Done, done, DONE with Google

[Rip Rokken]

Don't have time for much detail, but I've finally had enough with Google and their privacy-raping antics. When I first heard their motto "Don't be evil", I knew right then, only an evil son of a bitch would come up with something like that. Later, one of Eric Schmidt's quotes made me wonder if the motto wasn't directed at Google's users rather than the company itself:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Eric Schmidt told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo in a December 2009 interview."

Here's another gem from Schmidt:

"Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," Schmidt told the Atlantic at the Washington Ideas Forum in October 2010. He went on, speaking about the future of search, "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches [...] We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."

They have a long history of getting their "fingers caught in the cookie jar" regarding user privacy. First red flag for me was the launch of GMail, with which the user's e-mail was scanned for content for (supposedly) marketing purposes, or I guess as they would describe it, "to enhance the experience for their users", lol. I never wanted a GMail account for that reason, but opened one just to use occasionally for times I didn't want to give my personal address (basically using it as a spam-catcher). I was pretty pissed when I discovered later that YouTube had changed my account's e-mail address to that GMail account without any warning. And how did they know both were me anyway? I guess they used the IP address. Now I use that account strictly to receive YouTube notifications - never send anything from it.

When they came out with Street View, it irritated me that they'd drive down quiet neighborhood streets in an unmarked van photographing everything without any kind of notice. Their defense was that this was public info anyway - that anyone could get. I beg to differ... physical distance affords a certain amount of privacy, and now freaks, criminals & stalkers have a cool new tool to use thanks to Google.

It didn't stop there... turned out (at least some of) Google's vans were equipped with WiFi antennae to map out wireless networks for some unfathomable reason, and in the process, they ended up scarfing up tons of private data (like e-mail content) from unencrypted wireless networks. Of course when caught in the cookie jar again, they did their usual feint of shock and concern...

"At Google’s Zeitgeist conference in May 2010, Eric Schmidt addressed concerns over Google's Street View cars, which had recently been revealed to have collected personal data over unsecured Wi-Fi connections. "No harm, no foul," Schmidt reportedly said of the incident, according to The Times of London. “A relatively small of data was collected and this was not authorized [...] We stopped driving immediately. There appears to be no use of data. It’s sitting on a hard drive. [...] We will not delete [the collected data] until ordered to do so.”

"No harm, no foul"? FUCK you, you creepy little bastard... anyone who thinks Google doesn't know exactly what the hell they are doing is naive.

Shoot forward to the recent past, when Google announced their new consolidated (lack of) privacy policy. Then, they are caught purposefully bypassing Apple Safari's built-in privacy mechanisms to track the user anyway via their cookies. By the way, read up sometime on the Google cookie. Now at least one user is suing Google for doing this:

http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/22/googl ... e-cookies/

Think that lawsuit will get very far? Heck, Google's in bed with the NSA now since at least 2010... Big Brother is here.

For the past few years, I've limited myself to using only Google's search engine, and my YouTube and attached GMail account. I refused to use ANY of Google's installed apps (at least one version of Google Desktop used to scan networks and index the contents of other shared drives). Now, out of principal, I'm doing my best to sever the tentacles of Google's search engine permanently.

Did some research and found a few search engines that seem to value privacy and protect your IP address and search history. They even have very simple, short and easy to read privacy policies:

Ixquick.com
Gibiru.com

The latter is a Google proxy, and IXQuick also has one that proxies Google's searches:

https://www.startpage.com

Maybe nothing new here to some people, but I am enjoying using it. They also filter out Google's advertising spam from the search results, and Ixquick and startpage both have search engine add-ins for at least IE and Firefox which use HTTPS to encrypt your searches.

Anyway... maybe someone else will find this useful. Fuck Google...

[Memorex]

I think I'll start using this. I think Google simply has the best search engine, but man are they intrusive. And when companies that get that big and their friends run the country on both sides of the aisle, time to take back a little privacy.

I think the answer really lies in just creating laws that say hands off our personal data.

[Rip Rokken]

I think I'll start using this. I think Google simply has the best search engine, but man are they intrusive. And when companies that get that big and their friends run the country on both sides of the aisle, time to take back a little privacy.

I think the answer really lies in just creating laws that say hands off our personal data.

That's the rub... Google does have the best search engine out there, but they are just evil. It's tough to find a replacement. There used to be another Google proxy called Scroogle, but their site seems to be out of commission.

Back when I was in high school, we all had to read Orwell's 1984 and it was scary stuff to think about. I never would have guessed in a million years that people would end up being Big Brother to themselves, freely (and often ignorantly) giving up their own privacy in exchange for some perceived benefit (even something stupid like a coupon printing add-in toolbar). Pop culture has also done a number on people by popularizing reality TV shows and giving everyone the opportunity to become instant celebs if they just have a camera and a little creativity. People now are just used to living their lives for the world to see, and it comes back and bites so many of them in the ass every day. I've read comments around the Web from people who don't seem creeped out by Google at all, and that's concerning.

Hope you enjoy Startpage. Let me know what you think.

[conversationpc]

I don't have a problem with using GMail but I still do not understand COMPANIES using GMail for work purposes. Are they freaking insane or what?!

[Rip Rokken]

I don't have a problem with using GMail but I still do not understand COMPANIES using GMail for work purposes. Are they freaking insane or what?!

Tell me about it! A few years back, the City of Los Angeles decided to get away from hosting their own mail and went with GMail...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technol ... oyees.html

It was apparently a 17.6 million dollar investment. We sat back and watched, and surely enough, it proved to be a disaster...


In 2010:

L.A. City Hall's Move To Google's Free Gmail So Far A FAIL; Could Cost Nearly $2 Million
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010 ... _delay.php

In L.A., Google Blowing Big Cloud Marketing Chance
http://www.cio.com/article/600723/In_L. ... ing_Chance

The main point of contention for Google is the Los Angeles police department, which has strict guidelines around data encryption and data segregation.

In a meeting with city council members, according to the L.A. Times, LAPD CIO Maggie Goodrich said that the department's security requirements have not been met.

When asked by a city council member which party is to blame, Goodrich replied: "In my opinion, it was Google that didn't deliver the security requirements."


Then in late 2011:

It’s official: The LAPD ain’t going to Google
http://gigaom.com/cloud/its-official-th ... to-google/


I thought I'd heard that L.A. dropped the entire contract with GMail, but I may have been mistaken.

[Don]

I don't have a problem with using GMail but I still do not understand COMPANIES using GMail for work purposes. Are they freaking insane or what?!

Yes. Yes, we are.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

When I first heard their motto "Don't be evil", I knew right then, only an evil son of a bitch would come up with something like that.

This is so true!

[Rick]

Hey Rip. Firefox has the "Private Browsing" feature. Would that help with the privacy issues on Google?

[slucero]

ditto...

Here's links to Ghostery and Privatelee

Ghostery is a browser tool available for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera and Internet Explorer. It scans the page for scripts, pixels, and other elements and notifies the user of the companies whose code is present on the page. These page elements aren't otherwise visible to the user, and often not detailed in the page source code. Ghostery allows users to learn more about these companies and their practices, and block the page elements from loading if the user chooses.

http://www.ghostery.com/

Privatelee.com combines the best results from Google and Bing with the ultimate private search engine.

Privatelee does not save IP address or set uniquely identifiable or ad network cookies.

Features like WOT rating, infinite scrolling ...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privatelee/

[JRNYMAN]

Hey Rip. Firefox has the "Private Browsing" feature. Would that help with the privacy issues on Google?

Hey there Rick. Since Rip and I are in the same business and share many of the same views/opinions with respect to privacy and our attempts to navigate the web, at least to some degree, with some of that privacy remaining intact. With Rip's permission, I'll offer my answer to your question and hopefully Rip will offer his wisdom as well.

Yes, to some extent but that's not an easy question to answer. There is a certain amount of data about each and every user which is transmitted just by your very presence online. However, you can reduce the amount of personal information to nearly nothing using sites like the ones Rip listed as well as using a proxy server but even then, the fact that your computer is attached to a network and you are online makes you visible.
Think of it this way...
The more cookies you accept and the more shit you drag around with you that identifies you to various sites, the more identifiable you are. Hell, I've worked on some people's computers that have been allowed over the years to install numerous trackers, keystroke progs, etc. Basically these users have gotten to the point that they are surfing around with a parade, searchlights, a megaphone announcing themselves - in detail - and a skywriter plane making sure that everyone who is "listening" didn't miss a thing these idiots were unknowingly broadcasting about themselves.
It's all in the way you access, navigate, and leave the sites you visit that helps to keep the info you broadcast to a minimum. NEVER leave yourself logged in to any site - especially FACEBOOK or any other social media site. These are the absolute worst at data mining, tracking your movements and trading the info they collect with others - all designed to "better service and cater to the individuals who frequent their sites. BULL FUCKING SHIT!!! As Rip noted, Big Brother is alive and doing very, very well!
If you want to have a glance at just exactly what info your browser and possibly even your router/modem is saying about you (so to speak...) Steve Gibson's site GRC.COM is IMHO the absolute best at addressing this kind of thing. Think of him as the Ralph Nader of the Internet and cyberspace et al. The fact that he's a computer code genius as well as the father of Assembly Language (computer programming language that writes very powerful programs which can fit on a single floppy drive!) gives him the keen ability to see sites and the way they "look" differently than pretty much everyone else. His company,Gibson Research, has evolved into one which does little else than write the tiny programs mentioned above which detect, alert, advise and offer protection suggestions based on what they find - and the best part is that 99% of the programs he writes to protect you, Rip, Me, Andrew, etc. are free for us to use to check our vulnerability and the vulnerability of the hardware that makes up the networks on which we surf.
www.grc.com Once at the site, click the "Services" tab at the top and start testing to your heart's content. WARNING! There's a pretty good chance you're about to find out you're not as protected as you thought you were! No worries though. The scans you'll do there will tell you exactly what you're broadcasting and what to do to stop!

[Rip Rokken]

Hey Rip. Firefox has the "Private Browsing" feature. Would that help with the privacy issues on Google?

First, thanks to Steve for his info, as well as the link to grc.com - I'd totally forgotten about Shields Up, too!

Rick, both IE and Firefox have a private browsing mode, and I could be wrong, but I think it's more about not storing a digital paper trail (history, cache, etc) on the computer - may not affect at all what info is gathered online, and definitely doesn't hide your IP address. But even if there is some cookie protection, now we know Google will try to bypass that as well. Going on my 2nd week using Startpage.com and have totally removed Google links and search add-ins from my browsers to keep me from using it force of habit.

[Rip Rokken]

For anyone not really bothered by the issue of privacy, here is an interesting page put out by DuckDuckGo.com that really brings home why being tracked by Google isn't a good thing for anybody... very easy read.

http://donttrack.us/

Tons of suggested add-ons to help prevent tracking by other sites as well.

[JRNYMAN]

Hey Rip. Firefox has the "Private Browsing" feature. Would that help with the privacy issues on Google?

First, thanks to Steve for his info, as well as the link to grc.com - I'd totally forgotten about Shields Up, too!

Rick, both IE and Firefox have a private browsing mode, and I could be wrong, but I think it's more about not storing a digital paper trail (history, cache, etc) on the computer - may not affect at all what info is gathered online, and definitely doesn't hide your IP address. But even if there is some cookie protection, now we know Google will try to bypass that as well. Going on my 2nd week using Startpage.com and have totally removed Google links and search add-ins from my browsers to keep me from using it force of habit.

Ya know, when this blew up last week - especially Google's almost smug admission of their spying on Apple users - it was almost heartbreaking - literally. Google came to the rescue of every single web user on the planet when they appeared seemingly out of nowhere back in '97. They came up with a way to manage, index, sort, and update a list of madness that at the time was growing by over 1 million new sites per day. They made sense of something so behemoth and vast so quickly and effortlessly for the greenest of noobs. How much simpler could it be than to do a Google search. No ads. No IN-YOUR-FACE crap. Just a clean, white unassuming page with a text box and a search button. Huh.... what became the biggest, largest earner on the web had and still has the simplest user interface. Period. Everything the started out to be (and became) was admirable because they did what they did for free and they did it for every person on the planet. They immediately setup this charity and that foundation and this focus group to help this country..... They gave back 10-fold to the communities. They did business the way deep down inside all of us we wish business was actually done.... honorably and for the right reasons.
Then, within 5 years they were either taking over every dot.com that didn't implode on its own or they were being accused of one dishonest thing after another which was bad enough but the part that really broke a lot of hearts was what you didn't hear - denials nor apologies for the things they were being accused of more and more frequently. And the biggest question in my mind is still "why?" The day their IPO hit, both of them were instant and forever BILLIONAIRES! Think about how much money a BILLION dollars is. If a billionaire decided to give away his fortune, he could make 1,000 millionaires! Was the never-going-to-cease income they had secured somehow not enough for them? Did they become so power hungry that they were willing to break rules UNTIL they got caught just to see how far they could go? They, like EVERY single company that becomes too big (Wal-Mart for instance) they become the Evil Empire by purposely and methodically exterminating the competition. Think about the impact losing the WalMart account would do to any company who's product is sold there - worldwide. Coke would fold. Pepsi would fold. Kraft, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and many more would cease to exist within weeks of losing their place inside every Walmart in the world. Google is poising themselves to be the controller and keeper of All the information that matters, anywhere to anyone. What's that saying, "Information is power!" They've raised that particular cliche to epic proportions in terms of understatements.

It's sad.....

[Rip Rokken]

Huh.... what became the biggest, largest earner on the web had and still has the simplest user interface. Period. Everything the started out to be (and became) was admirable because they did what they did for free and they did it for every person on the planet. They immediately setup this charity and that foundation and this focus group to help this country..... They gave back 10-fold to the communities. They did business the way deep down inside all of us we wish business was actually done.... honorably and for the right reasons.

The privacy-minded competitors have kept their interfaces almost identically as simple. DuckDuckGo is currently the most popular, and I don't think it proxies thru Google like Startpage does, but it's mega-simple and also has an SSL-encrypted search engine plugin for your browser:

www.duckduckgo.com

Love these single page privacy policies! Anything with anything longer simply has something to hide - they write them out to be 200 pages+ specifically to discourage reading by the average Joe.

I hear ya on Google's community efforts, but am skeptical of their motives. They may have started out honorably, but you never know -- Hezbollah probably did, too. I think power-hungry corporations, strangely just like mobsters and terrorist groups, give back to the communities strictly to make them dependent. It's highly calculated and manipulative. What community is going to try to kick out Monsanto Chemical Co. when their hometown college depends on their donations?

[JRNYMAN]

Huh.... what became the biggest, largest earner on the web had and still has the simplest user interface. Period. Everything the started out to be (and became) was admirable because they did what they did for free and they did it for every person on the planet. They immediately setup this charity and that foundation and this focus group to help this country..... They gave back 10-fold to the communities. They did business the way deep down inside all of us we wish business was actually done.... honorably and for the right reasons.

The privacy-minded competitors have kept their interfaces almost identically as simple. DuckDuckGo is currently the most popular, and I don't think it proxies thru Google like Startpage does, but it's mega-simple and also has an SSL-encrypted search engine plugin for your browser:

www.duckduckgo.com

Love these single page privacy policies! Anything with anything longer simply has something to hide - they write them out to be 200 pages+ specifically to discourage reading by the average Joe.

I hear ya on Google's community efforts, but am skeptical of their motives. They may have started out honorably, but you never know -- Hezbollah probably did, too. I think power-hungry corporations, strangely just like mobsters and terrorist groups, give back to the communities strictly to make them dependent. It's highly calculated and manipulative. What community is going to try to kick out Monsanto Chemical Co. when their hometown college depends on their donations?

Perfect analogy Rip. What I didn't make clear in my last post was how disappointed I am in the Google they started out to be and what they've evolved into - a complete 180 degree turn. The examples you gave are spot on. I'll add another.... I liken them to Homeowners' Assn's.: The ALL start out with the best of intentions and inevitably become a militia with their own, personal agendas.

Since the day Google went live I have been the biggest proponent and fan of Google of anyone I know. I was seriously in love with the business model (perhaps facade would be a better term now...) and followed their every move since day 1. I've read 3 books which all delved into the inner-math workings of the Google machine and how the search engine does what it does. I was fascinated by them. So, when the shit hit the fan in the past couple of weeks, I was floored. I didn't want to believe the things the were accused of let alone the things they boastingly admitted to.
The flip side of this story, which is going to continue to grow and most likely end with the indictments of several people, is the pro-government, nutjobs that are going to come out of their holes using what is happening with Google as their poster child for their case have the govt. preside, oversee, monitor.... whatever term you want to use here, and that's just not the way to prevent things like this from happening. I'm not going to get up on my usual soapbox about the US Govt. vs. The Internet but I will say this. The US Govt. has no, nor will they ever have jurisdiction over anything that falls under the enor,ous umbrella that is the Internet. Why is it that people think that our govt. has some sort of special authority to reign over something as immeasurable and as global as the web. Would Peru's govt. be so vain and self-involved to do it? Would Egypt? Would Uruguay? Of course not because they, unlike one Red, White and Blue country in particular, don't have any misgivings about how much authority they have.

That's all, I'm done.

[Eric]

I love their search engine and Chrome is the fastest browser (when it plays nice with others), but they are so intrusive that, for example, I half jokingly send an e-mail with "Auto loans" in it to him if I need to research auto loans because his Gmail account will become flooded with SPAM about auto loans for the next hour. Its hysterical!

[texafana]

I don't know what the problem is Rip, every link, every site, every word you enter on the internet goes through your local internet provider and they store in on their server for x amount of days, weeks, months, years, depending on their settings. This is the way it's been since the dawn of the internet. Trust me on this....those that want to know what we're doing on the internet.........already know.

[JRNYMAN]

I don't know what the problem is Rip, every link, every site, every word you enter on the internet goes through your local internet provider and they store in on their server for x amount of days, weeks, months, years, depending on their settings. [/i].

And even if they've been doing it without being required to, that's about to change too!

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/h ... er-hr-1981 <----- This is the kind of shit that both scares me and pisses me off at the same time.!!!

[texafana]

"This is the kind of shit that both scares me and pisses me off at the same time.!"

No doubt. Cell phones are the same way. Anything that has to be transferred "digitally" is backed up on a server somewhere waiting to be exploited by someone. Alot of people think that's how the next world war will be started....and ultimately won. Kind of stuff where the more you learn, the scarier it gets, so it's best to just forget about it. jeesh...

[AlteredDNA]

Q&A: Google to dig deeper into users' lives

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 9-18-42-15

AN FRANCISCO (AP) -- If you're amazed - and maybe even a little alarmed - about how much Google seems to know about you, brace yourself. Beginning Thursday, Google will operate under a streamlined privacy policy that enables the Internet's most powerful company to dig even deeper into the lives of its more than 1 billion users.

Google says the changes will make it easier for consumers to understand how it collects personal information, and allow the company to create more helpful and compelling services. Critics, including most of the country's state attorneys general and a top regulator in Europe, argue that Google is trampling on people's privacy rights in its relentless drive to sell more ads.

Here's a look at some of the key issues to consider as Google tries to learn about you.

Q: How will Google's privacy changes affect users?

A: Google Inc. is combining more than 60 different privacy policies so it will be able to throw all the data it gathers about each of its logged-in users into personal dossiers. The information Google learns about you while you enter requests into its search engine can be culled to suggest videos to watch when you visit the company's YouTube site.

Users who write a memo on Google's online word processing program, Docs, might be alerted to the misspelling of the name of a friend or co-worker a user has communicated with on Google's Gmail. The new policy pools information from all Google-operated services, empowering the company to connect the dots from one service to the next.

Q: Why is Google making these changes?

A: The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., says it is striving for a "beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google." What Google hasn't spent much time talking about is how being able to draw more revealing profiles about its users will help sell advertising - the main source of its $38 billion in annual revenue.

One reason Google has become such a big advertising network: Its search engine analyzes requests to figure out which people are more likely to be interested in marketing pitches about specific products and services. Targeting the ads to the right audience is crucial because in many cases, Google only gets paid when someone clicks on an ad link. And, of course, advertisers tend to spend more money if Google is bringing them more customers.

Q: Is there a way to prevent Google from combining the personal data it collects from all its services?

A: No, not if you're a registered user of Gmail, Google Plus, YouTube, or other Google products. But you can minimize the data Google gathers. For starters, make sure you aren't logged into one of Google's services when you're using Google's search engine, watching a YouTube video or perusing pictures on Picasa. You can get a broad overview of what Google knows about you at http://www.google.com/dashboard , where a Google account login is required. Google also offers the option to delete users' history of search activity.

It's important to keep in mind that Google can still track you even when you're not logged in to one of its services. But the information isn't quite as revealing because Google doesn't track you by name, only through a numeric Internet address attached to your computer or an alphanumeric string attached to your Web browser.

Q: Are all Google services covered by the privacy policy?

A: No, a few products, such as Google's Chrome Web browser and mobile payment processor Wallet, will still be governed by separate privacy policies.

Q: Is Google's new privacy policy legal?

A: The company has no doubt about it. That's why it's repeatedly rebuffed pleas to delay the changes since announcing the planned revisions five weeks ago. But privacy activists and even some legal authorities have several concerns.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, sued the FTC in a federal court in an effort to force the FTC to exercise its powers and block Google's privacy changes. A federal judge ruled the courts didn't have the authority to tell the FTC how to regulate Google. The FTC says it is always looking for evidence that one of its consent orders has been violated.

Earlier this week, the French regulatory agency CNIL warned Google CEO Larry Page that the new policy appears to violate the European Union's strict data-protection rules. Last week, 36 attorneys general in the U.S. and its territories derided the new policy as an "invasion of privacy" in a letter to Page.

One of the major gripes is that registered Google users aren't being given an option to consent to, or reject, the changes, given that they developed their dependence on the services under different rules. In particular, people who bought smartphones running on Google's Android software, and signed two-year contracts to use the devices, may have a tough time avoiding the new privacy policy. They could switch to non-Google services, but those typically don't work as well on Android software. Or they could buy a different smartphone and pay an early-termination penalty.

Q: What regulatory power do government agencies have to change or amend the privacy changes?

A: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gained greater oversight over Google's handling of personal information as part of a settlement reached last year. Google submitted to the agreement after exposing its users email contacts when it launched a now-defunct social networking service called Buzz in 2010. The consent order requires Google's handling of personal information to be audited every other year and forbids misleading or deceptive privacy changes.

Google met with the FTC before announcing the privacy changes. Neither the company nor the FTC has disclosed whether Google satisfied regulators that the revisions comply with the consent order.

[journeyrock]

Thanks for posting this. I never knew this. I guess I've been living under a rock. I will put this to good use. I already earmarked Startpage on my IE favorites line and will begin using it immediately.

Who said you can't gather useful information on MR.