“That’s a lot of rights to give Google, on the face of it — in fact, it’s basically every right you cangive to Google as a copyright holder. But think about how limited Google’s services would be if it didn’t have permission to use, host, store, modify, communicate, publish, or distribute your content — it couldn’t move files around on its servers, cache your data, or make image thumbnails, since those would be unauthorized copies. It couldn’t run Google Translate or Google Image Search. It would be illegal to play YouTube clips in public. In short, Google is giving itself all the permissions it could possibly need to run all of Google services, with the specific limitations that it doesn’t own anything you upload and it can’t use your data beyond running its services.”
Cloud wars: How Google Drive’s privacy policy stacks up against its rivals’ - The Washington Post
Love this quote here. It’s not that I think that the concerns aren’t valid (especially that “even if they don’t use if for evil, they could since you’re giving them permission to), but these things are worded in a way that companies have the freedom to make their products work the way they intended to. Worrying about it is like worrying about some random horrific crime: yes, it might happen, but the chances are so slim that it’s not worth worrying about.
