DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: kartal on April 09, 2010, 09:42 PM
-
Total Information Awareness: The More You Use Google, the More Google Knows About You
April 9, 2010 |
In June 2007, Privacy International, a U.K.-based privacy rights watch- dog, cited Google as the worst privacy offender among 23 online companies, ranking the “Don’t Be Evil” people below Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, eBay, LinkedIn, Facebook and AOL. According to the report, no other company was “coming close to achieving [Google’s] status as an endemic threat to privacy.” What most disturbed the authors was Google’s “increasing ability to deep-drill into the minutiae of a user’s life and lifestyle choices.” The result: “the most onerous privacy environment on the Internet.”
http://www.alternet.org/media/146398/total_information_awareness:_the_more_you_use_google,_the_more_google_knows_about_you_
-
So the answer is, stop using Google? If so, you're cutting yourself off from a lot of the web. And contrary to the article, Google does not own your content. Point is, if your current computing consists of interacting with a big corporation, you're pretty much screwed. Lots of "could be's" and "cans" in the article. Yet it's still a fair treatment by the author. Trust no one.
-
So the answer is, stop using Google?-zridling
I think the answer is don't blindly use Google without taking precautions. Depending on how private a person you are a few simple steps could improve your level of privacy when it comes to Google.
1. Delete Google's cookies on your computer regularly.
2. Minimize your activity on Google's sites while logged in to GMail & other Google services.
3. Use something like the TACO or Ghostery Firefox extensions to block GoogleAnalytics.
4. If Google's search engine is all you use then consider using Scroogle instead.
You don't have to cut yourself off from the web. You just need to practice a little diligence just like when visiting any internet site. And no, Google does not own your content. However, they catalog & digest it all. Don't let Gramma send you her top secret chocolate chip cookie recipe through GMail. ;)
-
The thing about being online is generally speaking *someone* is going to know about you. If you use a different search engine to avoid Google tracking, then Bing/Yahoo or someone else will know about you instead. And quite frankly I'd rather Google have that info than Microsoft. They've proven over 10 years to be a lot more friendly to my personal philosophies than MS or many other big companies.
I think there are two legitimate concerns here. 1: consolidation of lots of informatio in one place. Yes, this is a *potential* problem - the question is how the information is used. Google seems to be one of the more reasonable in this regard, never spamming me, never (so far) selling my info to other companies in a way that identifies me, basically I'm never affected *negatively* by how Google uses my info. That leads to point 2, which is even though Google (IMHO) doesn't abuse its information now, there is always the possibility in the future that it will, or (perhaps more likely) that it will fall on hard times (maybe due to a coming advertising crash?) and then will sell more identifiable data to stay affloat. I don't consider this scenario to be extremely likely, but it is a legitimate concern.
The thing is, when *I* think about any of these possibilities, well it just doesn't concern me much. I guess maybe I don't have a lot to hide, but that's not reason enough alone not to be worried, of course. I just look at Google's business history, and at the general Internet environment, and I feel that *if* I choose to participate in the Internet at all, short of being a chronic "Anonymous Coward" (Slashdot :D), I really have little choice but to let people know a bit about me, what I do, where I go. And you know what? I think it's a reasonable trade-off for what I get in return, especially when the company in question is - so far - pretty surprisingly "good".
- Oshyan
-
So the answer is, stop using Google? If so, you're cutting yourself off from a lot of the web. And contrary to the article, Google does not own your content. Point is, if your current computing consists of interacting with a big corporation, you're pretty much screwed. Lots of "could be's" and "cans" in the article. Yet it's still a fair treatment by the author. Trust no one.
-zridling
It is about awareness and being smart about your choices. Many people are not ready to understand the complications of such concentration of data at this point. Most would regard this concerns as ungrounded, what is ungrounded is their lack of proper understanding of how this all works. That is why it is always a good thing to read different points of views and have educated ideas about what is going on.
Google or not Google, I do not give a damn. I can live without Google or Internet but Google cannot live without users and Internet and this should be an empowering point for the consumers of the online existence.
I personally do not use anything google. Only time I need Google is when I need to dig through couple technical groups on Google groups and that is not something they have built themselves! As usual they have bought it and claim ownership as in Dejanews, which is generally what I need from Google. Even so it is not a big deal I can always find an answer to my technical research somewhere else.
-
You know that little tag on your keychain for your local supermarket? The one where they have your name and address on file, associated with the barcode on that keytag? The one where you can't get anything on sale at the sale price unless you give the cashier the tag to scan? The one where they know all your buying habits at their store?
They know everything you buy, how much, how often, what time of the day you like to shop, what day of the week you like to shop.
And if you buy too many plastic sandwich bags too often, the cops may show up at your door with a search warrant, to look for drugs. (it has happened to people already)
Do you remember any sort of privacy policy when you filled out the form for that little key tag? I don't remember one. They don't tell you what data they are collecting about you or what they are doing with it, who they are selling it to, sharing it with, or anything else.
And we don't only have a bunch of Big Brothers watching us, we got a ton of Little Brothers too.
What about the average person on the street with a camera in their mobile phone? Are they snapping pics of you, uploading them to social networks, and making remarks about you? I have seen profiles of guys that do this, snapping pics of women they see on the street, uploading them and tagging them with rather rude/crude captions. And then those pics get indexed by Google and a bunch of other search engines. Then there is the bunch of people that use Google image search to find pics for their blog posts, web sites, school projects, etc. How many people could potentially end up with that pic, using your likeness in ways you would never approve of, and you don't even know the image exists?
In this modern day and age, privacy is an illusion. The only real privacy you have is in your mind (and only as long as you keep your thoughts in there and don't let them out)
-
Minds may change when you read Googles small print.
My take is, that is exactly what Google knows you WON'T do. "Analytics" is a nice way of saying what I was taught was "back end" data.
Props for Google for shifting the privacy baseline.
Props to kartal for keeping it real.
-
Do you remember any sort of privacy policy when you filled out the form for that little key tag? I don't remember one. They don't tell you what data they are collecting about you or what they are doing with it, who they are selling it to, sharing it with, or anything else. -app103
No, I don't remember there being a privacy policy when I signed up for mine. I don't remember the form saying I had to put down my real information so I made everything up & the cashier happily took it without checking my identification. 8)
In this modern day and age, privacy is an illusion. The only real privacy you have is in your mind (and only as long as you keep your thoughts in there and don't let them out)
True, there is a lot less personal privacy in today's world than there used to be, but what we do have we don't have to give up without a fight.
-
Minds may change when you read Googles small print.
My take is, that is exactly what Google knows you WON'T do. "Analytics" is a nice way of saying what I was taught was "back end" data. -1NR1
People think just because a form is put in front of them on the internet or at the grocery store (for those discount cards) that we are legally bound to answer the information truthfully. They are just forms, people, put before you trying to get you to disclose personal identifiable information so they can track you & what you do.
All these people who hand over their private lives to FaceBook & Google...if a stranger came up to them on the street and asked for their name, where they lived, and other personal questions, would they disclose the answers freely?
I know everyone's privacy rights are eroding, but just because 'they' want to know everything about you doesn't mean you have to help them by telling your personal info to any & all who ask for it.
-
Am I the only one here who does not have a problem with Google at all? I mean, I visit websites every day that log lots of information about me without me even knowing it. As a web server administrator, I know just how much you can learn about someone just by them visiting your webpage and clicking around. I am not saying you shouldn't fight for privacy rights, but is someone knowing that I shop for books by Charlaine Harris for my wife really going to be a big privacy concern? Does the fact that they know I bought Milk, Eggs, Condoms and a book at walmart really impact my life? Has anyone proven that any of these companies are using your data for malicious purposes? If you are worried about people finding out about you online, I really feel sites like Facebook, Myspace and twitter prove to be far more harmful to your privacy than Google knowing I searched for "George Carlin Used Underwear" (NOT A REAL SEARCH I PERFORMED!).
-
IMO this:
People think just because a form is put in front of them on the internet or at the grocery store (for those discount cards) that we are legally bound to answer the information truthfully. They are just forms, people, put before you trying to get you to disclose personal identifiable information so they can track you & what you do.
Is a more worthwhile lesson to warn people about than saying Google has your privacy.
Not only is it much harder to cover up your anonymity especially because you can't exactly double check your worm trail unless you're a hacker but some businesses who need networking need that information.
Personally I knew that online because I surf but if I just casually joined any sites, I wouldn't know that. Especially with forms but that's because I don't know much about the law...but most people don't either.
No one really knows which form should be legally respected and which shouldn't.
It also makes you come off like a tinfoil hat wearing freak because people warn about "Google" and don't warn about the hazards of "forms" per se.
-
Am I the only one here who does not have a problem with Google at all? I mean, I visit websites every day that log lots of information about me without me even knowing it. As a web server administrator, I know just how much you can learn about someone just by them visiting your webpage and clicking around. I am not saying you shouldn't fight for privacy rights, but is someone knowing that I shop for books by Charlaine Harris for my wife really going to be a big privacy concern? Does the fact that they know I bought Milk, Eggs, Condoms and a book at walmart really impact my life? Has anyone proven that any of these companies are using your data for malicious purposes? If you are worried about people finding out about you online, I really feel sites like Facebook, Myspace and twitter prove to be far more harmful to your privacy than Google knowing I searched for "George Carlin Used Underwear" (NOT A REAL SEARCH I PERFORMED!).
-Josh
I sort of agree but I wouldn't go as far as saying no problem to Google.
Remember you're thinking Google "Search" alone. Google also has Gmail, Gdoc and they're working their way to Twitter, Facebook and Myspace...they just keep failing.
The big elephant in the room though is Google Maps/Earth and address finder. That's where it becomes shades of grey especially since Google is opening up the worm hole for a government to force Google to show certain data. (although it's not so much the government can't nowadays but it's a nice feeling to have the internet pie and eat it anonymously too)
-
No, I don't remember there being a privacy policy when I signed up for mine. I don't remember the form saying I had to put down my real information so I made everything up & the cashier happily took it without checking my identification. 8)
-Innuendo
The one for the store I use most often also comes with check cashing privileges, so not only did the info I gave them have to match what is printed on my checks, I had to show them photo ID to prove it was mine.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight for privacy rights, but is someone knowing that I shop for books by Charlaine Harris for my wife really going to be a big privacy concern? Does the fact that they know I bought Milk, Eggs, Condoms and a book at walmart really impact my life? Has anyone proven that any of these companies are using your data for malicious purposes? If you are worried about people finding out about you online, I really feel sites like Facebook, Myspace and twitter prove to be far more harmful to your privacy than Google knowing I searched for "George Carlin Used Underwear" (NOT A REAL SEARCH I PERFORMED!).
-Josh
I got over the privacy issues in my head a long time ago and accepted the truth for what it really is. I am not worried about the normal stuff, like Google knowing my searches and the supermarket knowing what I buy, it's when that info is given to the wrong parties that assume incorrectly that the info means something it doesn't, that worries me.
As far as malicious purposes, that's a matter of opinion and perspective. Sometimes the companies you are trusting with this info have no choice in the matter. The law requires them to give the info to certain government entities.
I am sure the woman that bought a ton of plastic bags at her local supermarket because she was making sandwiches for the homeless didn't appreciate the cops showing up at her house with a search warrant looking for drugs. (don't you know only drug dealers use large quantities of plastic bags?) The fact that she also bought a large quantity of bread, bologna, and cheese completely slipped past them at the time.
And we all know that the Patriot Act made the books you read a matter of national security. You don't remember the reports of the librarians shredding records in order to protect the privacy and 1st Amendment rights of their patrons? Before the law was amended, it gave the FBI the right to conduct a fishing expedition into any library's records, without having any suspicions about any particular individuals.
-
The one for the store I use most often also comes with check cashing privileges, so not only did the info I gave them have to match what is printed on my checks, I had to show them photo ID to prove it was mine.-app103
I can see your point there. I had forgotten about check cashing privileges as the only checks I ever write any more are to pay my water bill and fortunately, I've heard that soon I'll be able to pay even that bill online & my checkbook will just sit and gather dust.
[/quote]I am sure the woman that bought a ton of plastic bags at her local supermarket because she was making sandwiches for the homeless didn't appreciate the cops showing up at her house with a search warrant looking for drugs.[/quote]
I'm sure the authorities also scan people's buying habits to see if they are buying any of the ingredients known to be used to manufacture drugs (meth and the like) as well.
The fact that she also bought a large quantity of bread, bologna, and cheese completely slipped past them at the time.
The authorities probably just thought she had a major case of the munchies. :D
-
i'm with Josh. i'm more worried about my own government (UK) than google. also, i'm sure i read something recently that said it isn't such a great problem for your computer to be profiled as an entirely unique machine, unique to you and your life online - something that would easily betray you if you really were going to be investigated - it didn't sound like there was much of a way to avoid this other than to stop going online. i know i ought to remember the details, and i'm sure it's not news to many on this forum. it just made me realise there were other ways of tracking internet users regardless of the walls we might try and hide behind. (maybe what i read was just a scare story.)
-
In this modern day and age, privacy is an illusion. The only real privacy you have is in your mind (and only as long as you keep your thoughts in there and don't let them out)
-app103
Not necessarily. You have freedom to not to use those check cards, not use google or bing or any other. But again these solutions are not real solution really. On the other hand accepting that loss of privacy is a reality of life is exactly what has been wanted by the corporations, goverments etc.
As I said in previous posts, the issues surrounding these topics have dire consequences and very very complicated power issues in the upcoming years and centuries, not just for individuals but also for societies, cultures, languages, philosophy, art, literature, animals and the nature. This is a big ethical fog that is surrounding people minds.
-
Not necessarily. You have freedom to not to use those check cards, not use google or bing or any other. But again these solutions are not real solution really. On the other hand accepting that loss of privacy is a reality of life is exactly what has been wanted by the corporations, goverments etc.
-kartal
Unless you have your own trunk into the internet, you can't get around the fact that your ISP has all of the information about you that anyone could ever want. You might argue that the information won't be used/used in a negative manner... but aren't we arguing what if's against Google?
-
To me, Google is only one of the issues. Google problem should treated as
Google alikes, Google does represent a set of problems that would be created
by companies that are in similar business and interests. I know some people
get mad because Google is always in the front. Google is just a
representational name, and for a reason it is always in the front line.
Remember just couple weeks ago because of Google`s threat of pulling out, Chinese and American
goverments exchanged serious words, so as you can see Google is such a pivotal
entity for US goverment that, the US goverment has saw great interests in
interests of Google in China.
If we have alot of informed and educated(I do not mean people with degrees)
people around the world, goverments and big corporations will feel more
constraint around their intentions
-
That's wrong and tinfoil hat thinking IMO.
You can't treat non-Google problems as Google problems or you'll fall flat into correlating causation.
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.
Also it's mistaken to think informed and educated people are the key. 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.
Some people may be informed about a certain subject and they may be educated but they also create elitist roadblocks that turn people away. Just look at Stallman and FOSS. 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?
-
Most of your argumens fall flat on a marble floor, because what you are telling me about my own words are not proper represantation of what I am saying.
First of all there is no "invisible enemy". Second there is no "enemy"
Google is up there and running a massive business, controlling what internet should be, what people should do on the internet. Google also does affect people`s desicions, since most of people`s daily desicions have started relying on daily internet searches. Now you can see how powerful this medium is. One can argue that Google does rely on page rankings, but the thing is that how do you know their algorithms are pure and has no skew? Sure enough no one can analyze their codes to see what is going on behind. And when time comes Google will choose to block certain results or show unranked results for this reason or that reason, say because goverments want, or because there is some money involved in with some search keywords and search display results
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.
-
To me there is only one real short term solution and that is an open source, distributed, uncontrolled, non tracking, open search engine.
-kartal
Very good idea. The only problem is that until somebody steps up and offers to provide and pay for such technology (and with no strings attached) it isn't going to happen.
And you can absolutely forget about involving any government on the planet with something you want to be genuinely transparent and open.
And even if you somehow do manage to build this system, how do you prevent whoever is administrating it from cheating? Despite all their safeguards, even financial and highly classified military systems have their hackers, moles, and 'insider cabals.' And many go undetected for years.
Back in first century Rome, the poet Juvenal asked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don't believe basic human nature has changed very much since he first asked that question.
Just my :two:
-
It is possible
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.
-
Most of your argumens fall flat on a marble floor, because what you are telling me about my own words are not proper represantation of what I am saying.
First of all there is no "invisible enemy". Second there is no "enemy"-kartal
When has an invisible enemy ever been called an invisible enemy? That's why I later replaced it with your words: "representational name"
There is no enemy?
Again, here's a piece of what you said:
Google is just a
representational name, and for a reason it is always in the front line.
Onelook: http://www.onelook.com/?w=front+line&ls=a
front line: the line along which opposing armies face each other
There has to be a line between proper representation and falling flat on the marble floor.
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.
You said: "what you are telling me about my own words are not proper represantation of what I am saying."
Please apply those same considerations to mine.
-
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.
-kartal
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.
-
Onelook: http://www.onelook.com/?w=front+line&ls=a
front line: the line along which opposing armies face each other
There has to be a line between proper representation and falling flat on the marble floor.
-Paul Keith
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.
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. 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.
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.
-
It is possible-kartal
I don't disagree with you that it's possible. I just wonder how probable it would be.
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.
-
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.
-kartal
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.
-app103
I think that merits of an open distributed search engine is way bigger than some rotten people`s attempt to make easy money
-
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
-
I think that merits of an open distributed search engine is way bigger than some rotten people`s attempt to make easy money
-kartal
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.
-
The topic's quote is the reason why all of my browsers are filtering any Google content...
-
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.-kartal
Err... what?
Front line is the one that is in the front of the line... is that some kind of a joke?
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?
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:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-kartal
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:
-
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.-kartal
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:
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-JavaJones
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.
-
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
-
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
-JavaJones
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.
-
:down: :up: :tellme:
-
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-kartal
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.)
-
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/2010/04/10/microsoft-about-internet-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.
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=22163.msg199256#msg199256 has much more meat on it :) 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
If you don't use google,you quit the internet and the computer, and the phone :P,just hidden in your house and sure no one can find you.
-
If you don't use google,you quit the internet and the computer, and the phone :P,just hidden in your house and sure no one can find you.
-flyfox2100
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 :) The issues are not about living in fear
-
that is the same lame thought that has been brought up over and over again
-kartal
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... :) :Thmbsup:
-
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.
-
Trying to get back on the exact topic of Google having knowledge about you...
I recently started using a new search engine, DuckDuckGo (http://duckduckgo.com), which has (amongst other features) a very appealing privacy policy: they don't keep any personal information about anybody at all.
I just started a new topic (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=22439.msg201811#msg201811) recommending this, you might want to go look here (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=22439.msg201811#msg201811).
-
Interesting, must check it out.
Regarding this thread, I've been following bits of it and though I still tend to think Google ain't so bad I have decided to switch from Chrome and Google to Iron and Scroogle. Two very simple changes which haven't affected my online productivity in a negative way at all :)
-
I recently started using a new search engine, [url=http://duckduckgo.com]DuckDuckGo
-CWuestefeld
Thanks for the suggestion, we should take a quack at it.
-
Yeah. I'd be willing to take a gander.
-
Well, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it's likely a duck.
But there's also a good chance it's an overweight 33-year old porn-hound WoW addict who's still living with his mom.
-
But, waddle I search for?
-
With jokes like this, you're gonna get smacked, so you'd better .... (nah, I won't do it)
-
Just don't goose me!
-
I read the whole thread and I think as app said privacy is illusion, but myself I search on google outside my account (I have gmail account but never search being logged in) I dont go to Orkut, Facebook, twitter or any other social site (sorry, but I personally feel they are crap) for the forums no real email address or real name (all fake), although use google maps on my phone with GPS (I dont care if google knows where I stay becuase my gmail account is also configured on the same phone), but my bank accounts are linked to google (all my bank mails come to gmail account), dont use google labs, apps, office suite.
I know its a silly thought but I still feel I've nothing to hide.
-
privacy is illusion-paarkhi
Only if you let it happen.
I still feel I've nothing to hide.-paarkhi
Do you leave your doors open at night?
-
Two stories listed on HackerNews (http://news.ycombinator.com/news) this morning:
2. Obama administration wants warrantless access rights to most US email (cnet.com (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html))
3. Thousands of webcam images have been found in the school district being sued (philly.com (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100416_1_000s_of_Web_cam_images__suit_says.html))
The top one says that the President thinks that the government should get access to our emails without any probable cause or due process of any kind. The bottom is an update about a school district that issued laptop computers with remote-control webcams and has been spying on the students.
So the battle isn't looking good. We're fighting a defensive battle, certainly not making any positive ground in our civil rights.
-
Did anyone actually read that first Cnet article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002423-38.html)? It's remarkably topical to this conversation, though it wouldn't appear so just from the brief description above. Check out the lead sentence:
"Google and an alliance of privacy groups have come to Yahoo's aid by helping the Web portal fend off a broad request from the U.S. Department of Justice for e-mail messages, CNET has learned."
and
"This case is about protecting the privacy rights of all Internet users," a Google representative said in a statement provided to CNET on Tuesday. "E-mail stored in the cloud should have the same level of protection as the same information stored by a person at home."
Yeah, so this is why I don't feel all that bad about using Google services and Google having access to data about me.
- Oshyan
-
Dont you think this story (http://www.scroogle.org/doctorow.html) is too much exaggerated
-
Hmm I've never heard of the Iron browser but it looks decent I'll give it a whirl thx :Thmbsup:
-
Dont you think this story (http://www.scroogle.org/doctorow.html) is too much exaggerated
-paarkhi
Hard to say.
I used to feel that way about all those dystopian stories about the USA gradually becoming a police state.
Then along came the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay and documented accounts of some of what went on there. I haven't felt the same about our political and legal system since.
SciFi is only scifi until reality catches up with it. Nowadays, it seems like the lagtime can be measured in days instead of centuries.
:(
-
...this is why I don't feel all that bad about using Google services and Google having access to data about me. - Oshyan-JavaJones
Same here. I do a lot through Google services (since 2003), was one of the original Gmail users, and have not had one ill effect. I've yet to see where Google has abused its data against someone/anyone. That said, I don't search "child porn" or "making dirty bombs" and starting websites, posting in forums based on the results of such searches. While I never doubt that Google could abuse its data at any time, I'm keen to Google's activities with regard to government agencies. Yet somehow I don't mind that Google cooperates with law enforcement to stop spammers (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/cloud-warrant/). The key is not simply amassing a database (DNA, demographic, usage, traffic, content, etc.), it's whether data mining such a database actually works. Often the results don't follow.
When the police need help, they have an open door to phone company records and its locational data, which reminds me, many of us haven't enjoyed locational privacy since we started using cellphones. Use coupons (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/media/17coupon.html) and soon the company knows more than you want about you. I get my picture taken virtually everywhere I go, from Walmart to the bank ATM to the post office to hardware store, and whenever I drive my car. Shit drives me mad if I think about it. I'm so old, I remember when peeing in a cup for a job interview was a grave offense and invasion of privacy. Now, your application doesn't start until the pee results come back (which you have to pay for). Of more concern than Google is how restrictive an ISP can be, and the issue of network neutrality. Most law enforcement work presumes most people live their lives by familiar patterns. When those patterns change and go outside the norms (Uncle Earl just started using meth, joined a militia, and suddenly became a god-believer!) is when their job gets easier.
Google also respects a wide variety of formats within its Google Docs apps, and through data liberation (http://www.dataliberation.org/), lets me take my data and documents with me when I leave Google. (Ask Apple if you can do that.) Until Google begins abusing its own policies, I'll continue to enjoy their services.
________________________________
Qualifier: My email and internet activities primarily consist of simple correspondence, twittering, and forum participation. I buy most things online and have rarely had a problem that couldn't be fixed. Otherwise, most of my online time is spent reading.
-
One just needs to watch the CNBC show on the rise of Google to see how far they have gone. They (Google) admitted they sell their info to large corporations.
That is enough to stop me from using their site(s), At least with the Bing search you can turn off the history, and in their small print say they only store data 72 hours. That's what they say anyway.
-
I remember when peeing in a cup for a job interview was a grave offense
-zridling
Probably shouldn't have used the interviewer's coffee mug, or at least taken it somewhere private.
-
One just needs to watch the CNBC show on the rise of Google to see how far they have gone. They (Google) admitted they sell their info to large corporations.-downloder
They admitted to selling info? WTH happened to "Do no evil"???
That is enough to stop me from using their site(s), At least with the Bing search you can turn off the history, and in their small print say they only store data 72 hours. That's what they say anyway.
I've tried Bing and it just doesn't bring in the results for me like Google does so I still use Google, but I use a bundle of Firefox extensions that keep me & my surfing habits safe. Every time I make a search on Google I appear as a separate distinct user. Good luck aggregating my data, evil denizens of Google! :D
-
I still haven't seen any actual information about this "Google admitted to selling their info to large corporations" bit. How about it downloder, where does that info come from?
Incidentally, Microsoft admitted to killing kittens. It's true! :P
- Oshyan
-
Many people are not ready to understand the complications of such concentration of data at this point.
-kartal
I don't think that there is anyone at the moment that really understands the implications. (Do you mean complications or implications?) I can imagine quite a bit, but really, it's a massively complex issue and the ramifications are extreme.
In this modern day and age, privacy is an illusion. The only real privacy you have is in your mind (and only as long as you keep your thoughts in there and don't let them out)
-app103
I think that even that is disappearing. Literally. What is in your head is slowly being exposed and will over time become clearer and easier to access. You only need to look into advertising to see where that is being done or how it is being done at a basic level right now.
As I said in previous posts, the issues surrounding these topics have dire consequences and very very complicated power issues in the upcoming years and centuries, not just for individuals but also for societies, cultures, languages, philosophy, art, literature, animals and the nature. This is a big ethical fog that is surrounding people minds.
-kartal
+1 for that.
I think that we're seeing the end of privacy, and with that, the end of freedom. I do not have any faith in it not being exploited in diabolical ways. Sigh...
-
I think that we're seeing the end of privacy, and with that, the end of freedom. I do not have any faith in it not being exploited in diabolical ways. Sigh...
-Renegade
I don't believe Privacy and Freedom are synonymous.
-
Two shows come to mind about our privacy. I cannot find the original show/video, but below is info RE the Google show and another good show about our so called privacy.
CNBC Originals: Inside the Mind of Google
Season 2 : Ep. 5 (43:22)
Air date: 12/03/2009
Get a rare look at the company that hundreds of millions of people touch every day. Reported by Maria Bartiromo.
Near to the end of the Original show, the interviewer asked what they did with all the data they collect and store. Their answer was that they sell it to large corporations for "market research". To allow companies to focus on who likes what, who goes where, etc.
This show was scary.......
CNBC Originals: Big Brother, Big Business
Season 1 : Ep. 4 (1:29:19)
Air date: 11/01/2006
This Emmy Award winner for Outstanding Documentary examines the big business of the technologies that allow companies to monitor our every move and record our private personal info.
-
After searching a bit further I found these links.
http://www.hulu.com/cnbc-originals
http://mashdata.blogspot.com/2010/04/inside-mind-of-google.html
A new Google app. Can anyone else see the possibilities of privacy invasion?
http://vodpod.com/watch/2652037-augmented-reality-and-visual-search
-
Am I the only one who is growing sick of conspiracy theorists who think Google is simply out to be big brother? Do I really care that they know my IP ADDRESS did a search on "big donkey pillows" or "Hairy banana chips"? Is it really "hurting my privacy"? All I see with the google critics is hear-say without any real evidence to back up the claims. Does Google sell information they collect? Sure, they make their money from advertisers. Do they collect and store data to be used by some higher powered big brother to spy on users? Doubtful.
-
Sure, they make their money from advertisers. Do they collect and store data to be used by some higher powered big brother to spy on users? Doubtful.-Josh
And what of the companies who are buying the data from Google? Can you vouch for the intentions of these unknown entities as well? I'm sure they are buying data from other sources as well & aggregating and correlating it all. It does not matter if a piece of data is not personally identifiable. Once you get enough pieces of this kind of data regarding a person the correlation of the data makes the data cluster personally identifiable. There have been numerous university studies that have shown this.
Bottom line is if you (or anyone) is not concerned with the data you share with companies that's fine, but don't criticize those of us who do want to keep the knowledge about ourselves private even if you deem that knowledge to be trivial. What's trivial to you may not be to me.
-
Is any of the data personally identifiable or does it point to an IP address? Is there any evidence that the companies purchasing said data are using it for ill-intentioned purposes? Are there any sources to show that someone has taken 200 pieces of data from one IP address and somehow managed to point the info to a single identifiable person? I am not bad mouthing people who are genuinely concerned with the privacy of an individual, where I get annoyed is people telling me I should avoid google and ALL OF THEIR products because of it without any real basis for the comments.
Why is it we are just focusing on Google? Why not Yahoo? Why not Ask.com? Why not the thousands of websites that sell you products and CAN make use of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) without having to purchase through google? What about the real people who are trying to exploit your machine and steal information without having to rely on google search hits? Does anyone have any data showing exactly what is stored or what is being shared or is this concern simply BECAUSE WE have made Google so big? We forget that it is the end user who makes a service as popular as it becomes. It is the end user who continues to use a product and asks more of them and in turn has the company in question expand it's services to meet the needs of the end user.
-
Do they collect and store data to be used by some higher powered big brother to spy on users? Doubtful.
-Josh
It only takes a minimal amount of research to find what is being done with the billions of data bits being collected, not only by Google, but also by our wonderful government.
Am I paranoid? Nah. BUT, I do take my anonymity fairly serious. No one needs to know the what/where/why of what I do, unless I choose to divulge it.
-
Why is it we are just focusing on Google?-Josh
I am extremely leary of all the companies you mentioned and more, but I think the reason why people focus more on Google is because they are the most successful, they pride themselves on very rarely if ever deleting *anything*, and also pride themselves on their abilities to correlate that data & make it work for them whether it be serving ads or who knows what else.
Another reason people focus more on Google than anyone else is that it seems like 85+% of all web pages I visit report back to either www.googleapis.com, www.googlesyndication.com, www.google-analytics.com, or all of the above. Even when during the course of the day I actively avoid going to Google's sites Google is trying to dip into my business.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the other search engine sites you mentioned don't have equivalents for those three sites mentioned above, do they?
-
Is there any evidence that the companies purchasing said data are using it for ill-intentioned purposes?
-Josh
Being cautions is all about trying to protect yourself before something like this happens. Waiting until after evidence has emerged would be utter lunacy.
-
Yes, I agree. but some people I've read act as if Google has already acted in a manner which would warrant treating them as something other than a search company. Treating them as if they've already broken the law.
-
Fair point. Google may be the biggest out there, but there no reason yet to say they're the baddest.
-
Yes, I agree. but some people I've read act as if Google has already acted in a manner which would warrant treating them as something other than a search company. Treating them as if they've already broken the law.-Josh
I don't treat Google as though they were a criminal. However, I do treat them as if I were a merchant & they were a patron entering my store. I don't immediately assume they are going to try to steal from me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to turn off the security cameras, either. :)
-
Watched the CNBC program. First quarter is pretty uninteresting fluff on how great Google is.
Second quarter, the only compelling "point" made is that search data *may* not be "really anonymous" and this assertion was based on a well-known AOL data release *mistake* that was poorly handled. That release included unique ID numbers for users that, yes, allowed searches to be *associated* with a single user, and thus in some (few) cases actually associated back with a person's unique identify... *when they searched for their own name and/or address or other personally identifiable info*. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal) Now get this: most of what people do online is unencrypted, so really almost anyone could be listening. It doesn't take Google tracking your data for it to get in the hands of the government, or anyone else who might want to watch.
But it's true, I have no proof that Google is doing a better job anonymizing their search results than AOL. I do trust them to do a better job, given their company history and intelligence (they do make mistakes, but they usually own up to them - see recent wifi data collection scandal). Let's not forget, too, that Google *voluntarily* introduced an 18 month anonymizing data policy, which other search engines then adopted, and then they reduced it to 9 months a year or so later (admittedly they weren't too happy about the reduction from 18 to 9 months): http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/google-tightens-data-retention-policy-again/
Third quarter, some more fluff, some speculation and fearmongering.
Fourth quarter, not much more.
I didn't find the bit where they say they're selling data to other companies, but if it's handled anything like the rest of the show, I wouldn't be surprised if they said "we do not sell our data to 3rd party companies" and they just edited out the "do not". This is a pretty scandal-seeking show, in my view. "Google could overwhelm us" says an interviewee, and with a very concerned look on her face the interviewer asks, with evident sympathy, "How could Google overwhelm you?". The answer? Oh no, it could give us more sales!!! Crap, we're screwed! Come on, seriously?
Anyway, if this is the only place where this info actually shows up (and I can't even view it - maybe it was retracted as inaccurate? hehe), I have to wonder why. Google censoring their results? :D
- Oshyan
-
So I was just on Amazon.com and I noticed at the bottom of the page it showed a "Recent Searches" section which displayed the last 2 Google searches I made.
How does Amazon know what the last two Google searches I made were?
I suppose it's possible I inadvertently searched in Amazon's website, though I usually just search from the address bar since I'm using Chrome.
-
Were those last 2 searches followed by clicks on Amazon links?
- Oshyan
-
Were those last 2 searches followed by clicks on Amazon links?
- Oshyan
-JavaJones
One of them was. But the other one I can't imagine why it would be. I was using Google to convert 6 feet into meters (due to an item I was viewing on Amazon). Like I said, I may have inadvertently searched from within Amazon, but I'm pretty sure I would have remembered seeing the strange Amazon.com results for that conversion search. I guess it was probably PEBKAC.