Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hiding From Google

Posted by kdawson on from the cake-and-eat-it dept.

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.

39 of 228 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.
  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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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)
    7. 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/

    8. 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
    9. 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.

      --
      Digital Citizen
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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).

    13. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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.

  5. 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 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);
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  6. 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 LostCluster · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  7. 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.
  8. 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 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
    2. 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...

  9. Try Scroogle.org. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  10. 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

  11. 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!