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."
I guess if google already stored and indexed all your files then "Comrade! Where are your papers?" won't be necessary.
Double-plus good!
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
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?
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.
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 actual facts are the following:
Search Across Computers also has the following preferences, found on the Desktop Preferences page:
* Name this computer: This name will be displayed on remote computers that are part of the same Google account group.
* My other computers can search this computer's:
o Documents and web history
o Documents only
o Web history only
* Clear my files from Google: In order to share your indexed files between your computers, we first copy this content to Google Desktop servers located at Google. This is necessary, for example, if one of your computers is turned off or otherwise offline when new or updated items are indexed on another of your machines. We store this data temporarily on Google Desktop servers and automatically delete older flies, and your data is never accessible by anyone doing a Google search. You can learn more by reading the Google Desktop privacy policy.
While your data is automatically deleted from our servers, you can use the Clear my Files from Google button to manually remove all your files from Google Desktop servers. Note that if these files haven't yet been copied to your other computers, clicking this button will prevent you from finding them when you search from your other computers. The files will, of course, still be searchable from their computer of origin.
So it appears that your data will be on a Google Server temporarily. 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? Why would they want to waste their money collecting everybody's garbage?
--
Want to share a file across the network between your computers? Just use FTP or PCAnywhere. I wish that VNC software would allow file transfers (hint, hint)
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.
And can someone please explain to parent why it's a good idea to RTFA? It specifically says, "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".
If you don't want Google searching your files, quit your bitching and select "No, thanks, don't upload my files" or whatever.
www.linuxpenguin.net
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
" 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
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.