Slashdot Mirror
EFF Warns Not to Use Google Desktop
neelm writes "The EFF is asking users not to use the new version of Google Desktop that has a 'search across computers' option. The option will store copies of documents on your hard drive on Google servers, where the government or anyone who wants to may subpoena (i.e. no search warrants) the information. Google says it is not yet scanning the files for advertising, but it hasn't ruled out the possibility."
By user demand, Google introduces Google Anal Probe Beta (hereafter GAP). GAP searches that last gap of yours that we haven't been able to reach. We will be able to recommend foods you might like, various restaurants and whether you've ever been abducted by aliens.
"Google, is this painful?" you might ask. Not anymore! Thanks to GooLube Beta you won't feel a thing.
Folks, I'm not overly inclined to paranoia, but be careful. Unique application identifiers? Uploading information for across-machine search? Google never deletes anything. Ever. They might not be doing anything insidious with it now. But in five years, ten years? Who can say.
The new Google Desktop sends "copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents [to] Google's own servers"?
That's scary. What happened to "do no evil"?
Either Google is dropping that premise, or the EFF is overreacting. I wouldn't rule out the latter, in the least..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
It kind of makes one wonder how long it will be until we simply stop thinking about where our documents are stored. I've kind of assumed that, soon enough, we'll simply have our key that we'll use to access our information anywhere, anytime. Seeing the things coming out of 37Signals and other likeminded businesses that allow you to store and edit information online from anywhere, it really seems like this is the way we're headed. The only thing is, will we find some way to keep our information more secure, or will the average joe just stop caring?
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Double standards boggle my mind. Microsoft would be lynched for half the things Google gets away from. Can someone please tell me why having your all private correspondence (gmail) or your file system (desktop) searchable by someone OTHER THAN ORIGINAL OWNER is a good idea? I know Google not suppose to extract any information, but if they CAN at some point they WILL.
I briefly used Google Desktop because everyone raved about its amazing versatility. I also wanted a desktop search similar to Spotlight. When Google Desktop started bookmarking sites for me and linking to things I didn't ask for, I stopped using it almost immediately. I'm not interested in having a computer moderate my life for me. I wouldn't trust any company with personal data, even if it is Google. Hell, I don't really even trust Google that much. It seems like they're growing too big too fast, built on too many creative yet economically-tenuous technologies. When will the house of cards collapse?
Don't enable the "search across computers" option. I doubt Google would enable it by default, as that would suck up a terrible amount of bandwidth and server storage, unless they're confident that they have the resources to burn on a feature that nobody will use (to search computers they own [bad pun]).
Well it depends. Do you care if the police can go through your stuff without a warrant? If not, then no problem. But many people do believe in privacy from the government (the founding fathers believed in it enough to include it in the constitution) and wish to keep their privacy. For them, this article would certainly be an eye-opener.
Well, if everyone has two GB of space, it makes sense to use it somehow. These guys sure do want to get their hands on a lot of data.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data, but as their decision in China demonstrates, there is not always an evil and not-evil choice. For a publicly-held company there are always conflicting interests. If it comes to a choice between giving up your information and breaking the law google doesn't have much choice.
Why should I avoid using software that makes my life easier just because of the threat of my privacy being "violated" . . .
Because you have never been refered to as "The Defendant."
Oh, but you will be. You will be!
KFG
Perhaps this would be a good time to start introducing people to GPG.
Regards,
Steve
Unless you're Chinese, right?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Are you serious? The only reason Bush is in hot water is because he didn't get a warrant, but had he asked, some judge would have given it to him anyway... Judges almost always rubber stamp warrants, after all, if "Law Enforcement" asks, they must need it, right?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
It's disabled by default. It's no threat unless you choose to use it, in which case it's still mostly benign. BTW, OF COURSE everything Google does is used for advertising data gathering. That's how their business works. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's been that way from day one.
If I had to count on one company to stand up and fight for personal privacy, human rights and not bow down to political pressures, it would have to be teh Google.
But what happens when they lose their fight? All that data they are collecting for their 'marketing' gets turned over without any personal subpoena, giving any government agency the ability to subpoena one company and collect the personal data of almost everyone in the country.
Sad day when MS looks like the good guys, they don't store information from their desktop search, or use it for marketing, so even if they get a subpoena, all they can provide is generalized search data from MSN Search.
BTW did you ever stop to think the reason Google didn't want to turn over the information to the Government regarding searches was maybe not to protect their users, but to protect themselves? Could it be so far fetched that they don't want to disclose the information they are collecting from users.
Don't put faith in any company to champion your rights, and don't let them have access to your information even if you do trust them. I have people I work with I don't let know what documents are on my desktop and I like and trust these people, why on earth would I let Google collect this information?
Can you really trust a company, made up on individuals, that all it would take is one person getting $20 bucks and hour to take the information the company has collected and dump it into public domain?
Let me state this a little more clearly...
GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTING DETAILED DATA FROM YOUR COMPUTER, NOR DETAILED DATA FROM YOUR SEARCHES THAT LINK BACK TO WHO YOU ARE. With the government inquires on this aside, collecting this information for any reason is wrong, and especially when they are admitting that it is for future marketing.
People are scared about Bill Gates running the world, yet Google has more specific data on every individual that uses their Desktop and Online Search engines.
I read about this earlier and my first thought was: This is going to be a nightmare for businesses.
Can you imagine the kind of trouble employees and companies could get in if confidential data is being stored on Google's servers?
God help the company that accidentally gets medical or financial data stored on Google's servers.
This is a huge gaping security hole for companies. Google's Desktop Search is going to end up on the list of unnaceptable software... even if the feature is disabled by default.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
> Just because this can be used this way doesn't mean it will.
Yeah, that's what they said about street-light cams and automobile black boxes.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sieg heil! You're an awesome 1930s German! Please don't mind the smog; we all know it's burning the bodies of dead dogs that got infected with a rabbies plague.
Promote freedom; fight fascism.
Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing?
If they could "monitize" your ass for 50 cents worth of disk space, why not? It would only take one AdSense clickthrough to make a profit of the endeavor.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The thing about Google is they make no attempt to hide the fact they are collecting a tremendous amount of data about people and people let them. If you don't want your information stored by Google, you don't opt into any of Google's services. There is nothing compelling you to use a Gmail account, the Google search history is opt-in, the Google Talk logging is opt-in, and the Google Desktop features don't work unless you install them on your computer. If you're worried about what Google will do with your data, it ought to be your responsbility not to hand it over to them.
I don't care, but don't let that stop you from trying to tell me anyway.
The EFF isn't advising people to avoid Google Desktop, just not to enable the feature, which IMHO makes complete sense. Google can't prevent the files from being taken if they're subpoenaed and a court orders them to make them available, now can they? It's not up to Google and the EFF knows this. They're not saying anything against Google here, just that people should be careful who they let have access to their files.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
NO corporation can be trusted. Anything driven by money will lead to corruption.
Taking advantage of people? How? The feature is off by default, and next to the checkbox to turn it on, it explains that if you turn the feature on, the data is stored on Google's servers. There is also some sort of Learn More link. If they are trying to take advantage of people, they aren't doing a very good job...
Meet Clipper, the friendly Google Keychain assistant! He's open source (in the intelligence way).
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You are a fucking idiot. You do not think enough like a criminal, and given that the government, at every level (local, state, and federal) is infested with criminals, this is a serious problem.
Assume for a moment I am a violent criminal with political connections -- basically, a Mafioso. For my convenience then, please post the following (truthfully):
* Name
* Address
* Home, cell, and work phone numbers
* Social Security Number
* Numbers and expirations of every credit card you have
* Medical history
* Tax records
* Political persuasion
* Religion
* Ethnicity
* Marriage status
* Sexual habits and history. Do you jerk off to gay porn when your wife isn't around? Or mess around with other women, at least?
* Whether you own a dog, own any guns, and at what intervals the police patrol near your residence. These will be useful in determining how easily you can be robbed in your own home.
Also, one more question:
* Does your wife want lube when I rape her up the ass in front of you and your children?
The day you trust your government not to do these things -- and history shows that every one of these things has occurred as the result of government power -- is the day you get screwed, possibly literally.
Hell, it's tempting to do these things to you and take advantage of the above information, just to prove my point...
Point is, everybody has something to hide, INCLUDING YOU. You just have not thought about the subject long enough and deep enough.
I agree with what you are saying. It also seems that most people foolishly think that they can surf the net from home and type in anything that they want, or email anything they want and because they are in their "safe" home; inside an enclosed room. Psychologically it feels okay to share your thoughts through the computer and no one will know it's you! If that were only the case. Of course you also have the same thing happen to employees at many companies when they are hooked to company networks. Sending emails using Microsoft Outlook, or a web based one (i.e; yahoo)or surfing the net. I wonder how many people will delete their emails and think that the company can't recover them. I know many are so innocent! We have Big Brother everywhere!
and you'd be keeping those details where?
If you hadn't thought about it I assume you'd be keeping those records on your computer, where Google gets access to them almost as fast as you write them.
If you had thought about it and decided it was a serious risk you'd probably go for the simpler and more sensible option; remove google desktop search completely.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
" I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data"
Red herring.
This issue is a completely nonsense issue. Even if Google "wins" it's a mock trial. The government can already get whatever data it wants from Google using the Patriot Act and force them to keep completely mum about it. Who knows where that data goes aftwerwards. Everyone keeps saying "trust me" then you find out you were lied to afterwards... over and over again.
I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the US government doesn't already have complete access. This is just an attempt at post-NSA leak damage control. The "brilliant" idea is to lure terrrorist email bombers everywhere to annouce their plans using gmail.
- the work of a pure rocket scientist who's quick thinking saved "liberty" tower
I put my very private stuff in a safe deposit box in a bank. I do not actually own the deposit box. Is the bank hurting my privacy? Can the bank hurt my privacy?
I rent an apartment and do all the private stuff (including the extremely private stuff) in this apartment. I do not actually own the apartment. Is the apartment owner hurting my privacy? Can the apartment owner hurt my privacy?
I have my emails containing private information stored in a server. I do not actually own the server. Is the sevice provider hurting my privacy? Can the service provider hurt my privacy?
I believe storing your index in Google server is the same thing. Think the few megabytes Google uses to store your index as your rented storage space.
It is stupid to only trust stuff you own. If you need extreme privacy, get an isolated island. Oh, sorry for those satellites
When China demands Google censor searches, they agree. So if China asks Google to search user's desktops for keywords (Democracy, Revolution, Freedom, etc), will Google agree there?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Most people, I think, won't have a clear understanding. They don't know what a server does. They won't understand that the U.S. government can secretly demand the information. They won't realize the importance of the lost of privacy, or the reason why Google is offering to do something for them.
When you work with computers every day, it is extremely easy to overestimate the level of comprehension of the average person.
That's a rather naive opinion. Non-techies have been trained over the last few years to check all available options for maximum feature-ware. They've also been trained, from MS, that the "Learn More"-type links result in a box of useless drivel which does little more than assure them that the option is Okay.
The vast majority of Americans in society is more Pavlovian than you think. Unless they are experienced at configuring their own kernel they're trained that an unchecked checkbox must be checked.
As Google's power grows, that power starts corrupting Google. It's inevitable. Those idealistic founders may still hug trees and wear heart-warming slogans on their shirts, but seasoned business executives know better how to milk the cash cow. And they are in charge now.
Yet, have they really ever betrayed us?
You are assuming a dichotomy where none exists. Hardly ever betrayals are so clear-cut. Your local politician may promise $foo, but after one month on the job he says $bar is better - did he betray you, or he simply knows better now? If in a war a soldier tells his girlfriend that his unit is short on ammo, and the GF is with resistance, is it a betrayal? I would expect a smooth, gentle slide from "do no evil" to "do no evil unless you don't mind, and we give you a candy for that" to then "do no evil unless you fail to enter a 26-digit prime number here and now to opt out" to ... you see my point. And that's what is happening.
I, for one, believe that Google is on the side of the users.
You are personifying a company - a collective organism who does not think as humans do, and does not behave as humans do. It is genetically hardwired to get as much money out of you, me and everyone as it legally can. I would be wary of such an animal.
By going from nothing to superstar based almost entirely on word-of-mouth, Google demonstrated how powerful cultivating user trust can be
Mixing the "Google as a startup in a garage" with the "Google as a billion dollar publicly owned business" here. They are not the same, and different people are at the helm now. They don't care what the founders thought back then. They are not the founders.
iow, Google's taken the software EULA and made it impossible to bypass. Most of Google's services are online or directly related to online activities. You can't use and then sidestep their requirements, as they control the software and the server (not that I have a problem with them doing so, but I do with retaining search data).
/.ers who typically dislike both EULAs and data mining, but when it comes Google, they just can do no wrong.
Worse, they've taken the software EULA and made it irrevocable. I can remove software from my machine. I cannot generally remove my past searches and like data from Google's databases (there are some circumstances where I can but they are often very limited).
How strange that some
Oh, and since you seem to have missed the point of prior posts, the mere massive data collection by a private organization which claims to do no evil (and since changed that mantra) is the issue. Not that they do or do not hide that fact, so please stay on point.
You dumbass, the point was not that Google is a monopoly. It was that just because one has the option of not using Google, doesn't mean evil things Google does is excusable.
the Google search history is opt-in
Assuming you mean the fact that they keep a history of what terms you search for on google.com, then can you please point out where I go to opt out? I've had a look in the preferences, and there's nothing there for it.
Also, defaulting to on but allowing you to opt out is not the same as opt-in.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the US government doesn't already have complete access."
I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the Illuminati don't really control the whole shebang, including our very thoughts.
My point: It's pretty much impossible to prove some negatives.
Nevertheless, I agree somewhat with the thrust of your (over)statement, "Everyone keeps saying "trust me" then you find out you were lied to afterwards... over and over again."
There's a balance point to be found somewhere between naïve and paranoid.
If you have a beef with China, why don't you start with Walmart or any of the other off-shoring corporations who have no problem working with a dictatorship just to save a few bucks. It's easy to act all high and mighty when most of the things you own say "Made in China" on them.
What I find distressing about all the anti-Google stuff going on is that people seem to have so little faith in Google.
Newsflash: Google != God ; faith is highly inappropriate here.
Why should anyone have faith in a company that has as its sole purpose to make money for its shareholders? (They may have had high ideals in the past, but those went out the window with the IPO, such is the nature of publicly owned companies. Any loyalty toward their users, which by the way are NOT their customers just "eyeballs" to sell to the advertisers, has gotten transferred to the shareholders.)
The correct attitude towards big companies, even the cool ones, is a healthy skepicism, not blind faith, for they will screw you over the moment you turn your back.
Now Google seems to be becoming one of those amoral companies. The new Google Desktop takes advantage of people who don't understand what is happening. Is Google going from "Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?
A corporation with morals is like a coathanger with a conscience.
Corporations have one purpose: making money for the people in charge.
However, they are also useful contraptions that, overall, tend to increase everbody's standard of living. As long as we construct secure legal cages to limit their actions, things work well. When we stop being vigilant about securing that cage...when we believe that a certain company can "do no evil", we get what we deserve.
When a wolf kills a sheep, it's not being evil...it's just being a wolf. The fault lies with the gullible shepherd. In a similar vein, anybody who buys Google's "do no evil" soundbite is a fool. Google exists solely to make a small set of people lots of money. The rest of get some nice benefits, so we allow it to thrive. That doesn't mean removing the leash or closing our eyes just because it promises to play nice.
Yep, computer/network security is most of what I do these days, especially for the seriously paranoid (and these people do have a serious reason to be paranoid). Not any different than when I working for da Man. The only thing you can expect is that so long as you fly under their radar, you'll be left alone and can expect reasonable (??) privacy. Way too late in my case, but I volunteered way back when.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
I can't understand why people spring to Google's defence as if they are employees or shareholders whenever issues regarding the search giant pop up here. There are two issues here that people seem to be upset about:
As has been mentioned here, Google, while a large influential company that makes our lives simpler, is still bound by the laws of the countries in which they operate. The company is run by individuals who are open to corruption (since nobody's perfect). Most people would think twice before leaving their PCs unlocked if they walk away from their desks (rather than trusting their colleagues), but a disturbing majority of people here seem to have blind faith in a company simply because they have a "Don't be evil" motto.
There's a balance point to be found somewhere between naïve and paranoid.
Yes, and after watching our bureaucracy disintegrate from within thanks to incompetent and lying appointees, hearing reason after reason for going to war, imprisoning an American citizen without a trial for three years, electrocuting our detainees, and wiretapping American citizens without a warrant because they might be talking to someone who might be related to a guy who once talked to the 8th cousin of bin Laden, this "balance point" is most likely not on the side of "happy fun government with rainbows and cute bunnies".
I can assure you, everyone on
Anyway, if your point was to show how "google.cn" will proudly display honest search results for queries forbidden by the Chinese regime, you'd be better off (well actually worse off but hey...) trying that search from the other side of the Chinese Communist Party's fancy censorship filters, built with the courteous help by certain Cisco Corp.
Not only would do you fail to get uncensored results but the Party's own "Public Security" paramilitary police would be likely to learn where such "illegal" queries originated from. The small number of anti-dictatorship activists who are not only brave enough but also capable of finding and using outside proxies and tunnels but who have no way of communicating to the wider masses are currently not the primary worry for the regime which has itself admitted to "policing" a record 70 thousand uprisings, most of them against corruption and official abuse within the party itself, only last year alone.
Naturally most search results in Beijing's simplified Chinese tend to parrot the pro-regime party line even outside Chinese controlled territories. Very few Chinese within or outside China are able or willing to recognize the brutal reality about their powerful masters.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I'm strongly tempted to say that if you are putting new Dell systems (with the default Dell disk image and all its assorted cruft) into production, you deserve to be surveilled, and should probably also be forced to wear a padded helmet for your own protection. But maybe I only mean the protective helmet part. In a production environment, it is incumbent upon those responsible for the machines to know what is on them. The drill is as follows: receive the box, wipe the fucker clean, reinstall the OS without Dell's extensive fluff and mung (or better yet slap your organization's own custom OS image onto it), and THEN put the machine into production. If you are responsible for the machines, be responsible.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination
Do you want to go into more detail on this? The EFF certainly seem quite confidant in TOR's security and as I understand the technology, the concept is sound. Encrypted connection to a TOR peer, onion routing to your destination through an unknown number of intermediate peers (similarly encrypted) before reaching destination address. The destination sees only the TOR peer that is talking to it with no information in the packet as to where it will go after that. And likewise for each of the peers in the intermediate phase. All of which prevents the mass data-tapping / searching which I was addressing in my post.
Given that you state your profession is security for the seriously paranoid, perhaps you'd like to give more detail on where everyone else is going wrong?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
It doesn't matter if google will give their all. All that matters is that they are going to do more than the next guy. If people's stuff is going to end up on servers anyway we want to pick the company who will do the most *even if it isn't that much* to go first.
The idea that you can defend your privacy on your own just doesn't work. If everyone you correspond with puts stuff on servers you lose privacy anyway. Even if my suggestion is a slim chance it is the only chance we have.
Also hiring a lobbyist, no matter what position they support isn't the sort of thing that gets you made into road kill. You might not ultimately win but congressmen aren't going to get vindictive because you took them out to dinner. I think the best hope in this area is lobbying lawmakers not the courts (though we should pursue both avenues).
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too: