Google Offering Cash For Your Cache 152
pigrabbitbear writes "The gradual transformation of the web into an ultra-personalized, corporate-owned social space in the cloud has raised more than a few legitimate concerns about data privacy. Google, for obvious reasons, has always been one of the top cheerleaders for this metamorphosis. Touting a fresh new privacy policy that allows data about you from all of their services to coalesce, they've recently been particularly bullish about rendering that increasingly realistic digital portrait of you that lies stuffed away in their servers. It has led us again to question: How much are we comfortable with our machines knowing about us? How much is our privacy really worth? With their new program, Google is now asking those questions quite directly, and preceding them with dollar signs. Are we all on the verge of making our own information age Faustian bargains?"
Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.
While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, my boss knows my political position (welcome to our wonderful world of politicial influence in pretty much any place that is remotely touching administration), he knows my medical problems (after all, he's the guy who has to sign my sick days), where I live (because he needs a place to send my mail to) and as far as I can tell, he doesn't give half a shit if I enjoy sucking off goats as long as I do my job.
That doesn't mean that I enjoy some random company having any data of me. Hence I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Interesting)
...I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.
That's kind of how I feel about Facebook photo tagging. Last week I got tagged in 6 photos taken on 3 different continents.
Of course, the date and/or location were wrong for 2 of them, and I was only actually *in* 4 of the photos, which should make things even more interesting.
So... Good luck figuring that out. :)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
ohh.. There is already software for that, don't worry. After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.
In the summer I can remember Facebook identifying me in some photos nobody had ever touched.
Last month they wanted to verify some locations in Europe I've been photographed in
Next month they are going to be asking me where I was at the time of the murder of a member of parliament.
Joke aside feature recognition algos have become unbelievably efficient for location estimation and face recognition, I'm not sure if Facebook's questions are just deductive logic from the info your peers provide or if they actually try to produce data from the images but the later is equally doable.
Re: (Score:2)
After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.
Their facial recognition software is impressive, but certainly not perfect. I don't have any hard data but in my experience while it does correctly identify people quite often, there are still significant false positives and negatives.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just their public version of the software, to convince you they're more flawed than they are! /tinfoil-hat
Re: (Score:2)
But on the other hand... some bosses might turn you in to PETA for giving goats blowjobs against their wills. Never mind the fact that us humans are animals ourselves.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those goats must be a lot more puritanical than I am...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Does not matter what Google would do, just wait until all those data "leak" in some breach and the blackhats get their hands on it.
That's always possible, of course. As someone who works on securing data at Google, though, I have to say that I think your data is safer in Google's servers than just about anywhere. Almost certainly safer than on your own computer. Prior to joining Google I spent 15 years working as a security and privacy consultant for companies all over the world, big and small, so I have a pretty good feel for the state of information security around the world. In my expert opinion, Google does an excellent job. Far better than, for example, your bank.
I'm not sure how much I'm free to say here, so I'm not going to give any details. I'll just say that Google has excellent security infrastructure, and uses it well. Google's security operations teams review everything that remotely touches on security or privacy, and they're world class. Much of my work touches on the cryptographic security infrastructure, and I love the fact that I get my designs and implementations reviewed by serious cryptographers. I also love the fact that in the year I've been with Google I've never yet had any potential security issue I raised be ignored. It's no accident that Google is one of the few major sites on the web that uses SSL for basically all of its user-facing pages -- it's clearly indicative of the "secure by default" mentality of Google engineers.
Even better, most of the security focus at Google isn't directed at keeping the data secure from outside hackers -- most of the threat analyses that I write are focused on preventing abuses by insiders. Not because Google doesn't trust its employees, but because insiders have the most access. If you can make it impossible for employees to access data, you can be pretty sure that it's secure from outside hackers.
Of course, sometimes employees have to be able to get to information. To address that Google has extensive logging infrastructure and systems to identify potential abuses -- and accessing information without a good reason is a firing offense, regardless of whether or not you actually misuse it.
Nothing is perfect, of course, and no real system is invulnerable, so I won't say breaches are impossible. I will say that they're unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:4, Informative)
Does not matter what Google would do, just wait until all those data "leak" in some breach and the blackhats get their hands on it.
Or, Google's Prospective Employee Recruitment Program service starts selling your data to employers.
Google's privacy policy prohibits selling or otherwise transferring user data to outside parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it prevent them from getting data from employers and say "match/no match" ? Because this would not be giving the data, just using what was given to them to provides a service.
I think that's still clearly providing personally identifiable information (PII), even sensitive PII.
That's not against their privacy policy, and nothing private leave google servers.
The match/no match bit is a highly compressed form of the original private information. The fact that it has been dramatically compressed by an employer-specified transformation doesn't change that.
That's my view, anyway, and I think most Googlers would see it the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder... by accepting the Google cookie on a website that runs analytics have you now accepted the new all-services privacy policy?
My understanding is that the new policy goes into effect on March 1, and that any usage of Google's services after that date constitutes acceptance of the policy. However, I don't think visiting a site using Google analytics would constitute you using Google services.
Per the Google Analytics privacy policy (http://www.google.com/intl/en/analytics/privacyoverview.html), the uses that Google can make of the data collected by Google Analytics are controlled by the owners of the sites you visit. So, essenti
Re: (Score:2)
Will you stop posting on every Google story?
Why? Because my posts make it harder for people to spread misinformation?
You've mentioned the opt-out thing on several posts already.
It's something that not many people seem to know about, and it's important, so I like to tell people about it whenever I get a chance.
Why does it have to be opt out?
Actually it's all opt in. You opt in by using Google's services. Unlike some of the competition, Google provides you a way to use their services and opt out of the part of the services that involve collecting information to personalize your experience.
being a Google employee you don't seem to be able to think by yourself anymore.
You have no basis for this assertion. If you thin
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Google is, being EVERYWHERE (in some form or another), your attempts at poisoning requires active effort, or your real habits will quickly overwhelm the faked data.
And yes, should everything Google disappear overnight, the internet will be quite broken
Re: (Score:2)
Active effort... well, it takes a bit of time to write a program that picks random words from a dictionary, puts them into Google, follows one of the first x random links and keeps following the linked pages. Rinse repeat a few billion times (or a few seconds, depending on what comes first) and your browser history is quite worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my boss knows my political position (welcome to our wonderful world of politicial influence in pretty much any place that is remotely touching administration), he knows my medical problems (after all, he's the guy who has to sign my sick days), where I live (because he needs a place to send my mail to) and as far as I can tell, he doesn't give half a shit if I enjoy sucking off goats as long as I do my job.
That doesn't mean that I enjoy some random company having any data of me. Hence I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.
Sure, but if another company found out that your employer knowingly employs a guy who has methadone treatments on thursdays and sucks off goats on the weekends it could end up costing you your job due to potential bad PR.
IMO all that information isn't particularly interesting or meaningful by its-self but once you tie it all together, it can be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a mild strain injury to my right wrist/hand (from DIY).
Try getting someone else to do it, perhaps hire a professional if you don't have a friend who would be willing to help. Or at least be more gentle :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.
While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.
That's why I always use your name and address when I sign up for anything online.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact they are going to pay what is likely to be, in Google terms (think ad click cost), a huge sum should send up some red flags. (If it isn't that much, then it isn't going to be worth installing the plug for most users.) They stand to profit a lot from this data, else they wouldn't pay for it. Keep in mind all the data they receive for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information.
And that's the problem.
Nobody knows what the future will hold in terms of laws and governance. The things that you do today, that are likely well within the limits of the law and likely of no interest to the state, may make you an enemy of a new state tomorrow. Your sig is an excellent example - suggesting that you might be an atheist could wind you up on a watch list of the future. Sounds preposterous, sure, but one never knows.
And yes, we're talking about handing what likely amounts to rather dull data over to a corporation. But again, you don't know who that corporation may hand that data over to tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Where you stand on the fight for privacy fight boils down this: How much is your hypocracy worth to you, and how much does other peoples hypocracy cost you.
Re: (Score:2)
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker [mozilla.org]
So ignorant (Score:2)
So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe". First they came for the people on the list and you did nothing but vote for the tyrant since he offered you a tax cut.
Fight for a better future so that if your data chances hands, i
Re: (Score:2)
So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.
No, and that's a silly example.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reasons why many people and organizations in western countries are uncomfortable with allowing governments to keep data that specifically identifies them. And why many fight for laws to ensure that any data retained is done so in a way that prevents them from identifying the individual in the census. So we do, in fact, refuse to identify the individual as a Jew. Or as a communist. Etc.
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe".
No, I'm not saying that at all. And I'm not simply talking
Re: (Score:2)
And what when the kid fell down the well? Everything else being equal, did those lists being accurate give the Nazis more or less power?
You're employing a false dichotomy here, as well as a strawman ("I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe" -- the "as far as you know" being a WTF in and of itself, what is your point with that?)-- what for? Does one need to give up privacy to be able to fight the rise of tyranny? Nope.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Interesting)
why is it a problem the OP doesn't share your values? She's clear on the facts.
It's a problem because it has nothing to do with values. Saying it does implies that it is a lifestyle choice like pick-your-utopia day.
Although one might not be able to envision what you can do with information, that does not mean that something cannot be done with it, or be done with it in the future.
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. History has shown us, in concrete factual terms, that people can do some downright nasty things to other people for any number of reasons and justifications tied to whatever values, religions, etc. you can think of.
Which is precisely why protecting your privacy, meaning protecting the information about you, is "value" agnostic. It is just simple logic. The less those in power know about you the more protected you are. Period. That simple. I could beat you over the head with history books for a few hours, but it really is that simple.
Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.
People can stick to their "values" and be completely open and free with all information that pertains to them. What will not change about it is the incredible danger they are in by doing so. That fact will remain timeless.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah blah blah values blah blah blah danger
Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?
It's this simple.
How you view privacy and anonymity and how it may relate to freedom is completely dependent on your values. It is very much a philosophical discussion, and hence my reference to pick-your-utopia day. We can envision many different types of possible societies from Star Trek to Star Wars to Welcome to Thunder Dome Bitch. It's wonderful fun.
What is not dependent on your values or philosophy is what history shows us that people do to other people based on information. That is a fact not subject to any one person's values.
For instance, and this is not a Godwin attempt, the Gestapo and SS were reliant upon information gathered through "unintended consequences" of laws passed before and during WWII to carry out their own value based agenda against non-Aryans, namely Jews.
The Stasi is another good example of how information about you, sometimes gathered by force, can be used against you.
So while your "blah blah blah blah danger" characterization of my post has a certain appeal to the anti Tin-Foil Hat people, it disregards history to a dangerous and quite humorous and cartoon like degree. You saying it is about values is like Wile E Coyote "deciding" on whether or not gravity exists.
Regardless of how you feel about your privacy, history is an inarguable series of facts that demonstrate that people will use information against you, time and time and time and time again.
Rinse and Repeat.
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the deported British twitters from America? They too thought that their information was no value to anyone and that it wasn't important. Well the Homeland security proved them wrong. How little you think about your details are irrelevant. Its what others think about them that matters. You might be absolutely innocent but if your browsing habits or facbook posts indicate to a possible power (goverment or otherwise) that you are a suspect then you'll have a hard time proving your innocence. You might be able to do that but is the hassle worth a couple of hundred dollars?
Re: (Score:2)
>Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?
Death. Broken bones. Shackles.
You can, of course, latch on all sorts of different values to those states, but if you are dead or shackled, the values of whoever put you in that state does not alter the state of being dead or shackled itself.
Any of those consequences might be extremely unlikely for you where you are now, but sooner or later it will be zero or one anyway. And if it turns out to be one, then it doesn't matter
Re: (Score:2)
I am unsure as to what you are saying.
Not once have I ever advocated compromising one's own principles in the face of mounting resistance and consequences. Indeed, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, they were not yours to begin with. I would say that is itself a measurement of faith and ethics.
i
In the case of privacy though it would seem prudent to not give up your privacy in totality, given the inherent dangers.
All I really said was that the inherent dangers are not influenced by your bel
Re: (Score:2)
That just leads to absurdity where you never express an opinion on anything ever
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I didn't provide a solution.
There's a much better approach anyhow - enforce strict controls and rules on our data that companies and governments collect and retain.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a great idea - let's admit that private information about an individual is property of that individual. They have the right to sell it - or in my case to *not* sell it.
Want to charge me for gmail instead? Ok, sign me up. Just don't data-mine it or sell it to a third-party. The same goes for facebook - I'd gladly sign back up if I was allowed to be the customer.
Re:property of that individual (Score:2)
Actually, that would work pretty well, but it will never happen.
"Your private information is copyrighted to you, subject to the penalties of the copyright laws if they sell it to all their ad partners."
Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Install virtual machine
2. Install Chrome
3. Write Python script to browse web continuously
4. ???^h^h^h Sell cache
5. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Eric Says (Score:2)
Google Highjump into Shallow End (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:dupe story? from earlier this day? (Score:2)
Yes, I'm glad someone finally noticed.
Now we don't even start the fp with "Dupe" anymore. They're getting good page hit value out of their stories now.
Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End (Score:5, Insightful)
"and as someone essentially locked into gmail"
Non techie solution, do your searches on Bing. Also, use a separate dedicated browser for Facebook ( I use Opera ). Of course assume that anything you put on the net is public.
Re: (Score:2)
well. i use google maps, search and google+. However my homepage and email are with a paid for provider under a jurisdiction i approve of.
The point is: googles business in understanding what you look for to provide you with the best advertisements possible.
The combination: "he agreed to meet casually with a group of friends (google+) at x after searching (google search) for y and while going there (google maps) he paid something at shop z (via NFC for example) and checked in at time t and while he was waiti
Re: (Score:1)
I've already deleted my facebook. I'm scrambling to figure a way to ditch gmail right now (since the privacy policy changes). Don't use bing as InterGuru suggests, but rather https://ssl.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org] or startingpage.com
Re: (Score:2)
I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.
Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html [google.com]
All you have to do to "opt out" of Google tracking is ... keep a Google tracking cookie on you everywhere you go.
Well, yes. There has to be some way for Google's systems to know that they should not log or aggregate information about your requests.
When it comes to security of Google's own, internal information they go to great lengths to limit who can access it because they know they cannot rely on contractually-enforced trust of their own employees but when it comes to security of your information they insist that you rely on no-contract-whatsoever trust of Google.
The privacy policy is an enforceable contract, I believe (IANAL).
Re: (Score:2)
It's way simpler to use NoScript combined with alternative services (DDG for search, OSM for maps)
Simpler? That's a matter of perspective, I suppose. But you're certainly free to do that as well.
If sex is the most common thing searched for... (Score:1)
... does this mean Google is going to build the world's largest known Kama Sutra?
Funny info (Score:2)
How about I set this up with one of my old (read, mostly fake) accounts on an old computer, and occasionally use that computer to go to lolcatz, loldogz, Engrish, Cracked, Slashdot, and ESPN, and never use my email or anything else on that computer? Think that would get flagged by this service? Or maybe all types of ultra-religious type sites?
Any other funky suggestions to play with Google's head?
(Not that I would do this, it would take too much time)
Speaking as an "expert" in Faust... (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as someone who took a class about the myth of Faust [sfsu.edu], I can tell you in my expert opinion that my notes and papers from that course were lost when a brownout fried my hard drives. Damn! If only I'd sold my soul to a cloud backup service.
But this sounds more like a modernized, snoopier incarnation of AllAdvantage than a genuine Faustian bargain; particularly because you can quit whenever you want.
Re:Speaking as an "expert" in Faust... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. "Quitting" in this case would mean getting your data back, not just stopping to give them more. So, you cannot quit. That's why you get 100 bucks for signup and 20 a month, instead of the other way around ;)
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled.... was to grin right in your face and make jokes about being the devil. Everybody laughed, relieved, and sold their soul without hesitation. The End.
Strategic move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL??? What you search for on Google, and what other websites you visit -- or even, simply what network traffic you generate, all of it -- are not exactly the same thing.
Also, how does Google stating everything you do on their sites is tracked like forever, mean that they are "not" doing that, and how stupid and/or paid do people have to be to mod that nonsense up??
A WHOLE $5 every 3 months? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow! That's like, FIVE WHOLE CENTS A DAY!
Tell Google to get bent. When they're offering $25/mo, we'll talk.
Re: (Score:3)
When they're offering $25/mo, we'll talk.
I bet when they're buying millions of DSL lines in bulk, they'll get a much better price than $25.
You do want a free Internet connection, don't you?
25$ for gigabytes of In Soviet Russia jokes? (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia IIIII'm the CAAAT!
Hello (Score:1)
Please extract blood and DNA sample. Hello Mr Smith. Amazon has a selection of gay and goat porn that might interest you. If these selections are in error please hit the "escapee" key and select your sexual preference. This week we have a selection of Asian bisexual gang bang videos available. If you would like to select from another area of interest please click on the Harry Potter tab below.
So don't use Google services (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't use Google services, except occasionally as a developer. I'm only logged in when I'm doing development uploads to Chrome add-ons. (And that's a port of something I have for Mozilla). Mail is handled by my own web sites, filtered by Spam Assassin, retrieved with IMAP, and filed in Thunderbird. Open source code is on Sourceforge. Backups are on a paid service. Videos are on blip.tv. Documents and spreadsheets are in Open Office/Libre Office. 3D work is in Autodesk Inventor or Blender. I have Facebook and LinkedIn accounts for social networking. I used to use Google Voice for an SMS project, but Google's connection to the phone network (which is through a weird third party provider) had trouble telling which numbers could send and receive SMS, and I switched that project to Twilio.
Google has a nice search engine, but I don't see any need to use any of their other services targeted to individuals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am fully addicted to google. I use all the products of google and integrate them to get most out of it. However, now i feel like my privacy is lost in some way.
Google provides tools that allow you to see and control what Google stores about you, and to opt out of tracking and ad personalization.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, now that is kinda sweet. Google is my recent pet hate, but this alleviates that somewhat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I prefer learning how the search algorithms work. After a while you simple get good at constructing successful queries. To use the example google touted: when I want to search for golf, the car, I enter "golf car", otherwise "golf sports". well, I might just do "golf" first and then refine. And I like it that way. I don't need hand holding, and I don't need to be fed stuff I already know. The basic assumption of Google now is that it's for dumb fucks. Because for you, a harness is as good as an adult,
Re: (Score:2)
The basic assumption of Google now is that it's for dumb fucks.
The basic assumption of Google is that it's for everyone. The fact is that most users don't know how to tweak their query arguments to get the answer they want -- not because they're dumb but because they're not geeks. Users misspell things, use the wrong terms, etc. Google's goal is to help them find what they're looking for, even when they screw up.
There's no doubt that as the web has changed from a geek playground to something that absolutely everyone uses, and as Google has changed to accommodate t
Re: (Score:2)
Then why not find new ways to tag information, instead of your the users looking for the information? Not that I claim those two exclude each other, but still.... nice try.
Google, lik
Re: (Score:2)
Then why not find new ways to tag information, instead of your the users looking for the information? Not that I claim those two exclude each other, but still.... nice try.
Lots of that is going on as well.
But no matter how well you can describe and classify the information, that only addresses one side of the problem -- and not the hardest one, frankly. Google became popular not because it had a great web crawler but because the PageRank algorithm allowed it to do a better job of figuring out which parts of that were relevant to the user. Now, with orders of magnitude more information out there, relevance is vastly harder to obtain.
There needs to be an open source peer to peer search engines or whatever, everything else is bollocks.
I don't see how that could work, but it
Re: (Score:1)
I used to use Google services for most things, however my experience from earlier IT moves (dot com crash, "free life time" email addresses, etc) forced me to anticipate a speedy change of climate so I'm prepared and remove most data from their services at the moment.
Information is worth money-why am I not being paid (Score:2, Interesting)
Information is worth money - so why am I not being paid?
That is one thought, but I don't think it is not the cornerstone of the issue. Where I see the problem is the we have digital goods that are being given away and resold by every Tom, Dick and Harry. If my information is worth something to someone, then it should be protected and I should have the ability to protect it. Where is my protection? Almost every contract I see seems to base the concept of privacy as: We can take your information, share it wit
Don't steal (Score:1)
thanks, but no thanks. (Score:2)
Hrmmm (Score:1)
Sounds like a *great* way to screw over enemies and politicians. figure out how to Install this on their boxes and collect the money. Get some lulz while yer at it.
Erm.... (Score:1)
Just use false data if it bothers you.
The only problem is, consistency of false data, otherwise google will note the mismatched data and realise you are telling porkies.
Re: (Score:1)
get rich quick... (Score:1)
Seen on a truck once... (Score:3)
Gas, gash or cache - nobody rides for free
It's called NoScript (Score:4, Informative)
And of course, it also means you don't use Google+ (which they have already stated is an "identity service", and any social networking benefits are just "bait"... I'm just quoting Google themselves).
Or Gmail, which is also scanned for content. Or...
Basically it means that if you don't want everything available you scanned and analyzed, you just don't use Google's services. Period. Heck, I don't even use Google search except through an open router.
Most safeguarding of your information is ridiculously easy, if you simply don't use the services of those who would exploit it. Relying on their "de-personalization" of the data is foolish: we have already seen by intentional (and otherwise) data dumps, just how much "personal" information can be derived from this "depersonalized" data. Lots of things you don't want other people to know. AND... things which are none of Law Enforcement's business, even if... especially if... you are innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm busy backing out of all Google services now. I've stripped AdSense and Analytics from my site, and I will remove my Google+ account and delete my gmail one too. Google may not yet be evil, but they look and smell rotten from here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uhm, yeah, and, so what? of course you have to be logged in to see the information they have on the accounts you created there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which requires you to be logged in. Nice try, arrogant Google asshole.
No, it doesn't.
Opt-outs are stored in a cookie, so Google gets them even when you're not logged in. Now, that cookie can get lost in lots of different ways, so Google also provides a Chrome plugin called "keep my opt-outs" which ensures that your opt-out cookie is always replaced whenever it is deleted.
Re: (Score:1)
As for the flash cookies use something like BetterPrivacy to clean them all every few hours or every time the browser starts/closes.
Re: (Score:2)
With cookies, it's better to allow them for current session only(!) than to block it. That way you do not end up on any "blocks cookies" list, and if they're doing cookie-based user profiling, they'll get new user profile everytime you visit.
Note that this doesn't work well if you leave your browser running for days without restart.
This will probably kill a few startups... (Score:1)
This move will probably kill a few startups, or at least force them to alter their strategy. There are a few out there who were trying to allow users monetize their private information in some form and give you the opt-in/opt-out ability in a centralized fashion (kind of like the apps settings page in Facebook). They all face the same problem of critical mass for adoption and their problem just got harder. Why would you bother with a www.personal.com (which has a neat app) or anything like that if you're
no fucking way! (Score:2)
be careful about what you agree with, the devil is in the details
I'm comfortable with MY machine know tons about me (Score:2)
But I'm not so comfortable with Google knowing that much about me. We need cheap home servers that are always Internet connected and relatively secure, and the software to allow us to make use of them. This stuff shouldn't be sitting on Google's servers, it should be on our own.
Head in the cloud (Score:2)
I would like that you carry a portable device that is aware about you and your environment, that don't just could know i.e. your gps position or the speed at which you are walking, but everything that is around that could interest you, ready to point that out, inform more about it, or do something to eventually retrieve it later,like saving video/photos/sounds. Cellphones are going in that direction, even if are still far, at the very least can't yet include the needed intelligence, base data and storage, s
Already Sold It (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Did anyone actually click through [google.com] to read the offering from Google? They aren't interested in everyone's data, they are interested in data from some to use for market research and rather than snooping it from all the Chrome users they've got, they are paying for it.
I can understand why someone wouldn't want to sell their browsing habits like this, I'm certainly wouldn't either. But if you've ever been at the other side of the table trying to figure out how to make a web site better for your visitors, you'll know that each individual is completely irrelevant. What you're interested in learning about is what people in general do and why.
Re: (Score:2)
The same goes for negative things. Hitler didn't care about the individuals he murdered either, so that helps. No, wait.
What are they doing this for? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one futurama episode springs to mind... you know, the people who sniff data? my memory, it fails me. but this being slashdot it surely will ring a bell for someone ^^
value of private information (Score:2)
Some years later millions of them were eliminated on the basis on these old records.
I trust my machines (Score:2)
I am extremely comfortable with my machines knowing everything there is to know about me. I am absolutely not comfortable with other people's machines (be they Google's servers, my supermarkets servers, or even my friend's laptop) knowing any more about me than is absolutely necessary.
For me, the issue is communications. I trust my machines, but only insofar as I can ensure that they aren't talking to anyone else without me specifically telling