Slashdot Mirror
Google Copies Corporate Data to Google's Servers?
Penguinisto writes "According to Silicon.com, some CIOs have been seeing their company data being transferred to Google's servers as part of Google Desktop's functionality." From the article: "Mark Saysell, IT director at Coutts Retail Communications UK, said he is planning a network audit to find rogue installations, which will then be de-installed. New security measures will also be put in place to prevent further downloads. He said: 'Google has definitely over-stepped the mark and in turn is forcing IT departments to take a very draconian approach to machine security and web access.'"
This article is a joke. It's all about quoting people talking about how dangerous the new version of Google Desktop is when Google is very up-front about telling you what features will result in data being copied, and how to turn it off.
IT'S DISABLED BY DEFAULT. You have to WANT to turn it on.
Lousy reporting, is what this is.
I work in a bank and while I don't have files relating to customer information on my PC, I'm pretty sure I'd contravene some kind of law if I were to install Google Search & some files were transferred to Google. If I did have customer files, I'm almost certain some law would be broken if those files were sent to Google.
If CIOs or others want the kind of functionality & productivity that Google desktop search can provide, let Google sell local servers (same as they do for web search engines) so these companies can buy them and get the tools that way without the data ever leaving their networks & control.
This isn't an issue with google. It's an issue with the users.
Search across computers is disabled by default. It doesn't even ask you to enable it in the intaller. You have to hunt through the options to turn it on.
It's not google "overstepping the mark" it's incompetant users changing settings they don't understand.
On a different note, if I were a sysadmin, then I would not be letting them install GDS anyway, without authorisation. They are company machines, subject to company rules, and should only run company software.
Google Desktop is doing what it's designed to do: keep user's data on central servers so it's accessible from anywhere. It's just that it makes the assumption that all of the computer belongs to the user. Obviously in a corporate environment that's not the case, but Google Desktop doesn't know what kind of computer it's on so it can't do anything about that. The company needs to be more emphatic about the "no unauthorized software" rule (they do have a "no unauthorized software" rule, don't they?).
This is where Google's greatest value really lies: data mining. The possible advertising revenue pales in comparison to the value of the corporate (and even consumer) intelligence that Google collects. Simply being able to detect that persons in company x are suddenly interested in company y and that investment bank z is also interested in company y would allow one to predict things like mergers. Increased specific searches around the holidays might help predict which retail chain might do well. The power of Google should not be underestimated.
Woverly Harris Gooch, IV CTO American Fire and Bomb, LLC
I use Google desktop, and find it very handy. It's quite possible I'll have to give up using it because of this issue. That doesn't make me feel well-disposed towards Google, or inclined to try any new products they might release.
It seems to me that Google is in the same position that Microsoft was years ago, when corporations all ran Netware or IBM servers because Microsoft products were naive about corporate reqirements. Google will probably climb the learning curve faster than Microsoft did, but they aren't there yet. /. readers who make suggestions like "forbid installing the software" or "fire users who do it" also don't understand corporate IT. Some corporations have desktops locked down so users can't install software, but some don't because their users are higher level and need to install selected applications.
The suggestion to fire users who turn on the data upload is also hated by IT managers. Corporations are full of clerks and other mid-level people who never read IT policy documents, don't really care about security, and like to turn on cool features. The IT manager is not going to look good if he tells HR "Sally who is otherwise a great employee checked this box because she didn't know she shouldn't, so now you have to fire her".
IT managers differ, but they generally want to give users as much functionality as possible, as long as they are sure it is safe and reliable. What an IT manager probably wants are network-level options to (1) forbid Google desktop entirely, (2) allow it but disable the data-sharing features, (3) leave it up to the user, or (4) do a mandatory (push) install to all desktops. Then the IT manager would want a web page or other report to see who had done what.
When Microsoft figured out requirements like these, they invented Active Directory and its Group Policy component. Look at products like Symantec Antivirus Corporate, where you can look at all desktops and verify their antivirus status from a central console, or Microsoft's own free WSUS which lets you make sure everybody in the corporation has installed all critical patches.
These are the kinds of solutions that work in the real world as opposed to firing people, and as soon as Google figures this out they will be a lot more popular on corporate desktops.
$ORGANIZATION is about to update its information security policy in light of Google Desktop with a recommendation that the software must not be downloaded onto any
For heaven's sake, what planet do these people that are allegedly responsible for IT come from? Let's see:
I've worked as an IT director in a few financial services companies over the last ~20 years, and everyone employed there, on their first day, had to read and sign something like this:
We would install or make available external software if it was useful and appropriate, after testing it. Otherwise, no dice. Will some people complain? Absolutely! Tough shit.I'm confused...google could have its cake and eat it too if they did this feature right.
Here's how it ought to work. Everything is encrypted client-side before being sent up to the google servers in a way that google can't decrypt based on your user account password guarding public/private keys you generate per machine in the GDS front-end. Only the public keys are shared across the network, the data is completely encrypted everywhere except the endpoints. What's the problem?
Ah ha!, you say, the problem is that they mine that data on their servers for information they can use to advertise at you. First, is this true? I haven't been able to confirm it, though it seems in line with their advertising model. Second, assuming it is true, there's no reason GDS can't create some kind of index over your data client-side and then send up the statistical summary of the info it mined. That way, there's no way the docs could be reconstructed, google gets their ad revenue, and users get their functionality without having to worry about data on google's servers.
Anyone have any notion of why this wouldn't work?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
My company now forbids using Google Desktop because of this feature.
Yes, it's off by default.
Yes, you have to go out of your way to turn it on.
Yes, they keep track of what's installed on everyone's machine.
Yes, there are ways around that -- but for safety's sake, I now use MSN's local search.
Google's product is forbidden.
So google (you listening?) -- how about local-only version for us corporate folks, with the upload option completely removed?
We get a version that can be blessed by IT, you keep your user base.
Seems like a winner to me.
If this had been a Microsoft product, the tune here would be different. Much different.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
But maybe they should default to disabled and not offer the choice during install. Just put it somewhere in the preferences where people who can't read won't go.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
It took a bit to dig this up, but it turns out that if you set the registry key:
HKLM\Software\Policies\Google\Google Desktop\Enterprise -> disallow_ssd_service
as a REG_DWORD to '1'
Google Desktop won't let you use the "Search Across Computers" feature. (I tried it.) You can set that key in the group policy scripts relatively easily.