Forums > Social Discussion > Google Chrome - and other privacy issues re. Google

Posted: 10th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: simtathe only way to make money is through advertising, the whole internet is built on the premise. if advertising on the internet didnt exist in the way it does, and you had to pay to google-search or other sites on the net it would never have advanced to the point we are at now.

Simta - all due respect and recognition - money and profit is NOT the reason the Internet was built for

Originally Posted By: money.cnn.com
4 Larry Page President, Products/Co-Founder Google

WEALTH $4.19 billion AGE 31

After selling only $42.5 million of Google's newly public shares, Page retains billions' worth of company stock. Meantime, he still lives in a rental apartment.

5 Sergey Brin President, Technology/Co-Founder Google

WEALTH $4.17 billion AGE 31

Google's technical wizard, Brin is also keeping his wealth in company shares. Meanwhile, Pravda named him one of the most famous Russians living in the U.S.

Originally Posted By: simtaits free to do a google-search, its free to download google chrome etc...

No it ain't free - you pay, me pays... with the informations they cash in somewhere else
I say it again: I got no problem with ads on the right hand side, or to pay for ad-free services...


But it reminds me of what I heard Mr. (soon to be ex-)President of the US saying yesterday in "Fahrenheit 9/11":

"Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, here today I welcome the "have's" and "have more's"
(Laughter and Applause)
"Most call you 'the elite', I call you 'my base'"....
(Laughter and Applause) [/arbitrary rant]


EDITED_BY: FireTom (1221053449)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 10th Sep 2008
well the internet was built for military purposes.

yes it is free at the point of demand, yes because of people surfing etc... google get money for advertising, and yes they get more money if they can gurantee their advertisers more hits through tailored advertising.

if this system didnt exist the internet would not have advanced to this point, plain and simple.

there is no way that this system will be changed because noone would ever stump up the cash to pay for using all the facilities we now use for free. the internet would collapse tomorrow if all these practices stopped.

the way to be is make sure your careful with your own private data.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 10th Sep 2008
personally, i love google chrome it works great, its fast, its more reliable than IE imho and if it ever does mess up, you just close the messed up tab and the incognito mode (aka porn mode) doesnt save ANY of your browsing data (supposedly so you can book romantic get aways without your other half being able to see what youve been up to on the history... but lets be honest) so no data privacy conspiracy there as far as i can see

Posted: 10th Sep 2008
Well I gotta say FT by in large I agree with you, I'm just playing devils advocate. I *do* think there needs to be some change in how things are done. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. There is too much profit to be made. And until then, I strongly believe that companies should have the same rights as people. After all a corporation by definition is it's own legal entity.

Why is it too far to give you the ads that relate to you the most? It's simply good business sense. Most people use commercial breaks while watching tv as a time to leave the room, they don't pay attention because no matter how hard advertisers try, they are only hitting a small fraction of their target base. Custom tailored ads seem like a very logical, and far better choice. Why do I need/want to see advertisements about menopause or diapers?

You're okay with them keeping your shopping records, but not using them for anything? And you're opposed to the collection of external data? Most of the largest databases have been 'collected' by companies swallowing up smaller companies and merging their databases. You do that enough time and you've got a massive source of information, but you don't think they should be entitled to use their legally obtained information?

Freedom of Information is for everyone. Anything that is in public records or posted publicly is up for grabs, to everyone. Do you disagree? If you post a giant sign in your front yard that says all your likes and dislikes, do you really have a right to complain when people read it? You may want to take a look at your own Introduction thread and see just how much information you've shared about yourself FireTom

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Posted: 15th Sep 2008
any mac/linux users that wanna have a go at chrome but cant be bothered to wait for native versions to be released

https://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/

also here's how to block ads in Google Chrome.
https://lifehacker.com/5046529/how-to...-google-chrome

ive only just installed this version on my machine, and so far its been fine, its quite nippy. not noticeably different to FF though, probably will be when i get the native linux version.

@anyone who is giving the beta release of chrome a go try typing about:internets in the omnibar

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
oh well - you want some real paranoia? here goes

I think the main problem I have with google is that they are very rapidly moving to corner the information provision market. when there is no other way to access information except through Google's Net, they will have absolute power. Evidence exists that manipulation of media can and has caused changes in international relations recently. analysis of the news services treatment of potential leaders in the past 100 years have predict the outcome of elections in something like 80% of cases in Australia. Chicken or Egg? Can you really discount the potential for abuse when this becomes completely centralised?

Google is scanning the books, so people wont go to libraries, and they will lose their funding and eventually close their doors. independent sources of information are being flooded or squeezed out of the market.

Google is attempting to remove our ability to organise 'our' information for ourselves...a search engine in place of a rational filing system.

And shortly - a bunch of highly advanced ways of predicting dissent, controlling and nullifying it.

If you were an alien race, and you wanted to control the World, I bet you cant think of a better non-violent way than doing what Google is doing so successfully right now.

I dont believe they are aliens...which is more of a problem. Absolute power corrupts _humans_ absolutely - history is full of examples of this, and I guess I don't have enough faith in Burning Man to cleanse this species-wide character fault.

And BTW Ben, corporations are legally not allowed to have ethics (as you describe) given the board's absolute legal requirement to serve the shareholders and constantly persue profit ethics only enter into it when it will make more money to be ethical.

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
wow, ive never even seen someone write something as bad about microsoft LOL

so people fear google who release a new piece of software and make it open-source, its mad.

yet the same people who are writing these posts are probably doing so from a windows o/s.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
IMHO the internet was initiated for sharing information fast and free, not for commercialism - not even primarily for military purposes... Greed turned it into that monster it is today.

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe it's just that my privacy (to me) is worth more than a flashy toaster... I believe that a regulation about collecting, storing and merging personal data of its users is necessary and would not lead to a full collapse.

And maybe I didn't get it across: it's not as if MySpace, Facebook and such are "free services" - they finance themselves by collecting, (processing) and selling your data. It's maybe more that you believe this data to be of little importance... Many are ready to sell their privacy for a "Second Life"... Let me rephrase it: If a soul is worth nothing, why would the devil pay such a high price for it? You think he's a fool?

Lurch, definitely three points given: It's me, typing these informations into the board in the first place and it's not a big difference to keep records in shops or online. Further, merging companies databases is another issue to be considered.

Freedom of information is for everyone, anything that is in public records or published publicly os for grabs... except if copyrighted. You're free to read my intro [you'll learn more about me by talking] and maybe it's not too hard to link my alias to my real name - but merging my intro and my RN is what I oppose.

Google does have competitors

Google has turned into a somewhat dubious company some time ago, it's been good (which is why they got where they are) but now they dominate search, ad and geographic services... For example Google Earth is a nice tool, but currently they attempt to scan cities at street level. Nice thing being able to virtually go on a stroll in Roma, but how about your bank/ employer (exactly) finding out where you're living? Whether your house is painted in all kinds of beautiful colors and rather a shanty one? That your surroundings are not turning you "cream of the crop" when you're asking for a loan? (works the other way round too, as in: burglars planning their spree)

They wouldn't go out in their car to check on you but hey, if all that information (and much more) is readily available in the comfort of their own office and at their fingertips...

Let me rephrase Pyro: If you were "in power" (ruling class) and you wanted to control mankind - could you think of a better, non-violent way achieving this task than knowing *all* about each and everyone?

Comprehensive, easy to access databases of citizens (to me) are a major security issue.

PS: Simta - is using Windows, Mac O/S instead of Linux muffling us? To me, Microsoft is not trustworthy either - I'm not using IE... maybe that gives me a bit more credit
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1221562457)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: FireTomIMHO the internet was initiated for sharing information fast and free, not for commercialism - not even primarily for military purposes... Greed turned it into that monster it is today.


no it wasnt,

it was built for military purposes, that is plain fact.

then from there you had people in universities that used the network to host bulletin boards and the like and it progressed from there.

would you be willing to pay everytime you did a google search to have no advertising/data-mining?

because if you wouldnt, then you cant argue against it.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Pls quote your sources, if you claim your opinion to be "plain fact"

Yet can we agree that it definitely has not been built for commercialism? (military or scientific origins set aside)

You continue to skip the part where I am trying to explain to you that indeed you *are* paying every time you're using Google, Facebook, MySpace, etc. You're ignoring the fineprint - IMHO.

Yes I would rather pay than having to face data-mining.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1221563302)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
https://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
a brief history there. you will find the organisation DARPA is mentioned regularly in the article, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

their website is here https://www.darpa.mil/

i know that through advertising and data-mining on the net im part of the way money is made, but as i dont click on banner ads etc... also im careful with my own personal information, cookie killers and the like, i also run linux making my system protected against worm/viruses that might seek to collect my personal info from my computer.

you would pay to do a googlesearch rather than have data-mining. next look at the economics, the question is could you afford to pay for a googlesearch every time you pressed that button?

you personally might be able to afford it, i know the vast majority of the internet wouldnt.

would you rather have the internet we have now, or would you rather be back to bulletin boards and the basic webpages that were only available 15-20 years ago?

like it or not, advertising revenue is the sole reason the internet has advanced.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Personally, I never had a problem with the old skool bulletin boards and webpages. Naive perhaps, but those were the days when people developed and shared programs just for the hell of it, before Gates started ripping people off, and everything turned into making a buck.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: Stonebut those were the days when people developed and shared programs just for the hell of it, before Gates started ripping people off, and everything revolved around making a buck.



those days are still here. theres millions of people around the world still whole-heartedly engaged in cooperatively developing open-source freely available o/s' and programs.

if you dont like gates' software then remove it from your computer. the alternatives are there waiting for you to explore them.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Yeah right

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
thats a slightly pointless post stone

the alternatives are here. linux-based operatings systems arent restricted to the comp savvy, after moving in with me, aimee used ubuntu on my comp and now wants it on her laptop, shes not a comp geek yet she prefers it.

when i ran a windows machine i thought there were two alternatives, windows or linux. now ive moved over to using ubuntu and ive realised the options are endless.

if you want a o/s that requires hardly any user input and will just do what you want you could use ubuntu/mandriva/fedora, but at the same time if you want to get more into the behind-the-scenes activity going on you can, you can decide your level of input.

do you want a o/s thats more user-tinkering based, endless options of how to customise the o/s to do EXACTLY what you want, well again you have options like arch linux, slackware.

do you want to have the ultimate personal operating system where you specify every single bit of code, then build your own linux distribution. instal the linux kernel and then choose exactly which desktop environment you want to use, which drivers etc...

in my eyes the only reason to run windows is if you are a serious gamer.

maybe you think running linux will mean that your machine looks stone-age and primitive, well think again, checkout screenshots on my desktop atm.


Non-Https Image Link


desktop cube effect to switch between different workspaces

Non-Https Image Link


and those are only your choices when it comes to operating systems, there are open-source alternatives to pretty much every program you can think of.

this world is going on as we speak stone, its all there for you to explore and be part of if you want to be.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Thanks, I'll look into it for home

And, what you suggest may be ok at home, but what about work, the internet cafe, game places, and anywhere else people use the net?

I had some problems with FF, and the message I get from both Telstra and Optus (after 30 min on hold) is we only support Microsoft.

There is no escape, not really!

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Hmm, dunno why I would have to change my software and operating system, merely based upon my criticism against Google and data-mining...

Equivalent to "anarchy" just because I oppose the way our "democracy" is set up...

Thanks for enlightening me about DARPA and such, I knew that one of the reasons the nets been built was to distribute computing power and strengthen defense - second stage has been the networking between (civilian) research facilities... However, I'm missing the underlying commercial aspect.

I dislike financing Microsoft and therefore don't buy any of their products - Open Office (unfortunately) makes my letters not look as good as in Word and (so far) Word is not posing any threat to my privacy. I use, but I don't buy.

Now you say all about Linux and sure, I'm intrigued. Why is it then, that Linux (and other alternatives to MS software) is non-commercial (or at least less), o/s *and* at the same time looks good and works so well? Is that not contradicting what you're saying about the Internet on the other hand? That all this fancy and comfort only bred from people making loads of money and that it would be back to BB's if we'd regulate it...

A bit pessimistic about humans' overall motivation, I'd say.


EDITED_BY: FireTom (1221576483)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
dont be obtuse FT, you can see why that was posted in reply to stone's point above

you would change o/s+software to join the open-source movement,surely something you would be interested in given your resistance to commercialisation of the net

the initial brief for the net was a communications network that would function even with normal communication routes being down.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Gosh, you're fast. Please refer to my modified post And yes, I am interested

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Now you say all about Linux and sure, I'm intrigued. Why is it then, that Linux (and other alternatives to MS software) is non-commercial (or at least less), o/s *and* at the same time looks good and works so well? Is that not contradicting what you're saying about the Internet on the other hand?

no contradiction just the fact that for the internet to grow a large amount of money needed to be invested in infrastructure.

for good open-source software to be made, just need committed people with computers.

if your letters dont look as good in OO rather than word then i think this is the equivalent of bad workman blaming tools
EDITED_BY: simta (1221577207)

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
So you say that first we need to utilize greed for something good to grow and thereafter commitment to make it run to everybodies benefit...

Well I dunno why you perceive my approach to be any different...

Don't want to dig into the "blame your tools over your incompetence" topic much deeper - just recently noticed when using OO... As long as Word runs smooth - and as long as I don't have to pay for it or it poses a threat - why change? [/pointless statement]

So whaddaya say about

Originally Posted By: FTThey wouldn't go out in their car to check on you but hey, if all that information (and much more) is readily available in the comfort of their own office and at their fingertips...

You're not opposing data-mining? Or you think it's okay, as long as it's not *your* data?

Sorry, I'm just a bit confused...´;)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
you could look at it as utilizing greed but its a very narrow way of looking at things. its about money that needed to be invested at a time when most governments werent aware of how important the internet would be, so commercial money was mostly used in development.

i oppose data-mining in principle, but im realistic enough to realise we probably wouldnt be able to talk to each other the way we are doing now if it wasnt for the money its generated.

i dont really know what alternative way the net would work without advertising revenue.

i dont like the fact my details will be passed between computers without me knowing, but that would still be happening even if id never have touched a computer in my life.

i know one thing though, to hail google as an enemy seems silly. if they were simply out to make cash they wouldnt be investing money into so many projects.

some links to checkout
https://code.google.com/
https://google-opensource.blogspot.com/
https://code.google.com/opensource/

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
I would imagine that if google was doing this it would give me better search results of Pr0n...unfortunatly...no.

O.B.E.S.E.

Owned by Mynci!

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
well if you wanted that why not use dedicated sites not that id know anything about any pronhub or youpron

the chrome browser does have an incognito aka pron mode, which means there will be no browsing history/URL's saved.

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: Pyrolific
And BTW Ben, corporations are legally not allowed to have ethics (as you describe) given the board's absolute legal requirement to serve the shareholders and constantly persue profit ethics only enter into it when it will make more money to be ethical.


thats not true, as with all law what "the best interests of the shareholders" is, is open to interpretation. Constantly persuing profit is not in the best interests of the shareholders if it means that lots of the customers end up going elsewhere resulting in the companys downfall.

Just because Google's data has the potential to be abused doesnt mean that it is being abused.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
check the edited quote, I think you will see that we are saying the same thing.

Originally Posted By: ben-ja-menOriginally Posted By: Pyrolific
ethics only enter into it when it will make more money to be ethical.


thats not true, as with all law what "the best interests of the shareholders" is, is open to interpretation. Constantly persuing profit is not in the best interests of the shareholders if it means that lots of the customers end up going elsewhere resulting in the companys downfall.

Just because Google's data has the potential to be abused doesnt mean that it is being abused.

personally, I'd prefer a system that *cannot* be abused to one that just *may* not be being abused (but is perfectly set up for abuse).

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: simta

would you rather have the internet we have now, or would you rather be back to bulletin boards and the basic webpages that were only available 15-20 years ago?

like it or not, advertising revenue is the sole reason the internet has advanced.

I'd rather the BBs - given I was using them at the time, the social and information content was similar to what we have now (ok the technology prevented video - but I'm not convinced Video has been *good* for anything really...definitely not spinning). but then again, I like reading a book over watching TV anytime.

Porn is what has driven the early expansion of the Web (lets not get too confused; Internet vs Web) CC payments, security, etc etc

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
Originally Posted By: Pyrolific
personally, I'd prefer a system that *cannot* be abused to one that just *may* not be being abused (but is perfectly set up for abuse).

do you know of any system that cant be abused?

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Posted: 16th Sep 2008
hehe - no...but I think you will agree that some systems are more open for abuse than others. generally, the more transparent processes are, the easier to audit for abuse. how open did you say Google's system is? US govt was told to rack off you say?

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted: 17th Sep 2008
How about an interpretation of "best interest of the shareholder" as operating the company in a way that will not damage the karmic balance of the shareholder?

And really... would you prefer that the information kept by Google was free to be accessed by anyone? One of the least trusted groups of people for me are the people in power. The desire to control rarely comes from something altruistic.

Honestly... the media has sanitised to some degree on all fronts pretty well since the inception of a mass produced medium of communication, most of the media is controlled by only a handful of companies... and anything with a high circulation tends to get someone rather rich and as such, tends to be owned by someone rich, meaning that if they were to sanitise the content, it would be in the interests of right wing authorities.

I suppose my main point here is that we can't single out a single company for monopolising a particular area of the market... pointing pistols at a potential for abuse that has not yet reared its ugly head probably isn't the best use of energy.