be the one moving at extreme speeds.
Basically I'm also providing a link to F-Droid on the home screen. The app is blocked and I can only resubmit a new one…
Fair enough according to their policy but I couldn’t help feeling disappointed when I got the email as the extension was quite popular at the time.
Paywall bypass: Not OK.
The reason given was:
> We don't allow products or services that facilitate unauthorized access to
content on websites that circumvents paywalls.
The functionality from the extension was roughly possible with a set of adblock rules anyway, I just packaged it up for the less technically inclined.
It's interesting to hear this, when Firefox Mobile keeps uninstalling uMatrix and uBlock Origin, while these keep running on Chrome without issue.
What kind of twisted logic is this? uBlock can't run without issue on mobile Chrome, since there's no uBlock for mobile Chrome. Even super locked-down mobile Safari has ad blockers available.
Mozilla also doesn't stand to gain anything by forcing you to view ads. Google does. That's why Firefox Mobile has historically been the mobile browser that lets you install add-ons and ablockers, while Chrome for Android has not.
Have you filed a bug report with Mozilla? They're obviously not intentionally getting rid of uMatrix and uBlock.
I've been running Nightly mobile for more than a year and never had that happen. It sounds like a very strange bug, maybe it had something to do with Sync?
Yes. Checked while posting this, and they're uninstalled again.
What? I'm using it without issue of any kind for several years...