Yep. I use drive but keep waiting for some clear alternative to arrive. My biggest use is just keeping D&D campaign-related materials there.

Google is a drag.

WebDAV is pretty easy to configure on all operating systems I'm aware of. You wouldn't even need a third party client.

You can do that self hosted or via fastmail or similar

Sync thing runs on any device you own. I have a docker container running FileBrowser for Web access.

Its the kiss of death for google drive support, and eventually when many apps don't support using google drive people who are on it will switch to other cloud storage providers.

I'm surprised that there isn't more support for just using object storage via a GUI.

I would love for as user friendly way to just use Backblaze or some other S3 compatible provider as my drive.

Edit: I guess that's sort of exactly what Transmit does, but I want something that is simple enough that anyone can use it.

Transmit is as "easy" as one could imagine software of that type being.

You do have to know what a file is and what a directory is, mind you, which is something I can non-ironically say does rule out half of GenZ or anyone else raised in the postmodern era, where 'content' just lives 'in' an 'app' and can be searched for (and if you're lucky, found). But I don't think people of that minimum level of sophistication are in the market for products like Backblaze or S3 - they're just out there paying for more iCloud storage (or new laptops) because Apple said they are out of space.

This is what everyone said they wanted after Cambridge Analytica! For platforms to exercise due diligence before allowing users to delegate their access to third parties.

Yes, the situation superficially resembles Cambridge Analytica, but there's a few differences here. People aren't building detailed dossiers of themselves on Google Drive like they were on Facebook, and Transmit is a client app that is honest, open and up-front about how it uses your data - to move it in and out of Google Drive.

To be clear, the problem with Cambridge Analytica was not Cambridge Analytica. The problem was - and still is - Facebook's habit of getting everyone to overshare and self-surveil. There needs to be some control and vetting over the apps that have access to your data but not so much that actually honest developers are quitting the game.

My guess is that Google just doesn't want third-party clients (you can't shove "AI" or "Investor Advertising" into it), so they're slowly turning up the heat by abusing the data scare.

A lot of people will have substantially more sensitive data in their chosen cloud storage system (whether Drive, DropBox, OneDrive, iCloud) than on Facebook or any other social network. For example documents like ID scans, financial records, and medical records are going to be commonplace.

It seems like if a nefarious actor built a seemingly helpful app that asked for Google Drive access and convinced some people to use it, they could do a lot worse than Cambridge Analytica.

My Facebook account is largely limited to information that’s already largely public. I imagine there are Google Drive accounts out there with tax returns, health records, background checks, etc in them.

Yes, this sucks that it puts road blocks for well meaning developers, but for the general public, it’s pretty hard to tell who is a well meaning developer and who isn’t. Also, inexperienced or careless well meaning developers can still accidentally put your data in a public internet facing DB.

Wasn't a significant part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal that Facebook gave them access to user data _without_ the user's consent?

This is a fair thing to point out! I as a user feel I'm being much more respected when I'm allowed to use some independent client software of my choices, than being told that "for my own good" I must use the absolute abomination that is most of the software provided by Big Tech firms themselves. Like, thanks for your opinion, Google, but 90% of these "security audits" are about box checking and ass-covering. It's the technology equivalent of all of the silliest parts of the TSA process, meaning that it contributes nothing to security while employing a lot of people to do valueless work at the expense of those doing useful work.

Not as far as I know.

Facebook provided a general API for apps, not some kind of data feed. The API required user consent from the app user, though almost certainly not informed consent.

The API also provided too much data, in particular on the user's social graph, which is why a single user giving uninformed consent would lead to data being extracted for multiple others. But even if the app had informed users about intending to steal the social graph, most users would still have consented. They would not have read the text, or not cared. Just click ok until the computer lets you do what you wanted.

So we really do know that the only way to safeguard the data is to design safe scoped APIs for the typical use cases, and keep dangerous unscoped APIs around only as an escape hatch with much stricter security and safety requirements.

Facebook users shared data with their friends. Those friends gave access to the data to CA. So like if you share a document with me and I then give CA access to my GDrive.

IIRC the way Facebook's "platform" stuff worked was that when one user authorized an application, it got to see all their friends' data. Farmville had to be able to access your friends list to see who you could send a sheep to, you see.

Nowerdays this seems like an incredibly dumb idea, sure, and personally I disabled it entirely the moment it came out. But we can cut them some slack, because back in ~2006 facebook was a new thing, for young people - and nobody was sure where this new "social media" thing was going to go.

On top of that I believe Cambridge Analytica did the usual "personality test" trickery where you fill out a survey, then it won't show your result until you hand over your details and accept some legal mumbo-jumbo.

So your Great Uncle wanted to know what harry potter character he was, clicked a consent button, and Cambridge Analytica got your PII.

In the same sense that if someone uses a third-party Google Drive client, the input of other collaborators on shared documents is exposed without their consent. (It was data about friends of users who authorized the application in Facebook's case).

Before Cambridge Analytica I could get language stats for Belgium down to municipalities.

These are illegal otherwise, but very useful for journalists reporting on political matters.

There is some massive confusion around the types and costs of audits required for full Drive permissions scope (and I definitely blame Google for the lack of communication/direction on this). I had to get this audit for an app and it was nowhere near 75k - I believe it was well under 10k. Another commenter said they had it done for $4k: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41781325

That still sucks and is prohibitive for indie developers. As the post mentions, in reality this program adds very little value for any of the involved parties.

> The more hassle the more people are going to hate that ivory tower.

This is a bit naive, a very small percentage of people would be interested in these alternative solutions. Most people don't even install any third party software on their computer and just use the browser for everything.