Googling Security 142
brothke writes "It has been suggested
that if one was somehow able to change history so that aspirin had never been
discovered until now, it would have died in the lab and stand no chance of FDA
approval. Similarly, if we knew the power that Google
would have in 2008 with its ability to aggregate and correlate personal data,
it is arguable that various regulatory and privacy bodies would never allow it
to exist given the extensive privacy issues." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
In a fascinating and
eye-opening new book Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know
About You?, author Greg Conti explores the many security
risks around Google and other search engines. Part
of the problem is that in the rush to get content onto the web, organizations
often give short shrift to the security and privacy of their
data. At the individual level, those who make use of
the innumerable and ever expanding amount of Google free services can end up
paying for those services with their personal information being compromised,
or shared in ways they would not truly approve of; but implicitly do so via
their acceptance of the
Google
Terms of
Service.
| Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You? | |
| author | Greg Conti |
| pages | 360 |
| publisher | Addison-Wesley Professional |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Ben Rothke |
| ISBN | 978-0321518668 |
| summary | Explores the many security risks around Google and other search engines |
While the book focuses specifically on Google, the security issues detailed are just as relevant to Yahoo, MSN, AOL, Ask and the more than 50 other search engines.
My friend and SEO guru Shimon Sandler has a blog around search engine optimization (SEO). In the over three years that his blog has been around, my recent post on The Need for Security in SEO was the first on the topic of SEO security. Similar SEO blogs have a very low number (and often no) articles on SEO and security. Sandler notes that when he mentions privacy issues around search to his clients, it is often the first time they have thought of it.
The book opens with the observation that Google's business model is built on the prospect of providing its services for free. From the individual user's perspective, this is a model that they can live with. But the inherent risk is that the services really are not completely free; they come at the cost of the loss of control of one's personal information that they share with Google.
The book lists over 50 Google services and applications which collect personal information. From mail, alerts, blogging, news, desktop, images, maps, groups, video and more. People are placing a great deal of trust into Google as each time they use a Google service, they are trusting the organization to safeguard their personal information. In chapter 5, the book lists over 20 stated uses and advantages of Google Groups, and the possible information disclosure risks of each.
In the books 10 chapters, the author provides a systematic overview of how Google gets your personal data and what it does with it. In chapter 3, the book details how disparate pieces of data can be aggregated and mined to create extremely detailed user profiles. These profiles are invaluable to advertisers who will pay Google dearly for such meticulous user data. This level of personal data aggregation was impossible to obtain just a few years ago, given the lack of computing power, combined with the single point of user data. The book notes that this level of personalization, while golden to advertisers, is a privacy anathema.
Chapter 6 is particularly interesting in that it details the risks of using Google Maps. Conti explains that the privacy issue via the use of Google Maps is that it combines disclosure risks of search and connects it to mapping. You are now sharing geographic locations and the associated interactions. By clicking on a link in a Google map, the user discloses and strengthens the link between the search they performed and what they deemed as important in the result. By aggregating source IP addresses and destinations searches, Google can easily ascertain confidential data.
After detailing over 250 pages of the risks of Google and related services, Chapter 9 is about countermeasures. Short of simply not using the services, the book notes that there is no clear solution for protecting yourself and company from web-based information disclosure. Nonetheless, the chapter lists a number of things that can be done to reduce the threat. Some are easier, some are harder; but they can ultimately add up to a significant layer of protection. Chapter 9 details 11 specific steps that help users appreciate the magnitude of their disclosures and make informed decisions about which search services to use.
Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You? is an important book given that far too many people do not realize how much personal information they are disclosing on a daily basis. An important point that the book makes is that small information disclosures are not truly small when they are aggregated over the course of years. Advances in data mining and artificial intelligence are magnifying the importance of the threat, all under the guise of improving the end-user experience. The book emphasizes the need to evaluate the short-term computing gains with the long-term privacy losses.
The final chapter notes that apathy is the enemy. As a user becomes aware of the magnitude of the threat, they will see it grow every day. But the next step is to take action. Be it with technical countermeasures, taking your business where privacy is better supported, or petitioning lawmakers.
As to the underlying question, "how much does Google know about you?", the answer is that it is a colossal amount, far more than most people realize. For anyone who uses the Internet, Googling Security should be on their list of required reading. The risks that Google and other search engines present are of great consequence and can't be overlooked. If not, privacy could slowly be a thing of the past.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You? from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
That's Gotta Be A Long Book (Score:5, Funny)
Googling Security
About 830,000,000 results returned.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you preorder now you'll also get
"Wikipeding security: The eleven results demo."
Re: (Score:1)
you got to google:
"Googling Security: How Much Does Google Know About You"
you will then get a 'modest' 18,000 hits
Aspirin? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are they saying that aspirin is so simple and helpful that Big Pharma never would have allowed it on the market or would have it tied up in all sorts of patents? But the comparison makes it sound like aspirin is harmful, seeing as Google is portrayed as more powerful than we would have let happen if we knew the future in advance.
And who would have stopped Google from doing what they did? That's like saying "If people knew what Microsoft would become, they would have stopped it." Huh? If people knew who John Wayne Gacy would become they would have stopped him except they couldn't because they didn't know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aspirin is harmful in large doses, it will deteriorate the lining of your stomache, contributing to ulcers. At low enough doses, the stomache is able to repair the damage, and you gain the blood thinning benefits that help prevent heart attacks.
Isn't any drug dangerous in doses past the prescribed rate? Typically they say that overdosing on something will kill you, but the truth is that it will lead to something that will eventually kill you.
Isn't that the point of warning labels? "Do not take past X pills for every Y hours?"
Re: (Score:2)
even then the blood thinning aspect can cause problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't any drug dangerous in doses past the prescribed rate? Typically they say that overdosing on something will kill you, but the truth is that it will lead to something that will eventually kill you.
Even water is dangerous in large enough quantities. I'm not just talking about drowning, you can drink yourself to death bolting too much water in too short of time, messes with your electrolytes (what plants crave) and you die.
Re: (Score:1)
Even water is dangerous in large enough quantities. I'm not just talking about drowning, you can drink yourself to death bolting too much water in too short of time, messes with your electrolytes (what plants crave) and you die.
See: Water Intoxication [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Never had a chance to use this quote before! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't any drug dangerous in doses past the prescribed rate?"
Not necessarily. Drugs might only have been accredited for use at the prescibed rate, and not checked further. The may be efficacious at the prescribed rate and (in the general interests of not taking drugs you don't need), safe well above it but still prescribed at a relatively low but effective does.
Lots of drugs are dangerous if you continue to take them for very long *at* the recommended dose. the recommended dose may come from the fact that s
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't any drug dangerous in doses past the prescribed rate?"
Not necessarily. Drugs might only have been accredited for use at the prescibed rate, and not checked further. The may be efficacious at the prescribed rate and (in the general interests of not taking drugs you don't need), safe well above it but still prescribed at a relatively low but effective does.
I always assumed that part of the FDA approval process included an LD50 [wikipedia.org] estimate. Although that wouldn't look at long term issues at higher than prescribed but less than lethal doses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
And aspirin is linked to reyes syndrome in children.
Re:Aspirin? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they are saying that aspirin has so many side effects and health risks that it wouldn't be approved if tested under today's rules.
Re:Aspirin? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I am convinced that every fruit on the planet individually has caused more deaths than THC, but that is a different issue
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You think the stuff that's being approved today has no side effects? Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you joking?
Aspirin has pretty much the tamest side effects of any drug.
Aspirin is also one of the most useful drugs there are/
Headache? Aspirin.
Fever? Aspirin.
Arthritis? Aspirin.
Poison Oak? Aspirin.
Heart attack? Asprin every day.
Swollen lip? Grind up some aspirin and add a bit of water.
Family history of cancer? Aspirin every day.
Side effects (other than the useful side effects above)?
You might die if you're a child and are extremely unlucky, or if you're a martial arts expert who's family has bee
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not joking. You severely underestimate the side effects and over estimate the usefulness.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Aspirin? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more usual example given is penicillin.
Penicillin which has saved a million times more lives than even the most hyperactive cartoon hero.
Penicillin which has made so many nightmare deadly diseases into matters of a week feeling a bit off.
That same penicillin wouldn't have a chance of getting through drug trials.Penicillin allergy is one of the most common drug allergies and the way drug trials are run the moment the first test subjects went into anaphylactic shock the trials would stop and the drug would be thrown in the bin. Never mind it's potential. Never mind the value we now know it has, it would have gone in the bin if it had had to pass modern drug trials and countless lives would have been lost.
Funny side note. If you thought peanuts might cure cancer and you put them through trials as a drug they wouldn't even get to the stage of being given to actual cancer patients since someone would almost certainly have a severe reaction before that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But on the other hand before a drug is tested on anyone with cancer it would be tested on healthy people(normally). If members of that test group drop dead minutes after being given the treatment then it becomes very very very hard to get the drug through to the point that you can proove that it's any use at all for treating the disease.It's possible. it's just not likely.
Re: (Score:2)
penicillin is still often given to people although it is no longer as effective as before.
Many modern antibiotics are modifications of penicillin. We might never have developed those other antibiotics had penicillin not been found.
Re:Aspirin? (Score:5, Insightful)
The aspirin thing is retarded. If aspirin were created today, it would cost $5 a pill and make billions for Bayer. Then a plaintiff's lawyer would sue Bayer for billion bucks after Reye's syndrome kills some flu-ridden kids who took aspirin, and then Bayer would be rocked with a scandal when the blood-thinning properties of aspirin causes deaths in the elderly who got ulcers using aspirin.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's "Do no harm" PR smoke screen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also from the main title page: "Similarly, if we knew the power that Google would have in 2008 with its ability to aggregate and correlate personal data, it is arguable that various regulatory and privacy bodies would never allow it to exist given the extensive privacy issues"
That's basically saying the boiled frog
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Are they saying that aspirin is so simple and helpful that Big Pharma never would have allowed it on the market or would have it tied up in all sorts of patents? But the comparison makes it sound like aspirin is harmful, seeing as Google is portrayed as more powerful than we would have let happen if we knew the future in advance.
And who would have stopped Google from doing what they did? That's like saying "If people knew what Microsoft would become, they would have stopped it." Huh? If people knew who John Wayne Gacy would become they would have stopped him except they couldn't because they didn't know.
OK, so the aspirin analogy is flawed. I think what the author is really trying to say was best explained in Dante's Peak: "If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it immediately jumps out. However, if you put that same frog in a pot of room-temperature water and then slowly heat it, the poor, dumb thing will remain in the water even as it is cooked to death."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth are you whining about? That's really pretty far along for the Slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
.
Aspirin was Big Pharma. You can't get much bigger than Bayer. [fundinguniverse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Like others said: aspirin is more dangerous than other painkillers. It has serious side effects and is easier to OD on. This is why lots of people don't use aspirin at all. I kind of wish that what the summary said came true and it got kicked off the market - lots of people don't know that it's more dangerous than other painkillers.
So many inventions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why does nobody ask Google anything today? (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget the what-if-we-knew-x-years-ago supposition : why does nobody - no regulatory body that is - demand that Google explain exactly what data they collect and what the heck they do with it?
Really, it seems that, since they started out saying "do no evil", everybody took their word for it and let it go at that. Google is worth billions, reaches millions worldwide, provides dozens of services people have come to rely on, and yet no-one knows what they do exactly, aside from banalities such as "their business model is selling ads". Heck, even Microsoft is under 100x more intense scrutiny than Google...
I like and use Google services as much as the next guy, but their ultra-secretive habits make me very wary of them.
Re:Why does nobody ask Google anything today? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of why they're not doing it, I'm glad they are not. Collecting personal information which was willingly disclosed is not a crime and should not be.
Willingly disclosed? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree. Do people "willingly disclose" the contents of their emails, their searches, their map queries, their photos, their videos, etc by using Google services? Personally, I'm trusting them not to compile all that information and sell it - but what if they did?
With data mining, the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. Your individual queries might not be worth protecting - "ooh, I can't have Google know that I want an office chair!" - but in aggregate, they might reveal where you live, your financial status, your relationship troubles, your medical problems, what products you like.... stuff that marketers would die for.
If people knew what their "willingly disclosed" info could be used for, maybe they'd be less willing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's definitely an educational issue here. We're not completely ready for this. However, forcing disclosure will not solve that problem. As long as demand for transparency is not driven by the users, the problem will remain.
Re: (Score:1)
People are lazy. Lazy people don't read their Terms of Service. We have Terms of Service because people are greedy and the law is set in such a way now that you have to pre-empt lawsuits.
Sad really. *If* people were more honest, a lot of the headaches in life would go away. Since they aren't going to become more honest, just read what the company says they are going to do with the information and determine if its worth the effort.
Me? I don't care. The likelihood that someone will be reading my e-mails
Re:Why does nobody ask Google anything today? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which misses the point of the book - that you can be disclosing personal information without being aware of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the book is educational, it points out the obvious so that people realize the information they're giving away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Information in this new digital world is a far cry from disclosing your information to marketing surveys that would simply end up with your address on multiple mailing lists. Now it can tie up what do actually do online and off, where you do it and who you do it with, and that's probably the tip of the iceberg.
My opinion is that if governments had this kind of
Re: (Score:2)
More. A profit driven company needs to keep its customers from changing their bookmark. A government only has to worry about people expatriating...
Re: (Score:1)
"I like and use Google services as much as the next guy, but their ultra-secretive habits make me very wary of them."
And yet, like a strung out junkie, you keep coming back to them? Why does anyone have to ask them what they are doing if you are already fairly certain you know? You seem to be a smart person, yet you keep doing things you are believe are hurting you, waiting for the government to step in and force you to stop. Government is not the answer. Self control is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, all the tools and information available to advertisers from google is documented in abundance. It's called AdWords (advertise for keywords on google or content sites) and AdSense (host ads on your content site). The ads for any given search query or AdSense page are ranked in an auction based on an advertisers bid multiplied by a "quality score" (clickthrough and a bunch of other "quality" fudge factors). Here [nytimes.com] is an article on google's ads group. Note that advertisers call it a "black box"; for
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget the what-if-we-knew-x-years-ago supposition : why does nobody - no regulatory body that is - demand that Google explain exactly what data they collect and what the heck they do with it?
More to the point, saying "we collect ip addresses from google-analytics and our ad partners" is way different from saying "and by correlating that data we know 98% of every page each person visits on the internet". Companies say they don't collect any personally-identifiable information... and then proceed to correlate that with personally identifiable information from other sources.
The way it should work is that if a company ever creates a profile on an individual (even for a split second, even for a one
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People assume that Google uses your private information in indirect, anonymous ways to improve advertising or predict general trends from keyword histograms. But have you looked at Google's privacy policy?
"We restrict access to personal information to Google employees, contractors and agents who need to know that information in order to operate, develop or improve our services."
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html [google.com]
It basically says they use your data to improve their services and to develop new
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They did [blogspot.com]. And here is Google's response [google.com].
Apathy has always been the enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
My grandparents refused I remember a long time ago to give out their Social Security Number to anyone.
I remember when you put your credit card onto the manual machine and then made sure to get the carbons.
For the luxury of convenience we have given up our security our anonynimity in not just the digital world but the world at large.
And for this price we get one-click shopping and online bill paying and such. But when the waiter swipes you card # it all comes back to you.
And am I any better than anyone else in this regard ? No. Not really.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is NOT that people ask for or give out SSNs. The problem is that banks and businesses stupidly use knowledge of SSNs as a means of authentication. Obsessing over the "privacy" of such non-private data is trying to fix the wrong problem.
Denial works well here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's reputation, however, is mighty squeaky clean, and until it is revealed just exactly what kind of information their computers can put together from your web habits (and what, exactly, they do with it), I have a feeling we'll be in denial about it for a very long time. I mean, they really, really have a couple billion metric fucktons of money.
I refuse to put any more information into Facebook than I already have because, unlike Google, Facebook doesn't have quite so evident of a business model.
Google away.
Re:Denial works well here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's reputation, however, is mighty squeaky clean, and until it is revealed just exactly what kind of information their computers can put together from your web habits (and what, exactly, they do with it), I have a feeling we'll be in denial about it for a very long time.
It isn't denial, it's personal experience.
Google has been turning out very useful products that pretty much do what they're supposed to. They've been doing some philanthropic stuff too. They give back to the community with their Summer of Code and things like that. Overall, my personal experiences regarding Google are positive. Thus far I do not have reason to distrust them inordinately. This doesn't mean that I'll blindly go along with anything and everything they do, but I don't question their every decision either.
By contrast, I've got a long history of frustration with Microsoft. Product after product released late and in buggy condition. Patches that break more than they fix. Hours of frustration trying to troubleshoot issues and track down fixes. Constant press releases about how wonderful the new version will be, and then most of the new features don't show up. I'm talking about a good 10+ years of frustration with Microsoft. So, naturally, I'm a bit skeptical when they announce a new product.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
>>I refuse to put any more information into Facebook than I already have because, unlike Google, Facebook doesn't have quite so evident of a business model.
but what about when google buys facebook?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long before the feds get involved? (Score:4, Interesting)
How long before the DoJ starts down this path by saying, "hey Google, why don't you keep an eye on suspicious searches for us, and let us know if someone reaches a threshold of $X searches/month so we can see if they're bad dudes banging little kids."
Under the PATRIOT Act, any FBI officer could ask for this data, with a self written warrant, Google would be compelled to give them the information, AND IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR GOOGLE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT... EVEN UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW.
So, this could already be happening I guess.
Re:How long before the feds get involved? (Score:4, Interesting)
It has been admitted that the PATRIOT ACT was written before 9/11. Most of it was seperate bills that failed during the Clinton administration and that most Republicans opposed at the time. Funny how things "change" when you get into power.
Lawrence Lessig, a Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that "There's going to be an i-9/11 event" which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.
Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an "i-Patriot Act" if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.
During a group panel segment titled "2018: Life on the Net", Lessig stated:
There's going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn't necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You've got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said "of course there is".
You can find that talk on google video.
On a flu related note, the google flu tracker really scares me. I pointed out in the discussion about it that Executive Order 13375 adds
(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic
to Executive Order 13295 Relating to Certain Influenza Viruses and Quarantinable Communicable Diseases.
That simply means that our government can pre-emptively quarantine an area that may cause a pandemic. The language "reemergent" is also troubling to me since it has been admitted that they have recreated the 1918 flu virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Google flu tracker is an anecdotal "g-wiz" project that contains no individually identifiable material and has no real scientific value. Why would it be used as an argument in favor of data retention? Is getting the sniffles now a crime?
While despicable, sex offenders are not terrorists and the PATRIOT act is not used to gain information about them.
The patriot act was ready to g
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that the events that happened on 9/11/01 went away just because GWB has finished his term in office. Also, regardless of who is in power at the time, it is always important to be vigilant over the powers that the government is allowed to hold over its people. Just because Obama, who appears to have the people's interest in mind, is in office NOW doesn't mean that something done with good intentions for him can't be twisted into something particularly evil later on.
There have been reported case
First fallacy- who is the president? (Score:2)
it ain't over 'til it's over baby....
I'm still paranoid enough to wonder if the current white house occupants might still pull something that is almost but not quite a coup
Re: (Score:2)
Not a chance. The ensuing riots would burn down half the country.
the whole premise is cracked (Score:5, Interesting)
The premise here is "if only we had known ahead of time, we would have done things differently". In the cases where we did know ahead of time, or enough people did, we still went ahead and did it anyway. *After* the Grand Banks fishery collapsed ... we continued to fish it. A few short years later ... we shut down the entire fishery due to lack of foresight and cooperation.
For some reason, I've never viewed Google as a particularly large threat. They seem to be using the data mining to sell a well targeted audience. Is there a Google service where I can pay to get dirt on my neighbors? There's two guys living out front I'd like to get rid of.
Like a bank, there is a business model to make a lot of money in a hurry by whisking all the deposits off to an island paradise. However, the business model where they maintaining the trust relationship with the fools who deposited in the first place pays better in the long run. When you get down to it, banks sell trust, and not much else.
Do we think our banks don't know a lot about us? If only we had known, we'd have never allowed banks to exist in the first place.
What's happening here is that with mass storage plummeting into the $/TB range, one way or another we were going to have to rethink our entire privacy and public information models rather dramatically.
If only we had known, we'd have never allowed Shugart to spin that first platter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The difference between banks and Google is that banks are heavily regulated under the law as to what information they can collect, what they can do with it, and who they can release it to. Google isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a Google service where I can pay to get dirt on my neighbors?
Not quite, but our datamining search results indicate you're not alone [google.com]
Bogus (Score:3, Interesting)
aspirin had never been discovered until now, it would have died in the lab and stand no chance of FDA approval
This argument is such a fallacy. If it was discovered today it would be considered an herbal supplement and they are not regulated by the FDA. If it was considered a drug patent trolls would sue for it and it would still get marketed since it does work with little side effects. They would see the potential to make a lot of money.
Re: (Score:1)
About that asprin comment. (Score:2)
I have never heard that said of aspirin, but I have heard it said of caffeine. Specifically, that caffeine would be regulated like cocaine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Poorly?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not regulated poorly. It is that the regulations are poorly enforced.
Re: (Score:1)
If it isn't possible to do a good job enforcing the regulations (which I believe to be true), then the distinction isn't worth much.
The #1 thing preventing the vast majority of adults from using powerful drugs is that they do not want to; in the face of that, I can't justify violent, expensive enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was not possible to do a good job enforcing the regulations.
I said the regulation was poorly enforced.
Those are two very different things. The regulations could be well enforced, but it just isn't being done.
Re: (Score:1)
Please note that I *did* say that it is not possible to do a good job enforcing the regulations.
It is perfectly possible to disagree, as it isn't possible to prove either position.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were legal to sell and consume powerful drugs, such as cocaine and heroine, that are currently illegal, then there would be advertising for the use of said drugs and more people would use them.
If you don't believe it, please look at the tobacco industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Aspirin? Are you sure? (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's strange, because I remember doing a report (10 years ago maybe) on Aspirin in high school, and I distinctly remember reading in several books on the subject that if aspirin were discovered today, it would be hailed as an amazing wonder drug instead of its current image as a ho-hum headache remedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, but in fact both things can be true simultaneously.
Aspirin is pretty amazing stuff--painkiller, anti-inflammatory, blood thinner, fever reducer, stroke preventative, and more. The list goes on.
HOWEVER, it also can cause stomach bleeding and bleeding ulcers, tinnitus, Reyes syndrome, prolonged bleeding; and has a high number of interactions with other drugs. Oh, and overdoses (both acute and chronic) can be lethal.
I suspect it would be a prescription drug if it were introduced today. Then again, na
Re: (Score:1)
by invitation only (Score:1, Insightful)
the most obvious way I thought of Google as gathering data on your connections is that for Gmail they enforced a "by invitation only" registration system. Once you had been invited and signed for Google, one day, they gave you 5 or 10 or 50 invitations that you would *normally* send to your buddies so they can register too. Here's your perfect way to track who you know and who they know etc.
The point isn't to find your Bacon number, but to profile you even more accurately (birds of a feather, anyone?).
AC
What, me woried? (Score:2)
The book lists over 50 Google services and applications which collect personal information. From mail, alerts, blogging, news, desktop, images, maps, groups, video and more. People are placing a great deal of trust into Google as each time they use a Google service, they are trusting the organization to safeguard their personal information.
Oh, you mean they're agrigating my fake personal information. I don't care what they do with that.
I've never given out my real personal info to sign up for any online service, and I have no intention of starting now.
The only thing a search for my real name returns is an interview in a newspaper from a charity event several years ago.
And several other people who share my less-than-common name.
Re: (Score:2)
you would be VERY surprised to find out just how many people put their very real info in EVERYWHERE and how many use their bank pin number as their password... everwhere... the mind wobbles.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing that criminals always go for the easy targets first, due to their inherent laziness does make me sleep better.
well.... (Score:1)
it is one thing to be forced into submitting your personal info for purposes of data aquisition and quite another for you to do it because you want the entire world to know just how important it is that YOU CAN HAS CHEESEBURGER! Sigh...
Public Records (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I, as a juror, also saw that happened.
However, I dont think that anybody pays attention because it's in a transcript inside the courthouse. It's not online, and if you want a copy of it, you need to go there publicly. And then you're on candid camera, courtroom style.
That'll change quick though when crooks realize they have all the information they need to dupe an identity right there in the court of law. Then it'll all be redacted unless you provide your information (so we can watch you).
Your choice (Score:3, Interesting)
- You publish that information in your site (i.e. you give it to everyone, google included)
- You give that information to google (i.e. you store your mail/documents/etc in google, or interact with your google account with google sites, like in maps, search history, etc)
- You interact with google sites not with your account, but interact anyways. That could include google ads, or the search engine itself (even if is embedded in your browser), or visiting sites using google analytics.
In the first two is your choice to give them your information. And if the last one worries you, using alternative search engines or using extensions like NoScript will solve that problem.
The problem with google is that give you too much ways, most of them very handy, to store your information, and is in very good positions to combine all that sources. You can pick all yahoo services and be in more or less the same situation, but in yahoo. Or in lesser degree, can fall in the same with Microsoft, Facebook, your mail provider, etc(even slashdot could fit in that category eventually)
Flu (Score:2)
Is not a big privacy problem per se, not more than a census, but could be the start of a trend. Would hate to read it as "If you have no privacy, we can help you"
What did Google know and when did Google know it! (Score:1)
search engine optimization (Score:2)
Tip #1: Get your blog linked to in a story at Slashdot....
Privacy is at odds with existing in the world... (Score:3, Interesting)
... as it is today.
Privacy can't really be protected, it's an illusion. If my neighborhood has webcams pointing out their window at my house or appartment can I stop them? If someone is dedicated enough or well funded enough, they can find out much about you simply since by existing and interacting with society you leave 'breadcrumb' traces of yourself everywhere you go. Anytime you make any kind of economic transaction via electronic means that is recorded, even if you use money, camera's inside the store are recording your habits.
Why does no one complain about being recorded inside a supermarket for instance? Why is it acceptable, when over the years people can study it and research it and deduce things about you? Google just makes the process convenient and slightly easier, the lack of privacy has always been there whenever you enter into stores, shops and malls. If google needs to have data requested, why don't all corporations who record and monitor people over a long time also not need to be queried about their data?
As you can see the scope and financial undertaking of being consistent would be fairly large, and I doubt you'd get much out of it.
I certainly agree with OP's second sentence (Score:2)
Do Less Evil, Google!