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."
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.
Hey now, people, don't you know Google is GOOD, not EVIL?
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.
are said 'files' able to be traced to certain people?
I guess if google already stored and indexed all your files then "Comrade! Where are your papers?" won't be necessary.
Double-plus good!
I use Copernic instead of Google Desktop. I used GDS until I got a new laptop for work. Then I tried Copernic. I'm not sure if it is any better than GDS. The one aspect of Copernic I really appreciate is that it isn't integrated into my web browser. It has its own search application that looks like what I expect an indexing application to look like.
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.
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?
They make it perfectly clear what they are doing and ask you before doing it.. how is that evil?
By that logic fdisk and format are evil programs because they delete stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
Do Know Evil
There, fixed that for ya.
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"?
It's necessary for a feature they're offering (searching your files across multiple computers). If you disable the feature, no harm done. If you want the future, then you kinda have to give them the ability to store the stuff on their computer.
I'd say that Google has meet their "do no evil" requirement in this (I do believe they have broken it though by deciding to go against their morals to enter the Chinese market. They've gone from "do no evil" to "do nothing unlawful"). They haven't placed files on their servers for no reason at all. Instead they have done it and offered additional functionality as a result. Are they doing it to gain a profile on their users? Of course (even if they are waiting at the moment). But everything Google does is aimed at creating a profile on their customers in order to send them ads. You have to decide for yourself whether or not you consider that evil. I personally don't. Now if they decide to sell that profile to another company, THEN I would consider them even more evil, and will boycott all google products.
The "search across computers" options is DISABLED by default. The user has to turn it on, and only then is any data stored on Google servers (and then it is only stored on the servers for no more than a month). CNN was repeating the same inaccurate statement this morning.
I guess anyone can easily upload copyrighted MP3's? Does that mean Google is a RIAA target now?
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.
> 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?
I don't know if that's true in general, but it is the track record of the FISA court Bush is skipping around.
The law also allows that court to give post hoc warrants, up to 72 hours after the unwarranted spying took place. The bit about needing to work without warrants in order to track immediate threats is pure bunkum.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's not google's fault that the current regime that resides in washington has an appetite for illegally invading the privacy of american citizens.
> 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
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?
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
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
It is easy to forget that by agreeing to censor its search engine in cahoots with the Chinese dictatorship, Google is now also helping repress millions of Tibetans who have suffered under harsh military occupation by the Chinese since 1950.
Since people tend to be more familiar with the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust or Stalin's invasions and gulags, what if Google had made a business pact with the Nazis or Stalin providing their ignorant populations with entertainment and "harmless legitimate-looking facts" while suppressing all knowledge of the horrors those regimes caused to the people they oppressed?
This is what Google (and Microsoft and Yahoo) are doing in China today. All knowledge of the Chinese crimes against the Tibetan nation or the Tibetan people's struggle to regain their independence are systematically wiped out from their search results as if none of it ever happened, at the behest of the ruling Chinese Communist Party dictatorship.
What is the point of having an "information service" which covers up the most crucial information relating to massive human rights violations? A glorified pacifier to placate the ignorant masses while their ruling regime is busy carrying out genocide to its horrible conclusion?
An estimated 1,500,000 Tibetans (!!) have already perished under the Chinese occupation (nearly a fifth of total population), Tibetan language, buddhist religion, identity and history are systematically suppressed while the CCP is promoting Chinese settlers to overrun Tibet demographically. Not to mention Tibetan natural resources being stolen, nuclear waste dumped there and more nuclear missile sites being built to threaten all democracies south of the Himalayas. Or the brutality of the CCP's paramilitary police against the large number of Tibetan political prisoners being held in secret camps across Tibet. The Chinese population should be allowed to compare these facts to the current feed of Communist Party-driven anti-Japanese propaganda over that brutal, if partial invasion that ceased to take place over sixty years ago. Which invasion is supposed to be less evil and why?
Google's Chinese (dis)service will compliantly keep any of this information from reaching the Chinese or the Tibetans under Chinese occupation because an unelected and expansionist regime wanted them to collaborate.
This shouldn't be only about self-centered westerners worrying about their god-given personal privacy, although privacy is of course extremely important even in democracies with other safety mechanisms against abuse. No, it is far more sinister when corporations from the "democratic world" are helping cover up a holocaust or genocide being committed by their business partners!
What we need is search, webmail etc. services which are guaranteed to remain neutral and safe without turning evil at the first profit-motive. Or which are not subject to American "shareholders uber alles" mentality which corrupted Google. Could/should such services be based in Switzerland or Sweden, both historically neutral territories without track record of collaborating with dictatorial regimes? Would they need massive financing, thereby potentially subjecting them to the whims of the moral-free financial markets, or could enough of their functions (CPU load, distributed and encrypted storage) be offloaded, a la bittorrent, to contributing users and neutral, respectable institutions?
How could the OSS communities help build safe alternatives to Google's morality and privacy-compromised offerings?
In the meanwhile some Tibetan support groups are promoting
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
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
Had you RTFA, you would notice the EFF did exactly that. Blame your misunderstanding on Slashdot's editors not knowing how to check links before posting stories, not on the EFF. From TFA:
San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers" feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google's own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user's computers. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.
"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)
this distinct lack of information is funny:
a) the data is only sent if the user says so,
b) the data is apparently encrypted,
c) it is deleted after 30 days.
there need be no privacy concern, if you don't like the idea of handy convenient storage, don't enable it.
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.
I'm beginning to think that I'm the only person who creates directory hierarchies for my documents, and names them with meaningful names.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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.
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.
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!