Google Is Bringing Chrome Remote Desktop App To Android

An anonymous reader writes "Google is building a Chrome remote desktop app, which lets you access other computers or another user access your computer over the Internet, for Android. The new addition, called Chromoting, will likely be pushed as a mobile version of the existing Chrome Remote Desktop offering. For those who don't know, the original Chrome Remote Desktop is an extension for Google's browser. It was first released as a beta in October 2011 and could be used to control another one of your own computers as well as a friend's or family member's (usually to help with IT issues)."

Comments

No Chrome for me thanks

[NobleSavage]

I feel dirty using Chrome. It's made by Google and I just assume they are snooping on me. For this reason I stick to Firefox even though Chrome is probably faster.

Re:No Chrome for me thanks

[FPhlyer]

Google owns my digital existence. They read my mail, know every website I visit, record all my voice mails, track who I call and can use GPS to track me to within just a few meters of my location on the planet at any given moment.
Yet somehow Google's services make me feel like they've actually added value to my life. If Google were a government, I'd feel like Winston Smith. ...I try not to think about it.

Re:No Chrome for me thanks

[Seumas]

Yeah, the idea of letting them access my desktop (or even just potentially capture video of my desktop interactions) is fucking gross. It's sad that we're now in a world where this fear is entirely substantiated and not simple paranoia.

Re:No Chrome for me thanks

[Seumas]

I think you are missing the point. This is 2013 and the concern for Google serving you with targeted ads in return for a service has been superseded by the reality that they are essentially a massive data collection service (directly and systematically or indirectly and by coercion -- but let's not act like there aren't nefarious ties to the government, here) for state.

It is 2013 and people *long* for the more carefree days of the past when the biggest security/privacy concern was targeted ads.

Re:No Chrome for me thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, for some time, Slashdot has had a everything-Google-must-be-good bias.

I'm glad that their good-boy image is finally being revised.
Recent events have shown that while Google may not be worse than other companies in the industry, they're certainly not better.

Re:No Chrome for me thanks

[thegarbz]

Which recent events?

Recording unencrypted data on public Wifi? Discontinuing some free services? Complying with DCMA takedown requests? I'm still struggling to see how this puts them on par with anyone else in the industry. I mean there are companies out there who are actively at war against open access, others who will pull the plug on customers at the drop of a dime and NOT offer any opportunity to get at your own data. Some companies buy up and destroy competitors for no reason other than less competition, and I can think of a handful of companies who are far worse than Google in regards to privacy and the products they offer consumers while at the same time charging for the privilege of screwing us over.

So please tell me, just what has Google done that puts them on par with the rest of the industry, because despite everyone being happy that Google supposedly is getting a bad image I have yet to see anything that makes me think that they aren't still the best on the block.

Google's hatred of security and privacy

[Morgaine]

Client-side Javascript is already a security disaster because the unvetted JS code bypasses your perimeter defenses (firewall and proxies) and executes deep inside your privacy domain. And it's not only unvetted code but also unvettable, because it changes with every page.

15 years ago, everyone knew that only the clueless download untrusted 3rd party executable code and run it. Now with JS, all that sensible security advice has been forgotten, and everyone is required to behave clueless with their security. (Software sandboxes are no solution, because all non-trivial software like JS and the browser is riddled with bugs, this is inescapable with large software systems.) Add-ons like NoScript and Ghostery help control it a little, but technically unaware people can't be expected to use them, and more and more websites don't work at all without JS.

And now, Google wants to make it especially easy for remote 3rd parties to access other people's desktops, as if JS didn't make it easy enough already (just ask any security pen-tester). It adds to the already hopeless security in Android, where users are disallowed from blocking the wide access typically demanded by an app on installation. Google doesn't want you to be in control.

The whole Google scene is a security disaster by design. It beats me how a company with so many PhDs can be so cavalier with people's security and hostile to their privacy.

Re:Google's hatred of security and privacy

[fpoling]

It is not the external code that is harmful, it is what external untrusted data could do to your system when you access them is important. Bug in HTML or CSS parser or a layout engine can just as well lead to arbitrary code execution as a bug in JS implementation. As the complexity of HTML/CSS/layout is comparable if not bigger than that of JS engines switching off JS brings you just a false sense of security.

Re:Google's hatred of security and privacy

[thegarbz]

Erm I am running unvetted code all the time. Right now there's gigs of unvetted code in my memory. Heck even your typical linux users will have unvetted code in the form of binary blobs for various drivers, maybe even software packages, not to mention the computer BIOS.

Some how I find it hard to get up in arms about a bit of javascript knowing that it's scope is limited, it is sandboxed, and that it pales in comparison to the security nightmare which is 3rd party applications I am using constantly, most of which have some internet facing element or are riddled with exploitable bugs of their own.

As much as bashing on Google is the in thing to do, the product being discussed is 2 years old, they are just releasing an Android client for it. The world didn't implode when it was released, and I haven't heard of the plugin being exploited in any way either. And users being disallowed from blocking access to Android apps? Well with the 1000s of apps that do the same thing on the market, why not just download the ones with sensible security requirements? When a fart app needs access to my contact list it doesn't get installed, no security risk. And for shit like Angry birds which plays full screen video ads, that's easily defeated by a single keypress which disables data traffic on my phone. I'm unlikely to be browsing the net while playing angry birds anyway.

They are being cavalier with security partially because people don't care, and partially because security problems are usually blown way out of proportion.

Re:Google's hatred of security and privacy

[shikaisi]

You must not be running Google Grass then, every single blade of grass has a sensor and a 3G connection so that, you known instantly who's on your lawn! It even comes with a Google Plus plugin that posts exactly which blades of grass are being stood on.

Thanks for putting me straight. I thought Google Grass was the Japanese language release of their wearable computing product.

Hm

[Shemmie]

Am I the only one who's gone from 'oooo, that's cool!' to 'I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that' with a lot of new technology from 'the big guys' recently?

Google own my life. And by extension, my Government, other Governments, security agencies, and many corporate interests own my life.

I've known this forever (and tried not to think about it too much), but with recent disclosures, it's really brought it all home.

All tech I look at now I'm finally asking "So... what data does that give you access to?". It's taking time to figure out a migration path for all my current solutions, but I'm slowly trying to find a route where I'm in control of my data. I know that this probably makes me an idiot, and those that were always privacy concious can laugh - but meh, it's better late than never to come to this realization that I can't trust any third party. Isn't it?