Slashdot Mirror

This guy is definately scared. I'd be scared if i had a cookie lingering around my hard drive with an expiry date of 2038.

I've been thinking more lately about the president of the American Library Association, Michael Gorman, and the objections he has to the Google Book Search. He's almost the only person I've head of who objects not on the basis of copyright, but rather on the basis of the atomization of information. Then I did a search on the name of one of people behind Google-Watch, and compared Google's snippet containing his name to the actual text from the book. Atomization? Heck, he got completely nuked by the snippet. I fear for the future of education.

You are free to use a different company

The problem is that google has such a monopoly that they can dictate what websites succeed and which fail. That is to much power for a single corporation as far as I'm concerned. Just go to http://www.google-watch.org/ and read some of the stuff there. It would be just as meaningless.

Geeks seem to be all to eager to suck googles dick. Google executives appear on the cover of magazines wearing Armani suits with Converse shoes and naive geeks are all "OMG! Those guys are so hip and cool!" Then google says "Our only philosophy is do no evil" and everyone is all "OMG! Those guys are so hip and cool!" Bill Gates could show up in a suit and sneakers and say "do no evil" and it would mean just as much as when google does it.

Google just gets bigger and more powerful. One day their leadership will change and the new execs might have a different direction for the company that really ends up fucking us all over. But we are just putting them in a position that will allow them to do that because geeks are so easily swayed by stupid shallow bullshit. Google is there to make money it is as simple as that. If you believe otherwise you need to grow up and look around you.

Oh no, here come the black helli.... NO CARRIER

Google is already working a design for tripods.

http://www.google-watch.org/

IP isn't that interesting indeed, cookies seem more affective too Google.

Google Maps uses information which has been semi-publically available for a long time, there is nothing special about it other than the UI.

This article sounds like something this guy would write... (and, the anti-that-guy :D )

Seems like some people already do:

http://www.google-watch.org/

Seriously, is Microsoft behind the Google Watch site?

Put this on your website and title it "The Year of the Rat."

I wrote to administrators, and to each Regent at the University of Michigan, trying to get them to look at Section 108 of the Copyright Act, which specifies the limits of library copying as an instance of fair use. I believe that Section 108 prohibits U.Michigan from what they are allowing Google to do with their books.

I also wrote to the Authors Guild, expressing my frustration that U.Michigan ignored me. A copy of that letter is here.

Google is a weed growing in the copyright garden. I was thinking that Section 108 might be used to trim back the weed. The Authors Guild is wisely hoping to pull it out by the roots. If that doesn't work, maybe they can trim it back later.

I'm quite happy with The Author's Guild suit. It looks to me like they know what they're doing. Maybe five years down the road, when the Supremes establish that opt-in also applies to websites, then we'll be able to force robots.txt into an opt-in mode instead of the present opt-out mode. That will fragment the monopoly of the big search engines, and help to give the web back to the webmasters.

If Google could show snippets from books without first copying the entire book, and if they did this without any commercial interest or intent, then I think they might have a fair-use argument. But there are some hurdles before they can get to that argument.

Many Google acolytes like to point out that Google already grabs much of the web in its entirety, which is copyrighted by default. That's true. But that doesn't mean it's legal. All it means is that search engines started doing this before webmasters got organized into associations (they still aren't organized), and there was no one to challenge the engines.

Now if webmasters had been around as long as authors, and were organized to protect their interests, the engines would have never gotten this far with their illegal crawling for profit.

They have nothing to tangible sell. The only way for them to make money is to sell data they've garnered and they users who they garnered it from.

Just to point out, you're treading on very thin ice there lad. There is a very popular search engine company who sell some search appliances but whose major revenue stream comes from the sale of targeted advertisements. Targeted? How?

Every time you visit one of this company's pages, you'll get a unique cookie (if you haven't already got one), that won't expire until 2038, and your search terms are logged with datestamp, IP address, User-Agent and, of course, your identification number from that unique, immortal cookie. Not even the CIA could get away with this.

Now look, people tell search engines things that they wouldn't tell their closest friends and relatives. This is a hostile invasion of privacy - or, at least, will become one.

This is precisely the same information that, as you say, Yahoo! garners from its users to sell for profit. Not to say you failed to see the similarity, it's just that people seem to love this company and won't hold it to the same standards that they would expect of others. Classic hypocrisy.

Still, something of note:

Deviantart is a shit-site that you might not care about, but I noticed something really strange about the Google "indexing"...

Any kind of communication on the site is saved in the "comment" subdomain. (If you delete a pic/journal the comments on them are still stored)

So to find something easily, you just do site:deviantart.com inurl:comments

This gives us: "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000"

Over 900k man, that's a lot!

Now the hit that includes that part of the site is the third anyway, this one:

comments.deviantart.com/5/6169392/159452388

You know what we do next? We take the first 10 words from that text, and we search for them.

I tried this a week ago, and now I was thinking Google might of noticed that and indexed it, or something.

Has it?

No.

THE FIRST HIT OF NEAR A MILLION.

Something else of note is the last number in the address, 159452388

159,452,388

160 million.

There has only been 160 million comments, and Google somehow has indexed 6x the amount.

(Trust me, ok, the other numbers are just for sorting)

That's easy to explain though: because of the tree structure ("nested" on slashdot) of comments.

But what should that mean? THAT I'D GET MULTIPLE RESULTS.

So what does this whole anti-indexing mean?

Now, a link to the ugliest site in the universe (The author seemingly surfs with 640x480 4/8-bit in win3.1... and uses the evil empire's toolbar)

Google cares about bloggers, why, you might ask? Bloggers make links a lot, Google likes this, it "improves" their PageRank.

That is, if there weren't such a thing as "commercial interests". Which is the whole reason the retarded "splogs" word exists, because Google is so damn good at indexing their own blogging service. I've also seen some spam which didn't contain links at all, just "mind control". Searching on part of the message (crazy huge 2k words) returned 7k hits.

Another thing I just figured out (wow that's great mr smartypants) is any link is counted as positive. I would think a truly honest writer (journal-ist, blog-er, diary-ist) presents just as much positive as negative thoughts (and thus, links) on subjects.

Righto, so back to mr ugly: "One reason why Google is stinkin' rich is because webmasters have never been organized. Even today there are no associations of webmasters that can represent them in court. [...] A copyright decision that addresses search engines in terms of opt-in as opposed to opt-out, would make the web a better place. It may also help solve some of the privacy issues and identity-theft problems that occur when crawlers grab files that they should not be allowed to have"

I think he at least mentions something I haven't thought about, as opposed to mr F-google who just repeats the same shitty drivel over and over, and is of course, a fucking blog. That also brings to light something else - as opposed to websites, the only thing that matters is "speed", you won't notice revisions or any formatting beyond linebreaks (and those stupid ass pictures he must spend half of the site-updating-time to) or any sorting beyond "by date".

Still, something of note:

Deviantart is a shit-site that you might not care about, but I noticed something really strange about the Google "indexing"...

Any kind of communication on the site is saved in the "comment" subdomain. (If you delete a pic/journal the comments on them are still stored)

So to find something easily, you just do site:deviantart.com inurl:comments

This gives us: "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000"

Over 900k man, that's a lot!

Now the hit that includes that part of the site is the third anyway, this one:

comments.deviantart.com/5/6169392/159452388

You know what we do next? We take the first 10 words from that text, and we search for them.

I tried this a week ago, and now I was thinking Google might of noticed that and indexed it, or something.

Has it?

No.

THE FIRST HIT OF NEAR A MILLION.

Something else of note is the last number in the address, 159452388

159,452,388

160 million.

There has only been 160 million comments, and Google somehow has indexed 6x the amount.

(Trust me, ok, the other numbers are just for sorting)

That's easy to explain though: because of the tree structure ("nested" on slashdot) of comments.

But what should that mean? THAT I'D GET MULTIPLE RESULTS.

So what does this whole anti-indexing mean?

Now, a link to the ugliest site in the universe (The author seemingly surfs with 640x480 4/8-bit in win3.1... and uses the evil empire's toolbar)

Google cares about bloggers, why, you might ask? Bloggers make links a lot, Google likes this, it "improves" their PageRank.

That is, if there weren't such a thing as "commercial interests". Which is the whole reason the retarded "splogs" word exists, because Google is so damn good at indexing their own blogging service. I've also seen some spam which didn't contain links at all, just "mind control". Searching on part of the message (crazy huge 2k words) returned 7k hits.

Another thing I just figured out (wow that's great mr smartypants) is any link is counted as positive. I would think a truly honest writer (journal-ist, blog-er, diary-ist) presents just as much positive as negative thoughts (and thus, links) on subjects.

Righto, so back to mr ugly: "One reason why Google is stinkin' rich is because webmasters have never been organized. Even today there are no associations of webmasters that can represent them in court. [...] A copyright decision that addresses search engines in terms of opt-in as opposed to opt-out, would make the web a better place. It may also help solve some of the privacy issues and identity-theft problems that occur when crawlers grab files that they should not be allowed to have"

I think he at least mentions something I haven't thought about, as opposed to mr F-google who just repeats the same shitty drivel over and over, and is of course, a fucking blog. That also brings to light something else - as opposed to websites, the only thing that matters is "speed", you won't notice revisions or any formatting beyond linebreaks (and those stupid ass pictures he must spend half of the site-updating-time to) or any sorting beyond "by date".

Still, something of note:

Deviantart is a shit-site that you might not care about, but I noticed something really strange about the Google "indexing"...

Any kind of communication on the site is saved in the "comment" subdomain. (If you delete a pic/journal the comments on them are still stored)

So to find something easily, you just do site:deviantart.com inurl:comments

This gives us: "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000"

Over 900k man, that's a lot!

Now the hit that includes that part of the site is the third anyway, this one:

comments.deviantart.com/5/6169392/159452388

You know what we do next? We take the first 10 words from that text, and we search for them.

I tried this a week ago, and now I was thinking Google might of noticed that and indexed it, or something.

Has it?

No.

THE FIRST HIT OF NEAR A MILLION.

Something else of note is the last number in the address, 159452388

159,452,388

160 million.

There has only been 160 million comments, and Google somehow has indexed 6x the amount.

(Trust me, ok, the other numbers are just for sorting)

That's easy to explain though: because of the tree structure ("nested" on slashdot) of comments.

But what should that mean? THAT I'D GET MULTIPLE RESULTS.

So what does this whole anti-indexing mean?

Now, a link to the ugliest site in the universe (The author seemingly surfs with 640x480 4/8-bit in win3.1... and uses the evil empire's toolbar)

Google cares about bloggers, why, you might ask? Bloggers make links a lot, Google likes this, it "improves" their PageRank.

That is, if there weren't such a thing as "commercial interests". Which is the whole reason the retarded "splogs" word exists, because Google is so damn good at indexing their own blogging service. I've also seen some spam which didn't contain links at all, just "mind control". Searching on part of the message (crazy huge 2k words) returned 7k hits.

Another thing I just figured out (wow that's great mr smartypants) is any link is counted as positive. I would think a truly honest writer (journal-ist, blog-er, diary-ist) presents just as much positive as negative thoughts (and thus, links) on subjects.

Righto, so back to mr ugly: "One reason why Google is stinkin' rich is because webmasters have never been organized. Even today there are no associations of webmasters that can represent them in court. [...] A copyright decision that addresses search engines in terms of opt-in as opposed to opt-out, would make the web a better place. It may also help solve some of the privacy issues and identity-theft problems that occur when crawlers grab files that they should not be allowed to have"

I think he at least mentions something I haven't thought about, as opposed to mr F-google who just repeats the same shitty drivel over and over, and is of course, a fucking blog. That also brings to light something else - as opposed to websites, the only thing that matters is "speed", you won't notice revisions or any formatting beyond linebreaks (and those stupid ass pictures he must spend half of the site-updating-time to) or any sorting beyond "by date".

Read this...

http://www.google-watch.org/

Here ya go...

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

Oh, and before I forget, go look at some of Google's job ads for jobs with Google. Some of them require top secret clearances. Very few companies, even serious R&D companies with money to lose require clearances. Usually, only government-related jobs (read contracting with the feds) requires a DOD or GSA clearance.

but wanting my mobile number is insane. Google, in my estimation, is not only a profitable corporate company, but with their recent hiring of top secret cleared engineers from the governemnt, I think they could be a part of echelon. Laugh all you want. Tell me I have a tinfoil hat all you want. What better way for the government to be able to spy on people without the legality of a wiretap, or breakin to look at your computer. Now they don't have to. Google is becoming far more powerful than even Microsoft. Microsoft isn't hording near the personal information as Google is collecting from people.
There are a number of articles from various sources on why people should fear Google froma privcy standpoint.
Read this for a little background info:
Google Watch

EXACTLY. The *worst* fanboys are Google-fanboys.

Regarding privacy, not even the CIA could get away with what Google is doing right now.

Check out that link for the email correspondence with David Krane. You'll also see how seriously, transparently and publicly the CIA dealt with public privacy concerns and how arrogant and flippant Google's disregard for privacy truly is.

Google's (unique!) cookie lasts until 2038 ... dodgy, dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.

Somewhat negates any possible argument about a government's encroachment on privacy. Google is as bad as an unappointed, unaccountable secret police!

That said, slashdot.org can leave me all the cookies they want. Mmmm, cookies.

For me, the issue is that Google, a rich corporation, has talked some libraries into providing access to their collections, even though the library is not the rights holder for the copyrighted works they own. The library that is most eager to let Google scan everything is the University of Michigan, a public institution.

The contract with U.Michigan was confidential until they posted it in response to a request I filed under Michigan's freedom of information law. Google gets to scan everything, and U.Michigan gets a copy of the scanned files. However, U.Michigan is not able to do anything with their copies except to offer it on their own website, assuming that they take measures to prevent excessive downloading and automated crawling.

By way of contrast, Google gets to do anything it wants with its copies, forever, and that includes selling it to partners, or passing them along to any successor of Google. They will show ads for where to buy copies of out-of-print books. The entire book will be scanned, but only snippets will be shown surrounding the search term for books that are in copyright. With this latest announcement, they say that they will not show sponsored links unless the publisher agrees to join in the Google Print program.

Google considers anything published after 1922 to be copyrighted, except for government documents that had no copyright to begin with. Now they are inviting publishers to opt-in to their Print program, so that more than snippets can be displayed, and the publisher can get a cut of the sponsored links that are clicked on.

But you have to ask yourself, how many books that were published since 1922 are represented by current publishers who are aware of Google's plans and inclined to respond to Google's invitation to opt-in or opt-out? Consider that many publishers are no longer the rights holder once a book goes out of print, as contracts often stipulate that the copyright then reverts to the author. When Google talks about allowing publishers to opt-in to the Print program, or opt-out of the scanning, my guess is that we're talking about less than 20 percent of all copyrighted material that Google plans to grab.

The other 80 percent will be grabbed by Google without the "express consent" of the rights holder that is required by copyright law, usually with the rights holder not even being aware that an opt-out is available from Google. This is what Google has its eyes on, but it's not what they want you to think about when considering this issue. The used-book purchase links alone will be a cash cow for this 80 percent. Their statement that they will not show sponsored links on pages from copyrighted books that have not opted-in is not enforceable, given that they can chang their mind about that further down the road. It's just not fair to rights holders.

The proper procedure would be for Google to solicit permission for anything in copyright, and skip that book if there is no response. They should make an arrangement with some entity similar to the Copyright Clearance Center, and invite rights holders to submit permission forms for Google to scan their books. A license fee might be involved, so that these holders can get some compensation. The question of whether ads are allowed, or how much content can be displayed, could be negotiated as part of the license fee. Then if the library has the book, no one will complain when Google scans it. If it doesn't have the book, perhaps the rights holder can make a copy available if Google still wants it.

That's what Google should be doing, instead of ripping off every rights holder since 1922 by default. There is more on this issue at Google Watch.

Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg

Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.j pg

Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jpg

Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g0681 .jpg

Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Athert on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en

Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%2520079.JPG&imgrefurl=h ttp://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm&h=1536&w= 2048&sz=661&tbnid=AN0nR-46KkoJ:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150& hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalerie%2Bplame%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg

Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.j pg

Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jpg

Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g0681 .jpg

Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Athert on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en

Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%2520079.JPG&imgrefurl=h ttp://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm&h=1536&w= 2048&sz=661&tbnid=AN0nR-46KkoJ:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150& hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalerie%2Bplame%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

You are still in control.

Turn off cookies, or something of the likes.

If you don't trust them, don't use GMail.

It features things that google successfully filtered

http://search.msn.com/images/results.aspx?FORM=IRR E&q=Abu%20Ghraib

The idea to check came from http://google-watch.org/

So you want to switch Dad from AOLHell to Big Brother Gmail. Man, do you sellout all your family members this way? If you were a real geek you'd set up a mail server and give your Dad a free, *private* mail account. But hey, this is the pro-corporate Windoze generation. Kids these days...

So far, Google has been a pretty ethical company

So far, Google has been seen to be a pretty ethical company, as a result of its skilful marketing and public relations policies. Nobody really knows what's being done behind the scenes with all the data it's collecting. The Google Watch site seems over-the-top to me, but who knows?

Is Public Information Research's Namebase. They hate Google too: Google Watch

And Google most certainly is!

http://www.google-watch.org/

(And just who owns all those squatters around that page anyway?)

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

You do have to wonder how much of the 'do no evil' philosophy is cover for the "let us store and index all information about everything, including you" philosophy. Not that I'm going to stop using Google until their results become less usable than Yahoo's results...

We all have some reason to despise Microsoft, so I won't repeat all of them.
Thats' why many people are ready to follow anyone who tries to put up some competition to them.

In some cases, the competition has a much better product (go, Firefox!)
In some others, the competition might even be worse... or at least trying to use the same heavy handed tactics M$ has used for decades.

I'm afraid Google might fall into this second class. They have lots of very sensitive data on us: our searches, our emails, maybe we are even handling them the documents on our desktop.

All this data can be easily correlated through an immortal cookie (with an expiration date in 2038, it will definitely outlast my PC).

There is a web site keeping an eye on Google:
http://www.google-watch.org/

While I would take anything in this site with a grain of salt, it still paints a very disturbing of Google; anyone can verify their claims, afterwards... but first of all read it!

The google-watch page on PageRank already mentions how pagerank, over the years, has switched from an actual score of popularity (number of links to a page), to a trustrank-like index, based on the reputability of the links to a page. This makes it much harder for the newbie to get a good pagerank, and empowers way too much the owners of old web sites and corporate pages.

Even though it contains way too much rant for my taste, google watch is worth a full read by all /.ers.

The google-watch page on PageRank already mentions how pagerank, over the years, has switched from an actual score of popularity (number of links to a page), to a trustrank-like index, based on the reputability of the links to a page. This makes it much harder for the newbie to get a good pagerank, and empowers way too much the owners of old web sites and corporate pages.

Even though it contains way too much rant for my taste, google watch is worth a full read by all /.ers.

• '... We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. ...'[0]

mod cookie, still use google
Its well and good to add cynical `people are paranoid` posts. How about a technical solution to side step google cookies? Here is one reference from www.google-watch.org where you can disable the cookie tracking ID , google [1] inserts in your cookies.

• '... Google's expiration date is a barometer of its insensitivity to privacy issues. ...' [2]

are cookies & uniqueIDs evil?
The simple url *hack* allows users to maintain their preferences via a modified url rather than the cookie. At the same time google doesnt get to use its unique id with your search patterns.

• '... My Search History saves information about your activity on Google, including your search queries, the results you click on, and the date and time of your searches. ...' [3]

an experiment to try
As the original author(s) noted this is an more of an experiment to see how much google value their uniqueID by noting how long it takes for them to notice and rectify the cookie beahaviour. You can read more about the steps needed to do this at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• '... Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. ...' [4]

references
[0] Snippet of current google privacy policy on information sharing

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html

• http://www.google.com/searchhistory/privacy.html

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• '... We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. ...'[0]

mod cookie, still use google
Its well and good to add cynical `people are paranoid` posts. How about a technical solution to side step google cookies? Here is one reference from www.google-watch.org where you can disable the cookie tracking ID , google [1] inserts in your cookies.

• '... Google's expiration date is a barometer of its insensitivity to privacy issues. ...' [2]

are cookies & uniqueIDs evil?
The simple url *hack* allows users to maintain their preferences via a modified url rather than the cookie. At the same time google doesnt get to use its unique id with your search patterns.

• '... My Search History saves information about your activity on Google, including your search queries, the results you click on, and the date and time of your searches. ...' [3]

an experiment to try
As the original author(s) noted this is an more of an experiment to see how much google value their uniqueID by noting how long it takes for them to notice and rectify the cookie beahaviour. You can read more about the steps needed to do this at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• '... Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. ...' [4]

references
[0] Snippet of current google privacy policy on information sharing

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html

• http://www.google.com/searchhistory/privacy.html

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• '... We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. ...'[0]

mod cookie, still use google
Its well and good to add cynical `people are paranoid` posts. How about a technical solution to side step google cookies? Here is one reference from www.google-watch.org where you can disable the cookie tracking ID , google [1] inserts in your cookies.

• '... Google's expiration date is a barometer of its insensitivity to privacy issues. ...' [2]

are cookies & uniqueIDs evil?
The simple url *hack* allows users to maintain their preferences via a modified url rather than the cookie. At the same time google doesnt get to use its unique id with your search patterns.

• '... My Search History saves information about your activity on Google, including your search queries, the results you click on, and the date and time of your searches. ...' [3]

an experiment to try
As the original author(s) noted this is an more of an experiment to see how much google value their uniqueID by noting how long it takes for them to notice and rectify the cookie beahaviour. You can read more about the steps needed to do this at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• '... Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. ...' [4]

references
[0] Snippet of current google privacy policy on information sharing

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html

• http://www.google.com/searchhistory/privacy.html

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• '... We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. ...'[0]

mod cookie, still use google
Its well and good to add cynical `people are paranoid` posts. How about a technical solution to side step google cookies? Here is one reference from www.google-watch.org where you can disable the cookie tracking ID , google [1] inserts in your cookies.

• '... Google's expiration date is a barometer of its insensitivity to privacy issues. ...' [2]

are cookies & uniqueIDs evil?
The simple url *hack* allows users to maintain their preferences via a modified url rather than the cookie. At the same time google doesnt get to use its unique id with your search patterns.

• '... My Search History saves information about your activity on Google, including your search queries, the results you click on, and the date and time of your searches. ...' [3]

an experiment to try
As the original author(s) noted this is an more of an experiment to see how much google value their uniqueID by noting how long it takes for them to notice and rectify the cookie beahaviour. You can read more about the steps needed to do this at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• '... Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. ...' [4]

references
[0] Snippet of current google privacy policy on information sharing

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html

• http://www.google.com/searchhistory/privacy.html

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• '... We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. ...'[0]

mod cookie, still use google
Its well and good to add cynical `people are paranoid` posts. How about a technical solution to side step google cookies? Here is one reference from www.google-watch.org where you can disable the cookie tracking ID , google [1] inserts in your cookies.

• '... Google's expiration date is a barometer of its insensitivity to privacy issues. ...' [2]

are cookies & uniqueIDs evil?
The simple url *hack* allows users to maintain their preferences via a modified url rather than the cookie. At the same time google doesnt get to use its unique id with your search patterns.

• '... My Search History saves information about your activity on Google, including your search queries, the results you click on, and the date and time of your searches. ...' [3]

an experiment to try
As the original author(s) noted this is an more of an experiment to see how much google value their uniqueID by noting how long it takes for them to notice and rectify the cookie beahaviour. You can read more about the steps needed to do this at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• '... Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. ...' [4]

references
[0] Snippet of current google privacy policy on information sharing

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

• http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html

• http://www.google.com/searchhistory/privacy.html

• http://www.google.com/privacy.html

As soon as the company went public, it changed. "Don't be evil" immediately took a backseat to "make money" on the day that happened. It is inevitable. Look at the "innovations" that google had come out with in the past year or so since going public.

They have gmail, which sounds like a great idea, but they do scan the content of the emails to put ads there. They claim no humans see the messages, and we have no proof otherwise, but it is a dangerous idea.

So far, this is all fact. Now my fear is definately theory bordering on conspiracy and I admit that. The sad fact is that all of this is possible and it shouldn't be this close.

They have admitted to the New York Times back in November of 2002 that , "Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address (information that can be used to link searches to a specific computer), and the sites on which the user clicked.". Combine that with gmail and you get a database full of privacy violation. But that is just the start.

In the same New York Times article, when asked if they have ever turned any of this information over to anyone, they denied comment and refused to answer. The fact is that if they didn't log all of this data, and make these intrusive privacy policies, they wouldn't be putting our privacy at risk like this.

What about blogger? Do you think they log that also? Of course they do. They log the people who visit and what they read. They log who says what in their blogs. Then there is Picasa, for pictures on your hard drive. Don't even THINK about what they could find out from that desktop search tool that scours your entire hard drive for all of your files. Maybe it doesn't report everything now, but how long before they do? It may just be flipping a switch in the software to "phone home" with the information on the next update. By the time anyone knows, it is too late. the thought police are coming!

Now many many sites track similar information. Google is by no means the only one guilty of this type of tracking. But because of the large number of their "innovations" they have to potential to tie it all together and create a file on each and every user they have by data mining that information. They most assuredly have profiles on all of us and that should scare you to death. What have you used google for?

Yes, I am playing the "what if" game. But the fact is that it is dangerously close. The same holds true for Microsoft. I just don't have the same level of trust for google that I once had. As soon as they sold out to stickholders, I immediately worried that it would only be a matter of time before this huge database of profiles would be sold to the highest bidder (if it is not already). It is just getting too close to my privacy for my comfort which is why I am very careful about how I use Google and all of their wonderful "innovations".

I think everyone should do the same.

source: "Postcards from planet Google" November 28, 2002.

source: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer November 29, 2002.

source: google-watch.org

source: Binary Revolution Radio episodes 87,86,70,43,42,41.

i think probably here:

Google search for "French military victories"


...which was actually originally a fairly clever prank to trick google...


-----
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

They are goint to get you

Google offers 1 gig of storage, which is many times the storage offered by Yahoo or Hotmail, or other Internet service providers that we know about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it. Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of time.

Google has been spinning their original position in press interviews, and with an informal page described as "a few words about privacy and Gmail." When we see fresh material from Google, we check the modification date at the bottom of the terms-of-use page and privacy page for Gmail. If these dates are still April 6 and April 8, we know that nothing has changed. Google can modify these pages too, any way they want and whenever they want, unilaterally. But at least these two pages carry slightly more legal weight than other pages, because Google should attempt to notify users of significant changes in these formal policies.

A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been illegal. For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish. All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public." Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil," and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong interpretation of Google's actual position! Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is different on issues that matter.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.

Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language

It seems that the new version of the Google toolbar is evil, featuring "Autolink", basically the same as M$'s uproar-causing page-modifying "Smart Tags" that thankfully got dropped.

(Although I still see fit to put <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="true" /> in the head of every site I build, thanks to that nasty scheme, just in case they ever change their minds.)

Anyway, if true, this is a real bitch to website owners. I really hope Google haven't turned to the dark side, but I have noticed that it's taking longer and longer to get new website content properly indexed these days, so in a way, I'm wishing for something to come along and put a bit of competition back into the search engine world, because Google ain't what it used to be.

How long before the Google toolbar is considered spyware? Last I checked, modifying page content was a tactic that well and truly belonged to spyware... and Microsoft.

The new toolbar creates links on specific text if no links exist, but you can shield this text with a null link and make the toolbar look like it's broken. Instructions here.

So no different from the information Google already collects about you every time you use Google to do a search, then, it seems.

They've never gone and done anything nefarious...

... that you know of. Of course, let's not talk about Google's connections to the intelligence community.

Google needs to keep MS honest?

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

This could be a publicity thing for yahoo concerning rival google and there http://www.google-watch.org/ questionable privacy practices. Then again the EULA was agreed upon by the deceased so they have a ligit right to refuse access.

I followed a trail of links reading about different things about blogs and Google, until I found this on http://www.google-watch.org/gaming.html.


2. A blogger puts up a spoof page on 29 May 2003 announcing a "Nigerian Email Conference." By June 6, this spoof has 105,000 hits. Most of these are due to Slashdot, a geeky forum with lots of noise and juvenile humor, dripping with PageRank, which mentioned the spoof on June 1. But there are also 600 links in Google for "nigerian email conference" by June 6, picked up by the "freshbot" as it made its way down the repetitive link panels on various blogrolls. The geeks at Google love Slashdot, so Slashdot's little chuckle even shows up on Google News. Hohum. Apparently the public dislikes us.