Slashdot Mirror

https://www.google.com End-to-end encryption keeps them from knowing squat about your browsing habits other than the fact that you prefer Google. Of course, Google knows all.

And if you prefer Google not to know all: http://www.googlesharing.net/

MS has less motivation to violate my privacy than Google does

Check out GoogleSharing. It's a proxy service that anonymizes your queries, but also utilizes Google's encryption service. So GoogleSharing doesn't know what your queries are, and Google doesn't know where they came from.

While I appreciate (the existence of) the service, methinks this is a trademark suit just begging to happen. I mean take a look at their logo [png graphic]. It really looks like an official Google site. In this age of massive information sharing, I have my doubts about patents and copyrights in general.

However with patents, I'd give the trademark owner the benefit of the doubt (you're not necessarily evil if you sue for trademark infringement), unless your trademark happens to be a pure (uncombined) dictionary word (in English or whatever language) or a common or well-etablished proper name (e.g. Smith or Madonna). Thus, I'd throw out any lawsuits involving Apple(tm) or Oracle(tm) but not Facebook(tm), Microsoft(tm), Apple Computers(tm) or Apple Records(tm). Obvious parodies are another matter, so there might be room for site names like Googlevil.

[*] I'm using trademark in the general sense to refer to symbols or names that make up the business identity of a company.

Let me refer you to the second sentence of the summary:

"The biggest change is leveraging Google's SSL search option to provide an anonymizing service which doesn't require you to trust either Google or GoogleSharing."

Wow.

You are right. That says I don't have trust google or googlesharing. ... assuming I trust the entity that makes that claim.

Oh. The entity making the claim that I don't need to trust GoogleSharing is GoogleSharing. Neat.

So if I don't trust googlesharing, why would my distrust be satisfied by the fact that they claim I don't need to trust them? That makes about as much sense as a fly asking the spider if he can take a nap on the web... the spider said he wasn't hungry... I guess there's nothing to worry about. :facepalm

Now, if you had instead referred me to the googlesharing FAQ:

http://googlesharing.net/faq.html#faq6

"If you're still worried, remember that the GoogleSharing addon and proxy code is publicly available. So it's possible for you to run a GoogleSharing proxy yourself, or to find someone who you do trust."

That's at least a step in the right direction. I can inspect and run the software on a server I do trust.*

And if I use the GoogleSharing servers, than I do still need to trust GoogleSharing to be running the software they claim to be running. I expect they are worthy of that trust but you still have to trust them unless you are running your own server after inspecting the source.*

** And you will need to find a bunch of people who trust YOU using your server for you to derive any privacy benefit from running your own server. Bit of a catch-22 there.

No thanks, I'm more concerned with giving Google all this information. I'll stick to using the Google Sharing extension when I have to use Google search or other services and Startpage for general search (no ip logging and done over SSL).

Done.
http://www.googlesharing.net/

I've been using Google Sharing, http://www.googlesharing.net/ , for a while now. Works very well. As with all proxies though, it just moves the point of trust from google to the google sharing-server.

For all those who can no longer use Scroogle, but are worried about their privacy while using Google's services, the Firefox plugin Google Sharing allows you to maintain anonymity on all of Google's unauthenticated services. Might be worth looking into.