Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Google Browser Sync Extension
Pneuma ROCKS writes "Google has just released the Google Browser Sync extension for Firefox. This extension allows you to save your bookmarks, history and passwords on Google servers, effectively giving you a 'roaming profile,' which you can sync on any computer running Firefox (and the extension, of course)."
Wait, I don't want all my bookmarks from home in my work browser!
-Peter
Well if you already use GMail, what's a little more personal information? Of course Google can index it and add it to the increasingly large profile of you.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Actually it tells you right here in the FAQ.
BookmarkRank to augment PageRank?
Hmmm.....
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Google has just released the Google Browser Sync extension for Firefox. This extension allows you to save your bookmarks, history and passwords on Google servers, effectively giving you a 'roaming profile,' which you can sync on any computer running Firefox (and the extension, of course).
For those who are loathe to continue shovelling their personal info at Google ...
Then, from any computer:
If the system you are on doesn't have wget, you can just visit the URL and use the links in the browser or save the file to your profile on the machine. If you don't want it so easily accessible on the 'net, then you can use a different file name or put it in some randomly named directory.
http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/browsersync/f
If you trust Google then this could be great! if you don't then feel free to bash this as a blatant grab for yet more personal data.
Either way you cant say Google aren't pushing to see what users want, and integrating it into whats good for Google. My opinion? I don't know, I like and trust goggle as much as I trust any corporation, but do I want them to have yet more information about me? Probably not. So personally I will give it a miss, although it might be useful in the future, and if it takes off in internet kiosks (and why not) then all the better. It has some serious benefit to people who travel regularly and don't own laptops and PDA's.
Cue the "tin foil hat" posts, closely followed by the "there is no privacy anyway" posts possibly followed by some random "I don't like the new layout" posts.
The difference between Google and most big spyware companies is that the Spyware makers promise a valuable service, while Google delivers unobtrusively
I have no problem answering surveys for those mall clipboard guys as long as I'm not in a hurry. I have no problem allowing Google tracking my web habits, as long as I'm getting something valuable, Gmail, Maps, Earth, Search, et. al. in return. When I quit finding their apps useful, I'll rescind my offer to be profiled.
For those who are worried about giving their browsing history and passwords to Google (or anyone for that matter), you can still reap the benefits of synchronized bookmarks with another Firefox extension: Foxmarks.
Foxmarks is basically the same thing, but just for bookmarks (and not on Google's servers). It's great for keeping bookmarks across multiple machines, and also really useful for those who dual (or triple) boot a single machine. My triple-boot MacBook keeps all its bookmarks in sync with Foxmarks!
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
Google can already follow you around the 'net using their ad network. Blogs, photos, news sites, etc., all have Google Adsense. That same cookie builds up a wealth of data about you. If this offends you, putting your bookmarks up on Google shouldn't be any worse -- what could you possibly be telling them that they don't already know?
(Besides your passwords to other sites...)
For more information, click here.
Really why woud you care? If your keeping sensitive information in your bookmarks list then your a fool. Personally I have been copying my bookmarks.html to ~/publcic_html for years. Its very handy when using someone elses computer and trying to remeber a URL. (Actually it was more useful in the pre-google days. These days I mostly find the URL via goodle anyhow).
it beats the penis enlargement ads, now google will allready know I have a large member & don't need such herbal enhancements
by saying nearly, they saved themselves a world of hurt if someone manages to crack one some day. Pretending encryption is 100% secure is foolish.
:x
The "nearly" is just them doing the usual corporate CMA.
If I were overseeing a high-profile company who was releasing a product that in any way used encryption, you can bet I would couch every claim about its security with some sort of qualifier.
No intelligent person ever uses superlatives when discussing encryption, unless you want to be on the hook in case it ever gets broken.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I'm sorry Dave, Im afraid I can't do that.
http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/index.html
- Google Toolbar
- Google Browser Sync (how relevant.....)
- Blooger Comments
- Send to Phone
They also used to have:- Google Safe Browsing
- Google Suggest
But they are both incorporated into Google Toolbar now.He's actually right. If your main source of revenue is advertising dollars, your biggest asset is your "client base" and all the information you have about them - basically a big database about who likes what and how you can contact them. Put those two things together, and you have a goldmine for corporate marketing/advertising departments. They even have a very ubiquitous software application called "Goldmine" (a CRM app).
Joe Q. Public likes Jessica R. Abbit, but he's a high-schooler on a budget. Instead of sending him the add for the Tacori Diamond bracelet, let's send him the advertisement for the CVS box-o-chocolates. He's more likely to respond to that ad, which results in increased revenue for GOOG.
Information is valuable. Organized information that no one else has is "invaluable"!
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
"It depends on how much of correct data you provided when you signed up."
I don't think it's as simple as that. If you're using GMail, you're likely logged in to Google every time you do a search. Do a bunch of porn viewing, and Google has the means to link that to your login. Take it a step further and keep your bookmarks there.. well... they certainly have more to draw on.
Personally, I'm not so worried about what Google sees. I'm worried about the recent moves by the gov't to collect that info. Google is unintentionally setting up a nice little trap for a bunch of people. (No, this isn't a Google is evil statement, just pointing out the dangers of centralizing all this stuff.)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the extension, you will see you can choose to encrypt any/all of what it can sync.
Why should I do that? No, of course I don't stay logged in any more than it is necessary.
Google is unintentionally setting up a nice little trap for a bunch of people.
I don't believe that founders and managers of a multi-billion dollar enterprise are so dumb that they don't realize what they are doing. I am convinced that they are perfectly aware of all the implications - they know them better than we do, it's their business after all. Also, the government is not silent on the matter - it approached Google already, so claiming innocence won't work. Google knows damn well what it is doing, and that is to become the ultimate data warehouse for, and about, everyone on the planet. And all that data will be for sale.
If you look at the settings, next to every checkbox for "sync this", there is another check box for "encrypt this".
Literally everything it can sync can be encrypted.
Second, it syncs much more than bookmarks.
I for one, enjoy having my history, tabs, and windows saved between the laptop and desktops I work on.
... and on to an actual comment about the extension itself.
On my Mac, this extension was rather problematic. It installed just fine, and syncs with Firefox on my Linux box just fine. But when I launch subsequent sessions of Firefox on my Mac, I get one window telling me it's connecting to the Google server - and it overlays (and 95% of the time prevents interaction with) the window that pops up asking for my master password (for FF's saved passwords feature). Can't type my master password, can't get past this point.
In order to actually run Firefox again, I had to manually remove the extension from my profile.
I'm used to Google's "betas" working quite smoothly - it's unusual to run into one with a big old flaw like this one.
#DeleteChrome
I haven't looked at the actual firefox extension but it wouldn't make sense to offer encryption and still store the PIN.
It would if the point of encryption is to keep it private *in-transit*. Just as HTTPS doesn't prevent the site you are interacting with to get all that data you submitted, the encryption prevents bystanders from seeing it.
So all this encryption does is give you some security that nobody but google will be able to see it. So if you value your privacy at all the question remains, do you trust google with it? Do you trust google to look out for your interests, even under government pressure?
Just for Now? or Always and Forever?
I'm with that other individual: Is there any extension that does this with an ftp/webdav/... server of *my* choice?
Personally I have been copying my bookmarks.html to ~/public_html for years.
This is precisely what a "home page" originally was.
+++ATH0
Its not really clear about how much of your information is encryped. Your passwords yes, but your browsing history? Your bookmarks?
I've just downloaded and installed it. It automatically encrypts your cookies and passwords (it doesn't let you change this setting), and gives you the option of encrypting history, bookmarks, and tabs and windows if you choose to synchronize them. Additionally, it's all optional.
And if you were really security-conscious, you could tell it to not synchronize anything at all.
Assuming it keeps working (it has so far), I really like it. It makes keeping bookmarks actually worthwhile.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
People that have access and sufficinet skill and the motivation, find much more profitable ways
to exploit their power than to read your ultimately important personal data from gmail. I find
it interesting that people have such an ego boost that they imagine that from the half a billion
interactive net users, they and their pocket money are the targets of all the hackers.
I'm amazed that anyone would still say something this stupid (and that others would actually moderate it up). I seem to get several dozen phishing attempts per day, with people trying to gain access to my PayPal, Ebay, bank accounts, and other online services. I guess I must be stupid and rich to gain the attention of such target limited hackers, right?
No, of course not. Not only are there countless hackers out there with nefarious intentions, but usually their dirty work can be automated -- e.g. a simple trojan that your cousin has on his laptop, which then takes over your router in a method only possible from the inside (or installing a net listener), then automatically relaying whatever information they want. This is ignoring the fact that carriers aren't exactly the pinnacle of security, and it's entirely possible that curious or criminal employees have net monitors, and that's not even including the whole government angle.
The "security doesn't matter because no one cares about you" angle was dumb when people were saying it in the 90s. Now it just strikes me as unbelievable.
I have zero trojans of viruses on my PC (despite your defeatist "why bother fighting them?" attitude), and I want sensitive communications to be encrypted. Everyone should demand the same.
Ps. if you are familiar with how SSL or any exchangeable keypair based encryption protocols work,
you should realize that people who have constant access to your network traffic, will find out your
information anyway.
Wow, really? Care to enlighten us on how that could be, apart from some temporary implementation defects in a couple of clients (such as Internet Explorer). I call bullshit, and say that the entire foundation of your argument is ignorant nonsense.