[fncivivue7]

That's spin. The real reason is discussed near the end of the article.

They don't want to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't sexual imagery. Instead, it's easier to just ban people and forget about it.

It's the same type of behaviour and attitude that lead to damoore being fired. No room for ambiguity or nuance at Google. Everything can be decided by an algorithm.

[gonehome]

If the reason stated at the end of the article is the reason I can also understand their decision.

If my SO was surreptitiously taking nude pictures (videos?) of me and our kid while we were sleeping (and uploading them to the cloud!), I’d be pissed (and this is the most benign interpretation).

That said, there should still be due process.

Ultimately, I think it’s an issue with the local max of computing we’re trapped in. We need tools that can free us from dependence on a handful of centralized companies that have this kind of discretionary power over our lives.

[fncivivue7]

I dunno, cloud or no cloud there is an expectation of privacy. What they've done amounts to a warrantless fishing expedition and it should concern everyone.

The problem is, the alternative is this stuff runs rampant on their service, not something I'd want either.

So I understand their position, but their approach here is lacking.