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."

Comments

EFF, Shmeff

[powerpuffgirls]

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.

Meanwhile, Chinese users please click here.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[TheNetAvenger]

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 agree, however the average joe blow that is buying a new dell that has Google desktop installed when it arrives, don't get the option to choose, nor are very many people informed about the data collection they perform.

This is kind of like the tiny fine print on a contract. Also there isn't an 'I Agree' button on the Google Search website, people think they are just looking up information.

We definately have the right and responsibility to not use a service if we don't agree with it, but we also owe it to others to alert them to facts about the service when the company offering the service fails to MAKE IT CLEAR.

Google is legally borderlining on misuse, non-disclosure and many other avenues that could eventually put them in the hot seat with a lot of people. It could also be the basis that the government uses to rip Google apart and get the information they requested.

Everyone on /. is so busy watching companies like Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, and yet 'information' is the gold of the 21st century and we don't seem to have the same eye to the companies mining it right out from underneath us.

store copies?

[pintomp3]

I thought it stored an index. I know this is bad enough, but if it was actual copies would be at least get a free back up out of it.

Re:Storage -- A Fleeting Concern?

[Shky]

And, just as an addition, this is my explanation why I think we will simply stop worrying about this, for the most part.

Most of us have simply accepted that websites will leave cookies on our computer. But we, of course, have learned to manage these; we only keep the ones we want, and probably not for very long.

We don't seem to mind that every website gets our IP address, but the very private can uses proxies (plenty of FF extensions) if they wish.

There are countless examples like this, where we have these privacy invasions, but we've simply accepted them, and learned to manage them. Now, whether this is a good thing or bad thing might be an entirely separate discussion. So I think that we will accept our documents being stored anywhere, but we'll learn to be careful, still. You might use an online text editor to make your resume, but maybe you'll leave your contact information off it, and only when you're ready to print will you temp-save it locally, add that info, and then print it.

I just really think we'll all get used to not knowing exactly where our stuff is, but we'll know what to do if we really need to be careful about it. For a little while, at least.

"Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

[Futurepower(R)]

If you have a gmail account, Google already knows who your friends and family are. That's okay if you can trust the company, and the political system.

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"?

Unfortunately, the U.S. government believes that it can perform surveillance anywhere and can keep the reasons secret. The U.S. government often forces companies not to disclose that they have given information to the government. So, maybe no company can be trusted.

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & you pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

EFF *is* doing something about it

[mouthbeef]

"Rather than telling people not to use any of these products and convincing a few people with privacy paranoia they should be concentrating on improving the protections that information will have."

EFF is concentrating on this: they've announced a major lawsuit against AT&T for participating in the government's illegal wiretapping program.

But the surveillance powers of the state have expanded many times through the Bush Administration (and Clinton was hardly a friend of privacy, for that matter). So while it's important to put corporations on notice that their participation in surveillance might land them in hot water, it's likewise important to let the public know that corporations are often left with no choice, and required to surveil them secretly (e.g., because of FISA warrants, or through CALEA wiretapping).

EFF isn't pursuing a monotonic "stop sharing your information" strategy. It's approaching this on many prongs: lobbying the government to sunset the PATRIOT Act, asking the Supreme Court to strike it down, suing companies that participate in surveillance, publishing best-practices documents for privacy-friendly server-logging, and warning the public about the potential for privacy ruptures arising from law and practice.

It's unfair to characterize EFF as merely wagging its fingers at the public. The organization is pursuing this on every possible front.

(Disclosure: I am a former EFF employee)