Slashdot Mirror


Hiding From Google

penguinrecorder writes "Google offers Web users a simple trade-off: Let the search giant track a substantial portion of your comings and goings around the Web, and it will offer you a free, superior online experience. Now independent security researcher Moxie Marlinspike is making Web users a counter-offer: take Google's giveaways and keep your privacy too. On Tuesday, Marlinspike launched a service he calls GoogleSharing, a plug-in for Firefox designed to give users access to Google's online offerings while cloaking their identity from the company's data collection tools. By hosting a proxy server with a collection of Google 'identities,' the privacy software will allow users temporarily to route their traffic through another computer that masks their identity by mixing their online actions with those of other users. The system is totally transparent, with no special 'alternative' websites to visit. Your normal work flow should be exactly the same." GoogleSharing only works for those services not requiring a Google login; for the latter, no proxying is done.

228 comments

  1. Obligatory Onion by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've had an opt out option for a long time.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    1. Re:Obligatory Onion by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      it's all a MS thing. You don't hear this level of frezy about bing or yahoo, do ya? You don't even have an opt out from bing, as far as I can see.

    2. Re:Obligatory Onion by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I checked Bing didn't have a cookie-enabled advertisement widget that doubled as a user tracking point on every second web site on the internet. Neither does Yahoo.

      Google is the only company that has such a pervasive ability to watch you. Google Ads means they can track you even if you never, ever visit google.com. Once you visit a page with Google Ads, you get a google-sourced cookie and they can track your movement through every other Google Ad toting page until you clear your cookies again.

      Oh, and Google isn't interested in "you". They're interested in mining data about the population. *You* are only of interest to parties Google sells data to, such as the government looking to squash anyone who may be thinking about starting an organised rebellion.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Obligatory Onion by JWSmythe · · Score: 1, Interesting

          There are others besides searching on Google, and Google Ads. You forgot about Google Analytics, and embedded "site" Google Searches. They show up in most pages these days. How about when someone embeds a YouTube video? They bought Doubleclick a few years ago, so there's another datamining source.

          Google is embedded in enough places to make themselves rather difficult to avoid.

          You are quite likely right, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than just a few intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies with either a well negotiated (strong NDA applied), or they have someone inside already to provide the data.

          The organized rebellion is coming. It's just a matter of how it goes in the first few days. There aren't many people out there, that could organize a group large enough to make a serious stand. In all reality, it'll turn out like Ruby Ridge, or Waco.

          Excuse me, a black van just drove up, and a nice man in a black suit is knocking at the door. I'm sure he's just lost and is asking for directions.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Obligatory Onion by greyline · · Score: 1

      Why is this post modded a troll?

    5. Re:Obligatory Onion by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      last you checked? you might want to check again.

      Not only do they track you, but it can cost you money.

      Note: I'm not defending google, I'm just showing that people are just screaming for anything they can to make them sound evil and absconding logic in the process.

    6. Re:Obligatory Onion by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      sorry, I forgot the /a after the link. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1839216938.shtml

    7. Re:Obligatory Onion by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

          Because people will find an arbitrary reason to mod things particular ways. Someone obviously didn't like what I wrote.

          I know people complain about the "moderators", but they usually haven't been here long enough to know, we're all the moderators. You can't please everyone all the time, so I don't worry about getting modded down occasionally. It's just someone who's being pissy. Since they aren't here to smack on the back of the head and say "what were you thinking", I don't let it stress me. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Obligatory Onion by Meski · · Score: 1

      And it's no longer rated troll, your moderators in action.

    9. Re:Obligatory Onion by Meski · · Score: 1

      Damn them for providing a service and having the nerve to charge for it!

  2. And we're trusting you because.... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Google we trust. In Moxie Marlinspike who wants to be in a position to collect all our Google non-logged-in content... nope.

    1. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by natehoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. It's free, so he's gotta be paying for it somehow, right? Or is he a known philanthropist who has a long track record of protecting privacy? Nope, didn't think so.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by cstec · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you trust Google, great, but don't say "we". Google's changed - a lot. Given the breaches, and their relentless march of ever more invasive monitoring on every device and platform they can get their fingers into, I trust this random stranger more than Google. Google is a proven risk, this guy's just a potential one.

    3. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Yep... when Steve Gibson says "I'm going to port scan you... if your alarms go off that means they're working!" he also says "Would you like to buy a copy of SpinRite?"

      "No visible means of support" is a reason to keep an investigation going. Nobody can fund something without a source of income from somewhere.... so what is this guy selling?

    4. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He certainly has a long track record of working on community-based projects and publishing software for free.

      The system is designed so that other networks of people can run their own proxies, though. Maybe the EFF will run one? Maybe your local hackerspace will? Maybe the Tor people will?

    5. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by indi0144 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is Google invasive? Does it make the keyboard grow a hand and grab your balls until you set up your homepage on google.com? You trust more a random stranger that a big corp that can get some sever financial risk for messing with your privacy? Did you receive candy from strangers when you were kid? I keep hearing about the privacy issues and all the crap, but AFAIK, I haven't seen the first blog post (the most paranoid source of information) about anything close to privacy invasion.

      If you don't want to get your porn usage pattern sent to your boss then use Yahoo or Bing.

    6. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I, um, trust neither... is that an option?

    7. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Girtych · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd trust a proven risk far more than an unknown risk. At least with the former, we know its limits.

    8. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by a1terego · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google is a proven risk, this guy's just a potential one.

      This is misleading statement. Simple risk analysis: Google is a KNOWN risk with very substantial assets to lose if they screw up. This guy is an UNKNOWN risk with (presumably) a lot less to lose.

    9. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by WiseWeasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's always the chance that this service doesn't take any significant centralized resources to keep running, as in the users are made to contribute the bandwidth and CPU resources needed to keep it running.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    10. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bing it's your option FTW!

    11. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Maybe Microsoft will.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    12. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a peer to peer service. How is this "contributing" supposed to work?

    13. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by klingens · · Score: 2, Informative

      A distributed service like has existed for years now, so there's not really a need for a replacement. It's called http://tor.eff.org/

    14. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by neokushan · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. And you've been warned about that kind of thinking. It's off to the Chemical sheds for you!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    15. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's invasive when changes my repositories when I install Chrome and doesn't prompt for permission, for example.

    16. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by AaxelB · · Score: 1

      It's called http://tor.eff.org/

      Talk about an unwieldy name

    17. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just get the Ghostery extension for Firefox. It blocks all the things like google analytics, doubleclick, etc.

      I also use TrackMeNot - another free firefox extension, it sends a number of queries to Google every minute to skew their data collection on your IP. The queries are seeded from RSS feeds selected by the user and so are basically random each time. I just use a load of tech feeds, food blogs and that kind of thing. Not sure how much it'll actually do, but it's transparent so i'm not fussed.

      Both are free, as i said, and neither need send any data to anyone off your machine. I really recommend Ghostery though, http://www.ghostery.com/, it's seamless and is such a useful tool. You can set it to auto-block everything which is what I do. It doesn't block ads or anything like that (i still use Adblock+), but it will help protect your privacy.

    18. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the blind could see. Fanatics, extremists, and zealots, you are all deaf and dumb to reality. Google? Please, spare me, you are too much. You trusting fools, you will live and learn. Stop living in Oceania. You are all sheep. "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Orwell, read it if you _are_ able to read. LOL. Too funny, way too funny!! A bunch of living-at-home, guest-house weenies. Try a life away from your sweaty, stained sheets...

      P.S. I would create an account, but really, why bother?

    19. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

      This is all just wild speculation, as I haven't used the software personally, but the P2P software could be built into the FireFox add-on. There are Bittorrent FF Add-ons; I can't see why a P2P implementation of this service would be impossible.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    20. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      No, you won't create an account because the last one you did got modded down hard. Now you want your posts to at least start from zero.

    21. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      It's invasive when changes my repositories when I install Chrome and doesn't prompt for permission, for example.

      No problem! With Google-sharing it will change someones repositories, maybe yours, maybe some guy in another country's! Chrome probably won't work, but at least that invasive google code you installed won't mess with your privacy.

    22. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Actually there is a need for a replacement, tor can take 10 seconds to run a Google search. I have not touched tor in forever, but I remember some setup was involved to get it going and I don't want to be flipping it on and off while I go to trusted vs trusted web sights to defeat the slowdown.

      This guy's thing just installs a plugin and invisibly, Google doesn't see your IP address anymore.

    23. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, a big problem is that we *dont* know it's limits. We don't know what they're doing, and they won't tell us. Repeated requests for information about whether they're even running automated "lawful" intercept systems have been denied, and they won't provide statistics on how many subpoenas they respond to per day. We don't know how many times they've been hacked before, or how much data was lost in this last hack. There's a lot we don't know.

    24. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google desktop search indexes your documents in order to provide a quick search service. There's no way users can be sure the indices aren't shared with Google, despite no technical need to do so in order to provide that desktop user with a quick search of their own data. If Google gets any sensitive data, who's to know how many people get a copy of that data from Google? I imagine this is why institutions with sensitive data tell their workers they are not allowed to install Google Desktop, despite any convenience it may bring. Like any other proprietary program, Google applications are largely uninspectable in any common way, even for programmers skilled in reading program source code. If someone found a security problem in a Google program and patched it the license forbids them from legally distributing their improved version of the program. So we really don't know for sure everything Google apps do when they run and we have no way to help others through distributing improved versions of Google programs.

      There is talk of educational institutions outsourcing email (and possibly calendaring) to places like Google and Microsoft as default policy—by default, students get Google/Microsoft accounts instead of accounts hosted by the school. There are also reasonable concerns about what to do with sensitive email/calendaring data not hosted locally. It's not easy to contract around these problems. Institutions can't rely on local law to help (most educational institutions are not in California or Washington). Some educational institutions can't reveal the existence of students at their school (in the US there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy including divulging whether the person is a student at a particular school). Making it default policy to route student email/calendars through Google's servers risks inadvertent exposure of private student data and places the educational institution in a position where it would be hard for them to do anything to prevent that leak from happening again.

      Google isn't unique in what I just wrote. Any organization faces the same challenge: convince the user that their data is safest with the organization. But you asked about Google. As for trusting this (ostensibly) anonymizing service as a front-end to Google's services: I merely find it interesting that people would be willing to try this with so little information about who runs it and what structural forces may result in them divulging your data to anyone but you.

    25. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't see your IP address anymore.

      The problem is it does. It's just that your IP address is claiming responsibility for someone else's clandestine actions.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    26. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by poopdeville · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Google is a KNOWN risk with very substantial assets to lose if they screw up. This guy is an UNKNOWN risk with (presumably) a lot less to lose

      Google doesn't own those assets... the shareholders ultimately bear the risk.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    27. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "How is Google invasive?"

      Have you ever used the NoScript extension for Firefox? Have you ever paid attention to what NoScript is blocking?

      I'd say that 80-90% of the websites I end up at have at least www.google-analytics.com or www.google.com trying to run script. I'd call the unauthorized running of script on my computer invasive. Regardless of what they say to the contrary, I have not given them permission to run script on my computer, and have had to resort to actions to prevent it.

      Learned use of NoScript is probably THE best way (even better with ABP and a harsh cookie policy) of making sure that Google does not have you in their evil clutches.

      And, it is free. As in beer.

    28. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The irony is that Google probably doesn't care all that much about a specific user, or users as an individual. They're looking for types of users and their associated buying habits.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    29. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To be fair, every website where Google analytics tries to run the unauthorized scripts has made a conscious decision to install that code.

      You do know what Google analytics is for, right? I'm not denying that Google isn't getting the data along with the user, but it does provide an excellent service to the people running the site.

      Don't get mad at Google for providing a service, get mad at the site you're visiting for using it. Personally, I could care less if Google can identify me. (posting AC because I've moderated)

      Isn't it reasonable to assume that 99% of the user info Google is collecting is just run through a bunch of reports and turned into pretty graphs?

      What real benefit would they get from treating each user individually vs analyzing everyone's collective habits?

    30. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Google will kick you -or at least require you to activate cookies and pass a captcha- if you are using tor. Which means that they are actively monitoring the list of active tor nodes to keep anonymous users out. They'll probably do the same with Google Share IPs as soon as there's a significant number of them.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    31. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by number11 · · Score: 1

      Why not just get the Ghostery extension for Firefox. It blocks all the things like google analytics, doubleclick, etc.
      I also use TrackMeNot - another free firefox extension

      And for FF there's also OptimizeGoogle (which can anonymize your google cookie and block GoogleAnalytics, in addition to a lot of other customizations not related to privacy) and SquiggleSR (another random searcher similar to TrackMeNot).

    32. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Haha, sounds about right!

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    33. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What real benefit would they get from treating each user individually vs analyzing everyone's collective habits?"

      Because they CAN use the information in a non-statistical fashion?

      It is not so much the motives of Google that I question, but rather those that would have more sinister motivations and are in a position to force the hand of Google, or simply steal the data.

      Data from one source can be cross-referenced with data from another source to great effect. The sum of such data is greater then it's parts.

      The only true protection is simply not gathering the data at all. This is what I strive for when I protect my computer and myself (as well as anyone willing to listen and learn).

    34. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The irony is that Google probably doesn't care all that much about a specific user, or users as an individual. They're looking for types of users and their associated buying habits.

      What makes you think that Google's the only one who can use that data? The (US)FBI just admitted that they'd frequently had employees who violated the ECPA (which is a criminal act). That was with telephone companies, but what makes you think computer services are any different? And while the FBI says that it doesn't do that any more, they haven't apprehended any of the perpetrators yet, and probably never will, so why would you believe they don't do it any more?

      Nah, there isn't really anything all that interesting about me for them to find, except that I believe that anything that wastes the time of a secret policeman is probably a net social good.

    35. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this "off-topic"? Google's management hardly bears any risk for its behavior.

    36. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Some educational institutions can't reveal the existence of students at their school (in the US there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [wikipedia.org] which protects student privacy including divulging whether the person is a student at a particular school).

      If that's the case, they wouldn't be able to offer a e-mail service for their students at all, even if hosted on their own server.

      Want to test the existence of a given user (student) at the school? Just send him a mail: bounce => student does not exist. No bounce => student does exist.

      Or they could, but it would be a hassle for everyone involved (obscure user names. policy to never send out a bounce)

    37. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      There's always the chance that this service doesn't take any significant centralized resources to keep running, as in the users are made to contribute the bandwidth and CPU resources needed to keep it running.

      All systems take some resource to operate, even if it just the human resource to manage everything. Human resource is often the most expensive.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    38. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by webreaper · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Unauthorized running of scripts on my computer"?

      By visiting the site, you authorised it. If you don't want those scripts run, don't visit the site.

      It's a bit like saying "unauthorised filming of me by CCTV when I walk into a branch of Sainsburys". If you don't like it, you can do the other thing.

    39. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by unick · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but "types of users" and "buying habits" only emerge *after* collecting enough detailed data. I do not beleive they start out with a specific classification in mind.

    40. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Via_Patrino · · Score: 1

      Just add google-analytics.com and others to your host file, pointing to localhost

    41. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by pmontra · · Score: 1

      By visiting the site, you authorised it. If you don't want those scripts run, don't visit the site.

      You don't know what a site wants to run inside your browser unless you access the site so using a plugin like NoScript is the only thing to do if you want to have a chance to authorize some scripts and reject others.

    42. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely... the best thing is to put your tinfoil hat on, and go back to BBS.

    43. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      your IP address is claiming responsibility for someone else's clandestine actions.

      It looks to me that requests to Google are made only by volunteer proxy servers and your computer is never used to forward anyone's traffic to Google.

      It unnerves me that that this is never explicitly stated on a sight for paranoids, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

    44. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the day I received a job offer from Microsoft on my GMail account I got a call from a G..gle recruiter that they are inviting me for an interview. I guess it's just a funny coincidence though I had a creepy feeling like after watching the movie 'Antitrust' - just didn't know that Gary Winston was not Bill Gates but Eric Schmidt and Synapse was not .NET but G..gle.

      Anyway, probably G..gle wanted only to help me to avoid toil in the Mordor of Redmond ;-)

    45. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      It looks to me that requests to Google are made only by volunteer proxy servers and your computer is never used to forward anyone's traffic to Google. It unnerves me that that this is never explicitly stated on a sight for paranoids, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

      You computer is never used, but your IP address is. He's quite explicit about how it works "GoogleSharing is a system that mixes the requests of many different users together, such that Google is not capable of telling what is coming from whom." And then below:

      ... [Y]our request is stripped of all identifying information and replaced with the information from a GoogleSharing identity ... Your next request will get a different identity, and the one you were using before will be assigned to someone else. By "sharing" these identities, all of our traffic gets mixed together and is very difficult to analyze.

      What you say is true for Tor, where you're safe if you parasitically live off other people's sharing. However if you forward Tor requests you'll find yourself blacklisted by sites that collect IP node. FWIW, I was barred from viewing content on a forum I had never visited before because they subscribe to an anti-Tor site which has my home IP listed :/ So if you're thinking of helping Iranian and Chinese dissidents speak out against their government, think twice. (Yeah getting barred from some insignificant forum pales in comparison I know, but people who've made it their mission in life to kill online anonimity piss me off).

      As far as "the paranoids" are concerned, the whole shebang is OSS (incl. the proxy server). I'm paranoid enough to believe that there is a certain corporation out there who has an interest in lighting the brushfire of distrust in relation to this guy, and I suspect some it it's employees might have slashdot accounts. Anyway, I've gotta go and take my meds now. ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    46. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      make that ... sites that collect the IP of Tor nodes.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    47. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      so what is this guy selling?

      Maybe he isn't selling anything. Maybe he cares about other people with no thought of personal profit or reward? I understand that if you're from the USA this may make no sense. At last count only around 5% of the world's population were unmitigated bastards with no redeeming features (beyond that glorious to die for accent) so maybe he is just a nice guy.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    48. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Google desktop search indexes your documents in order to provide a quick search service. There's no way users can be sure the indices aren't shared with Google, despite no technical need to do so in order to provide that desktop user with a quick search of their own data.

      And OSX stores all of your documents, so theres no way users can be sure the contents arent shared with Apple. Is that how we form evidence against someone on slashdot, with wild speculation?

      There is talk of educational institutions outsourcing email (and possibly calendaring) to places like Google and Microsoft as default policy—by default, students get Google/Microsoft accounts instead of accounts hosted by the school.

      Has it occured to you that paid accounts might not be subject to the same sorts of concerns about privacy that free ones are?

      It's not easy to contract around these problems. Institutions can't rely on local law to help (most educational institutions are not in California or Washington).

      And somehow this means that its impossible to sue Google? What?

      Making it default policy to route student email/calendars through Google's servers risks inadvertent exposure of private student data and places the educational institution in a position where it would be hard for them to do anything to prevent that leak from happening again.

      I dont think that follows, and I imagine they could sue if Google had broken some part of their privacy policy or the contract with the school.

      I merely find it interesting that people would be willing to try this with so little information about who runs it and what structural forces may result in them divulging your data to anyone but you.

      Yea, its not as if their policies are linked on almost every one of their webpages....

      Not trying to come across as a Google apologist but its getting ridiculous having people launch into these stupid media-driven attacks on google for no other reason than that theyre too popular. Their privacy policies arent new, we've known about them for years, its not like all of a sudden theyve gone rogue or something.

    49. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of people complaining about google analyitics and its privacy issues, but can anyone explain why its worse than the web admin running WebTrends or some other log analyzer on their http traffic logs? Or is it simply evil because A) its javascript and B) its google?

    50. Re:And we're trusting you because.... by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Not trying to come across as a Google apologist but [...]

      I would not recommend obfuscating the difference between software we're free to inspect, share, and modify versus software we're disallowed from inspecting, sharing, and modifying. The known and knowable is simply not the same as the unknowable. You risk coming off as an apologist for proprietary software, no matter the proprietor. As for services and their adherence to stated policy: policies can and do change (services like TOSBack track some of those changes), and while lawsuits are an option courts are not capable of addressing certain classes of problems like one's loss of privacy; when one's privacy is lost it can be impossible to regain. Courts aren't so good with resolutions to non-monetary problems.

  3. "Don't trust Google, trust me!" by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Instead of sending your private information to Google directly, use my awesome proxy server to send your private information to Google anonymously. I promise I will not snoop any more than Google does!"

    1. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you can use the server he provides, you can download the proxy software and run it on a machine you control. Of course, this really reduces the pool of identities you will be mixed with -- to 1 unless you organize some other folks to use your proxy as well.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

      1. Setup proxy for paranoids
      2. Data mine the search habits of paranoids
      3. ????
      4. Profit!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Alex Jones makes a great living off the paranoid.

    4. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Data mine the search habits of paranoids

      (1) "tin foil"
      (2) "michelle obama monkey"
      (2) "2d amendment"
      (3) "storm front"
      (2) "zog mashine"
      (4) "chick blowing a mule"
      (6) "hot for cousin"
      (7) goto 1

    5. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a good point- posting anonymously because I work in the media research industry... When I go to trade shows, I have guys coming up to me trying to sell me panelist data like it's drugs... I'm serious. It is people like this guy that are just trying to collect a buttload of data and then try and find someone to buy it. You have your big players like comScore and Nielsen that rely primarily on their large panels for data, and then you have smaller players like compete or alexa that need as much data as possible. They buy it from guys like this in order to gain greater depth of knowledge.

      Remember- a lot of websites (including /.) rely on getting bigger pageview and unique visitor counts. There is a big, shady underbelly of people that can get you an increase in traffic size through the right means. This might be one of the guys that is trying to do that, or maybe he is a good semaritan.

      As for Google- they know a hell of a lot and will continue to learn more about us. The larger issue now is passing legislation that keeps our private data private.

    6. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's the first time I've seen that used where ???? has about eighty possible inputs, all of which make sense.

    7. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Private from whom? We already have fraud laws for identity theft. We already have the free market to regulate the likes of Google or other companies. We have the 4th Amendment. What else did you have in mind?

    8. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by number11 · · Score: 1

      We already have fraud laws for identity theft. We already have the free market to regulate the likes of Google or other companies.

      But you're not Google's customer. How does the "free" market help you?

      We have the 4th Amendment.

      For certain values of "we" that apparently don't include the Chinese. And "unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, what makes you think it protects you, anyhow? It's Google's data we're talking about, it doesn't belong to you (in the USA, anyhow).

    9. Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, that's the first time I've seen that used where ???? has about eighty possible inputs, all of which make sense.

      And yet none of them...
      *puts on sunglasses*
      makes cents.

      YEEAAAAAAAHHHHH!!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  4. Proxy is overkill by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Informative

    www.optimizegoogle.com Tick most stuff, especially remove click tracking.

    There, now Google knows what I search for, but never which link I clicked.

    1. Re:Proxy is overkill by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for that. I'd been using CustomizeGoogle since forever, and had missed the fact that it had been superceded by a newer extension (one that actually works). I have now updated.

      On another note, I tried clicking on TFA (yes, I know) and got an interesting response that I hadn't seen before:

      Page unavailable
      Access Denied
      Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Proxy Avoidance"

      Well, it's my workplace's internet connection, so I guess they can do what they like. No indication of which service they're using to identify "evil" sites like this, though.

    2. Re:Proxy is overkill by Draykwing · · Score: 1

      IIRC, that message is from Websense.

    3. Re:Proxy is overkill by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It is.

      And it means that the website in question may or may not (50/50 shot) actually have anything to do with "Proxy Avoidance"

    4. Re:Proxy is overkill by Draykwing · · Score: 1

      My solution back in high school, which was the last time I ran into Websense (I'm in college now), was to get a portable app named TorFox or something of the sort. Of course, since I'm a firm believer in the idea that censoring information is a cure that is invariably worse than the disease, I proceeded to distribute it. To my classmates at first, but I told them to keep distributing it, and also gave it to anyone who asked. No idea if they've gotten it to block Tor yet though.

    5. Re:Proxy is overkill by iangoldby · · Score: 1

      Well, what a surprise. http://www.torfox.org/ is blocked; category "Proxy Avoidance".

    6. Re:Proxy is overkill by Draykwing · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but you can put it on a thumb drive at home.

    7. Re:Proxy is overkill by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      There's also Scroogle; if you set you search URL to http://scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=", alternatively you can go through SSL (it's slower) at https://ssl.scroogle.org./ It proxies simple google searches and strips outbound tracking.

      As far as whether it's trustworthy or not, I haven't been able to track down yet...

    8. Re:Proxy is overkill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that. I'd been using CustomizeGoogle since forever, and had missed the fact that it had been superceded by a newer extension (one that actually works). I have now updated.

      Thanks for this... was in the same boat. Just updated to the new add-on.

      Schweet...

    9. Re:Proxy is overkill by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Mine was less user friendly. :) SSH listening on port 443 + Squid + Remote DNS.

  5. Who has to use Google? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Nearly every Google product competes with at least two other brands for the same thing. If you don't like Google, you can use something else.

    1. Re:Who has to use Google? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      Even so, what Google (usually) offers is a superior experience, and that experience comes at a cost. And by maintaining your privacy, you are indirectly limiting your own experience in the process. The more people try to influence Google, the less effective it would be.

    2. Re:Who has to use Google? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really...Google just offers you a unified experience. Bing has better Travel and Maps search. Yahoo has a generally better mail UI/client, as well as a huge database of Q&A. Ask has better contextual search and a butler. 30 Boxes is a better calendar Flickr is far better than Picasa, and has a better community Zimbra is just plain better than pretty much anything that Google Docs has to offer (which isn't much) Wordpress is more advanced, feature-rich, and easier to use than Blogger Netvibes is a lot less buggy than Google Reader, and provides a better interface (Please note, these are the general consumer products. Many of the business services and tools are far better than the competition) But, most people are lazy and would rather just go to google.com.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    3. Re:Who has to use Google? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What about an alternative to http://www.google.com/images?

      Because let's be honest, a lot of searches that people want to keep private are taking place there.

    4. Re:Who has to use Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had good luck with both Bing and Flickr for image searches.

    5. Re:Who has to use Google? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Nearly every Google product competes with at least two other brands for the same thing. If you don't like Google, you can use something else.

      If a site integrates a google search, I cannot easily search the site without using google.
      If a site integrates a youtube video, I cannot easily watch that video withou using google.
      If a site uses google analytics, I would have to actively block it to avoid being tracked by google.
      If a site displays google ads, I would have to actively block it to avoid being tracked by google.

      If a friend publishes their photos on picasa, uses their blogger, etc, etc I have to actively browse through proxies or sacrifice access to the content to avoid being tracked by google.

      If a friend uses a gmail account, there is little I can do except refuse to email him to avoid having my mail datamined by google; and nothing at all I can do to prevent having my address cross referenced with other gmail address books enabling google to fit me into a social network.

      No, sorry, but its not as simple as just choosing another brand(s) to deal with.

    6. Re:Who has to use Google? by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      GIS reminds me that it was developed in the 1990s, whereas Bing's image search uses AJAX to implement a modern UI.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    7. Re:Who has to use Google? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Bing has better Travel and Maps search.

      I didn't realise there was a Bing Maps. I just had a look at it. I typed my street name and town (in the UK) into bing and it could't find it, even when it was already looking at the right town. I did the same in google maps (whilst looking at the default view of america) and it found it straight away. However...

      Flickr is far better than Picasa, and has a better community

      True.

      Wordpress is more advanced, feature-rich, and easier to use than Blogger

      True.

      Couldn't say about the rest of them.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    8. Re:Who has to use Google? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      http://images.search.yahoo.com/

      I often get better results from this that G.I.S.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    9. Re:Who has to use Google? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has a generally better mail UI/client

      My head nearly exploded after reading this comment. Yahoo Mail is trash. I would rather be using the original AOL mail client.

      Gmail is the best application I have used.

    10. Re:Who has to use Google? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Bing has better Travel and Maps search.

      OK, possibly.

      Yahoo has a generally better mail UI/client,

      Not really. Google lets me use my own domain with gmail.

      as well as a huge database of Q&A.

      What? Are you talking about Yahoo Answers, that game where somebody posts a fake question and people compete to see who can come up with the funniest fake answer? Could be useful if you want to find out "how is babby formed," I guess.

      Ask has better contextual search and a butler.

      OK, now I know you're just fucking with us.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    11. Re:Who has to use Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really...Google just offers you a unified experience.

      Bing has better Travel and Maps search.

      Not really. They're just copying, and doing a substandard job. You're holding them to a lower standard.

      Yahoo has a generally better mail UI/client, as well as a huge database of Q&A.

      As a holder of multiple yahoo accounts for about a decade, um...no. Yahoo's email is horrible. The UI is ugly, dated, and frustrating to work with. Yes, I've tried the new version. It's ugly and frustrating to work with. Hey, did I mention that if I want to get my email but not go to mail.yahoo.com I can't? Well, unless I want to pay a monthly fee. I can use gmail from my phone or some twenty year old terminal.

      Ask has better contextual search

      Their results are poor. Big deal if it understands my question better.

      and a butler

      You win this round.

    12. Re:Who has to use Google? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      What? Are you talking about Yahoo Answers, that game where somebody posts a fake question and people compete to see who can come up with the funniest fake answer? Could be useful if you want to find out "how is babby formed," I guess.

      This is just silly, you could say the same for Slashdot, but it's certainly not difficult to find good answers to real questions on a day to day basis on either site.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    13. Re:Who has to use Google? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      It's hard for me to say what it is outside of the Americas, since I'm sure MS is dedicating their resources to making it really good inside of and close to the US.

      Bing lacks a street view, which is invaluable for many inner city dwellers with a bad sense of direction, but makes up for it with maps that have been updated within the last decade. I've found that it's faster performing too, especially in mashups.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    14. Re:Who has to use Google? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      Ok, so replace Yahoo mail with Zimbra, Thunderbird, or any number of interfaces that are much better.

      How is Gmail the best application when they can barely get it working or loading in browsers other than Firefox? For a Google app, it's extremely slow, doesn't format emails correctly, and is constantly suffering from hardware failure in the back end.

      I'm not saying that other providers don't also have these issues, but Gmail is definitely not the best email I've used...I use it because it's convenient.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    15. Re:Who has to use Google? by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      Really, so Google has a travel search? Intriguing. Also, the "copying" argument is completely fallacious. It doesn't matter WHEN something was developed as long as it's in the past. And honestly the quality is at least as good with Bing regarding the maps implementation, and often better or more detailed. Google implements features and then leaves them to rot for 5 years.

      I love Google, I really do. They push the market forward and are definitely a good competitor, but they are no longer focused on specific things, and therefore cannot be as nimble and capable (sustainably) as other companies dedicated to it.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    16. Re:Who has to use Google? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      I do tend to prefer Thunderbird, but Yahoo, unlike Gmail, doesn't offer IMAP, so Yahoo is basically useless to me.

      Zimbra on the other hand is roughly on par with Yahoo.

  6. Now HE can track you on his proxy by syousef · · Score: 1

    Nice tradeoff. Now HE can track you on his proxy. He can sell the information too (in aggregated form if he's scrupulous).

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Now HE can track you on his proxy by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      The information might be more valuable, on a per-amount-of-data basis. The data will have a greater bias towards those who think they have something worth hiding. Then again, any sensible person (or proper tinfoil-hat wearing freak) who thinks they have something worth hiding won't be knowingly using a proxy run by anyone else, so maybe the bias won't be that strong.

    2. Re:Now HE can track you on his proxy by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      But thats better because Google is teh evilz!!!l1i

      Every time you search with Bing, Bill Gates rescue a kitten from the hands of Google kitten-furnace-powered-datacenterz!

      Plzzzz Bingme! that way you're more cool than windows7 lol //

      I agree with you, Astroturfers used to be creative, good old 2004s

  7. Why by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it me, or has Google started to slide in the media towards away from its 'Don't Be Evil' policy? Personally, I think they operate well within moral bounds, but to a lot of major networks, blogs, and news aggregates, the opposite seems to be opines.

    In principle, most want their usage statistics retained for a short-while, if at all. Most prefer their statistics only confided with first channel of contact as well. Are people considering that these mass usage statistics may comprise some of the magic that makes their platform so successful and useful? Continual refinement due to constant sources of usage information, IMO, seems to be working great for them. The naysayers neigh, but until I see a genuine effort by other companies to be as philanthropic, open-source friendly, charitable, and hospitable, I will shelve my skepticism and contempt for their nosiness in hopes of a continually great service.

    How much would people complain if search became a pay-per-search model? If all those in favor of eliminating usage-statistics completely had their way, Ad-Words and dynamic advertising content would be out, and these search giants would be looking for another form of revenue. Something to think about...

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Why by cosm · · Score: 1

      *opined*. I am sure there is more, but Grammar Nazis be damned.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:Why by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not a big Google-privacy-paranoia guy, but my faith in them had been on the decline, and their recent China thing has definitely bought them some credibility in my eyes. It's easy to have a knee-jerk cynical reaction to it, but it may well show that they really are still putting principles before profits, and that their "Don't Be Evil" motto is more than a quirky relic of their early days.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Why by lidocaineus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're deluding yourself if you think "Don't Be Evil" is more than just a throwaway phrase. While it can be argued that Google started out altruistic, it's a corporation, and by nature all corporations are there for one thing - to make money. Don't Be Evil is just some vague guide they put out there that basically means "we'll try to not do things that would piss off the consumer but it's in no way a priority."

      That said, I use google all the time. I just understand how much to trust them (read: not very much). It's ridiculous how many people fawn over Google as if they're holier than thou because of one phrase, but hey, it's working. If they were serious, they'd put together a Bill of Rights and stick hardcore to it - THEN I'd be willing to see them in a (slightly) different light.

    4. Re:Why by ugen · · Score: 1

      Ad-words have nothing to do with data retention. They show you ads based on the current keywords you enter. While there is some targeting, Adwords and similar services would work just fine without it.
      So there is no need to keep any information about anyone's online habits, searches etc. in order to present relevant ads and make money. This is purely a strawman argument.

    5. Re:Why by yacoob · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a corporation. Corporation's goal is to make money. You'd be fool to think otherwise, because that what companies do. Is that evil? No.
      Evil would be abusing law or users' trust for their own good. This particular corporation earns money, in an unusual way, while providing some unique services. Is that bad? I don't think so.

      I'm having really good time, reading "Google should do X, Y, Z!" being pushed by people who clearly think that they should just receive all of the possible services for free. It's a simple deal, vote with your le^Wtraffic.

      --
      -- we're here you're not
    6. Re:Why by psithurism · · Score: 1

      If no one clicks their adwords adds, has to go 20 pages deep into search results to find a page they like, or have difficulty with a search, google would like to know, so they track what you click on and whether you return disappointed from your clicks, to better serve you.

      What is it we think they are doing with this data? Being evil? I understand its hard to ask for exactly how people feel their privacy is violated but I'm not feeling it from Google just because they know what I do on their servers.

    7. Re:Why by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nice job moderating me as 'flamebait' for distrusting a corporation.

      That's proof right there that google has somehow gotten people to follow it with some kind of reverent attitude.

    8. Re:Why by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ad-words has everything to do with data retention. There is probably a limit past which more data will just give them too much of a needle in a haystack to sort through (I'd peg it at about 2 years.) However, if you think knowing search history doesn't help them improve results, you're not understanding what Google does properly.

      It's not just a question of targeting. A straightforward example (though it only needs continuity over a half hour or so) is following you as you refine your search. If Google sees a lot of people searching for:
      haiti
      haiti earthquake
      haiti earthquake relief
      haiti relief organizations

      Or some permutation thereof, if they see that everyone's starting at haiti and ending up at relief organizations, they might want to show some of those results when you just search for Haiti. Obviously this is a simplistic example, but you can see how in broader circumstances it's going to seriously improve search quality.

      Now as far as ad-words specifically, it's very useful to know what sorts of ads people are clicking on. You don't need to know demographics so much. For a given blog X, if you can see that there's a cluster of people interested in A, B, and C, and another cluster interested in C, D, E, and F, this allows you to refine your advertisements down to just C, since everyone who reads blog X is interested in C. Without continuity, there's no way to know that focusing on C would return much more clicks than just trying anything A-F.

      And there are dozens of other ways to use the data, most of which actually are good from an end-user standpoint: better search results, more interesting ads.

    9. Re:Why by capnkr · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeahs, screw teh Googleses corps, they are buttseks puppy ranchers...

      Umbrella Corp, FTW !!1!!111!

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    10. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parent wasn't saying don't use google, he's saying you should be wary of google, just like every other corporation.

    11. Re:Why by TeamMCS · · Score: 1

      Whilst I believe you may have a good argument it all depends on why Google decided to back-out of China. If you caught the thread last week quite a few people argued the point that China has simply become far harder to make a profit from. The risk of their reputation out weighed the millions of people who used the service (and let's be honest, will continue to use it, sans firewall) The basic fact is Google is a search company, they need to 'violate' your privacy to provide the services they do. The sad fact is everyone else does the exact same thing. Even on my own sites I keep an eye on trends and demands - That's how business has worked for millennia. The only difference now is they are MUCH larger and can entirely trace your end-to-end web usage. Short of using a proxy and unticking "use Javascript/Cookies" this will always be a problem. If you can really be bothered you could use an obfuscater which simply does a bunch of pointless searches to shadow your real searches in a plethora of nonsense.

    12. Re:Why by TeamMCS · · Score: 1

      ...I'm sure there were newlines in that when I submitted it!

    13. Re:Why by vacarul · · Score: 1

      "Don't be evil" is old news.. so it's no longer 100% true for Google.
      To be short:
      -I've made a map website with a local map. My map is better than Google Maps one (made by a local company, more details), loads faster and you can search a specific street name (you can't do this in Google Maps for my location). However when you search '<local word for "map"> <location>' Google puts on top of the results it's own service widget, even if their service is worse than mine. In my opinion they should put their service together with the rest of the result, and of course, let it compete with the other websites.

      -I've made another website for currency exchange rates, but when you search "<local currency>" Google already tells you what the exchange rate is so the user will not click on any of the results. The problem is that their exchange rate is not the right one (official rate) and that their service it's not competing with the rest of the results. Instead it is always presented on top of the page, bigger fonts, right in your face etc.

      In the old times, Google was only about search. Now they started creating services that are the same with services other websites offer. This is still ok. It's not ok when their services are put on top of the results, even when they are not as relevant for that keyword as other websites.

      Before you had:
      top of the page - paid ads
      first results - most relevant websites

      Now you have:
      top of the page - paid ads
      first result - Google's service, relevancy not important
      other results - most relevant websites

    14. Re:Why by miffo.swe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The slide is a manufactured one stemming in direct link from Microsoft. If you look carefully at the bloggers, commenters, journalists etc you will start seeing a pattern. Its the same exact nicks/people lambasting Linux, dancing in joy over any new or old Microsofts product that badmouths Google. Sometime in september -09 Microsoft started a orchestred effort into throwin FUD at Google. Since finding dirt on Google is about as easy as getting a picture of Bill Gates using Linux most of it consists of lame attacks about privacy.

      I dont know what Google does about this but at some point they will have to take this up into the open. No company that has tried to ignore Microsofts criminal activities and not take an open fight has ever survived.

      PS. I do understand i sound like a raving lunatic to some people but please, read this and come back and tell me Microsoft is your everyday normal corporation. DS

      http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018
      http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    15. Re:Why by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The end-to-end monitoring can be reduced by setting up your system to never talk to Google Analytics (whether through entries in /etc/hosts or through Firefox extensions like Ghostery) and Google's JavaScript hosting service.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    16. Re:Why by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      How much would people complain if search became a pay-per-search model?

      I'd be willing to pay a small amount as a subscription to a search engine that was competitive with Google in terms of search result quality and I was certain respected privacy. They'd probably need to throw in a bunch of other services to make it worth my while to actually sort out payment though. No idea if there are enough others wit this opinion to make it worthwhile.

    17. Re:Why by capnkr · · Score: 1

      Allegory much, anyone? (Guess not...)

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  8. Would you pay for Google ad-free? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google runs an ad network because it makes money. They still honor their "Don't be evil" promises, but they've got to do some user tracking because that makes ads more valuable. If you took advertising away from Google... how would they make money? Would anybody pay Google to not show ads to them?

    1. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would pay for a Google subscription service with no ads and no user activity tracking.

    2. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I would actually, especially considering how little they must make per person via ads it surely wouldn't cost much

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      Would anybody pay Google to not show ads to them?

      Perhaps, yes. I would, though I don't know if the amount I'd be wiling to pay woudl be enough to make it worth anyones while running such a scheme - Google's ads are not at all irritating compared to other options so I really don't mind them enough to be bothered enough to pay more than, say, a few per year. Some might pay for "not being tracked", but that isn't going to work because if you are not tracked how will they track whether or not they should track you...

      Even if there are a minority wiling to pay, and that minority would total enough income to make implementing such a system worth while, Google probably wouldn't want to go for it as they would be diluting their product which would not look good when competing with providers with undiluted product. Repeat after me: you are not Google's customer, you are Google's product which they sell to their customers. Google's customers are the advertisers.

    4. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Reilaos · · Score: 1

      I dunno. How many people would pay Slashdot to not show ads to them?

    5. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Reading your post again I can see that it was a rhetorical question, and I agree that in general people won't pay for Google services (just that I would like the option to), so yes I agree with your point.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Informative

      And you wonder what the asterisk in my header line means?

    7. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...you are Google's product which they sell to their customers.

      And said customers are getting swindled when they buy me.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would pay for a Google subscription service with no ads and no user activity tracking.

      How would they know it was you they would not show ads to unless they tracked you?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    9. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by ShiftyOne · · Score: 1

      The only problem with is the privacy part. Its like having someone look over you're shoulder at everything you do. Does anyone actually look at the ads? As long as its not the ads that pop out and cover half the screen when you accidentally hover over them or the ads that pop out when you hover over some text then its not really a problem.

    10. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You dont have to pay, just have good enough Karma =)

    11. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They lost their "Don't be evil" cherry when the Miserable Failure bomb was cleared up within days of Obama taking office, after being there for four years while Bush was in office.

    12. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5 per month for full Google access, ad-free with strong privacy? Very tempting.

    13. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      I would pay for a Google subscription service with no ads and no user activity tracking.

      A service that is nice to begin with but then later sucks miserably, because without feedback from users search results, Google's old algorithms are happy, but now they no longer know what users are searching for or what pages they follow after a search to make corrections in their algorithms.

    14. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      The only problem with is the privacy part. Its like having someone look over you're shoulder at everything you do.

      Its like having someone, who doesn't really know and your never going to talk to, look over your shoulder, while not actually knowing exactly who you are, only when you are on Google sights.

      Who cares if some random guy at google knows that some other random guy located somewhere around my zip code is searching for hot goat sex videos. I don't. I actually have a girlfriend who demands to watch over my shoulder when I browse the net, and I feel the difference between her and some Google employee is huge.

    15. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by praxis · · Score: 1

      While I'm not paranoid, it's a little more involved than that. Forgive me for being too lazy to provide links, but Google will get all this information for you (natch!). Researchers have shown that anonymous data is not really all that anonymous. In a good amount of cases they can narrow down anonymous searches down to a single person by only seeing the searches they are performing. Know that there's a good chance that what you search for can be tied to you brings up my second point. Data that's collected for one purpose rarely gets used only for that one purpose. When you have that data lying around, it's really hard not to be tempted to use it. Most terms of use make it clear that you need not be notified of that use. In fact, private companies have no legal need to tell you anything of what they know about you. You can go to the FBI and ask them what they have on you, but you can't go to Google and ask them what sort of data they have on you, how long they store it, who they sell it to, if they even sell it at all, what they use it for, when they plan on purging it, what their policy is for giving that data out and to whom if asked, etc. The Feds buy Domino's customer data (who called, from what number, when, what address was it delivered to, etc, etc) so they can find people they are looking for, for example.

      In summary. 1) It's not quite as anonymous as you would believe and 2) data is easily used for other purposes and you have no right to know for what purpose and by whom.

    16. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by maxume · · Score: 1

      They are quite aware that the effectiveness of most advertising is only mediocre when measured in eyeballs vs success. They don't care, as it is usually effective when measured in dollars.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Sure you would, and you'd pay for all your software if it was reasonably priced as well I'm sure.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "make money" and "don't be evil" are mutually exclusive to the typical wide eyed, never stepped foot in the real world geek that is the slashdotter.

    19. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      I laughed when I was first presented the option to turn off ads on Slashdot. I have been using AdBlock+ the whole time I've been a reader here, so I never knew there were any ads.

      I'm sure I'm not the only one.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    20. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they've got to do some user tracking because that makes ads more valuable

      And I've got to block those ads to make Google more valuable to me.

    21. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      > > ...you are Google's product which they sell to their customers.

      > And said customers are getting swindled when they buy me.

      No, they are aware that they are buying the potential for XYZ,000 people to see their ad with an expected A% blocking it and B% just not noticing and C% ignoring it. You are not swindling them, you are part of the expected response pattern.

      But advertisers would consider Google to be swindling them (or, at least they would expect to pay less) if they added a further D% (those paying for no adverts/tracking) to those that would already be useless to the advertiser.

    22. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by plastbox · · Score: 1

      Really? When I was prompted with that option, I thought to myself "Well, I read Slashdot at least a few days a week, it's a pretty good site with an above-average crowd of commenters.. I'll just leave the ads there so Slashdot can make at least a little money off me for the service they are providing."

      To be honest, I really hadn't noticed any ads before I was given the option to disable them. Not because I use adblocker, but because they are fairly non-invasive and I'm not the malcontent type to looks for things to bitch, whine and be unhappy about. ;)

    23. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by fbartho · · Score: 1

      So then the question becomes: do you hit the checkbox so /. knows not to count you as a pair of eyeballs?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    24. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Reilaos · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious. Y'know, you made it sound like no one would, when you did exactly that for Slashdot?

  9. ITYM "Inferior Services" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is Google hiding this "superior online experience"? All I've seen is a lot of vastly inferior web crap, like Gmail.

  10. Tor. by PhearoX · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    1. Re:Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree. There is plenty more to say about Tor.

      Tor is an onion router service. Your connections, to Google or anyone else, are all anonymized. It can be used with any TCP based service (except SMTP, which has been port-banned. Nothing else is fully banned).

      It works by relaying the connection through three nodes. The first two nodes don't know what content is in the TCP stream. Only the third node (the "exit node") is able to decrypt the data. None of the nodes know who anyone else is in your route, except for the two adjacent nodes. There are enough volunteers running Tor that it would be very difficult to compromise a user's anonymity. Even if two nodes in the route are owned by an evil person, trying to find out who you are, you're still safe.

      From the article:

      Marlinspike, a hacker who has identified weaknesses in the widely used SSL protocol, readily concedes that anonymizers such as Tor are more appropriate for people who want to conceal their online activities from a wide variety of actors. But those services can often be extremely slow. For those concerned only about Google, GoogleSharing makes more sense.

      He's right that Tor is slow. On Tor, it takes me between 0.3 and 10 seconds to load Google's home page. But, it's much safer than using a single proxy. Even if Marlinspike's proxy is completely safe, its ISP can easily perform timing attacks.

    2. Re:Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd get, what, five search requests done a day?

    3. Re:Tor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're doing it wrong... ESPN.com, one of the most media-intensive front pages on the intarwebs, loads in less than 8 seconds on Tor. Google.com loads in less than 3.

      Yes, significantly slower than bare web browsing, but as we all know, security isn't free (as in beer).

  11. not exactly the same by memnock · · Score: 1

    since it just does searches, but what about scroogle?

  12. Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Download, install, properly configure Tor:
    https://www.torproject.org/

    Certainly you should choose an open source and free operating system to
    increase your security/privacy: http://www.distrowatch.com/

    Use one of the many tools available to build your own Linux liveCD/DVD/USB
    with Tor installed/configured and yank out all of your HDDs or unplug them
    while using Tor via Linux liveCD/DVD/USB, then while running Tor:

    Scroogle SSL:
    https://ssl.scroogle.org/

    and for mail:

    Safe-Mail:
    No cookies, no script, no java, no flash required!
    https://www.safe-mail.net/

    In the words of Woody Woodpecker:
    Hah ha ha HAH ha, Hah ha ha HAH ha, HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAH!

    Fuck you corporations, fuck you snoopers, I do it MY WAY.

    1. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post! You can take it one step further by becoming a volunteer for TOR network and routing other people's traffic. This may boost your anonymity credentials because there is going to be no way to figure out what traffic is yours and what stuff comes from other people.

    2. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, you could save yourself a shitload of time and just realize that ...

      NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR SEARCHES OR WHAT YOU DO ONLINE.

      Seriously, give it a try, trust me, no one gives a shit about you so all the crap you suggest someone setup is just a waste of time.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      and for mail:

      Safe-Mail:
      No cookies, no script, no java, no flash required!
      https://www.safe-mail.net/

      Thanks for the link... but you do need JavaScript enabled to use Safe-Mail.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    4. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by eulernet · · Score: 1

      Or more simply, use OperaTor (Opera+Tor):

      http://archetwist.com/en/opera/operator

    5. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by webreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It's about the fact that (as the parent wrote) Google doesn't give a shit about your individual data.

      What google are looking for are trends. Not individual behaviour. If I go and visit www.corpse-pictures.com that doesn't help google unless others do. Individuals are outliers on the graph unless there's a lot of people behaving in similar correlated patterns, at which point the data becomes interesting.

      People in this world are far too paranoid about their internet data without actually thinking about why they're paranoid. I bet half the people who use Tor to hide their web-surfing have thrown away supermarket receipts into the dustbin without shredding it, or use loyalty cards like Nectar etc when they shop at supermarkets...

    6. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      For all you know, he works for a government contractor or agency. It is possible he has access to data that most folk don't. That and that alone can make him a target of various entities without him even knowing it.

      Of course, for the majority of people what you say is likely very true. However, it is important to note that slashdot is a very techie skewed crowd and folks who work in techie fields have a lot of attractive job options in the sensitive data world.

      Food for thought.

    7. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by Coriolis · · Score: 1

      Um. Yes. Posts that validate the Greater Internet Dickwad theory are not great arguments for why people should be allowed to remain anonymous on the Internet. Not saying it's an argument against privacy. Just saying it doesn't help your case.

      --
      Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
    8. Re:Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "

      Or, you could save yourself a shitload of time and just realize that ...

      NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR SEARCHES OR WHAT YOU DO ONLINE.

      Seriously, give it a try, trust me, no one gives a shit about you so all the crap you suggest someone setup is just a waste of time."

      Typical Cointelpro type disinformation response, no doubt backed by sockpuppet accounts to mod up. The parent poster was right and those who enjoy being peeping toms have everything to lose by following his advice.

  13. What does this do that... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...not having a Google account, disabling scripts, and blocking all Google cookies including Analytics doesn't do except give Mr. Moxie a chance to track me? Why should I trust him more than Google? I know what Google is after. What does he want?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:What does this do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can (and do) track you by IP address and User-Agent.

    2. Re:What does this do that... by plover · · Score: 1

      They can (and do) track you by IP address and User-Agent.

      You have to understand that Google doesn't just track you when you're searching on www.google.com. Google provides javascript links to web page authors so that google can place ads on their page, and they produce analytic information regarding surfing habits of everyone who visits the site.

      This way they can pay the web page author for the ads. In return, they track visitors from unrelated site #1 to unrelated site #2. They might notice that people who start the day surfing on Slashdot commonly follow it up with a visit to boingboing.net. Perhaps they then place ads that are relevant to both /. and boingboing on both sites. Or perhaps because they specifically track you, they place boingboing ads on /. when you view it.

      What the GP does is blocks the javascripts from being received by the browser, preventing their loading, using an extension such as Adblock Plus or NoScript. If your browser doesn't even know it's supposed to open a script from Google, it won't send a request to Google, and they therefore can't track you.

      TFA is all about an extension that randomizes the calls to Google's scripts, rather than blocking them entirely. Unfortunately, google's sample set is so incredibly large that any attempts to poison it with false data will be tossed out as sampling errors. The only thing this script can do is make a lot of very noisy requests to Google rather than giving them your true habits.

      --
      John
  14. Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why he doesn't make an extension for Google Chrome. Oh wait...

  15. Thulsa Doom speaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My child, you have come to me my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me? My son." -Thulsa Doom

    Get down on your god damn knees and pray for the sweet salvation of Thulsa Doom you fucking slug! Who else could bring you to your full potential but Thulsa Doom? Who else could show you your place in the cosmos? You owe Thulsa Doom your eternal devotion!

    Thulsa Doom!

  16. now how do you hide from the hiding tool? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    So yo dont trust Google, the company just told China where it gets off. Then you will trust this unknown anonymizer plug in. Great, would you like to help me cash the 9 million dollars I have stolen from the Nigerian Oil Company?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:now how do you hide from the hiding tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The company just told China where it gets off." Wow, you really bought that PR campaign whole hog. It doesn't seem a little strange to you that they announce their China office has been totally compromised and that they'll no longer be censoring their search results in China at the same time? Now... what would their motivations for that be?

  17. A joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is some kind of Google joke, right? Like, "Ha ha, silly paranoids. We set up a proxy so you could circumvent us but really it's us too and no we even know who the paranoids are that we've already been watching for nearly a decade. Oh and you're probably a terrorist too so we've already alerted the authorities."

    Ok ok, so it's for reals. But am I really going to trust this guy more than I trust Google?

  18. take Google's giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and sacrifice your privacy to Moxie Marlinspike.

    His motto is, "Don't get caught being evil."

  19. Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Informative

    Google offers you a choice. If one doesn't want to participate then fine, don't use Google. If one uses Google and expects them to keep their part of the bargain then they should hold up their end. Anything less is like saying: I like the yummy goodness of candy bars, but I don't like paying for them, but I am clever so I use stealth to eat them without paying for them. That "clever stealth" is, by any other name, still stealing.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

      > If one uses Google and expects them to keep their part of the bargain then
      > they should hold up their end.

      I have no contract with Google (and I doubt that you do either). Consequently I require nothing of them and they have no right to require anything of me (nor do they).

      > That "clever stealth" is, by any other name, still stealing.

      Bullshit. If Google doesn't want me to block their cookies they can make their search engine not work without them. If they don't want me to block JavaScript they can require it (as some of their competitors do). If they want to require me to open an account they can. They know how the Web works. They know that Web pages are public by default and they know how to restrict access. They do not do so.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So in other words you have no idea what this discussion is about, how Google works, or what the word contract means. I think I'll pass on trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      That "clever stealth" is, by any other name, still stealing.

      Why does this sound awfully close to the RIAA motto of "downloading movies is stealing"? I agree with you on the "if you don't like it, don't use it" line, but you're blowing it a tad out of proportion.

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    4. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      I hate to be the one to break it to you but downloading is stealing. If you sneak in to a Movie theatre, that is stealing even though they still have the movie. In these cases what you have stolen is the access. Most people understand what I just said, but consider it an act of civil disobedience Henry David Thoreou style. I'm OK with you stealing from tyrants, just don't steal from the decent folk.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like saying "I like the yummy goodness of candy bars, but I don't like getting fat, but I am clever so I use stealth to eat them without getting fat." That clever stealth is, by any other name, bulimia.

    6. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I hate to be the one to break it to you but downloading is stealing.

      I will assume that by "downloading" you mean "downloading unauthorized copies".
      The US Federal courts do not agree with you. Making unauthorized copies of works protected by copyright is (usually) copyright infringement and illegal but it is not theft.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > So in other words you have no idea what this discussion is about, how Google
      > works, or what the word contract means.

      Yes, I do. Unlike you.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The US Federal courts do not agree with you."

      I'm talking about morals, which has absolutely nothing to do with the law. (you'll note that I didn't say: OMFPonies! Don't get caught!)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "That clever stealth is, by any other name, bulimia."

      As long as we can agree that it is some kind of disorder, and something is wrong with you if you do it ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bnenning · · Score: 1

      And going to the bathroom during commercials is stealing too, right? You may have a promising legal career at Time Warner.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    11. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You obviously have some latent animosity over the fact that BadAnalogyGuy is already in use here on Slashdot ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I think you just missed the reference...

      http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    13. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I did indeed miss the reference. I haven't checked out 2600 in years. Thanks for the heads up.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't, care to enlighten us?

      The thing about Google is that you've really got nowhere to hide. Even if you don't use their products (Search, Mail, Calendar etc) they're still tracking you through the billions of web pages that contain Adsense, Doubleclick or Analytics. Now you're essentially agreeing to view ads along with some free content - which is fine - but how large portion of the web do you actually need to evade so that Google doesn't "see" or track you (while still following the terms of service agreement on the rest of the web)?

    15. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      You're still wrong.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    16. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Well, surely everyone can agree to the one and true moral rightness preached by a guy named mister_playboy!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    17. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Coriolis · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think he's got you on that one. The contract between users and Google, at least as relates to search, is a purely implicit one. Absent a terms and conditions page, a website is by definition a public facility, its terms of use defined solely by its behaviour. Google don't offer you the option to turn off tracking, so that indicates they'd really like you to allow it, but the site works without it, so Google must be ok with you doing that.

      --
      Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
    18. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The contract between users and Google, at least as relates to search, is a purely implicit one."

      So he is right that there is no contract, but there is an implicit contract? That, of course, makes no sense. BTW - You are correct. There is an implicit contract, ergo he is wrong when he states that there is no contract (I use the term contract in its non-legal sense)

      "Google don't offer you the option to turn off tracking, so that indicates they'd really like you to allow it, but the site works without it, so Google must be ok with you doing that."

      Nobody is talking about disabling tracking. What is being discussed is allowing tracking, but polluting their database by feeding it misinformation.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    19. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I use the term contract in its non-legal sense

      1. You use a word commonly used in legal context, in a "non-legal sense". Without at first mentioning so.
      2. You expect others to understand you. Rather, you accuse them of having "no idea ... what the word contract means".

      Interesting. Is it fun to ride that high horse of yours?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    20. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      There is no need to mention that I use it in a non-legal sense, because the definition of the word contract is not specific to law. This is the reason you see the word Legal in front of the word contract on Legal Contract . So as you can see, you do not know the meaning of the word contract either.

      Furthermore, my post was specifically pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the Google User without using the actual word. The respondent was then the first to use the word contract without specifying a Legal contract, showing that he does not know the definition of the word and assumes that it refers to a legal document, making the same mistake as you just made. I therefore pointed out that, like you, he mistakenly believes the word contract always involves the Law.

      Thanks for playing. Definition #1 is your consolation prize.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry. Forgot that it must be too dizzy from your high horse to be able to see clearly. Let's take it slowly, ok?

      like you, he mistakenly believes the word contract always involves the Law

      Please let me know where I said that the word contract always involves the Law?

      thanks
      Bingo

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    22. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      As you rightly point out, your mistake wasn't saying it always involves the law. It was in believing that you need to say that you are not speaking of a legal contract any time you use the word contract.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    23. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      What gave you the impression that I believe that "you need to say that you are not speaking of a legal contract any time you use the word contract" ?

      The person you accused of not knowing the meaning of the word contract, used the word in the legal sense. As is not uncommon with this word. The dictionary.com link that you so kindly provided, lists this definition at number 2. I understand that from high horses, it might be quite difficult for you to reach definition number 2 when it is easier to accuse others of ignorance instead.

      As long as someone is using the word in at least one of the correct senses, he cannot be said to have "no idea ... what the word contract means". Since you said so, you appeared to be a specimen of the deadly combination of idiot and arrogant.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    24. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      OK. You clearly missed what actually went on:
      1. I wrote a post pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the user, albeit not a legal one
      2. The respondent said there is no contract
      3. I correctly stated that he did not know what the word contract means
      4. Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot users, exactly one moron got involved, and still can't figure out what went on after it has been explained to him multiple times

      You are either a troll or a moron. I don't really care either way, as long as you understand the phrase: "Off you go now ..."

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      1. I wrote a post pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the user, albeit not a legal one

      You did nothing of this sort. You ranted about some mistaken notion of "theft".

      2. The respondent said there is no contract
      3. I correctly stated that he did not know what the word contract means

      He was right. He used the definition number 2 of "contract" from dictionary.reference.com, which is in legal context. There is indeed no "legal contract". No reason to get angry now that your idiocy-&-arrogance has been exposed.

      4. Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot .......

      Is it because of your life that you say "Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot ..." ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    26. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Is it because of your life that you say "Out of hundreds of thousands of Slashdot ..." ?"

      So you can't comprehend what you read, and you can't count either? ROTFLMOA Hint: bingoUV (1066850)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    27. Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No idea where counting came into picture here.

      Is it because of the people you hang around with that you are going through all this?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  20. Try Scroogle.org. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is another web site providing the same service, the badly named: Scroogle.

  21. We already have a solution for that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Google! Try to find out who I am, NOW! ;)

  22. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This people are using a lot of different web services but they are afraid only of this one. I can't get it.

  23. I Call Trojan by oztiks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So I'm supposed to install this Proxy add on, then put my google account details, that has my google docs and google checkout account?

    Ummm .... no

    1. Re:I Call Trojan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So I'm supposed to install this Proxy add on, then put my google account details, that has my google docs and google checkout account?

      Ummm .... no

      you should check things before making false claims......

      Its just a plugin no need to pass on your "Google account details"

    2. Re:I Call Trojan by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Right so he cant proxy you to a fake google login page, or perhaps another form of man in the middle attack.

  24. knowing is helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one of the things that helps make google great is the fact that it collects data about users. is uses the data obtained through users to make it more accurate for you and everyone else.

    if you dont like it, just use bing because we know they dont tamper with the results. ;)

    but seriously, who cares if google knows i search for sweet sweet animated donkey porn during the day and midget porn at night?

  25. He stole my idea! by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I offer the same service - and more. I'll route your google/msn/yahoo/windows live/banking/ebay through tor for you. You can inspect the code for my tor client and proxy (Open Source of course). Hell I'll even offer SSL and HTTPS - both ways. Opt out on the banking data too!

    1. Re:He stole my idea! by consonant · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down for having a 'homepage' link that hijacks your computer.

    2. Re:He stole my idea! by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      "hijacks"?? Not unless you've redefined the meaning of "hijack";-p It's a JOKE site (the homepage link) sport. An "educational" joke site - it will not harm or hijack your computer. The point of the post is that if (I don't) offered such an anonymizing proxy service for people wishing to avoid Google collecting their data - there is nothing to stop me: collecting their data; misusing that data; etc; That can be done at a software level (network or application) or hardware. As numerous other posters have pointed out - their are better (tor, freenet, firefox plugins etc) methods of doing so. The *hosting* is just as critical as the *protocol/mechanism*.

    3. Re:He stole my idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do I sign?

  26. my easy trick by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    I use Google as a one word spell check. Make's my browsing and web habits data useless. Or at least I like to think so.

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  27. MITTM? by passion · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a man in the middle attack to me.

    --
    - passion
  28. If you've got nothing to hide ... by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

    I often find the choice of ads that Gmail comes up with more interesting than the actual email. It's sometimes a bit disconcerting how relevant they are (how did they know I'm a Barry Manilow Fan?!?) but if I want to be truly anonymous (which is pretty rare) I know not to use any of their services. One thing I've noticed is if you get a "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" email, that ad column is vacant (presumably nobody wants their company associated with that.) Also, I just checked and a message about a friend passing away was respectfully ad free.

    --
    ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
  29. My opinion on the data mining by yuhong · · Score: 1

    IMO Google's data mining to generate targeted ads isn't too bad.
    Consider that if instead of for example assuming that all investors are radical economic actors, Wall Street was able to datamine investor's habits in real-time and automatically adjust it's models accordingly, the chances of an economic disaster like what happened recently would have been reduced at least, but there would be similar concerns about investor privacy.
    Consider that in both cases, what it is trying to do is to model human behavior.

    1. Re:My opinion on the data mining by yuhong · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it is very sensitive data that can be abused in various ways, and tracking people's behavior makes people uncomfortable. Personally I do trust Google to not abuse the data, but...

  30. Fixes by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    1) Browse through your ISP proxy (you often get faster access as a benefit)
    2) Adblock plus google-analytics (not just google ads)

    1. Re:Fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) BeeFREE https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/57131

  31. a network of anonymizing proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the Seeks project (http://www.seeks-project.info), we're trying to build an Open Source personal websearch proxy. Running nodes have no logging, one has SSL. Compared to googlesharing, we build a metasearch engine, so it is not limited to google.

  32. HTGRQ Business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google buys out Marlinspike in 3 .. 2 ... 1 ...

  33. Great idea: Give your data to those people instead by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Alternatively you could, like, turn off cookies? At least if you are not on a static IP and/or share said IP with several others.

  34. Hiding or Snooping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, 3/4 of websites I use regularly go through google statistics and the remaining 1/4 are searches by Google itself.

    They know it all, based on my IP that never changes, so much that after a day or two browsing without closing Firefox I see in the Search Results of Google for unrelated subjects also the some subjects I'm reading about in other pages.

    To explain it better: I'm reading about oranges, I search about pizza in another tab et voila`: pizza with oranges slips quietly on top on my search results (pizza and oranges are just examples, your mileage may vary)

    Scarily said that, back to the subject:
    1. People wants to hide from Google
    2. I pay to set up a free proxy where, say, all google analytics query are proxied
    3. All people that wanted to hide from google (say, those who wanted to keep secret their passion for oranges) use my proxy
    4. I (a certainly less known someone than a big corporation) potentially know everything of who didn't want Google to know
    5. [..]
    6. $$$ Money!

    Genial indeed.

  35. Google thinks code was stolen by slyborg · · Score: 1

    That's why they are really mad. If it was just a few human rights activists that got hacked, jacked, and sent to prison for 10 years in China, Brin and the boys wouldn't have batted an eye.

    1. Re:Google thinks code was stolen by KrugalSausage · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

  36. ace in the hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if google has anything on chinese govt officials?

  37. Another "He stole my idea" by alu645 · · Score: 1

    I am currently getting together some thoughts on similar topic. I plan to publish around 10 articles specialized on strategies to consciously manifest yourself for any information web (google is just least "enemy"). My articles should provide some ways from hiding from spam info collectors, to customize your "web", and before all to do personalised tricks on information agencies, which are able to collect anything on your person in highly global and automate way. I mean it's not problem for any "they" (from commercial agencies to background powers) to extract you as entity, and put your friends your interests and your opinions / activity into folder. Another big fail I'm trying to find improvisation ways is managing your track in web history (how do you appear if I extract all your written material from past from web). This subject is highly important for me, as I am psychically unstable, and I would welcomed unified way to delete / comment / find everything published by myself in past. But priority is antispam and customizations to "automatically extracted entity". Anyone feels destined to colaborate? Leave me a message in any case.

  38. or if you actually want to opt out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can just go here

    http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp

    you can opt out of behaviorally targeted advertising from google, and a bunch of other companies as well

  39. hosts files usage like that apk dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can avoid dns this way. there is this dude apk who uses them here to do that much by hardcodes of ip addresses into it so he never calls on dns servers.

  40. google toolbar invades privacy by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    Google Toolbar Tracks Browsing Even After Users Choose "Disable" -

      http://www.benedelman.org/news/012610-1.html

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow