Last I checked (6 month ago or so) rclone was only able to download Google photos that had been uploaded via API/rclone. Other google photos weren't accessible.
But by using Claude Code, you're essentially handing over your data from Google's bot to another data-hungry bot run by an equally untrustworthy entity.
You don't need an anthropomorphized computer program running on trillion dollar companies' servers just to run `rclone copy`.
You're not syncing photos to anthropic services, you're not even using Claude code to run rclone for you, and specifically you're not ingesting every synchronised photo or video into the context.
You're not authorising CC to access your photos.
Claude Code is used to prepare the rclone run.
What do you mean that by using cc you're handing over your data (presumably synced photos) you're handing over your data"?
The comment I was responding to only said "just use claude code." So every single word you wrote in your reply is a hallucination.
If you genuinely believe that "just use claude code" means any of the things you wrote, you are definitely not careful enough to take the precautions necessary to contain commercial spyware. Claude Code would read your credentials and probe your files to "see if everything is set up correctly" and you won't think twice about it.
> OK, explain, what to the "just use Claude code" means in your opinion.
I see you didn't get the message. It's not about opinions. Don't add a bunch of extra meanings to suit your argument.
The original comment was:
> just use claude code to use rclone on a server and let it run automatically, its great and easy
First, it says "use claude code to use rclone." It's very simple English, yet it directly contradicts your claim that "you're not even using Claude code to run rclone for you."
> Because that's the only way I'd understand someone to go on such rant.
Yeah, no wonder given the above.
Going back to the original comment, it says it's easy. Easier than not using Claude Code, which is typing `rclone copy .`. Every justification that you pulled out of thin air is more complicated than that.
> Is this what you'd do?
Again, you're not reading. Read my original comment. And the reply to your comment. I wouldn't use Claude Code in this situation. I'd just type `rclone copy .`.
Right, I see, so when there's an opportunity for a rant you get one specific, narrow meaning, discarding anything else, even if more relevant and sensible, and then you go off.
Maybe try Claude Code one day, then you'll recognise what that phrase was actually about.
All the best! You must need it with such attitude to life.
You literally made a bunch of things up and directly contradicted the statement you so vehemently defended. That's not "sensible," and pointing that out is very different from word lawyering. No amount of "trying Claude Code" will compensate for that.
Just calm down. You seem to be personally offended at the mere suggestion that Claude Code isn't a good fit for everything, or that it's not even more trustworthy than Google. That's just a fact, not a "rant." If you feel the impulse to throw a tantrum because of that, I genuinely urge you to revisit your relationship with your cloud subscription because it's definitely not healthy for you, or the people around you.
