Slashdot Mirror
Google Offers Encrypted Web Search Option
alphadogg writes "People who want to shield their use of Google's Web search engine from network snoops now have the option of encrypting the session with SSL protection. In the case of Google search, SSL will protect the transmission of search queries entered by users and the search results returned by Google servers. Google began rolling out the encrypted version of its Web search engine on Friday. 'We think users will appreciate this new option for searching. It's a helpful addition to users' online privacy and security, and we'll continue to add encryption support for more search offerings,' wrote Evan Roseman, a Google software engineer, in an official blog post."
The real reason is that internet hacking people have been figuring out how to monetize the traffic they sniff. This is merely Google reclaiming the market that is rightfully theirs.
In other words, you still trade your privacy for the service provided by Google; the difference is the trade being less likely to be interrupted now.
Google has never shown any tendency towards abuse of my private data. My government, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break its own laws whenever it's convenient for any of their actual constituents, i.e. corporations. I'm much more worried about my government watching my search history than google doing it. Of course, they'll give that information to my government any old time, but that's not the same thing as having it continually logged where it can fire off triggers.
No, I'm not doing anything that I feel my government would attack me for. But then, I'm not doing anything google would attack me for, either. Google continually stands in opposition to the corporations that I am concerned about. The enemy of my enemy may or may not be my friend, but odds are better than if he's my enemy's friend. Contrarily, much of what the U.S. government does makes it the enemy of any right-thinking citizen, where right-thinking is defined as "freedom-loving". (I may have a bias, but I certainly don't hide it.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This could be an interesting development for Google's efforts in China. If the traffic between google and the client is encrypted then the firewall of China *shouldn't* be able to analyse the search results coming back. The only option for China might be to block Google SSL completely but that might be a bit too risky politically.
I know you're joking, but the way you do that is by googling the first 5 or 6 digits of your SSN, then manually comparing the last 4. The first 5 or 6 aren't unique and can be relatively easily guessed based upon the location and date of birth. Similar searches are great for finding CC#s that might be posted online.
As a matter of course, we should use SSL on all connections. In some rare cases the computation may be too much of a burden, but in the vast majority of situations it's trivial and there's no reason not to do it.
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic.
Not only would that provide some measure of security against eavesdropping, but it would also assist with detection of phishing attacks. Browsers could and should throw up nasty warnings/errors when connecting to a site whose certificate has inexplicably changed. This is similar to how SSH handles trust of server keys, a system that works very well in practice.
Regarding this move by Google, I think it's great. I applauded their decision to make Gmail and Google Apps HTTPS-only, and providing the option for Google Search is great, too. Hopefully they'll eventually go to HTTPS-only for search as well. Their page volumes are such that they'll have to seriously consider the impact of the encryption overhead, but I think they'll get there.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Better yet google for the a range of 10000 numbers by adding two dots between the lower and upper number:
Google: 123450000..123459999
This way you can search for SSN, CC numbers etc.
Google clearly states this on their page. There is no such thing as 'free'.
"few notes to remember: Google will still maintain search data to improve your search quality and to provide better service. Searching over SSL doesn't reduce the data sent to Google -- it only hides that data from third parties who seek it. And clicking on any of the web results, including Google universal search results for unsupported services like Google Images, could take you out of SSL mode. Our hope is that more websites and services will add support for SSL to help create a better and more consistent experience for you.
We think users will appreciate this new option for searching. It's a helpful addition to users' online privacy and security, and we'll continue to add encryption support for more search offerings. To learn more about using the feature, refer to our help article on search over SSL."
They make there money by monetizing your search and with ads. You are free not to use their service.
Veramocor
Corporate IT will no longer be able to monitor Google search activity merely by intercepting port 80 traffic.
They also cannot implement a webfilter that simply monitors port 80 traffic, and denies your ability to search, based on keyword.
They can't block SSL either, since Google requires SSL for certain things (login to Google accounts, google webmaster tools, google checkout) that Enterprise users may require.