Slashdot Mirror


EFF Says Google Chromebooks Are Still Spying On Students (softpedia.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Softpedia: In the past two years since a formal complaint was made against Google, not much has changed in the way they handle this. Google still hasn't shed its "bad guy" clothes when it comes to the data it collects on underage students. In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says the company continues to massively collect and store information on children without their consent or their parents'. Not even school administrators fully understand the extent of this operation, the EFF says. According to the latest status report from the EFF, Google is still up to no good, trying to eliminate students privacy without their parents notice or consent and "without a real choice to opt out." This, they say, is done via the Chromebooks Google is selling to schools across the United States.

84 comments

  1. Google watches you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pee.

  2. Why are those responsible not in prison? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I mean, either this is illegal and they should be, or this is perfectly legal, then the complaint has no merit. Which one is it?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect the problem is there isn't anything really illegal about it, it's just unethical from the EFF's point of view.
      Unfortunately for them, ethics is something subjective and large corporations generally don't have.

      All they can do is try and raise outrage on the consumer/government level and hope it's enough to get Google to change.

    2. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by mikael · · Score: 2

      They are putting personal data like names, photographs on social media. That isn't anything different from having year photographs on school noticeboards and yearbooks.. If they were taking live streamed photographs and recording audio that would be a wiretapping crime.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were taking live streamed photographs and recording audio that would be a wiretapping crime.

      You mean it would be illegal if "programs used on these school-issued Chromebooks upload student data to the cloud automatically " ? That is mentioned by the article. The social media and googlemail bullshit with weak and easy to guess passwords is a separate complaint.

    4. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one is only allowed to complain about behaviour which is illegal? That way we'd still have slavery, the fuedal system etc.

    5. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      They are putting personal data like names, photographs on social media. That isn't anything different from having year photographs on school noticeboards and yearbooks.. If they were taking live streamed photographs and recording audio that would be a wiretapping crime.

      Except parents explicitly opt in to allow the photographs to be taken and sign a release for their use. If parents do not sign the release photos are not take. I know of parents with special ed kids who do not allow them to be photographed and the school complies with those wishes. At a minimum, the school is misrepresenting themselves as the student to establish the accounts, which probably violate TOS if not any laws. If enough parents complain to the school board and the head of the local school district this type of crap would stop. I can see this winding up in a lawsuit; especially in a district with affluent parents who know how to work the system.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God's chosen ones.

    7. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are putting personal data like names, photographs on social media. That isn't anything different from having year photographs on school noticeboards and yearbooks.

      Bullshit. First, you don't have to have your picture up on notice boards or yearbooks in school. Second, if you choose to do so, it only appears locally, in the school, not on a global network.

    8. Re: Why are those responsible not in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know of parents with special ed kids who do not allow them to be photographed and the school complies with those wishes" Of course, I bet the school authirities are relieved not to have those mongoloids' ugly mugs on their books. Who wants their institution represented by windowlickers? It's already more than enough they allow those animals to attend lessons along with the Real People's kids.

    9. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is bound to fail. Outrages are short-term things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Why are those responsible not in prison? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No, one is supposed to have laws against this sort of thing. Unless the law has reverted completely to a tool for oppression (the US seems to be fast approaching that state), laws are there to protect citizens against corporations too.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by KennethLyon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems they're contesting that the surveillance Google's operating system is conducting constitutes a non-consensual search. In the context of children being provided a resource that is data-mining their behaviors without their parents mandatory legal consent, it's a very clever point to try and burst that bubble. I think they might should win, too. What Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all doing with their operating systems to survey their users, it might be rightly argued it's crossed into the realm of an unlawful form of surveillance.

    1. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is also the matter of what is done with the information. Is Google seeking to manipulate the choices of children regardless of the psychological harm that causes those children. Peer pressure is the marketing tool of choice, using peer pressure damages children, those who stigmatise others and the victims of that psychological attack, the penalty applied to children for the parents failure to buy the products demanded by adults with degree in marketing and psychological. That would be child abuse upon a mass scale. Even in parents consent to the information being gathered, I strongly doubt they would accept psychologically trained professional adults manipulating children to feed the greed of those adults, with total disregard to the psychological impact upon those children the Goolge's trained professionals are preying upon. Not them alone of course, M$ and now even the ISPs are also looking to psychological prey upon and manipulate children.

      Time for a complete ban on collecting information about minors and targeting them with marketing, a complete across the board ban.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Time for a complete ban on collecting information about minors and targeting them with marketing, a complete across the board ban.

      How about it's time for a complete ban on collecting information about anyone without consent. Make it opt-in. If targeted ads are better and really lead to "an enriched and engaging experience that customers will enjoy interacting with", as all privacy-averse marketing drones claim, then people will opt-in en masse in order not to be stuck with the boring old untargeted ads.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You go to the corner store every Saturday to buy gum. The cashier knows you (and your purchase history) and tells you about a new gum that came out. He just violated your ban.

    4. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You go to the corner store every Saturday to buy gum. The cashier knows you (and your purchase history) and tells you about a new gum that came out. He just violated your ban.

      While I agree such a ban would be unworkable, in the case you described I would think there was an implied consent to collect the information you provided based on the purchase.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Only if he actually wrote down the purchase history. At a glance there is no difference between remembering such data and storing it on paper or electronically, but in practice there's a reasonable limit on what a clerk can remember... and shoppers would be suitably freaked out by a clerk who has perfect recall of each customer's history; it's probably not going to be a big selling point for the store. Another difference is that the clerk's memory cannot be mined or stolen.

      But I am sure some legal eagle can come up with a much better demarcation. No need to quibble over semantics.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re: Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd sing a different tune if your Waffle House wait person was part of the group that considers $1,000 in tips, per shift, to be an average shift.

    7. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems they're contesting that the surveillance Google's operating system is conducting constitutes a non-consensual search. In the context of children being provided a resource that is data-mining their behaviors without their parents mandatory legal consent, it's a very clever point to try and burst that bubble.

      I think they might should win, too. What Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all doing with their operating systems to survey their users, it might be rightly argued it's crossed into the realm of an unlawful form of surveillance.

      That's why I use Facebook, instead. To maintain my privacy.

    8. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      actually for Olde School Customer service its REQUIRED to remember your most common customers. heck there were times when i saw a new item come in and immediately thought of a customer that would want it.

      Patrick Jayne (the mentalist) would be EPIC in customer service.

    9. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for a complete ban on collecting information about minors and targeting them with marketing, a complete across the board ban.

      How about it's time for a complete ban on collecting information about anyone without consent. Make it opt-in. If targeted ads are better and really lead to "an enriched and engaging experience that customers will enjoy interacting with", as all privacy-averse marketing drones claim, then people will opt-in en masse in order not to be stuck with the boring old untargeted ads.

      I wish. Keep on dreaming bro. Marketing drones could improve "an enriched and engaging experience" by shitting diarrhea in a bag, setting it on fire and mailing it to the "customers".

    10. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems they're contesting that the surveillance Google's operating system is conducting constitutes a non-consensual search. In the context of children being provided a resource that is data-mining their behaviors without their parents mandatory legal consent, it's a very clever point to try and burst that bubble.

      The counter to that argument is that the parents consented when they set up the child's account, or if the school set up the account the school administration consented in-loco-parentis (and that the parents gave the school permission to do so when they enrolled...)

    11. Re:Potential to be quite the powerful lawsuit! by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      Actually I would even go a step further, and ban all advertising targeted at children.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
  4. Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a look at Android, it's a very scammy surveillance OS.

    1. Your location is transmitted to Google, together with surrounding wifi settings. They do this with a popup that appears whenever you turn on GPS, it asks you if you want to improve location accuracy, in actuality it's tracking the surrounding wifi spots and matching them against the GPS location your phone records. The dialog is written so you think you need to say yes to get GPS to work, but you can say no and GPS still works.
    It always appears, all the time, until you say yes, and then it doesn't popup again, quietly tracking your location and watching your nearby wifi hotspots.
    You cannot say 'no, never' the dialog will keep pestering.

    2. Google Play Store, if you try to disable or remove this, it will remove every app you installed from the playstore at the same time. Google play store provides Google with your credit card linkage, and real id, to the location and search surveillance it does.

    3. You cannot remove the required google account and keep the apps you installed.

    4. Android now INSISTS on a telephone number for Android device registrations.

    5. Google changes the privacy terms frequently, it popups says "action required" and if you refuse to say yes to whatever privacy invasion they've introduced, the alternate options are to delete your Google account (and uninstall every app you installed, see 2). This is false, you can simply ignore the demand to accept the change of terms.

    6. Did you agree to backup the phone? That pester message that pops up regularly that you can't tell "no never' to? You just gave Google the password to every wifi network and business server you ever used. Compromising a lot of data.

    They present a set of information in a privacy dashboard that is a tiny subset of the information they actually record. All pages visited with Google stats and Google adverts, and Google content served are also known to them and recorded by them. Your Youtube viewing is recorded even when logged out using browser profile id. Same with Google search, it persters you to login, but if you don't they still record the searches you make against the browser id to cross link for when you eventually do login.

    Really, Duckduckgo for search and avoid them like the plague and they'll still have a mass of tracking information on you. You cannot opt out of this, they present it as the price for having an Android device.

    Google are surveillance-ware shit.

    1. Re: Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you recommend instead..

    2. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They completely messed up the Email functionality as well. I added separate E-mail accounts for work, online shopping and personal. Wanted to keep everything deliberately separate. What does Google do? They provide a "combined" view of all Email accounts. That adds another virtual account to the few I have with my ISP. Then they need a separate gmail Email to register the smartphone. So every smartphone has its own private Email on top of all those other accounts.

      Of course they want to collect all the data they can. That's how the Big Data boom is self-sustaining. Collect every possible type of data there is, doesn't matter how its acquired; applications telemetry, sales/marketing analysis or clicks. All that data means big money for the server companies. Extracting useful information from that data is big money for the data mining / machine learning companies. Storing that extracted data is big money for the database companies.

    3. Re: Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re: Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given a choice between google play raiding your data I'd rather use something like apkpure and abandon all apps that use google play services. Save individual apk and using a script with adb install commands to reinstall on upgrade of AOSP/LineageOS based rom. Always store data on an sdcard.

      You can understand why they want to remove sdcards, prevent removal of batteries and make most apps rely on google play services.

    5. Re:Look at Android by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      Rooting, clean room, no GAPPS.
      Use alternative app stores.
      Use global ad blocking.
      Never Google anything.

      That's my suggestion to the problems you pointed out. It has it's drawbacks..

    6. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at Android, it's a very scammy surveillance OS.

      You mean Google Apps, not Android.

    7. Re: Look at Android by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      So what do you recommend instead..

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    8. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is retarded. "Clean ROMs" is an oxymoron. Same goes for alternate app stores. Have you missed all the hundreds of android malware stories? Nobody knows whats in them and there is nobody to hold accountable.

      How about we make spying illegal instead ?

    9. Re: Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOSP or a custom ROM.

    10. Re:Look at Android by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      1. Simply turn GPS off except when needed.

      2. Since when? I run ICS at have disabled the Play Store because an update to Play Services a few months ago began eating 100% CPU, however in the process of isolating this I uninstalled and disabled multiple things including Play Store without issue (other than no app updates, or easy way to install apps without reenabling the store).

      5. Never seen any such thing.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    11. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been a Maemo5/Nokia N900 hanger on for too long.
      I finally got a Nexus 7 (flo)
      I use LineageOS(with root extension) and fDroid repos for software.
      Fdroid has some packages which if they catch up to the current android release will replicate google nav services from onboard openstreetmaps tiles.
      I dont know which webmail to suggest outside of .edu especially since I have unreliable payment I need free so I dont loose my email when pinched for cash for a year or so.
      I am used to firefox and curious what plugins to use with chromium which seems to become the must-have browser for some complicated web stuff like for example the public transit realtime tracker where I live.
      It is filty form a mal-spyware perspective but I use an APK extractor from a friend or APKdownloader and an annon login from the dev to get those creepy gapps only apks for creepy online services like the bus card reader/charger.

    12. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Your location is transmitted to Google, together with surrounding wifi settings.

      By "settings", I think you mean "a scan of nearby wifi networks and cel towers." This data feed builds the map that lets them guess approximate location with wifi and modem chip on but GPS chip off: faster fixes, lower energy, better indoor results. It's hard for me to see how it's so sinister to append 90s "war driving" results compared to the base case of sending your location to them period. It's fairly transparent that sending your location period is happening because they have simple dialogs about it and a "location" button next to airplane mode to temporarily disable it and etc.

      I would be more inclined to complain, for example, that E911 can gather location outside a 911 call, and that cel carriers often hand over location tracks to law enforcement, and there's no way for the user to disable it. Google does give a way to disable it, so for example Paul Revere could disable location when meeting with conspirators: https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

      What's less obvious and more annoying to me:

      1.5 You ask your host for their wifi password. Not wanting to be rude, they give it to you, and you put it into your Android. The Android turns on its GPS chip and finds the location of their house, then sends a ping back to Google over your host's wifi. Google then updates their IP address location map.

      In this case, your host may have no relationship with Google. Your host's wifi was private, secured with a password, and giving the password to you wasn't consent to anything. You aren't aware this is happening so you can warn or protect your host (assuming you are that kind of friend). The overall effect is to take advantage of your lack of control of your own computer and your dismissive attitude about the difference between your host's privacy choices and your own, to coerce your host in a way Google would never get away with doing directly.

      Even if people start understanding (1.5) it will continue to work: people are sympathetic to different choices until those choices cause them the slightest inconvenience, and then they make up excuses and marginalize the other person as a "wing nut" or whatever.

      Suppose the host configured a VPN to appear to be in the UK for DRM market reasons, and configured it at router level so it applied to the wifi. Google will use this map to find the true location of the VPN IP and block UK content to that IP.

      The location of the IP can also be used to turn it into an evercookie even if it's dynamic: you can link an IP yesterday to a different IP today if they have approximately the same location. You only have to track people as they move house, not across each dynamic IP change. Google doesn't do IP-based tracking that other advertisers do so it's a less good example, but the general point is that the difference in accuracy of these proprietary IP-to-location maps companies held before vs. after phones were turned into data collectors has significant consequences to social privacy, so if we believe people make "individual choices" about privacy it's worth looking closely at how that did not happen in this case.

      I think Google is extremely good about respecting privacy choices compared to other corporate surveillance businesses, like other ad networks (panopticlick, IP-based cookie tracking which Google is forbidden to do), Internet carriers (vzw evercookie), retailers (Target!), transportation companies (but mah ter'rism!), and possibly even compared to Apple and Microsoft whose increasingly deep, mandatory, non-transparent data collection gives lie to the "if you aren't paying for the product you are the product" sound-bite. Google doesn't have much to offer someone who cares extremely about privacy because it's not their speciality and acquired talent, but they still follow the principles of using private data to provide useful services (not just snarfing it up

    13. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at Android, it's a very scammy surveillance OS.

      This is just Google in general.

      Never forget -- they are an advertising company, and when you use their services you are the product.

    14. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the Brave browser I can suggest, since it's based on Blink. That makes it a rather close clone of Chrome without the kid-mode GUI and malware. It's also one of the few browsers cross-platform enough to be on both mobile and desktop. Lastly, it's made by a well-known former Mozilla employee who is morally principled (hahaha)

    15. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Nope. GPS doesn't require Internet or wifi. Of course, don't use GPS when you don't need GPS.
      Wifi hotspots, cell towers provide more location data and makes GPS location more accurate - or allow to locate you with no use of GPS at all. But in principle, you can use GPS _only_, even with some Internet enabled app, and cut the Google or cell carrier middlemen out.

    16. Re:Look at Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that cel carriers often hand over location tracks to law enforcement, and there's no way for the user to disable it.

      Sure! I know nothing about E911. But it's well known that with a GSM dumb phone, your location is tracked and it's been my understanding that law enforcement has been using that since before Android phones existed, just like data about use of ATM and paying with debit card.
      The carriers have all the needed data obviously since they're collecting it. Being in a European country that made a computer data privacy law in 1978, I suppose the carrier selling that location data would be a crime. In some random country like the US I don't know, there's such vile stories of selling consumer data to anyone that it might be a possibility. 24/7 data, by default identifiable (heck, showing ID for buying a SIM card seems to be what we've got here), and embarrassingly precise (or accurate. f... you)

      You can go out of your way to find, maintain and operate a phone from 1996 or earlier if you want, it will be the same.
      No need to do anything or run anything, the requirements are that the phone is turned on, and the SIM card is in.
      At worst though, "emergency only" mode with no SIM card installed means you're on a GSM network?

      I do put up with this GSM-only tracking (and call metadata). But that doesn't mean I want to send my wifi and location to Google or other companies. afaik you need to find a job or some occupation to sustain yourself, but never use social media and smart phones.

    17. Re:Look at Android by n329619 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Android, it's a very scammy surveillance OS.

      True. It does have a lot of ops-in.

      1. Your location is transmitted to Google, together with surrounding wifi settings. They do this with a popup that appears whenever you turn on GPS, it asks you if you want to improve location accuracy, in actuality it's tracking the surrounding wifi spots and matching them against the GPS location your phone records. The dialog is written so you think you need to say yes to get GPS to work, but you can say no and GPS still works. It always appears, all the time, until you say yes, and then it doesn't popup again, quietly tracking your location and watching your nearby wifi hotspots. You cannot say 'no, never' the dialog will keep pestering.

      False. Your location is transmitted to Google, but it doesn't stop you from using it without GPS turned on. You can say no. It should be obvious when your location is very off or the app doesn't work.

      2. Google Play Store, if you try to disable or remove this, it will remove every app you installed from the playstore at the same time. Google play store provides Google with your credit card linkage, and real id, to the location and search surveillance it does.

      False. You can disable or remove Google Play Store and it will not remove every app installed from the play store. However, it will very likely break a number of apps depend on the play store and google services behind it. In addition, standalone android apps can be backed up and reinstalled without play store interruption.

      3. You cannot remove the required google account and keep the apps you installed.

      False. You can remove the required google account and keep the apps you installed. However, apps depend on your account may malfunction.

      4. Android now INSISTS on a telephone number for Android device registrations.

      False. Android can be ran without a telephone number.

      5. Google changes the privacy terms frequently, it popups says "action required" and if you refuse to say yes to whatever privacy invasion they've introduced, the alternate options are to delete your Google account (and uninstall every app you installed, see 2). This is false, you can simply ignore the demand to accept the change of terms.

      True. Google and other companies reserve the right to change their ToS. There are one time events that you will get a notification for "action required" on your google account if you created a google account on the android phone. the "action required" is usually associated with account verification, account safety, etc.

      6. Did you agree to backup the phone? That pester message that pops up regularly that you can't tell "no never' to? You just gave Google the password to every wifi network and business server you ever used. Compromising a lot of data.

      They present a set of information in a privacy dashboard that is a tiny subset of the information they actually record. All pages visited with Google stats and Google adverts, and Google content served are also known to them and recorded by them. Your Youtube viewing is recorded even when logged out using browser profile id. Same with Google search, it persters you to login, but if you don't they still record the searches you make against the browser id to cross link for when you eventually do login.

      True. Any information backup-ed to cloud do include compensation on privacy. This includes backup to Microsoft, Apple and Google cloud. Also using google services will have data recorded by google.

      Really, Duckduckgo for search and avoid them like the plague and they'll still have a mass of tracking information on you. You cannot opt out of this, they present it as the price for having an Android device.

      Google are surveillance-ware shit.

      True. but not from the FUD you've stated.

  5. Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We live in the Surveillance Age now. For better or worse we must expect each and every action we make to be recorded and watched. We must expect each and every word to say to be recorded and listened to. We must expect our existence to be constantly observed and analyzed. This will not stop. Ever. There is no way out. Anyone trying to avoid surveillance is automatically marked a "person of interest". You don't want to be on a blacklist, do you? Gotta work to eat.

    1. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This guy is on to us. GET HIM BOYS!

    2. Re:Get used to it by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      You don't want to be on a blacklist, do you?

      Honestly, I wouldn't really mind to unfairly (-> only possible way as far as I am not doing anything wrong) be in a blacklist. Although I am a peaceful person not particularly interested in getting in trouble, I don't think that abusing authority/power should be tolerated via fear. In democratic and law-based countries, civic resistance to official arbitrariness is almost a must. When what is really behind that unfairness is capital, rich people getting richer and wellness/peace of mind of the few (what unfortunately is almost always the case), this is almost a pleasure to me.

      Don't misunderstand my position. I don't despise rich people or any other generic kind of people (although I think that rich people getting richer isn't precisely a top priority for the world). I despise ignorance-driven invasion of others. I despise those seriously thinking that whatever they have/like/expect can be unilaterally imposed to others. A big proportion of rich people have the distorted impression that everyone else want what they have and I do enjoy proving them wrong.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Get used to it by mikael · · Score: 1

      It completely takes the piss when you try and use Visual Studio 2017 IDE, and discover that you have to have an account with Azurre and login before you can actually use the editor or compiler. Even with VMware, the manager connects with their remote server.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Get used to it by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I guess that you mean Community version and that it similar to VS 2015. In that case, you should be able to use it without linking any account for around 1 month; after that, you would have to log-in just once, then you can log-out and it will work forever (or perhaps until the next important upgrade). I didn't use 2015 too much (and much less 2017), but I saw some curious situations like not being able to offline compile some projects which shouldn't require an internet connection.

      I am quite sure that Microsoft collects and will continue collecting lots of info, like all the other companies and I will never defend them for that (or anyone else). I don't think that anyone should be understanding with this kind of data stealing either. I will certainly always agree with anyone trying to minimise the power of corporations/governments and the invasion of privacy. On the other hand, I like Visual Studio and my old version ( 2012) will have to be replaced at some point. I also know that I don't do anything which should be hidden from Microsoft or anyone else. I also know that most of these privacy-info collecting actions are just-in-case resources and that most of this information cannot even be adequately understood. So, I guess that I have a practically concerned position on this front: don't support/like it and will try to minimise its impact as much as possible, but I also take advantage of the associated benefits by being sure that nothing of this is likely to have a direct impact on me.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    5. Re: Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to try to make this about Microsoft instead of Google.

  6. MP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Google has blocked mp3 search. Go ahead, type filetype:mp3 anything and see for yourself.

    1. Re:MP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying searching for honor or integrity. They've either blocked it or they sold it for next to nothing.

    2. Re:MP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just to encourage you to move to lossless formats, try:

      filetype:flac

    3. Re:MP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, it's being blocked too!

    4. Re:MP3 by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Google has blocked mp3 search. Go ahead, type filetype:mp3 anything and see for yourself.

      That is because it would lead you off of google properties, go to youtube and search for ANY song, you'll find it.

    5. Re:MP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEADLINE: Youtube Cash Cow Breaks Google Search

  7. I agree completely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had an old Chromebook I don't use because it was too limited of a device for me personally. I thought about donating it to the local elementary school. Knowing what I know about Google gave me an enormous moral dilemma and I wound up not doing it. I can't subject kids to that level of surveillance. When she's older, I will donate some Pis or whatever is current.

    1. Re:I agree completely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just linux it.

    2. Re: I agree completely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think PIs and the like will still be available or legal in a few years?

  8. looking up idiots delight on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what my dad used to call tv... cease fire stand down,, women &children first,, hand in hand we stand..sing along.. https://www.youtube.com/results?q=news+ny+power&sp=EgIIAg%253D%253D

  9. Google is just a modern, refined Microsoft by discowriter · · Score: 2

    Google used to have a good image in my opinion. Their slogan "Don't be evil" rang true for many people. But Google is just like any other corporation, now: They're all about the money. It's too bad the world and people in it don't reward responsibility and Google is actually just fitting into their stupidity and apathy. That being said, I hope Google suffers horribly for this, especially concerning minors. Then again, if parents are too stupid and lazy to care, to hell with their kids, who are pretty much younger versions of themselves. Screw the children now as if their future selves deserve it. For shame!

  10. Abuse is becoming common. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, Microsoft, and Adobe Systems seem to be competing to see which can be most abusive.

    Don't invent excuses. Those companies are extremely ABUSIVE, in my opinion.

    The U.S. government allows abuse. The rich get whatever they want. The U.S. has a habitual liar for a president. This is the 14th year of continuous war by the U.S. government. War is extremely profitable for some, and extremely expensive for citizens. The U.S. government increases its debt every year.

  11. Choice to opt out by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Don't use Chromebooks. It's as though it's the only option, and it isn't.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  12. But Windows surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a nice reminder of who and what the REAL threat is. Windows 10 data collection is not the problem. Microsoft doesn't define it's existence on profiling and targeting people, but Google does. They have the tools, the means and the incentive to do all this shit. Keep your eyes on the correct ball.

    1. Re:But Windows surveillance by tlambert · · Score: 2

      This is a nice reminder of who and what the REAL threat is. Windows 10 data collection is not the problem. Microsoft doesn't define it's existence on profiling and targeting people, but Google does.

      Microsoft doesn't do it because they can't make a cell phone that people want to buy, to save their lives.

      It's not like they haven't tried, many times, including buying most of a company that was capable of making cell phones, only to have the parts drift through their fingers, like sand at a beach.

      Microsoft would definitely do it if they could work it out, or buy a company that doesn't dissolve as a result of being bought by them.

    2. Re: But Windows surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?

    3. Re: But Windows surveillance by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?

      Not really, no. Sorry.

      Microsoft makes really complete profiles on individual persons.
      Google makes really complete profiles in aggregate for demographic markets.

      Microsoft makes business decisions based on profile data telling them how many people they can reach with a given product.
      Google makes business decisions based on profile data telling them the size of each demographic their advertiser can reach with their product.

      Microsoft makes a lot of products that fail, when they try to do something new.
      Google makes a lot of software and services with the intent of delivering advertising that fail, when they try something new.

      Microsoft makes a lot of money, when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of OS and office productivity products).
      Google makes a lot of money when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of advertising services, search, and mail).

      Microsoft loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
      Google loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.

      Kinda not seeing the difference, Bruno...

  13. It's not spying by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    It is a one-way business relationship in which Alphabet monetizes user data and gets the money, and the people who purchase Chromebooks or use Chrome browser, get the business.

  14. Micro$oft's version of cloud laptop will be no dif by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    That's what you get with cloud computing. No privacy or control.

  15. This is why by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is still busy trying to catch up.. Number of users is no longer the main factor for measuring worth. Instead it's all about how much information you can get from them.

  16. Errrm, yes. ... And? They're friggin' CHROMEBOOKS! by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    They run Chrome OS. Basically an extension of Google into your lap. Like android phones are a extension of Google into your hands and pockets.

    Complaining that Google is observing it's users is like complaining that water is wet. Observing users is Googles freakin business model, that's what they earn money with. That's why you get all the neat stuff including cloud storage basically for free. This is also the reason Google is not another MS or Apple. They are a different league. They don't care what your device costs and which software it runs, as long as you use Google. Plain and simple.

    And because of this, Google could offer services for minors no other company could. Like, for instance, warning parents when the child is communicating with a person that is obviously an unknown middle-aged man posing as a teenager.

    I guess the EFF get's the Captain Obvious Award for stating that Google observes it's users. ... Allthough I do like them basically doing public education on the matter - probably needed in the US I presume.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  17. it isnt googles fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't their fault if the school doesn't read the TOS/AUP/ETC and discuss with the parents.

    And no one can claim ignorance at this point of the game. Everyone does it, especially companies that are based on marketing. It is also a choice, as google is not holding a gun to your head "you will use our product".

  18. Google accounts are used by ITRambo · · Score: 2

    There are no specific examples of what issues the data collection has created. A Google account is required. Anything entered when setting up the account is used to identify the student so if their Chromebook breaks, they can be assigned another one, login, and be up and running rather quickly. Homework is stored in Google's cloud and checked there by the student's teachers. This story seems like FUD being spread to get schools and parents worried about something that should be of no concern, just as Microsoft is releasing their new Windows Cloud Chromebook competitors. The timing may not be coincidental.

    1. Re:Google accounts are used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My position exactly. The specific case outlines in the EFF report shows that the school district was at fault, not Google. According to google's terms of use, the school district is suppose to get parent opt-in or opt-out, and the district did not do that. They opted in on behalf of the students. Everyone loves to hate Google.

    2. Re:Google accounts are used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolutely NO data "needs" to be collected and stored by google for chromebooks or android.. they simply choose to because they love spying and collecting data for fun and profit. the only thing they need to keep track of is actual purchases from the "store" but for the probably 8 in 10 users (if not more) who NEVER BUY A DAMN THING from there (only 'free' stuff), there is nothing google must have for the device to function.

      and for education and business (hell, even household, personal use)... there MUST EXIST an option to NOT sign in, NOT give google a damn bit of data.. and self host a server that holds your data, settings, etc.

  19. Google infects/tracks/slows us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I put a stop to that via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  20. Competition isn't any better by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. Your location is transmitted to Google, together with surrounding wifi settings. They do this with a popup that appears whenever you turn on GPS, it asks you if you want to improve location accuracy, in actuality it's tracking the surrounding wifi spots and matching them against the GPS location your phone records. The dialog is written so you think you need to say yes to get GPS to work, but you can say no and GPS still works.

    You can thank Apple and the government for that. Apple did (does?) exactly this to develop their initial WiFi map data. They rolled out an update which collected location and nearby WiFi SSID data from people's iPhones and uploaded it to Apple, and buried the fact that they were doing it in the iTunes installation process. Once they got this data by using every iPhone owner as an unpaid hotspot locator, they dumped the Skyhook WiFi map they had been licensing.

    Google developed their WiFi map by adding WiFi SSID sniffers to the cars they were driving around the world to take Street View pictures for Google Maps. Someone at the EU claimed they were recording more than just SSID. Google said that was ridiculous, self-audited their collection software, found a developer's setting hadn't been turned off and that they had beent collecting more than just SSID, and self-reported themselves to the EU. The EU and US governments promptly sued and fined them for it. Apple OTOH got off scott free. So Google stopped collecting the WiFi SSID location data collection themselves, and just copied what Apple was doing - lifting the data straight from people's phones.

    2. Google Play Store, if you try to disable or remove this, it will remove every app you installed from the playstore at the same time. Google play store provides Google with your credit card linkage, and real id, to the location and search surveillance it does.

    So maybe they should be like Apple and make it impossible to remove the Play Store?

    At least they give you the option to not use the Google Play Store if you don't want to use it. You can use an alternate store like Amazon. Or if you're really paranoid you can just sideload everything directly from your PC. Good luck doing that with the competitors.

    3. You cannot remove the required google account and keep the apps you installed.

    Well duh. Without the Google account, the apps have no way of knowing if they were installed after being legitimately purchased, or if they were pirated. The Achilles heel of online software distribution is confirmation of licensing. Either Google does it, with the side-effect that removing the Google account disables the apps. Or every app developer out there including the one-person shops has to run, operate, and maintain their own licensing server 24/7/365.

    4. Android now INSISTS on a telephone number for Android device registrations.

    ? My Android tablet didn't. You sure this isn't something the cellular carriers have added to Android phones?

    6. Did you agree to backup the phone? That pester message that pops up regularly that you can't tell "no never' to? You just gave Google the password to every wifi network and business server you ever used. Compromising a lot of data.

    Everyone does this. Google is the only one who lets you see what they've collected on you, and gives you the option to delete it if you wish.

  21. And the Schools keep buying these things. by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 2

    I know they are affordable, but do parents and school boards understand their students' info is being collected and used who knows how?

  22. I Love the EFF, but by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    why are they raising this complaint again just as Microsoft 'leaks' details of their Win 10 Cloud 'Chromebook Competitor'? I'm sure any effort by MS to provide a lightweight browser-based OS/laptop will be just as nefarious as a Chromebook, but honestly, the Chromebook does what it does perfectly, and MS only knows how to bloat things up and make them unusable.

  23. Apple just made a big donation to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has been losing market share in education markets to Google like crazy over the last few years so I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Apple paid the EFF to say this.

  24. Vote With Your Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn from what happened at FOX. They handed out millions to the women without blinking, but consumer pressure on the advertiser stream worked.

    Think of it as BDS for tech

    And someone prepare another OS and come up with mods to hardware-lock all firmware.

  25. False dichotomy by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I mean, either this is illegal and they should be, or this is perfectly legal, then the complaint has no merit. Which one is it?

    Does this have to be limited to only the two possibilities you suggest? Here are three more
    * legal, but annoying
    * legal, but unethical
    * legal, but because case law has not been found that applies to it yet. That is, it's untested

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  26. Google security is pretty good by GezusK · · Score: 1

    I trust Google more than Apple or Microsoft. No majors hacks...yet.

  27. Spying!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it says "Google" on the can, there's spying inside. No exceptions.

  28. Did anyone read the status report? by kqs · · Score: 1

    I just read the EFF status report linked from TFA and the summary. I'm usually a big fan of the EFF and what they do, but this status report seems completely devoid of actual privacy violations.

    Section 1 (which is most of the status report) is "survey results". They sent out a survey saying "do you completely understand you child's school's privacy policy", and unsurprisingly almost nobody does. Which is a problem, but not a privacy problem. If you asked most people "do you completely understand all of the subsections of your mortgage or lease", they would also not have a clue, but that doesn't mean that all landlords or mortgage companies are screwing people over (beyond the usual power-imbalance issues which we all understand).

    Section 2 is "Legal Analysis" which has sections like "Potential Violations of the Pledge". It mentions a lot of potential problems, but doesn't go into details of any actual violations.

    Section 3 is "Recommendations", which also doesn't seem to detail actual problems.

    EFF, if Google is doing something with student information which is underhanded, just tell us. Don't spread FUD without any evidence.

  29. Schools are at fault, not Google by ndowd · · Score: 1

    The real problem is the school administrators loading all of the student's personal information into the devices, using poor privacy and security practices, not taking the time to understand what they were doing with the Chromebooks, and then blaming Google. Read the article. Here's a quote that sticks out:

    "schools had mass-enrolled their kids into Google email accounts, using their full names. Furthermore, they posted photos of them on social media sites and enrolled them into other services that collect data without any notification. To make matters worse, the passwords students are assigned are easy to guess, featuring their birthdays or student ID numbers, which makes them extremely easy to guess. Students are also prohibited from changing their passwords."

    Those are all actions and policies undertaken by the school administration. It has nothing to do with Google, except that Google provided them with low-cost (or often free) devices for the students.