Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site November 28, 2014, 08:37:58 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
View the new Member Awards and Badges page.
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: "The More You Use Google, the More Google Knows about you"  (Read 16211 times)
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,886



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2010, 03:10:42 PM »

It is possible

I don't disagree with you that it's possible. I just wonder how probable it would be.

Quote
Firefox made into a somewhat stable semi non profit corporation from donations, Wikipedia managed to grew steadily. Although both has started getting massive donations from Google recenty.

If people have managed to write an operating system like Linux on mostly voluntering basis, if people let their cpus run for searching for aliens then it is possible to create an open search engine.

Very true also, even if the various flavors of Linux, and some of the major FOSS projects,  aren't without their own agendas. Note that not too long ago, Mr. Shuttleworth even made a statement to the effect that Ubuntu's development map was "not a democracy" in response to some well intentioned criticism of certain unilateral design changes Ubuntu was making to the Gnome interface.

But even without getting into that, developing a search technology is further complicated by the fact that it isn't just software that's needed. It also requires a substantial physical "plant" to run it on. And we're talking significant hardware.

Software is essentially free, except for the time invested in getting it written and debugged. Setting up the massive and high-availability server farm needed to provide a workable meta search-spider that can keep up with the growth of the web is an entirely different matter. And hardware expenses, unlike programming time, will almost always have to come out of somebody's pocket.

Then there's the issue of power. Even if all the servers get donated, the electricity certainly won't be. Especially if the utility providers you deal with are anything like they are in the USA.

But that idea you have about building it using a distributed computing model such as the SETI or gene folding project uses - possibly with a query mechanism that works something like a P2P tracker - now THAT is a very very very interesting and powerful idea! Secure too since the actual search database would not be in any one place thereby making it exceptionally resilient.

I haven't heard anybody else propose going in that direction. If that's your own idea, it's a pretty awesome one.  And it could very well be worth pursuing.

Bravo!` Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup

Maybe you could do up a white paper on how you envision it might work and get it out to the FOSS community? It just might get some traction with that crowd.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 03:14:01 PM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2010, 03:13:46 PM »

To me there is only one real short term solution and that is an open source, distributed, uncontrolled, non tracking, open search engine. A search engine that does not keep massive database about visitors, a search engine that does not do anything else beside seaching. Sure enough this search engine should never be controlled by anyone or anything. And if you think that this is tinfoil hat thinking and it is an unreasonable paranoia solution then I really do not have much else to contribute to conversation.

Yes, but being open means open to all the spammers to see the code as well, and that leaves them free to manipulate things externally to get better ranking on your open search engine. It would quickly become worthless and poisoned by massive amounts of spam. No control puts the blackhat SEO spammers in full control.

I think that merits of an open distributed search engine is way bigger than some rotten people`s attempt to make easy money
Logged
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2010, 03:17:20 PM »

40hz

I was actually thinking that P2P could be the model for  sharing secure data between the computers while the computers themselves also donate cpu time for indexing.

Everything is possible the question is "do we have the vision ?".

I just think that searching information should not be a profit model but unfortunately it has turned into the most profitable business that is going head to head with oil business
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 03:20:55 PM by kartal » Logged
app103
That scary taskbar girl
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 5,328



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2010, 03:49:58 PM »

I think that merits of an open distributed search engine is way bigger than some rotten people`s attempt to make easy money

I am not disagreeing with the merits, but being open and nobody in control, how would you stop the spammers from taking over? Every change you make to the code to defeat the spammers would be countered by them knowing what you did and how to get around it. It would be a constant game of cat & mouse, magnified many times greater than the spam issues Google has to deal with every day. Part of what keeps Google ahead of the game is the fact that the blackhat SEO spammers can only guess at how it all works...they can't see and know for sure.
Logged

Tuxman
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,498


OMG not him again!

View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2010, 05:41:34 PM »

The topic's quote is the reason why all of my browsers are filtering any Google content...
Logged

I bet when Cheetahs race and one of them cheats, the other one goes "Man, you're such a Cheetah!" and they laugh & eat a zebra or whatever.
- @VeryGrumpyCat
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2010, 07:32:47 PM »

Well, if you have taken my word in that context I cannot blame you. But the way I have used is not the way you have quoted. "Front line" is the one that is in the front of the line, no militarist connotation there for me.

Err... what?

Front line is the one that is in the front of the line... is that some kind of a joke?

Quote
If you think that an invisible enemy cannot exists in real life because it is invisible, that creates an oxymoron for the argument. Since it is invisible I cannot even myself deny the non existence of the invisible enemy since it is invisible and impenetrable.

Again, what?

Quote
Also you have assumed that I have illogical unreal paranoia sunken ideas about facts about google and internet, that tries to put me in a position where my claims are not even credible. In reality I am none of those and have no interest in the game of oxymoron tactics.

First of all you just threw two "oxymoronic tactics" in the above quotes.

2nd of all, please prove and quote where I accused you of "illogical unreal paranoia".

I think you just talked to too many others who accused you of that. I neither used the words illogical nor unreal nor does any of my reply in this topic reflect that.

The closest you could spot my usage of paranoia is here:

Quote
There should be no "representational" name. It should be always about facts or at least better pattern recognition beyond paranoic stereotypes.

...and I wrote "paranoic" and not paranoia and there is no "you are" in that sentence.

Really kartal, you used to be more decent. Maybe my length of time away from DC has caused me to become more sensitive about the regular members but there used to be a time when you were decent enough to just stick to your cause and not misconstrue people's words when they talked to you about subjects like these.

Quote
The fact is that when I say there is no invisible enemy I am flat denying any existence of any form of enemy. Google is a concern to me not enemy. I hope this makes it clear.

Sorry, that's the third oxymoronic tactics you used.

It's semantical to the point of pointlessness.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2010, 07:46:53 PM »

Paul

I really do not know why you are stuck at that particular word. I publicly explained what my intention was with my sentence. Google is the frontline example of this particular problem regarding privacy.

You said that "That's wrong and tinfoil hat thinking IMO.", and we pretty much know that "tinfoil hat thinking" is used for undermining people, lightly mentioning that they are crazy enough to believe some crap that is normally by standard unacceptably stupid to believe by normal people. If that is not how you meant it please correct me.

If you want to defend a particular point of view that is fine with me, but please do so with the standards that you praise. Because none of the points you have brought up contributed to the real discussion so far.
The discussion is about privacy, internet, data concentration etc. If you want to discuss my lack of wording skills you can do that in private.


« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 07:49:13 PM by kartal » Logged
JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,537



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2010, 08:33:35 PM »

Josh, I'm with you, not real worried about Google. They've been one of the most overall "ethical" corporations around, despite their growth, since their inception more than 10 years ago. Tell me about any other corporation anywhere near their size that has done something like pulling out of a huge target market (China) due (at least in part) to censorship. Sure, you could argue that they just used that as an excuse after they got hacked, and the hacking was the real reason, but that makes just as much sense as the hacking being used as an excuse *internally* (by e.g. Sergey who was always uncomfortable with censored results due to growing up in Russia). So who knows what's correct, but at least we know Google is trying to do a good thing (not censoring results).

I think the concept of a distributed search system is interesting and good, but practical? I think it would be easily and quickly abused and become dysfunctional. And in the end its results would probably be less accurate and useful than e.g. Google. I use Google because it provides good results. Do I know exactly how it works? No. Do I need to? No. It works, I can plainly see that. It finds me useful sites, relevant to my queries. I can try the same search in Bing, or Ask, or other search engines, and they work similarly or worse. Google's search pages are cleaner and easier to use for me so I use them.

In the end I think it really comes down to convenience vs. privacy. Everyone has the right to accept different levels of compromise on those two apparently opposing sides. On the one side you have companies like Google making your Internet life more convenient (not just searching of course), and supermarkets making your shopping more convenient (and collecting your shopping data), and tons of other companies collecting data on everything you do wherever you go. On the other side you have the option of not using the Internet at all, living in a shack in the middle of nowhere, growing your own food, etc. You can choose either extreme, or some middleground, and life your life how it is comfortable for you. For me, my theoretical privacy is not worth so much as to make reasonable convenience not worth the cost in privacy. I can understand how people doing more daring, unconvential, risky, or whatever things with their lives would want more privacy, and I'm glad those people are doing the things they're doing (for the most part), and don't blame them for wanting to protect their privacy more. But for me and I think for most average people, I don't see the point of scattershot, generalized, widespread, constant concern.

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,505



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2010, 09:26:51 PM »

You said that "That's wrong and tinfoil hat thinking IMO.", and we pretty much know that "tinfoil hat thinking" is used for undermining people, lightly mentioning that they are crazy enough to believe some crap that is normally by standard unacceptably stupid to believe by normal people. If that is not how you meant it please correct me.

Well, not to poke my nose into an altercation, but what I think when I see 'tinfoil hat thinking' is conspiracy theory... not that someone is crazy.  And that's the way I've always seen it used... not to undermine someone's position.   two cents
Logged

Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2010, 09:39:21 PM »

Paul

I really do not know why you are stuck at that particular word. I publicly explained what my intention was with my sentence. Google is the frontline example of this particular problem regarding privacy.

You said that "That's wrong and tinfoil hat thinking IMO.", and we pretty much know that "tinfoil hat thinking" is used for undermining people, lightly mentioning that they are crazy enough to believe some crap that is normally by standard unacceptably stupid to believe by normal people. If that is not how you meant it please correct me.

If you want to defend a particular point of view that is fine with me, but please do so with the standards that you praise. Because none of the points you have brought up contributed to the real discussion so far.
The discussion is about privacy, internet, data concentration etc. If you want to discuss my lack of wording skills you can do that in private.

Then let me rephrase: That's wrong and tin-foil hat thinking inducing IMO

i.e. it's the approach (that) and not the character (you) who is wrong or wearing a tinfoil hat. (or if you add the above word, will risk leading to that state of thinking)

I did mean to say "tinfoil hat" but I meant it loosely. I would have used paranoid inducing but that sounds alarmist to me and maybe I should use cult-ish (and I did later on to cement what I mean but obviously that didn't work out)

I felt the tinfoil hat statement is best to define the line between those who are concerned and those who have filled their bias to the point that they simply emphasize the point without even addressing the questions against their bias anymore because they just live in a state where they can continuously justify their concern as being absolutely right and criticisms to it don't get received properly anymore because it's just unfathomable how someone would disagree with their concern. (i.e. resorting to accusations of others rather than discussing the meat of the subject)

I have not added to any real discussion so far because no one has replied to my post so there is nothing to discuss with any specific thing I have said.

The one bit that I added which was a reply to address your point became misconstrued as accusing you of being a paranoid tinfoil hat wearing person even though if you focus on the context of my post, it deals specifically with the subject prior to your next reply.

If you can't spot it, here:

Quote
You can't treat non-Google problems as Google problems or you'll fall flat into correlating causation. (data concentration)

It's also cult-breeding behaviour to rely on an "invisible" enemy.

There should be no "representational" name. It should be always about facts or at least better pattern recognition beyond paranoic stereotypes. (internet culture)

Also it's mistaken to think informed and educated people are the key. (internet culture) That's one necessity but if you're fighting an enemy built from invisibility then you're fighting a symbol and not actually doing enough to hurt corporations and corruption. (internet culture + privacy)

Some people may be informed about a certain subject and they may be educated but they also create elitist roadblocks that turn people away. (internet culture) Just look at Stallman and FOSS. (internet culture) The ideal and education is probably there and he made it into a reality that many people know but how many intelligent and informed people ends up switching to say...Chromium because it justifies their convenience while still preserving their ideology? (internet culture/internet ideology + privacy)

Check my 1st and 2nd post. Same thing.

I often do so with the standards I praise and the ones I forgot to do so are often because I rarely notice. I'm not well versed in technology like many of the users here and I am bad at communicating but I often raise my points but it is rarely replied to.

I can't self-convert or contribute to a discussion on my own. If no one replies to it, then there's no point in adding to it.

For example after JavaJones wrote that post I would usually bring up: (and I was going to reply to app with a similar subject but I accidentally closed my tab and it ate up my post - and again the only reply I got was an accusation of my intentions so why bother salvaging that post?)

Convenience + privacy?! No, it's pure convenience ONLY.

Scroogle for example is as easy to use as Google but not only does Google have more market exposure because they venture out of the search business but they are often built by default in browsers.

That's why some can say IE has a monopoly inducing factor by being bundled in Windows because even though it is MS' right to modify their software in what way they like, it cannot be denied that it produces a culture developing stigma that makes it harder to deny or hard for others to compete with unless you build a different ideology like Open Source and only then it's not that Open Source got back a few of the marketshare. It's because Open Source allowed Firefox to gain early traction due to blog lists of extensions and primarily Adblock which Firefox can circumvent because "it is an extension" and not something the browser developers built in. (while at the same time recruiting those who seemingly think it is supporting Open Source because it is an Open Source app and that using an Open Source app to support the ideology is enough to make them think it's helping)

Doesn't mean the solutions or the propositions can't be loopholed as MS showed and doesn't mean the culture won't go against a positive suggestion like that and turn the issue into a laughing stock.

How this relates to search engine discussion is the fact that Google became a privacy monster not because of search but because of their size. Size and culture placement that they have earned that makes it beyond a technology discussion that can be solved by a technological alternative unless it exceeds in convenience and benefits. Privacy? That's just the hump a developer wants to add but it's purely a battle of convenience and exposure.

I could go on and on but the fact is I'm using something like Scroogle because I have no inherent knowledge and reference for actual search engine lingo.

It doesn't mean I don't try but if what I'm saying is not going to get a reply or my reply is going to be misconstrued as a malicious act on someone else and I have to be forced to go away from my points related to the actual topic, what do you expect me to do as far as contributing to a real discussion?

I've been here long enough. You probably know I write some long topics that don't get replies or even replies that don't get any attention maybe because it's just plain ignorant or because I'm no good at communicating my intent.

...but there's no way for me to learn by shutting up. I can only allow myself to be educated by allowing my opinions to be challenged. (not challenged as having my post be accused when I'm actually replying to a topic and not attacking a person but challenge as in someone actually looking into the points I raised beyond certain keywords and then replying to those points)

If I'm not adding to the discussion, I'm not going to learn to do so by shutting up.

Only way I can is to keep trying and modifying how I say things INCLUDING clarifying something because the other person pointed out where I lost them. (and them doing that because they are actually giving me some points I can refute and not just blanket stating something I supposedly said)

Anything else on the way I post or contribute to a topic is out of my control.

If I knew the magical way to be charismatic or knowledgeable in such a way that I will always be guaranteed as adding to a discussion, I wouldn't have to deal with someone accusing me of playing on their lack of word skills especially when I'm the one who lacks the word skills or knowledge to "actually contribute to a discussion".

Even here, I struggle to make my point because I simply have no clue how much else I can add so that I won't get accused of not adding to a discussion. If I write too long, it's not going to be read. If I over-simplify I risk being misconstrued.

Even now, I don't want to turn this about me and I would just as like to return to the topic but come on, is there any recovery point after the TS of a topic says you brought up no points that contributed to the discussion of a topic? I can't think of any. That's why if you think this is about your lack of word skills even after I've written so many lines to clarify this, then I'm sorry. Not only can't I steer it back to the points of the topic because those points apparently made no contribution at all, at the same time I have to make one last reply about me and not the topic because it's the impression of my character that's on the line here.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 09:50:45 PM by Paul Keith » Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2010, 12:11:25 PM »

Paul,

Your points are well taken.

In general though I wish that people do not use cliche words like tinfoil, paranoia etc anytime similar topics come up. The issue is neither of those because. Whenever I bring up these issues, my real intention is never about " gosh my privacy has been lost lost, life is worthless" point of view. Individuals have right to choose whatever make them feel good or happy. My intention is always bigger side effects of the issues, because individual themselves, especially those who are happy with the controversial stuff will never question any side effects anyways. It is all about the future and the global side effects. And these concerns should never make me or people like me a tinfoil hat crowd, because we are bringing up issues that are far more serious. And these issues will overcrowd real problems in the future, I am that certain about these. It is serious, and never meant to be just about "your cash card", or "your individual right to privacy".

Here is a quote from B. Franklin,

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
another variant
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

you can find the other variants here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin



« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 12:14:34 PM by kartal » Logged
JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,537



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2010, 01:26:58 PM »

Franklin's quote is a great one, and often used. The question here is whether "liberty" and "safety" are even involved. If not, the relevance of the quote comes very much into question, and if you rephrase it "Those who would give up essential privacy to purchase a little temporary convenience, deserve neither privacy nor convenience", I'm not sure it rings true as much, nor is as compelling. And perhaps it's the entire issue of conflating privacy with liberty (not the same thing, though related) that is at the root of some of this disagreement.

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,505



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2010, 02:05:21 PM »

And perhaps it's the entire issue of conflating privacy with liberty (not the same thing, though related) that is at the root of some of this disagreement.

Agreed whole heartedly, along with the personal understanding of the context of certain words, I think.  Someone said something earlier that I think really rings true- how much privacy one has in this world is really a function of one's belief that their actions/words are private.  Because really, privacy is not a tangible thing anymore in this world of technology IMO.
Logged

JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,537



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2010, 02:29:19 PM »

Agreed. We also have to take responsibility for the privacy we give up, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of our own free will. If you go on to Google and search for something and it tracks that search and gives you different results next time based on a previous search, it was your choice to use Google, your choice not to read the privacy and data use statements, and your choice not to opt out of said tracking, so even if you didn't know about it, it's still your exercise of free will that is depriving you of privacy. Contrast this with the idea of the government wire tapping your phone, it's a much different thing. There, privacy is being taken away from you, and you have no knowledge, nor possibility of knowledge, and little recourse. So again, we must take responsibility for our own privacy where we have the ability to do so.

The problem is many (most?) people choose to abdicate responsibility yet retain rights to anger over later violations. People who go onto Facebook and post their whole life and then are upset when someone uses that information against them. Sure, Facebook's policies and practices may not be great (I don't use FB much partly because of this), but it's an optional service, and one which you can use in very safe, privacy-ensuring ways. The problem most people are too willfully ignorant (note: not stupid!) to bother ensuring their privacy until it's too late.

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2010, 02:49:15 PM »

Franklin's quote is a great one, and often used. The question here is whether "liberty" and "safety" are even involved. If not, the relevance of the quote comes very much into question, and if you rephrase it "Those who would give up essential privacy to purchase a little temporary convenience, deserve neither privacy nor convenience", I'm not sure it rings true as much, nor is as compelling. And perhaps it's the entire issue of conflating privacy with liberty (not the same thing, though related) that is at the root of some of this disagreement.
- Oshyan

Because it is quoted many times does not make it less worthy. It is just a saying not a solution to anything. It has a basic point that can be applied to many concepts. If you do not work hard for it you will never own it truely.

The reason I brought it up is that it has been said by a famous person, since  most people have harder time believing the little people.

I would like to reiterate again, the issue is not personal privacy. Most of the talk here as usual is surrounding around personal privacy. If you want to loose it that is fine by me. Personal privacy is really a small problem in the set of technology related problems.

On the other hand one would never appreciate the real value of personal privacy until your privacy is diminished by law agencies, goverments, corporations etc. If you have never been a victim of these issues it would be harder for you to comprehend what that can bring up.

I do not want to turn the conversation into another issue, I really do not have another agenda regarding healthcare topics. But  just to iterate my point above here is an example. If you have never been somewhat low income, jobless and needed serious health care service, surgery etc, you would not understand why people want universal healthcare. Now the rest of this example is debate for another forum, but what I am trying to say is that all these issues are not just abstract talks, they might at some point affect you, and your life.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 02:51:27 PM by kartal » Logged
dMbTiger
Member
**
Posts: 19


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2010, 03:18:32 PM »

 thumb down thumbs up tellme
Logged

Dan
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2010, 09:43:22 PM »

Paul,

Your points are well taken.

In general though I wish that people do not use cliche words like tinfoil, paranoia etc anytime similar topics come up. The issue is neither of those because. Whenever I bring up these issues, my real intention is never about " gosh my privacy has been lost lost, life is worthless" point of view. Individuals have right to choose whatever make them feel good or happy. My intention is always bigger side effects of the issues, because individual themselves, especially those who are happy with the controversial stuff will never question any side effects anyways. It is all about the future and the global side effects. And these concerns should never make me or people like me a tinfoil hat crowd, because we are bringing up issues that are far more serious. And these issues will overcrowd real problems in the future, I am that certain about these. It is serious, and never meant to be just about "your cash card", or "your individual right to privacy".

Here is a quote from B. Franklin,

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
another variant
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

you can find the other variants here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Fair enough. This was how I've always viewed your posts about this subject. That's why it disappointed me that you acted the way you did.

I'm sorry for using tinfoil hat then. I've never had anyone taken offense to that word before. (Although I was never one to use that word to insult a person either.)
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
Bamse
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 410


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2010, 12:16:16 AM »

Your link is a cliche it self Kartel. Only paranoid will see that as a nice kick starter for a debate about alternative search engines/internet. Arguments if you can call it that is similar to those promoting Linux by thrashing Windows. Paraonoid or those who don't understand that the more you use Google the more you know about them. Like for example their Dashboard letting user handle and get overview of all accounts, setting up public profile or not etc. Have you seen Microsofts "Dashboard"? This is essential for these type of services and where they show how they view users/customers I think. If you look at their privacy pages it seems they are more concerned than most users ever will be! To some degree you can even decide which type of ad you will see.

If real details make "tracking" and spying look less of a threat then skip them. Also acknowledge there are different definitions of what privacy is. Heard of Facebook? old phonebook may be? Now you say privacy is not so important, your fantasy is, but read article again. Main thought is privacy is screwed because of Google.

Without reading the text see if you can find the "error" in this Microsoft video http://www.ghacks.net/201...ernet-explorer-8-privacy/ On level with your link and pretty typical for security debate. "Proof" is carefully selected and presented. The one who scream the loudest win. Btw. did you know Microsoft give intelligence agencies access to Windows sourcecode? New meaning to "phone home" threat perhaps? Should be doable.

http://www.donationcoder....22163.msg199256#msg199256 has much more meat on it smiley Thinking unknown 3rd party proxies, playing hide and seek is going to change anything is silly. Sells tickets to the often self important "geeky" part of internet users, they have fun with that and quiet down.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 12:18:37 AM by Bamse » Logged
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2010, 12:59:00 AM »

Bamse

You are missing the point. Obviously Microsoft, Google or Amazon etc are all on the same boat. I mean if you are into making money out of people`s consumption frequencies of this thing or that thing, you will want to exploit all avenues to increase  the profit. I never defend or approve those practices.

I do not own a tv, I do not use credit cards, do not subscribe to online social stuff, never own a cash discount card, do not own a motor vehicle etc. Not because I am paranoid, I just think that they are all boring and wasteful. I do not use credit card because I do not like to spend money that I do not myself own. I do not use discount cards because I think that it is a trap to lure you buy more, so simple. I do not even need to look for paranoid clues it is all there. Discount cash cards are traps that will make you buy more but on the other hand they are used for tracking your shopping habits. It is up to you to choose the right side for your cause.

As I mentioned before I do not care about who does what, I care about the "do"s. So coming up with Microsoft vs Google is not going to improve the debate in my view.


The main point and the the most important point in this debate is  " high concentration of data in certain hands". This data is not created by those hands, rather collected by those hands. They do not own it, but they act like they own it. They just created the technology to analyze the data, the data itself is created by people like you.


Again, I am not talking about goverment`s flexing its muscles on individuals, or some corporations technical skills of practicing massive anonymous filtering operations. I really hope that this sentence is taken literally. I am more concerned about the results of these skills in the long run, but if you guys want to talk about individuals or rather small side effects in current , that is fine with me. It is just that that would be rather more blind view on the real problems
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 11:15:13 AM by kartal » Logged
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2010, 01:04:10 AM »

Paul

I never took "tinfoil" word as an insult. I just think that that kind of stuff never contributes to the conversation. And in many cases similar words are used bluntly as a broad brush to discredit any idea that is not in the scheme of main stream thoughts.
Logged
Bamse
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 410


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2010, 09:02:17 AM »

I recently noticed a debate among locale marketing people who were a bit concerned about Google allowing opt-out of Analytics. But they seem to agree that only few people would even become aware of the option, like other opt-outs from advertising servers. They figured it was mainly a tactic move to prevent future law suits (from EU most likely). May be you would have more impact on the battle of clicks if you got hands dirty and became a Google expert? Hold them to their claims, make reasonable demands and complaints, enlighten the sheep?  

Remember that some see Google more as a defender of "info" than an enemy but that view might depend on geo-location - I mean which country you live in. The commercialized internet you hate might be best thing ever else where.

Also remember that computer and access to internet is not a human right which can be protected. From the moment you push ON button you are a consumer. That many in rich parts of the world need to be connected give food for thought of course. Politicians will have a plan smiley
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 09:37:04 AM by Bamse » Logged
flyfox2100
Participant
*
Posts: 3

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2010, 09:33:30 AM »

If you don't use google,you quit the internet and the computer, and the phone tongue,just hidden in your house and sure no one can find you.
Logged
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2010, 12:39:51 PM »

If you don't use google,you quit the internet and the computer, and the phone tongue,just hidden in your house and sure no one can find you.

You know that is the same lame thought that has been brought up over and over again. Noone is talking about hiding in a cave smiley The issues are not about living in fear
Logged
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,886



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2010, 12:56:03 PM »

that is the same lame thought that has been brought up over and over again

Ummm...

Maybe, going forward, we can all agree to leave words like "lame" out of our comments and responses?

It's just starting to get back to being civil in this thread. Let's not do anything to needlessly jeopardize that. Otherwise it's going to go right back to talking in circles with some of us getting royally pissed-off at our friends.

We can be passionate about something without also having to get angry over it.

Just a thought...  smiley Thmbsup



Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,505



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2010, 01:36:17 PM »

And a good one. :thumbs:

I think that different people have varying opinions on the subject, and there has to be a middle ground.  It seems that not using google helps, though the viable alternatives that exist are few.  And it matters in those as to whether they are more or less likely to do anything untoward with the information (as some see even the profit off of such services an untoward situation).  Personally, on matters like that, it doesn't truly matter to me, either personally or collectively.  If they provide the service and I get to use it free of charge, then do what you will to stay in business, as long as it doesn't involve inconvenience or irritation to me.  And the same thing collectively as far as I'm concerned- everyone's got to make a dollar, and I have nothing against someone making it in this manner.
Logged

Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.063s | Server load: 0.16 ]