Google Offering Cash For Your Cache

pigrabbitbear writes "The gradual transformation of the web into an ultra-personalized, corporate-owned social space in the cloud has raised more than a few legitimate concerns about data privacy. Google, for obvious reasons, has always been one of the top cheerleaders for this metamorphosis. Touting a fresh new privacy policy that allows data about you from all of their services to coalesce, they've recently been particularly bullish about rendering that increasingly realistic digital portrait of you that lies stuffed away in their servers. It has led us again to question: How much are we comfortable with our machines knowing about us? How much is our privacy really worth? With their new program, Google is now asking those questions quite directly, and preceding them with dollar signs. Are we all on the verge of making our own information age Faustian bargains?"

Comments

Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Lieutenant Buddha]

Let me be the first (!) to say that I would not be entirely opposed to this idea. I am not a rich man and my data is private, just not... *that* private. While I disagree with the sale of personal data on principle, in practice I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Mr. Underbridge]

Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.

While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[bky1701]

"I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh."

The fact they are going to pay what is likely to be, in Google terms (think ad click cost), a huge sum should send up some red flags. (If it isn't that much, then it isn't going to be worth installing the plug for most users.) They stand to profit a lot from this data, else they wouldn't pay for it. Keep in mind all the data they receive for free.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[ToadProphet]

I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information.

And that's the problem.

Nobody knows what the future will hold in terms of laws and governance. The things that you do today, that are likely well within the limits of the law and likely of no interest to the state, may make you an enemy of a new state tomorrow. Your sig is an excellent example - suggesting that you might be an atheist could wind you up on a watch list of the future. Sounds preposterous, sure, but one never knows.

And yes, we're talking about handing what likely amounts to rather dull data over to a corporation. But again, you don't know who that corporation may hand that data over to tomorrow.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it a problem the OP doesn't share your values? She's clear on the facts.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[jasno]

It sounds like a great idea - let's admit that private information about an individual is property of that individual. They have the right to sell it - or in my case to *not* sell it.

Want to charge me for gmail instead? Ok, sign me up. Just don't data-mine it or sell it to a third-party. The same goes for facebook - I'd gladly sign back up if I was allowed to be the customer.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Opportunist]

Well, my boss knows my political position (welcome to our wonderful world of politicial influence in pretty much any place that is remotely touching administration), he knows my medical problems (after all, he's the guy who has to sign my sick days), where I live (because he needs a place to send my mail to) and as far as I can tell, he doesn't give half a shit if I enjoy sucking off goats as long as I do my job.

That doesn't mean that I enjoy some random company having any data of me. Hence I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[ShieldW0lf]

Where you stand on the fight for privacy fight boils down this: How much is your hypocracy worth to you, and how much does other peoples hypocracy cost you.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[EdIII]

why is it a problem the OP doesn't share your values? She's clear on the facts.

It's a problem because it has nothing to do with values. Saying it does implies that it is a lifestyle choice like pick-your-utopia day.

Although one might not be able to envision what you can do with information, that does not mean that something cannot be done with it, or be done with it in the future.

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. History has shown us, in concrete factual terms, that people can do some downright nasty things to other people for any number of reasons and justifications tied to whatever values, religions, etc. you can think of.

Which is precisely why protecting your privacy, meaning protecting the information about you, is "value" agnostic. It is just simple logic. The less those in power know about you the more protected you are. Period. That simple. I could beat you over the head with history books for a few hours, but it really is that simple.

Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

People can stick to their "values" and be completely open and free with all information that pertains to them. What will not change about it is the incredible danger they are in by doing so. That fact will remain timeless.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Zontar The Mindless]

...I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.

That's kind of how I feel about Facebook photo tagging. Last week I got tagged in 6 photos taken on 3 different continents.

Of course, the date and/or location were wrong for 2 of them, and I was only actually *in* 4 of the photos, which should make things even more interesting.

So... Good luck figuring that out. :)

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[UltraZelda64]

But on the other hand... some bosses might turn you in to PETA for giving goats blowjobs against their wills. Never mind the fact that us humans are animals ourselves.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah values blah blah blah danger

Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Those goats must be a lot more puritanical than I am...

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[muon-catalyzed]

Does not matter what Google would do, just wait until all those data "leak" in some breach and the blackhats get their hands on it.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[justforgetme]

ohh.. There is already software for that, don't worry. After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.

In the summer I can remember Facebook identifying me in some photos nobody had ever touched.
Last month they wanted to verify some locations in Europe I've been photographed in
Next month they are going to be asking me where I was at the time of the murder of a member of parliament.

Joke aside feature recognition algos have become unbelievably efficient for location estimation and face recognition, I'm not sure if Facebook's questions are just deductive logic from the info your peers provide or if they actually try to produce data from the images but the later is equally doable.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[EdIII]

Blah blah blah values blah blah blah danger

Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?

It's this simple.

How you view privacy and anonymity and how it may relate to freedom is completely dependent on your values. It is very much a philosophical discussion, and hence my reference to pick-your-utopia day. We can envision many different types of possible societies from Star Trek to Star Wars to Welcome to Thunder Dome Bitch. It's wonderful fun.

What is not dependent on your values or philosophy is what history shows us that people do to other people based on information. That is a fact not subject to any one person's values.

For instance, and this is not a Godwin attempt, the Gestapo and SS were reliant upon information gathered through "unintended consequences" of laws passed before and during WWII to carry out their own value based agenda against non-Aryans, namely Jews.

The Stasi is another good example of how information about you, sometimes gathered by force, can be used against you.

So while your "blah blah blah blah danger" characterization of my post has a certain appeal to the anti Tin-Foil Hat people, it disregards history to a dangerous and quite humorous and cartoon like degree. You saying it is about values is like Wile E Coyote "deciding" on whether or not gravity exists.

Regardless of how you feel about your privacy, history is an inarguable series of facts that demonstrate that people will use information against you, time and time and time and time again.

Rinse and Repeat.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[tlhIngan]

That doesn't mean that I enjoy some random company having any data of me. Hence I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.

The problem with Google is, being EVERYWHERE (in some form or another), your attempts at poisoning requires active effort, or your real habits will quickly overwhelm the faked data.

And yes, should everything Google disappear overnight, the internet will be quite broken

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[viperidaenz]

Exactly, PETA would want you to give them tips on how to not get kicked in the nuts in the process.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[viperidaenz]

Probably not profit much at all on the specific data collected, but on the models they produce from analysing it all

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[wanzeo]

1. Install virtual machine
2. Install Chrome
3. Write Python script to browse web continuously
4. ???^h^h^h Sell cache
5. Profit!

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[shadowmas]

Remember the deported British twitters from America? They too thought that their information was no value to anyone and that it wasn't important. Well the Homeland security proved them wrong. How little you think about your details are irrelevant. Its what others think about them that matters. You might be absolutely innocent but if your browsing habits or facbook posts indicate to a possible power (goverment or otherwise) that you are a suspect then you'll have a hard time proving your innocence. You might be able to do that but is the hassle worth a couple of hundred dollars?

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Tim C]

Well now, my employer already knows where I live and who I am (duh), my sexual orientation (and I know my boss's - I'm straight, he's gay, who cares?), I don't care who knows my political leanings (left of centre, from a UK perspective). That only leaves medical problems, which a) Google most certainly does not know, and b) currently amount to a mild case of psoriasis on my scalp and a mild strain injury to my right wrist/hand (from DIY). The former is visible, while the latter I have certainly moaned about to anyone within earshot enough times that the people I work closely with (including my boss) know about it, even if the wrist strap didn't give it away.

I can see that people wouldn't want all and sundry knowing all of that, especially the medical stuff. However, as for things like political leanings, sexual orientation, whether or not I enjoy a drink now and again, etc, while it's nobody's business I really don't care who knows and if an employer is going to object to any of it, I'd rather know before I waste time applying for a job with them as I wouldn't want to work for that sort of person anyway.

So personally, while I am a relatively private person (I have a Facebook account, but I don't share everything with everyone), I tend to agree with both you and the OP - sure, it's abusable, but in my case meh.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Tim C]

After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.

Their facial recognition software is impressive, but certainly not perfect. I don't have any hard data but in my experience while it does correctly identify people quite often, there are still significant false positives and negatives.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[migla]

>Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?

Death. Broken bones. Shackles.

You can, of course, latch on all sorts of different values to those states, but if you are dead or shackled, the values of whoever put you in that state does not alter the state of being dead or shackled itself.

Any of those consequences might be extremely unlikely for you where you are now, but sooner or later it will be zero or one anyway. And if it turns out to be one, then it doesn't matter how unlikely it seemed earlier.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Chrisq]

Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.

While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.

That's why I always use your name and address when I sign up for anything online.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[icebraining]

That's just their public version of the software, to convince you they're more flawed than they are! /tinfoil-hat

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[icebraining]

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[nomaddamon]

This returns a massive profit of 0,007$/h (considering the machine is running 24/7) per virtual machine

If you factor in the power and infrastructure bills you are at loss...

Now this is more like it:
0. Sneak into someone else's server room
1. Install virtual machine
2. Install Chrome
3. Write Python script to browse web continuously
4. ???^h^h^h Sell cache
5. Profit!

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[WrongSizeGlass]

Their facial recognition software is impressive, but certainly not perfect. I don't have any hard data but in my experience while it does correctly identify people quite often, there are still significant false positives and negatives.

I really feel sorry for my identical twin. Not only is he just as ugly as I am, now he can get blamed for the stupid shit I get caught doing on FB. /sarcasm

All kidding aside, I do not have a pic on FB but I have been tagged in several photos - twice as a cat. False positives indeed.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[WrongSizeGlass]

... and as far as I can tell, he doesn't give half a shit if I enjoy sucking off goats as long as I do my job.

Your job wouldn't happen to be a goat semen collector, would it? ;-)

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

used a modern web browser? most use autocomplete in the location/url bar and send the data to either google or microsoft. They already know what you think and where you go. Just throw in the random my little pony query to keep them on their toes...

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

Does not matter what Google would do, just wait until all those data "leak" in some breach and the blackhats get their hands on it.

That's always possible, of course. As someone who works on securing data at Google, though, I have to say that I think your data is safer in Google's servers than just about anywhere. Almost certainly safer than on your own computer. Prior to joining Google I spent 15 years working as a security and privacy consultant for companies all over the world, big and small, so I have a pretty good feel for the state of information security around the world. In my expert opinion, Google does an excellent job. Far better than, for example, your bank.

I'm not sure how much I'm free to say here, so I'm not going to give any details. I'll just say that Google has excellent security infrastructure, and uses it well. Google's security operations teams review everything that remotely touches on security or privacy, and they're world class. Much of my work touches on the cryptographic security infrastructure, and I love the fact that I get my designs and implementations reviewed by serious cryptographers. I also love the fact that in the year I've been with Google I've never yet had any potential security issue I raised be ignored. It's no accident that Google is one of the few major sites on the web that uses SSL for basically all of its user-facing pages -- it's clearly indicative of the "secure by default" mentality of Google engineers.

Even better, most of the security focus at Google isn't directed at keeping the data secure from outside hackers -- most of the threat analyses that I write are focused on preventing abuses by insiders. Not because Google doesn't trust its employees, but because insiders have the most access. If you can make it impossible for employees to access data, you can be pretty sure that it's secure from outside hackers.

Of course, sometimes employees have to be able to get to information. To address that Google has extensive logging infrastructure and systems to identify potential abuses -- and accessing information without a good reason is a firing offense, regardless of whether or not you actually misuse it.

Nothing is perfect, of course, and no real system is invulnerable, so I won't say breaches are impossible. I will say that they're unlikely.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

Does not matter what Google would do, just wait until all those data "leak" in some breach and the blackhats get their hands on it.

Or, Google's Prospective Employee Recruitment Program service starts selling your data to employers.

Google's privacy policy prohibits selling or otherwise transferring user data to outside parties.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe anything Google says anymore. I don't use their search except as a last resort--then I use it in the highest security zone. I block all of their other subdomains. Whatever Google has, they can guess, but I won't confirm it. And in some cases, profiling something would be wrong:

Example 1: Years ago, I found out someone I knew--not that well but was a regular board enough contributor--had committed suicide. For several days I checked the suicide newsgroups looking for their posts, if any were made. I only found one or two after searching back several years. That doesn't mean I was going to commit suicide--so if Google profiled that, they would be wrong.

Example 2: When I'm prescribed a medicine, I look at the side effects list. Then I look up any of the illness or disease related side effects, the severest ones too, just so I know. That doesn't mean I have those side effects. If Google profiled that I had one or more of those severe side effects, they would again be wrong.

But Google can have their profiles, I guess. I still won't ever be clicking anything Ads by Google, AdChoices, etc. because I don't willfully click on any Internet ads, and I don't ever buy from Internet ads. Look, I've been online since 1992, and I have never purchased anything even if the ad was accidentally clicked. Even if the ad did slightly interest me, I always right-clicked, got the ad URL, copied/pasted the URL, then removed any referral information from the URL before going to the site--turns out I never purchased anything from those sites either. But I would say 99% of the time, I'm not even seeing those ads unless they are annoying intersitials that break the site to force the ad viewing (then I still close the ad and move on).

But I have to wonder... by accepting the Google cookie on a website that runs analytics have you now accepted the new all-services privacy policy?

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[eric_herm]

Does it prevent them from getting data from employers and say "match/no match" ? Because this would not be giving the data, just using what was given to them to provides a service. That's not against their privacy policy, and nothing private leave google servers.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[tehcyder]

Your sig is an excellent example - suggesting that you might be an atheist could wind you up on a watch list of the future. Sounds preposterous, sure, but one never knows.

That just leads to absurdity where you never express an opinion on anything ever, in case it might be used against you in future. I suppose it is possible that in the future it will be a crime not to unconditionally love Apple//goats cheese or whatever, but I'm not going to avoid talking about them now just because of that almost infinitely remote possibility.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

That's always possible, of course. As someone who works on securing data at Google, though, I have to say that I think your data is safer in Google's servers than just about anywhere. Almost certainly safer than on your own computer.

Thanks for the good laugh. You seem to have forgotten that Google got pwn3d badly by the Chinese government 2 years ago. Or the GMail SRE idiot who was reading chat logs from other people. Now what makes things even worse is that you have had a mole there for several months (a guy with shoddy ethics that has been known for stealing and leaking information from other places) and your security team is none the wiser.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

To add to your point, some forms of information should be shared for the betterment of human society. For example, some European countries require that all medical data be aggregated and disseminated by a central organization for research purposes. If the information is not shared, then it is considered to cause irreparable harm to society since it delays results from research, and the research has fewer sample points to draw from.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[tehcyder]

The correct response to someone threatening you for your beliefs or values is not to say "okay, I'll abandon those beliefs and values and never mention them again".

Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of conscience sometimes have to be fought for.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

Does it prevent them from getting data from employers and say "match/no match" ? Because this would not be giving the data, just using what was given to them to provides a service.

I think that's still clearly providing personally identifiable information (PII), even sensitive PII.

That's not against their privacy policy, and nothing private leave google servers.

The match/no match bit is a highly compressed form of the original private information. The fact that it has been dramatically compressed by an employer-specified transformation doesn't change that.

That's my view, anyway, and I think most Googlers would see it the same way.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Oligonicella]

Ah yes..... "betterment of human society". Where, oh where, have I heard that phrase uttered before?

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[ToadProphet]

That just leads to absurdity where you never express an opinion on anything ever

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I didn't provide a solution.
There's a much better approach anyhow - enforce strict controls and rules on our data that companies and governments collect and retain.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

>How much is your hypocracy worth to you, and how much does other peoples hypocracy cost you.

Amen! We must see to it that government by the hippos, for the hippos shal not perish from the earth!

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

I have to wonder... by accepting the Google cookie on a website that runs analytics have you now accepted the new all-services privacy policy?

My understanding is that the new policy goes into effect on March 1, and that any usage of Google's services after that date constitutes acceptance of the policy. However, I don't think visiting a site using Google analytics would constitute you using Google services.

Per the Google Analytics privacy policy (http://www.google.com/intl/en/analytics/privacyoverview.html), the uses that Google can make of the data collected by Google Analytics are controlled by the owners of the sites you visit. So, essentially, if the sites you visit choose to share their data with Google, then Google can use it. If they don't, Google can't, even if Google Analytics is collecting data on behalf of the site.

BUT, if you don't want that, you can also opt out of Google Analytics. In that case, your visits will not be tracked by Google at all, and won't be part of the Analytics information given to the site you visited. Of course, the site may still track you with other tracking services or through its own logs.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[kelemvor4]

Well, my boss knows my political position (welcome to our wonderful world of politicial influence in pretty much any place that is remotely touching administration), he knows my medical problems (after all, he's the guy who has to sign my sick days), where I live (because he needs a place to send my mail to) and as far as I can tell, he doesn't give half a shit if I enjoy sucking off goats as long as I do my job.

That doesn't mean that I enjoy some random company having any data of me. Hence I usually give them more data than they want. Poison the cache with random data and let's see how they find out how they match up.

Sure, but if another company found out that your employer knowingly employs a guy who has methadone treatments on thursdays and sucks off goats on the weekends it could end up costing you your job due to potential bad PR.
IMO all that information isn't particularly interesting or meaningful by its-self but once you tie it all together, it can be a different story.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[GameboyRMH]

a mild strain injury to my right wrist/hand (from DIY).

Try getting someone else to do it, perhaps hire a professional if you don't have a friend who would be willing to help. Or at least be more gentle :-P

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

My friends and I had a "dress like Coby night." Coby being a friend that wears big emo glasses, bow ties, and suits. Facebook had a field day with the pictures from that night :)

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you stop posting on every Google story? You don't have to defend Google's honor. You've mentioned the opt-out thing on several posts already. Why does it have to be opt out? What's even worse, it requires you to be logged in!

It's sad that by being a Google employee you don't seem to be able to think by yourself anymore. No, I will not use any Google service every again. And I will make sure those around me know why.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[elfprince13]

I don't do anything to try and fool Google, but the last time I looked at the data they provided in my advertising preferences, they thought I was 35 years older than I am, based on my political and research interests. My algorithms professor who pointed me to the appropriate page also mentioned that Google can't even figure out her gender, so evidently their servers are just as susceptible to stereotypes to about who goes into computer science as us humans are. But if I really wanted to mess with them, my girlfriend and I could easily do so if we weren't so compulsive about logging in/out when browsing on each other's computers - the way we did to Netflix (recommends The Sarah Connor Chronicles, "Kourtney and Khloe take Miami", and the PBS Redwall series).

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, right, the same hacks that the Chinese government did to.. what was it, 40 other Fortune 500 companies? And Google was the one that caught it and told those other companies that they'd been hacked. You know about the GMail SRE that had access to ... GMail data. Of the hundreds of SREs that Google surely has, there's one that was a complete fucking idiot. There may be more. Identifying those and getting rid of them in as public a fashion as possible would be in everyone's best interest, surely.

However, who are you going to trust with your data, then? Your ISP? 'Comcast security breach' shows a bunch of results. Yahoo or Microsoft? They got pwned by the same Chinese effort that Google did (Microsoft lied about it). Etc.

I'm not saying you should trust you data to Google or anyone else, I'm just saying that I think Google is one of the safer places to trust it to. And if you don't want to give them data, then create an account with fake info, log in, turn off all the tracking they do, and stay logged in. You might even be able to do it without logging in, I'm not sure - I know Ads Preferences uses cookies instead of data associated with your login identity. No idea on the other services. After logging in and opting out of everything, you're down to basically trusting that they're not stupid and saying you're opted out but yet still intentionally tracking everything you do. If they do that, then the entire company deserves to go down in flames.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. He's obviously talking about government by syringes.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

Will you stop posting on every Google story?

Why? Because my posts make it harder for people to spread misinformation?

You've mentioned the opt-out thing on several posts already.

It's something that not many people seem to know about, and it's important, so I like to tell people about it whenever I get a chance.

Why does it have to be opt out?

Actually it's all opt in. You opt in by using Google's services. Unlike some of the competition, Google provides you a way to use their services and opt out of the part of the services that involve collecting information to personalize your experience.

being a Google employee you don't seem to be able to think by yourself anymore.

You have no basis for this assertion. If you think anything I've said is wrong, or illogical, by all means feel free to call me on it.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Anyone who remembers the J. Edgar Hoover era and the HUAC hearings doesn't have a problem understanding this.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the government puts a gun to googles head, with the hammer back and a bullet in the chamber and says "Gives us the data- we need it to ensure that every man, woman and child has an ID chip to be inserted in their body so we can control them" You're willing to help them?

You realize the dangerous, slippery slope of evil this can lead to? Hint: 2000 years ago the bible describes the "Mark of the beast" in detail- the ID chip works exactly as the bible described. Why would you risk such a foolish action by going "meh"?

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[EdIII]

I am unsure as to what you are saying.

Not once have I ever advocated compromising one's own principles in the face of mounting resistance and consequences. Indeed, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, they were not yours to begin with. I would say that is itself a measurement of faith and ethics.
i
In the case of privacy though it would seem prudent to not give up your privacy in totality, given the inherent dangers.

All I really said was that the inherent dangers are not influenced by your beliefs, and exist outside of them. If somebody's philosophy inclined them to be as open as possible with all information regardless of danger, I can certainly respect that. Even admire it since it is a commitment to that philosophy.

Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of conscience sometimes have to be fought for.

I absolutely agree. My own fight is protecting my own privacy and anonymity by as much force as possible, the laws be damned. To that end I practice civil disobedience with every aspect of government and corporations. My drivers license is incorrect, and indeed, all government databases on me have conflicting and false information. I have over a thousand online aliases I keep track of in a database, and extensive use and involvement in proxies and onion routing technologies.

The day they outlaw encryption and onion routing technologies will be the day I appear in a criminal court. Proudly, to serve my fellow citizens in the best way I know how.

I absolutely believe, in the strongest possible terms, that the three greatest defenses that citizens have are:

1) Anonymity.
2) Privacy.
3) A loaded weapon ready to go.

When all three are widely deployed, the correct order is maintained. Specifically, the government is afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government. In simpler terms, the people that make up the government will have a much harder time accomplishing any agenda that would abridge our freedoms when they lack the tools to do so.

Which is why I bring up history so often. It really is the greatest teacher.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[swillden]

The opt-outs settings are stored in cookies, so you don't need to be logged in to opt out. The easiest way is to use Chrome and install the "Keep My Opt Outs" extension. It'll make sure the opt-out cookies are never removed.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think I'm going to let those Google creeps install any cookie on my browser you are delusional. My firewall blocks all Google owned IP addresses and I have no intention of changing that. Take your privacy invading products and shove them up your ass.

--
Google: Creepy, arrogant and hypocritical assholes.

Re:Just Might Take Them Up On It

[Opportunist]

Active effort... well, it takes a bit of time to write a program that picks random words from a dictionary, puts them into Google, follows one of the first x random links and keeps following the linked pages. Rinse repeat a few billion times (or a few seconds, depending on what comes first) and your browser history is quite worthless.

Eric Says

[vencs]

If you dont want to sell your private data, may be you should not be storing it (with us) in the first place.

Google Highjump into Shallow End

[bky1701]

Alright, when I heard about the privacy policy changes, I thought "oh, well, not like they will really be doing anything new." Yet almost instantly afterwards, we see two attempts on Google's part to grab even more data. The first question that comes to mind is why they want it so badly. If they are ready to pay you for browsing history, this is not simply about getting ad clicks from you personally. I doubt they would ever recoup the money they spent from whatever slight improvement in ad targeting they would get. No, something deeper is at work, and as someone essentially locked into gmail, I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[noh8rz2]

dupe story? from earlier this day? http://search.slashdot.org/story/12/02/09/1857220/online-privacy-worth-less-than-marshmallow-fluff-six-pack

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[InterGuru]

"and as someone essentially locked into gmail"

Non techie solution, do your searches on Bing. Also, use a separate dedicated browser for Facebook ( I use Opera ). Of course assume that anything you put on the net is public.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[drolli]

well. i use google maps, search and google+. However my homepage and email are with a paid for provider under a jurisdiction i approve of.

The point is: googles business in understanding what you look for to provide you with the best advertisements possible.

The combination: "he agreed to meet casually with a group of friends (google+) at x after searching (google search) for y and while going there (google maps) he paid something at shop z (via NFC for example) and checked in at time t and while he was waiting he searched for s." is very valuable to google.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[tapspace]

I've already deleted my facebook. I'm scrambling to figure a way to ditch gmail right now (since the privacy policy changes). Don't use bing as InterGuru suggests, but rather https://ssl.scroogle.org/ or startingpage.com

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[swillden]

I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[Anonymous Coward]

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

All you have to do to "opt out" of Google tracking is ... keep a Google tracking cookie on you everywhere you go.

When it comes to security of Google's own, internal information they go to great lengths to limit who can access it because they know they cannot rely on contractually-enforced trust of their own employees but when it comes to security of your information they insist that you rely on no-contract-whatsoever trust of Google.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[swillden]

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

All you have to do to "opt out" of Google tracking is ... keep a Google tracking cookie on you everywhere you go.

Well, yes. There has to be some way for Google's systems to know that they should not log or aggregate information about your requests.

When it comes to security of Google's own, internal information they go to great lengths to limit who can access it because they know they cannot rely on contractually-enforced trust of their own employees but when it comes to security of your information they insist that you rely on no-contract-whatsoever trust of Google.

The privacy policy is an enforceable contract, I believe (IANAL).

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already deleted my facebook.

Are you sure? As far as I can tell, "deactivating" the account just logs you out and ticks a flag to remove you from the pool of "active" accounts. You can log back in anytime like nothing ever happened.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[Anonymous Coward]

It's way simpler to use NoScript combined with alternative services (DDG for search, OSM for maps) and not let the Google creeps know anything about you.

Fuck Google and the hypocrites who run the company.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[swillden]

It's way simpler to use NoScript combined with alternative services (DDG for search, OSM for maps)

Simpler? That's a matter of perspective, I suppose. But you're certainly free to do that as well.

Re:Google Highjump into Shallow End

[datsa]

It's a publicly held company, and they had a bad quarter, so the shareholders/board is on their ass to increase revenue using their existing assets (user data).

If sex is the most common thing searched for...

[Anonymous Coward]

... does this mean Google is going to build the world's largest known Kama Sutra?

Funny info

[bryan1945]

How about I set this up with one of my old (read, mostly fake) accounts on an old computer, and occasionally use that computer to go to lolcatz, loldogz, Engrish, Cracked, Slashdot, and ESPN, and never use my email or anything else on that computer? Think that would get flagged by this service? Or maybe all types of ultra-religious type sites?
Any other funky suggestions to play with Google's head?
(Not that I would do this, it would take too much time)

Speaking as an "expert" in Faust...

[MrEricSir]

Speaking as someone who took a class about the myth of Faust, I can tell you in my expert opinion that my notes and papers from that course were lost when a brownout fried my hard drives. Damn! If only I'd sold my soul to a cloud backup service.

But this sounds more like a modernized, snoopier incarnation of AllAdvantage than a genuine Faustian bargain; particularly because you can quit whenever you want.

Re:Speaking as an "expert" in Faust...

[themusicgod1]

"I can quit google any time I feel like. I'm not addicted at all. In fact I could google 'google rehab' and start on quitting right now."

Re:Speaking as an "expert" in Faust...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even sure Goethe was an 'expert' in Faust

Re:Speaking as an "expert" in Faust...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any Notre Dame alums here? They could tell you all about Faustian bargains.

Re:Speaking as an "expert" in Faust...

[Johann Lau]

particularly because you can quit whenever you want.

Nope. "Quitting" in this case would mean getting your data back, not just stopping to give them more. So, you cannot quit. That's why you get 100 bucks for signup and 20 a month, instead of the other way around ;)

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled.... was to grin right in your face and make jokes about being the devil. Everybody laughed, relieved, and sold their soul without hesitation. The End.

Strategic move

[hcs_$reboot]

After all the buzz made around the coming merge of private data indexes, that new offer - get money from Google in exchange of your websites visits information - is a way to show users that, actually, and unless you request it, Google is not inspecting your web searches. This is a reassuring move.

Re:Strategic move

[Johann Lau]

LOL??? What you search for on Google, and what other websites you visit -- or even, simply what network traffic you generate, all of it -- are not exactly the same thing.

Also, how does Google stating everything you do on their sites is tracked like forever, mean that they are "not" doing that, and how stupid and/or paid do people have to be to mod that nonsense up??

A WHOLE $5 every 3 months?

[scottbomb]

Wow! That's like, FIVE WHOLE CENTS A DAY!

Tell Google to get bent. When they're offering $25/mo, we'll talk.

Re:A WHOLE $5 every 3 months?

[bill_mcgonigle]

When they're offering $25/mo, we'll talk.

I bet when they're buying millions of DSL lines in bulk, they'll get a much better price than $25.

You do want a free Internet connection, don't you?

Make a better one

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be a way to make a competitive product that has as its core sales pitch the very opposite of the model we are experiencing now. Ads on pages to pay the way but nothing too cluttered and certainly not targetted beyond the basic deomgraphics of your community. Could you resist the huge offers from the marketers for the psychographics so easily within reach...? Just make a little change here or there to your privacy policy, just a few... Interesting problem.

25$ for gigabytes of In Soviet Russia jokes?

[ackthpt]

In Soviet Russia IIIII'm the CAAAT!

Re:25$ for gigabytes of In Soviet Russia jokes?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Soviet Quantum Laboratory, ... RAAAT!

I'm not saying 50% died cat or 50% still living cat, but yes my pointing scene of TO BE 50% CAT or 50% RAT, all depends of the results after of estimating the statistical evaluations regarding their cellular processes.

In QM, $100'000 is an infinitesimal measurement value that is 99.9999% statistically undetectable respecting to the current relative totality of the current U.S. debt of >$13'000'000'000'000.00

Also, there are superpositions, yes, almost of them maybe illegal as the illegality of the foreclosurement mortages conflicts of the House Booooom in U.S.

In one side, money, in the another side, digital space <-- both curves shouldn't be co-parallel, otherwise, it's very stupid (e.g. should be $2.5 for Terabytes in year 2013).

JCPM: the sr. Smith should sorry himself due to its failure of not considerating the study of Quantum Mechanics that he modelled only its Classical Physics: QM proves that he failed to "detect" all penny in the totality of its accountability.

Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

Please extract blood and DNA sample. Hello Mr Smith. Amazon has a selection of gay and goat porn that might interest you. If these selections are in error please hit the "escapee" key and select your sexual preference. This week we have a selection of Asian bisexual gang bang videos available. If you would like to select from another area of interest please click on the Harry Potter tab below.

So don't use Google services

[Animats]

I don't use Google services, except occasionally as a developer. I'm only logged in when I'm doing development uploads to Chrome add-ons. (And that's a port of something I have for Mozilla). Mail is handled by my own web sites, filtered by Spam Assassin, retrieved with IMAP, and filed in Thunderbird. Open source code is on Sourceforge. Backups are on a paid service. Videos are on blip.tv. Documents and spreadsheets are in Open Office/Libre Office. 3D work is in Autodesk Inventor or Blender. I have Facebook and LinkedIn accounts for social networking. I used to use Google Voice for an SMS project, but Google's connection to the phone network (which is through a weird third party provider) had trouble telling which numbers could send and receive SMS, and I switched that project to Twilio.

Google has a nice search engine, but I don't see any need to use any of their other services targeted to individuals.

Re:So don't use Google services

[priyaaa]

I am fully addicted to google. I use all the products of google and integrate them to get most out of it. However, now i feel like my privacy is lost in some way.

Re:So don't use Google services

[Karljohan]

I used to use Google services for most things, however my experience from earlier IT moves (dot com crash, "free life time" email addresses, etc) forced me to anticipate a speedy change of climate so I'm prepared and remove most data from their services at the moment.

Re:So don't use Google services

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds very reasonable but I suspect a lot of normal users will just continue using services that erode their privacy on a daily basis. I stopped using Android devices when Andy Rubin started acting like a hypocrite, cancelled my G+ account when Vic Gundotra started alienating users with his moronic Real Names policy and stopped using the remaining ones when David Drummond rolled out the new privacy policy.

If more and more people start using alternatives maybe they will get the message.

--
I value my privacy so I never use any Google service or product. Say NO to the Google creeps.

Re:So don't use Google services

[swillden]

I am fully addicted to google. I use all the products of google and integrate them to get most out of it. However, now i feel like my privacy is lost in some way.

Google provides tools that allow you to see and control what Google stores about you, and to opt out of tracking and ad personalization.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

Re:So don't use Google services

[Johann Lau]

Okay, now that is kinda sweet. Google is my recent pet hate, but this alleviates that somewhat.

Re:So don't use Google services

[swillden]

Google really doesn't want to track you against your will. Google's theory is that with personalization Google can help you find what you want -- including what you want to buy -- so much better than without it, that you'll want Google to know as much as possible about you so it can be as helpful as possible to you. But if you don't like that deal, Google doesn't want to force it on you.

Re:So don't use Google services

[Johann Lau]

Well, I prefer learning how the search algorithms work. After a while you simple get good at constructing successful queries. To use the example google touted: when I want to search for golf, the car, I enter "golf car", otherwise "golf sports". well, I might just do "golf" first and then refine. And I like it that way. I don't need hand holding, and I don't need to be fed stuff I already know. The basic assumption of Google now is that it's for dumb fucks. Because for you, a harness is as good as an adult, which is the general corporate/autocratic disease. I say fuck that model and the whores it's riding on.

The usefulness of such stuff is completely overshadowed by the fail of it. That google lives and dies by advertisement is not a theory, that's a fact. And to date google didn't even manage to show me a single ad that actually interested me. In like a decade! No, that's hopeless. Google should go back to making a decent search engine. Collect information about public documents and leave the rest to the people who know what they're doing. You don't know it better than them, you're just drunk.

Consider a library, and the librarian: "Hello good sir, here's some books that might interest you!!!! :D" "*glares* Fuck that! I came here knowing what I want, stop trying to hinder my progress you fucking leech, gimme a card and tell me to be quiet, that's all I want of you, you evil fucking bitch". Hmm sorry, zoned out there for a sec.

Re:So don't use Google services

[swillden]

The basic assumption of Google now is that it's for dumb fucks.

The basic assumption of Google is that it's for everyone. The fact is that most users don't know how to tweak their query arguments to get the answer they want -- not because they're dumb but because they're not geeks. Users misspell things, use the wrong terms, etc. Google's goal is to help them find what they're looking for, even when they screw up.

There's no doubt that as the web has changed from a geek playground to something that absolutely everyone uses, and as Google has changed to accommodate that, that the geek experience has in many ways degraded. For example, I don't like it when Google Search "corrects" my spelling -- because it's nearly always wrong, and I nearly always meant what I wrote. But the fact is that most queries contain misspelled words. That's not a guess, Google has mountains of data to prove it.

In theory, at least, your complaint can be addressed by more personalization. I expect that at some point in the future Google will realize I know how to spell and stop trying to correct my spelling, for example.

And to date google didn't even manage to show me a single ad that actually interested me. In like a decade!

Yep, Google fully understands that ad personalization isn't where it should be. The goal is that not only should Google show you ads that interest you, it should show you only ads that interest you. Any ad you see that you don't click on is a failure on Google's part -- which means that Google fails nearly all of the time. It succeeds more than anyone else does, which is why it makes so much money, but that doesn't mean anyone at Google thinks the current situation is good enough.

Consider a library, and the librarian: "Hello good sir, here's some books that might interest you!!!!

When I was a kid, the local librarian did that. I spent enough time in the library that she knew what authors I liked to read and always let me know when a new book came in that I'd want -- and she was almost always right. The library also posted a list of new books that arrived, broken down by category. That list was also very successful, IMO, because although most of what it contained was uninteresting to me, it was unobtrusive, not in my face.

That library did on a very tiny scale, the same job that Google is trying to do. The librarian's recommendations were in my face and would have been annoying if they were wrong... but they were right. The list's recommendations were usually wrong, but still useful at highlighting a variety of things I might like when I chose to look. And, of course, the library as a whole was searchable and browseable.

Anyway, my main point is that this is Google's theory, that given enough data and sufficiently powerful analytics, Google can make it easier for you to find and use the information you need, including information about products you might want to buy. Google's official mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". That's a crazy-ambitious goal, but Google is serious about it, and has recognized that the sheer volume of information means that making it accessible and useful requires figuring out what people are interested in.

But, if you don't like personalization, you're free to opt out and Google won't try to help you in that way.

Re:So don't use Google services

[Johann Lau]

Google's official mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". That's a crazy-ambitious goal, but Google is serious about it, and has recognized that the sheer volume of information means that making it accessible and useful requires figuring out what people are interested in.

Then why not find new ways to tag information, instead of your the users looking for the information? Not that I claim those two exclude each other, but still.... nice try.

Google, like others, wants to be the middleman, the plate on which the information is presented. And unless it doesn't want to let 99% of the staff go, they also want to sell ads. Which is why they want to be the plate -- it's more or less all they have. Being the middleman for the information is like being the one you go to for air. There needs to be an open source peer to peer search engines or whatever, everything else is bollocks. Let people pay for the resources, and let them own them. And let Google contribute to those standards, if they're not just talking the talk. Now that'd be something.

In theory, at least, your complaint can be addressed by more personalization. I expect that at some point in the future Google will realize I know how to spell and stop trying to correct my spelling, for example.

If I never use personalized results, why does Google feed my behaviour into its algorithms? It's no use for those using them for personalized results. It's however sellable, anonymous or not.

All that "Google loves you" shit is getting creepy, too... Google should spend more money on hookers and less on brain farts.

Re:So don't use Google services

[swillden]

Then why not find new ways to tag information, instead of your the users looking for the information? Not that I claim those two exclude each other, but still.... nice try.

Lots of that is going on as well.

But no matter how well you can describe and classify the information, that only addresses one side of the problem -- and not the hardest one, frankly. Google became popular not because it had a great web crawler but because the PageRank algorithm allowed it to do a better job of figuring out which parts of that were relevant to the user. Now, with orders of magnitude more information out there, relevance is vastly harder to obtain.

There needs to be an open source peer to peer search engines or whatever, everything else is bollocks.

I don't see how that could work, but it would be really cool.

If I never use personalized results, why does Google feed my behaviour into its algorithms?

If you've never used the results, that just means Google isn't making the results good enough yet.

It's however sellable, anonymous or not.

But Google doesn't sell it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just offering up what I see from my perspective.

All that "Google loves you" shit is getting creepy, too

Not sure what you're referring to there. Maybe something from the TV ads? I don't watch TV, so I don't know anything about that beyond that there are some TV ads.

Information is worth money-why am I not being paid

[Anonymous Coward]

Information is worth money - so why am I not being paid?

That is one thought, but I don't think it is not the cornerstone of the issue. Where I see the problem is the we have digital goods that are being given away and resold by every Tom, Dick and Harry. If my information is worth something to someone, then it should be protected and I should have the ability to protect it. Where is my protection? Almost every contract I see seems to base the concept of privacy as: We can take your information, share it with our subsiduaries (whom may have no rules in place for privacy, but is allowed according to contract), whom in turn may sell it on if they believe it is worth something.

What I think is needed is new laws to protect the people against companies fleecing information being from us. For example, to purchace a phone on a plan, I was being asked (on top of 3 pieces of idenification, one of which MUST be a credit card):
Where I work
When I work
How long have I worked there
Where I live
How long I've lived there
etc. etc.

They didn't need this information. Honestly it felt like someone fishing for information as to when is the best time to rob my house. All they need is my basic details to confirm my identity, and banking details to confirm I can pay. Same for collection agencies - they don't need to verify my idenity to tell me a bill is late - only to process a payment on the spot or to give me further details. Instead they try their hardest to get me to give them my birthdate etc., when I did not call them and the burden of proof is upon them to verify their idenity. Why? Then only reason I can assume is to sell this information off. It is not the company that I owe money to calling me, it is a company HIRED by them to call/collect. Since I have no contract with the collection agency, is there any law to stop them selling this information?

To my knowledge, there is not.

And their should be.

Don't steal

[eminencja]

I wonder if EU will make a rant about it. There is a saying -- don't steal, government hates competition. Governments would happily extend their monopoly to data retention.

Hrmmm

[inode_buddha]

Sounds like a *great* way to screw over enemies and politicians. figure out how to Install this on their boxes and collect the money. Get some lulz while yer at it.

Erm....

[Loki_666]

Just use false data if it bothers you.

The only problem is, consistency of false data, otherwise google will note the mismatched data and realise you are telling porkies.

Re:Erm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Their gonna want their "Screenwise Data Collector back" and you your $1.66 a month.

I find it easier to tell the truth, as it's harder to keep a lie.

Re:Erm....

[Devout2]

1.5 billion Chinese plus 0.5 billion of them online equals equals 2 billions of chineses that could be using this google service, despite the fact that chineses use baidu as their search engine! F*ck Yeah!

get rich quick...

[mitashki]

I see a new marketing niche emerging - Big G Snoop devices for sale to the [AnyCountry] mob organization.

Seen on a truck once...

[Hognoxious]

Gas, gash or cache - nobody rides for free

Re:Seen on a truck once...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, truckers may not be the best educated lot, but I think they can spell "cash".

Google Offering Cash For Sheeeple Cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed it.

Re:Seen on your hirsute mom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass, gash, or 'stache -- everybody rides for free.

It's called NoScript

[Jane Q. Public]

And you just don't allow Google Analytics. And similar scripts.

And of course, it also means you don't use Google+ (which they have already stated is an "identity service", and any social networking benefits are just "bait"... I'm just quoting Google themselves).

Or Gmail, which is also scanned for content. Or...

Basically it means that if you don't want everything available you scanned and analyzed, you just don't use Google's services. Period. Heck, I don't even use Google search except through an open router.

Most safeguarding of your information is ridiculously easy, if you simply don't use the services of those who would exploit it. Relying on their "de-personalization" of the data is foolish: we have already seen by intentional (and otherwise) data dumps, just how much "personal" information can be derived from this "depersonalized" data. Lots of things you don't want other people to know. AND... things which are none of Law Enforcement's business, even if... especially if... you are innocent.

Re:It's called NoScript

[zakkie]

I'm busy backing out of all Google services now. I've stripped AdSense and Analytics from my site, and I will remove my Google+ account and delete my gmail one too. Google may not yet be evil, but they look and smell rotten from here.

Re:It's called NoScript

[Devout2]

NoScript is far too invasive; better use AdBlock and Ghostery with web bug blocking on, and perhaps even cookie blocking on (and add sites like slashdot to the exceptions of cookie blocking)
As for the flash cookies use something like BetterPrivacy to clean them all every few hours or every time the browser starts/closes.

Re:It's called NoScript

[yahwotqa]

With cookies, it's better to allow them for current session only(!) than to block it. That way you do not end up on any "blocks cookies" list, and if they're doing cookie-based user profiling, they'll get new user profile everytime you visit.

Note that this doesn't work well if you leave your browser running for days without restart.

Re:It's called NoScript

[swillden]

Another option is to use the tools Google provides to opt out of tracking and personalization and to view and delete data stored about you. http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

Re:It's called NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Which requires you to be logged in. Nice try, arrogant Google asshole.

Re:It's called NoScript

[Johann Lau]

uhm, yeah, and, so what? of course you have to be logged in to see the information they have on the accounts you created there.

Re:It's called NoScript

[swillden]

Which requires you to be logged in. Nice try, arrogant Google asshole.

No, it doesn't.

Opt-outs are stored in a cookie, so Google gets them even when you're not logged in. Now, that cookie can get lost in lots of different ways, so Google also provides a Chrome plugin called "keep my opt-outs" which ensures that your opt-out cookie is always replaced whenever it is deleted.

Re:It's called NoScript

[swillden]

As I pointed out to the AC, you don't actually have to be logged in. Opt-outs are specified by a persistent browser cookie. For cases where it's not persistent enough you can install a Chrome extension which makes sure it never gets removed.

Re:It's called NoScript

[Devout2]

Yeah but Ghostery, if cookie blocking is on it tends to only block the tracking cookies, just like if its Web bug blocking is on it only blocks all the scripts like Google Adsense and DoubleClick.
I wouldn't know though I'm no longer browsing the web like a nerd(no add ons).

Re:It's called NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but you do have to be logged in to see the part of that dashboard with stuff related to your accounts: that info is there and linked to the account anyway, the only way to not show it to random strangers, much less deleting stuff, is to require a login, and it doesn't apply to people who never made accounts with Google to begin with. So, uhm ^^ I'm all for saying "nice try, google asshole", generally, but not this time :D

This will probably kill a few startups...

[rwhiffen]

This move will probably kill a few startups, or at least force them to alter their strategy. There are a few out there who were trying to allow users monetize their private information in some form and give you the opt-in/opt-out ability in a centralized fashion (kind of like the apps settings page in Facebook). They all face the same problem of critical mass for adoption and their problem just got harder. Why would you bother with a www.personal.com (which has a neat app) or anything like that if you're already a google.com account holder in some form (and between gmail, google/android and YouTube, who isn't?) and could get paid in real cash instead of free services. Like the saying goes, If you're not paying for it, the product they're selling is you.

It'll be interesting to see what the next step is in this. What if you could increase your payout by allowing 3rd parties access to your usage profile? Say an advertising agency or consumer research agency? Instead of a virtual wallet it could become your virtual dossier. Link your gym membership and your grocery store loyalty card to your virtual dossier and you have a treasure trove of information that could actually be cashed in on. We currently give that information away for free email or other web services online and for slightly lower shopping prices with the store loyalty cards. This would give you a single entity to deal with who could aggregate and allow you to profit from all of this consumer data. That's the 'hugs and lollipops' vision. The sinister vision (which is probably more likely) is one where companies only target the high profit potential consumers and marginalize everyone else. The have/have-not divide would widen.

Why am I not asleep again?

no fucking way!

[FudRucker]

i bet if they looked at everything, the content of the cache, the names of the files i bet they could find info that ties it all to my IP address which means they could figure out who i am and start targeting me with advertising and prejudiced pricing according to my demographic and income., fuck google they can go to hell, along with amazon, and every goddamn online retailer on the internets.

be careful about what you agree with, the devil is in the details

I'm comfortable with MY machine know tons about me

[Omnifarious]

But I'm not so comfortable with Google knowing that much about me. We need cheap home servers that are always Internet connected and relatively secure, and the software to allow us to make use of them. This stuff shouldn't be sitting on Google's servers, it should be on our own.

Head in the cloud

[gmuslera]

I would like that you carry a portable device that is aware about you and your environment, that don't just could know i.e. your gps position or the speed at which you are walking, but everything that is around that could interest you, ready to point that out, inform more about it, or do something to eventually retrieve it later,like saving video/photos/sounds. Cellphones are going in that direction, even if are still far, at the very least can't yet include the needed intelligence, base data and storage, so must go to the cloud for what can do about that still.

In a sci-fi world, that would connect with Multivac,keep the data there, and let that sentient computer do what is better for you. But in this one, this is going to Google, and if well that would not be as bad as going to Apple, Microsoft, Facebook or one or several US government agencies (no matter of which country you are citizen), is still a company that must do what is profitable, and that is still under the laws of a country not exactly respectful about people privacy (and that could put in jail tourists because they repeated a tv joke)

So no, even if we trust that their intentions are the best, we can't trust in governments that them must obey.

Already Sold It

[retroworks]

The credit card industry has been doing this for decades. Every purchase we make at stores, travel, online purchases, creates a crude profile of who we are as purchasers. The credit card industry sells this info every day. And there are other examples you could also label "Faustian Bargains".. if I accept the premise that personal information about me is my "soul". Still, at least we could cheat this devil. We just need a program that runs silently in the background, in a back tab of our browser, which randomly looks up anything we might or might not be interested in, to "pollute the cache" or camouflage it. That's something I can do with google but cannot do to my credit card company.

Re:Already Sold It

[Anonymous Coward]

cash. it just works.

No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

They only pay you $25 the first year, $20 every year after. That isn't worth the potential trouble.

Re:property of that individual

[TaoPhoenix]

Actually, that would work pretty well, but it will never happen.

"Your private information is copyrighted to you, subject to the penalties of the copyright laws if they sell it to all their ad partners."

Re:dupe story? from earlier this day?

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes, I'm glad someone finally noticed.

Now we don't even start the fp with "Dupe" anymore. They're getting good page hit value out of their stories now.

Huh?

[olau]

Did anyone actually click through to read the offering from Google? They aren't interested in everyone's data, they are interested in data from some to use for market research and rather than snooping it from all the Chrome users they've got, they are paying for it.

I can understand why someone wouldn't want to sell their browsing habits like this, I'm certainly wouldn't either. But if you've ever been at the other side of the table trying to figure out how to make a web site better for your visitors, you'll know that each individual is completely irrelevant. What you're interested in learning about is what people in general do and why.

Re:Huh?

[spirat]

How would this make a website better? And how would they make my website better? Oh, I know, I have to use their service! And give them data.

If I'm on the other side of the table, either I want to make money and I don't give a shit, or I try to respect my customers and take the minimum I need only if they agree. They make money with it, in other words, they can't be trusted by users. Why? Simply because users are not customers, they use our data to make business.

If like me you hate when people take your data behind your back, you would not use google's service. However they are useful, bing is not an alternative. But don't stop here: use scroogle.org/NoScript plugin/AdBlockPlus plugin/etc. There are a lot of ways to deal with google's bullcrap.

Re:Huh?

[Johann Lau]

The same goes for negative things. Hitler didn't care about the individuals he murdered either, so that helps. No, wait.

business as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

dont see why everyones knickers are in a twist. all the information is already out there and readily available to ANYONE that wants it. why not make a buck? If you think your technology usage is private or secure, your a damn fool.

So ignorant

[SmallFurryCreature]

So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.

The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe". First they came for the people on the list and you did nothing but vote for the tyrant since he offered you a tax cut.

Fight for a better future so that if your data chances hands, it can't make a difference because those involved would go to jail.

Re:So ignorant

[ToadProphet]

So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.

No, and that's a silly example.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reasons why many people and organizations in western countries are uncomfortable with allowing governments to keep data that specifically identifies them. And why many fight for laws to ensure that any data retained is done so in a way that prevents them from identifying the individual in the census. So we do, in fact, refuse to identify the individual as a Jew. Or as a communist. Etc.

The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe".

No, I'm not saying that at all. And I'm not simply talking about tyranny of the state - I'm referring to transient mores and values. What's acceptable today may not be tomorrow. As humans we can adapt to that, but we have yet to determine how to do that in a digital age. Your opinion is recorded and static. The consequences may be relatively minor - don't get a date with someone with opposing views - or they may be much worse. Imagine J. Edgar Hoover with access to all that information, largely supported by a 'pinko-commie' hating public.

Apparently you're also unfamiliar with the concept of tyranny of the majority. For all your bravado, you'll be tilting at windmills trying to prevent that from happening. Or were you fighting the brave fight on behalf of the communists? Or perhaps you're working hard on behalf of the new enemy, Muslims? There's always tyranny, even in the freest of nations, and it's naive to think otherwise.

Re:So ignorant

[Johann Lau]

And what when the kid fell down the well? Everything else being equal, did those lists being accurate give the Nazis more or less power?

You're employing a false dichotomy here, as well as a strawman ("I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe" -- the "as far as you know" being a WTF in and of itself, what is your point with that?)-- what for? Does one need to give up privacy to be able to fight the rise of tyranny? Nope.

First they came for the people on the list and you did nothing but vote for the tyrant since he offered you a tax cut.

Huh? How does paying attention to one thing imply paying less attention to another, everything else being equal?

Re:So ignorant

[tehcyder]

GP's point is entirely valid. If it gets to the stage where you are being victimised for being a Jew, communist or whatever, that is the time for everyoneto start fighting back, not thinking about hiding away and hoping they don't find you.

Re:So ignorant

[osu-neko]

The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power.

Yes, and the defense against thieves is not to lock up your valuables but to prevent people from wanting to steal. Sounds great! Now, until that's actually possible for me, individually to do, the former is still necessary.

Re:So ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you fantasizes about having sex with children? Or you fantasize about murder? Will you 'fight back' against victimization? There's nothing legally wrong with what you're doing, but you'll certainly be ostracized for it. There's plenty of crap in your head that you can be ostracized for, and if you say otherwise you're lying or the dullest bloody person on the planet. Heck, it may not even be in your head, it might be what Google or someone else discerns from your browsing patterns.
I think you missed the GP's point. You don't know what you'll be ostracized or oppressed for tomorrow and you WILL be either on the giving or receiving end of some form of it in the future. In fact I guarantee you're doing it or having it done to you today, but for the most part you can adapt and conform if you need to, and pick your battles otherwise.

Besides, if you're serious about fighting tyranny you must be far too busy fighting it even in your own backyard to have time to post on /.

What are they doing this for?

[mark-t]

What, specifically, are they wanting to find? Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing in my browser cache that would ever be worth a nickel to anybody else unless they are some eccentric dataphile or something.

Re:What are they doing this for?

[Johann Lau]

one futurama episode springs to mind... you know, the people who sniff data? my memory, it fails me. but this being slashdot it surely will ring a bell for someone ^^

Re:Obama!

[Flaming Troll Shill]

WTF? I read about this yesterday on /.






cue jokes re: my UID

thanks, but no thanks.

[Johann Lau]

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

-- Noam Chomsky

Re:thanks, but no thanks.

[eminencja]

Yeah, I've heard that Chomsky is a commie. Thanks for bringing it up.

Re:thanks, but no thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, he's an anarchist actually. But I guess in your usage "commie" is just code for "paying attention", anyway?

value of private information

[Max_W]

People just answered honestly some benign questions from the democratic government's census agents in Europe in 20s (including small questions about a nationality and religion).

Some years later millions of them were eliminated on the basis on these old records.

I trust my machines

[JohnFen]

How much are we comfortable with our machines knowing about us?

I am extremely comfortable with my machines knowing everything there is to know about me. I am absolutely not comfortable with other people's machines (be they Google's servers, my supermarkets servers, or even my friend's laptop) knowing any more about me than is absolutely necessary.

For me, the issue is communications. I trust my machines, but only insofar as I can ensure that they aren't talking to anyone else without me specifically telling them to, and what to say. It's why I don't, and won't use most third party services such as cloud services, email servers, etc. Fortunately I'm a geek as so I can run these things on my own servers and don't have to do without.

Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for "Don't be evil."

Reputation Management - YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's inevitable that your data is going to be stored and used, that's not to say you shouldn't fight it tooth and nail, but many of us living today have been vomiting out our ideas and opinions for years and years. The internet just isn't 'private' anymore and each of us has to realize that if there is something we said ten years ago floating around that it's our responsibility to go find it, claim it, and then hide/expose it. It would be great if service providers would respect content we post as 'private' and it would be awesome if there were a firm legal framework for what an employer could and couldn't use against you because your information was set to 'private' but right now it's still the wild west. Manage your reputation online, think of everything you can Google as your public face and make sure to put some 'walls' in-between this public face and what you want to keep private from the world.

Now if only I could H-bomb that old Xanga blog...