Principia Discordia

(renamed thread)

Google accused of criminal intent over StreetView data - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10278068.stm

Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International (PI).

The search giant has been under scrutiny for collecting wi-fi data as part of its StreetView project.

Google has released an independent audit of the rogue code, which it has claimed was included in the StreetView software by mistake.

But PI is convinced the audit proves "criminal intent".

"The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation," said PI in a statement.

This would put Google at odds with the interception laws of the 30 countries that the system was used in, it added.

Scotland Yard

"The Germans are almost certain to prosecute. Because there was intent, they have no choice but to prosecute," said Simon Davies, head of PI.

In the UK the ICO has said it is reviewing the audit but that for the time being it had no plans to pursue the matter.

PI however does intend to take the case to the police.

"I don't see any alternative but for us to go to Scotland Yard," said Mr Davies.

The revelation that Google had collected such data led the German Information Commissioner to demand it handed over a hard-disk so it could examine exactly what it had collected.

It has not yet received the data and has extended the original deadline for it to be handed over.

The Australian police have also been ordered to investigate Google for possible breach of privacy.
'Systematic failure'

According to Google, the code which allowed data to be collected was part of an experimental wi-fi project undertaken by an unnamed engineer to improve location-based services and was never intended to be incorporated in the software for StreetView.

"As we have said before, this was a mistake. The report today confirms that Google did indeed collect and store payload data from unencrypted wi-fi networks, but not from networks that were encrypted. We are continuing to work with the relevant authorities to respond to their questions and concerns," said a Google spokesman.

"This was a failure of communication between and within teams," he added.

But PI disputes this explanation.

"The idea that this was a work of a lone engineer doesn't add up. This is complex code and it must have been given a budget and been overseen. Google has asserted that all its projects are rigorously checked," said Mr Davies.

"It goes to the heart of a systematic failure of management and of duty of care," he added.

---

My view on the case is, on some level it must have been intent. And I don't believe that is the level of a single scapegoat / rogue engineer, which would of course be the most favourable thing Google would like us to believe.

I have to add for fairness of the matter, in another blog I read that the total amount of recorded unencrypted traffic is in fact very small. Something on the order of a thousand megabytes, IIRC. Which is really not that much as I believe this was the number for all of Europe. Or maybe Germany. I forget.

The point is, would Google, as a corporation want this data if they could get away with it? Hell yes. I don't doubt that for a second.

The other point is, they were already treading on thin ice. Photographing all the streets in large panoramas, with actual people on it. Additionally collecting wifi accesspoint data and MAC addresses linked with GPS location info (that's pretty much what I was trying to do with my netbook last year, but failed for lack of GPS).

This already is highly sensitive privacy stuff. So should have been extra mega careful about what they do collect and what they don't collect. That's what all those fucking privacy statements are for in the first place!

So even if it was (on some level) a mistake, they fucked up badly and it was a spectacular huge fucking stupid mistake, because they should have been checking and double, triple checking the data-collection software they sent those Google cars out on our streets with.

It is a huge project, coming with a huge responsibility and fucking this up just shows again that they simply don't care, and in this case, criminally so.

If it had been an honest bug, like an accidental misconfigured piece of code that happened to switch to the wrong data channel to record, then maybe, though I would still be pissed off and at least want to fine them.

But this was not a bug, it was a complete software module, written with the intent to do exactly this. Then it was packaged with the software that these Google cars were sent out on our streets with. And then it was switched on, executed and used. And THEN and this is what pisses me off most, now that I think of it, which is inexcusable, there must have been at least hundreds of these google cars? It's not a trivial task to collect, merge, communicate, transmit and centralize all that data. And an extra stream of data that they accidentally recorded should just not have been collected, right?

Obviously at some point in that chain there should have been a manager that should have stopped this from happening. Of course all the managers claim they didn't know. Well of course that's bullshit, because if there is a possibility that a single developer can singlehandedly insert a piece of software in ALL those Google cars that have been scanning and photographing our entire fucking world, then that developer wields a pretty fucking huge amount of power (really, he could have done so much worse) and not checking that is a pretty spectacular security failure, I would call criminal neglect.

In other words, fuck you Google. Fuck you in the nose. Fuck you in the ear. Fuck you in the eye. I hope they hang you. You fucked up. Fucked up bad. I already didn't trust you, not since a long time, but once more you show your real face. The face of the future. A future that is so bleak, it is completely transparent.

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but the total time collecting from any given access point won't be more than what, 6 or 7 seconds?

Hush.  We're getting apocalyptic up in here.

Requia, yes, so?

and LMNO, sorry but what?

I said the data was probably very little. But that means shit fuck all in EU privacy legislation and Google knows that very well. The fact that it still happened just shows that they are completely careless on these matters.

It's not a simple understandable mistake to accidentally include a complex piece of recording software into hundreds of little cars you send all over europe and then accidentally neatly collect all that data back.

I was just commenting on a trend.  Someone posts a scary/outrageous piece of news, and then Requia someone else will undoubtedly say, "well, it's not that bad, is it?"

It's more fun when we're all outraged and pretending it's the end of all we know that's right and proper. 

it's definitely fucked up! They're going to wear that "do no evil" motto like an albatross around their neck.

So what kind of data, exactly, do they have?

A list of unsecured wireless access points v's secured ones EVERYTHING OMMGZ THEY KNOW WHAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US HAD FOR LUNCH A WEEK PAST THURSDAY !!!! :tinfoilhat:  :x

Quote from: Cramulus on June 10, 2010, 04:58:36 PM
it's definitely fucked up! They're going to wear that "do no evil" motto like an albatross around their neck.

So what kind of data, exactly, do they have?

afaik, nothing really sensitive.

but it's the END OF THE WORLD and I enjoy righteously bitching on Google.

THEY'RE GONNA STEAL ALL MAH STOLEN MUSIC!
    \
:omg:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 10, 2010, 06:12:14 PM
A list of unsecured wireless access points v's secured ones

not just that, that bit was their plan, and apparently would have been legal.

it's just that if you run a tool like WireShark (formerly Ethereal) on an unsecured network, you're gonna catch actual traffic. which is illegal (you can actually sniff passwords like that). for some reason, the streetview google cars had software with them that sort of did exactly that. and logged it.

and indeed as Requia said, because the average time they'd be in the neighbourhood of any unsecured network would be about 6 or 7 seconds, they probably didn't log much traffic, but the outrage is that they actually had that software in their cars and used it.

it's weird, right?

because if a private corporation randomly recorded 6 or 7 seconds of my phonecalls, of course I'd be outraged, even if they didn't hear anything compromising.

sort of like if you found out your local police station had a torture rack, isn't that a little suspicious, even if they claim they've never used it, and don't know who authorized it?



...and yet -- I connect to unsecured wireless networks all the time  :lol:

Quote from: LMNO on June 10, 2010, 07:27:05 PM
THEY'RE GONNA STEAL ALL MAH STOLEN MUSIC!
    \
:omg:

:mittens:

Give Google a break - they're trying their best! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY&NR=1)

:(

Google doesn't practice what it preaches. They always bitch about "responsible disclosure" whenever someone finds another security hole
in one of their many web applications, but when a Google security researcher finds a vulnerability in some Windows XP Help Center auto
update thing, it's perfectly allright to give Microsoft less than 5 days to fix the bug before they fully disclose the hole:

http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20100610/windows-help-centre-vuln/

No Tzip. You are the Google.

...and then Tzip was a Google.

Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on June 15, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
No Tzip. You are the Google.

...and then Tzip was a Google.

:potd:

NO! I MUST KILL THE GOOGLES

Black Googles are still Googles  :D

Have you ever used Protocol Buffers (http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/)?  It's the architecture/platform/language independent protocol Google apparently uses to transmit and store all data on its own internal systems.  A "message" may be the fields XYZ, and the really powerful thing is that you can write another application which only cares about fields X+Z, and you don't even need to parse around the Y field - you can just ignore it as if it wasn't there.  Of course, if you use a single API call to store the message in BigTable, then Y will still be there.

So yeah, I can quite easily believe that some engineer on his 20% time wrote some code to work with wireless networks, and because everything has a hook into protobuf/bigtable, another team just used the original sniffing code without modification and wrote another program to use the legitimate fields they were interested in.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 10, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
"The idea that this was a work of
a lone engineer doesn't add up"
Simon Davies, Privacy International

But all of the above is speculation.  PI are an advocacy group, and have an agenda to increase awareness of privacy issues.

My question is -- even if it was a stupid mistake like reading an extra two bytes at the end of an SSID, is it worth getting upset about?  I mean - is the issue of privacy worth making a public example out of Google, when there are are many more rampant (albeit less media-friendly) abuses out there?  How do you measure the "harm done" when deciding upon the "punishment"?

Oh wait, there is a detailed report (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs/friedberg_sourcecode_analysis_060910.pdf).  Briefly skimmed:

• "gstumbler" is was an internal/experimental program from 2006.
• It rotates through sniffing 5 channels/sec, capturing a mix of header and payload packets.
• It parses the headers for MAC and SSID info and ignores the payload data.
• If a command-line flag is set to "false", it records unencryped payload data.
• All command-line flags (except in bizarre situations) default to "false".
• There is an internal Google API call called InitGoogle(argv[0], &argc, &argv, bool) which provides default command-line arguments based upon the application name.  This is the first call made in main().
• For streetview, another team took the code, made minor modifications, renamed it "gslite", but didn't add the required command-line option to avoid capturing unencrypted payload data, or modify the InitGoogle database to copy over the settings for "gstumbler".
• Time passes
• A Google employee discovers this, and Google (instead of just quietly deleting the data), make a public announcement.
• Hilarity ensues

Fictionpuss STFU! You're almost making it seem like you think google aren't the biblically prophesied antichrist come to kill us all and steal our immortal souls. Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Sorry for the thread-jack, feel free to split  :oops:

Quote from: FP on June 16, 2010, 03:37:23 PM
So yeah, I can quite easily believe that some engineer on his 20% time wrote some code to work with wireless networks, and because everything has a hook into protobuf/bigtable, another team just used the original sniffing code without modification and wrote another program to use the legitimate fields they were interested in.

"20% time" is a Google PR lie, btw.

All people I asked who work at Google never heard of this thing and are just supposed to do their job all the time like everybody else, no such thing as having 20% of your paid time to spend on personal projects.

QuoteBut all of the above is speculation.  PI are an advocacy group, and have an agenda to increase awareness of privacy issues.

So? Do you disagree with that? Don't you think privacy is incredibly important?

QuoteMy question is -- even if it was a stupid mistake like reading an extra two bytes at the end of an SSID, is it worth getting upset about?

Absolutely. And I'm dead serious. They keep nibbling on our privacy from all sides and edges and it's really about damn time we just put a stick in the sand and show it matters to us.

QuoteI mean - is the issue of privacy worth making a public example out of Google, when there are are many more rampant (albeit less media-friendly) abuses out there?

Yes. The issue of privacy is worth a whole lot more things.

Also the way you phrased that statement makes it sound like you think Google is somehow something worth protecting? Something that is somehow unique and not entirely replaceable? Something that humanity wouldn't be better off if it was burned to the ground and something new and more open and more human-friendly built in its place?

Remember, this is a truly faceless company, one that has no problem simply refusing to pay out $126,000 of honest earned money to someone using Google Checkout (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1432107), without offering as much as a human on customer service to speak to. Realize that? Sometimes I wonder if Matt Cutts isn't secretly a robot or something.

And this global phantom, went into our streets, our physical personal space, on a massive scale, and not only took photographs but also sniffed our private wireless data.

No I don't care if it was a mistake. The scale on which they developed the StreetView project demanded enough sinecura that this should simply have not have happened.

You can bet they tested to death all other features of the StreetView software. What if all the GPS data happened to be misrecorded and scrambled? I'm damn sure they tested all those scenarios to make sure the StreetView software was doing what it was supposed to be doing before they massively sent them out into our neighbourhoods. But apparently they did not care enough to check and test if they might have been doing some things they were not supposed to be doing. And the simple fact that they didn't care enough, makes me angry, and makes me think it's worth making a huge stink out of. Even if it was just a few bytes.

And thanks for the link to that report, I'm going to read it. From your skimming, it seems they fucked up and neglected to check if they were doing conform to privacy regulations. I dunno about the US, but in Europe we got privacy laws, and those are just as serious as any other laws. Not something you toss aside carelessly. And if you accidentally the entire wireless into a database, you broke the law. Simple as that. A lot of other EU corporations have to bend backwards to adhere to these laws and Google is no exception just because they're shiny or something.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

Quote from: FP on June 16, 2010, 03:37:23 PM
So yeah, I can quite easily believe that some engineer on his 20% time wrote some code to work with wireless networks, and because everything has a hook into protobuf/bigtable, another team just used the original sniffing code without modification and wrote another program to use the legitimate fields they were interested in.

"20% time" is a Google PR lie, btw.

All people I asked who work at Google never heard of this thing and are just supposed to do their job all the time like everybody else, no such thing as having 20% of your paid time to spend on personal projects.

Ha! It doesn't sound so appealing now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Innovation_Time_Off):

As a motivation technique (usually called Innovation Time Off), some Google engineers are encouraged to spend 20% of their work time (one day per week, usually weekends in practice) on projects that interest them.

Here - code some shit for us, we'll still own the rights, but we'll let you code it on your weekend!  They definitely spun it as being widespread, and a perk.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

QuoteBut all of the above is speculation.  PI are an advocacy group, and have an agenda to increase awareness of privacy issues.

So? Do you disagree with that? Don't you think privacy is incredibly important?

Actually, not really (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25510).  Though that personal opinion does seem to be in the minority.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

QuoteMy question is -- even if it was a stupid mistake like reading an extra two bytes at the end of an SSID, is it worth getting upset about?

Absolutely. And I'm dead serious. They keep nibbling on our privacy from all sides and edges and it's really about damn time we just put a stick in the sand and show it matters to us.

Okay - but when the establishment tries to make "an example" out of an individual, we cry foul.  E.g. the can't-get-tutition-if-you've-been-caught-with-pot law in the US.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

QuoteI mean - is the issue of privacy worth making a public example out of Google, when there are are many more rampant (albeit less media-friendly) abuses out there?

Yes. The issue of privacy is worth a whole lot more things.

Also the way you phrased that statement makes it sound like you think Google is somehow something worth protecting? Something that is somehow unique and not entirely replaceable? Something that humanity wouldn't be better off if it was burned to the ground and something new and more open and more human-friendly built in its place?

Remember, this is a truly faceless company, one that has no problem simply refusing to pay out $126,000 of honest earned money to someone using Google Checkout (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1432107), without offering as much as a human on customer service to speak to. Realize that? Sometimes I wonder if Matt Cutts isn't secretly a robot or something.

I'm not going to try to excuse or explain away bad deeds, especially when I know nothing about them  :)  I will say, though, that Google customer service seems to suck generally (http://www.seoish.com/nexus-one-news-flash-google-sucks-at-customer-service/).

I think there's some credit to be given in that Google proactively disclosed that they had fucked up on the data collection.  I can't imagine Microsoft doing that, can you?  Perhaps that's a loaded example -- I can't imagine any other companies owning up to a mistake which they could just brush under the rug without anyone knowing any better.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM
You can bet they tested to death all other features of the StreetView software. What if all the GPS data happened to be misrecorded and scrambled? I'm damn sure they tested all those scenarios to make sure the StreetView software was doing what it was supposed to be doing before they massively sent them out into our neighbourhoods. But apparently they did not care enough to check and test if they might have been doing some things they were not supposed to be doing. And the simple fact that they didn't care enough, makes me angry, and makes me think it's worth making a huge stink out of. Even if it was just a few bytes.

The document shows a few dozen fields spread out over a handful of message types.  It makes sense that they'd test that the data they expected to record was there.  It makes sense that they wouldn't test for the data they didn't expect to be there.  It's bad QA, but if you've got encapsulated data going into a database, it's not going to be obvious if you've got a couple extra bytes here and there.

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM
And thanks for the link to that report, I'm going to read it. From your skimming, it seems they fucked up and neglected to check if they were doing conform to privacy regulations. I dunno about the US, but in Europe we got privacy laws, and those are just as serious as any other laws. Not something you toss aside carelessly. And if you accidentally the entire wireless into a database, you broke the law. Simple as that. A lot of other EU corporations have to bend backwards to adhere to these laws and Google is no exception just because they're shiny or something.

I think they're trying to find wiggle room in the US, but yeah, they're fucked elsewhere.

I just have some sympathy for Google since it looks to me like an unintentional fuckup which lawyers and privacy groups are just going to roast them over for the sake of making a high-profile example of their cause.

But... it just increases the chance that the next time a smaller company does something similar, they'll just cover it up rather than face going out of business.

QuoteRemember, this is a truly faceless company, one that has no problem simply refusing to pay out $126,000 of honest earned money to someone using Google Checkout, without offering as much as a human on customer service to speak to. Realize that? Sometimes I wonder if Matt Cutts isn't secretly a robot or something.

So when Google violates the law Google is bad, but when somebody doing business with Google violates the law (failure to ship items ordered when expected by the customer) and Google responds appropriately, Google is bad?

Just adding 2 cents to an interesting thread.

It's been talked about here before, but one problem is that business practices are creating norms and laws on or about communications, whether of people or ideas (I'm currently trying to stop calling it data or content).  Google getting away with this would further normalize a 'it was just a few seconds – what do you have to hide' practice.  Anything that remakes the point that marketing/governmental surveillance is overthefuckingtop gets applause from me.  Hoping PI do well with this.

Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 16, 2010, 08:29:29 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

QuoteMy question is -- even if it was a stupid mistake like reading an extra two bytes at the end of an SSID, is it worth getting upset about?

Absolutely. And I'm dead serious. They keep nibbling on our privacy from all sides and edges and it's really about damn time we just put a stick in the sand and show it matters to us.

Okay - but when the establishment tries to make "an example" out of an individual, we cry foul.  E.g. the can't-get-tutition-if-you've-been-caught-with-pot law in the US.

Here's where it all falls down for me.  I think there's a massive difference between corporations/governments and a person.  And denying any person the right to an education based on their criminal record?  Egregious.  Creating laws that people can appeal to when they're censored and surveilled by otherwise faceless and unaccountable corps?  Totally worth doing.  It sounds pedantic at this point, but context still matters.

That said,

Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on June 15, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
No Tzip. You are the Google.

...and then Tzip was a Google.

^this^ is brilliant.  :lol:

More background (from a few days before PI released its statement).  I didn't know they'd banned the cars.

QuoteAustrian Data Protection Authority (DSK) placed a temporary ban on Google's Street View cars, The DSK intends to sanction the collection of private data from unencrypted wifi networks and therefore wants to see changes to the EU data protection directive in this regard.

"If there is no EU legislation, we are planning a national law," stated State secretary for media Josef Ostermayer.

This reaction comes after Google failed to observe the deadline of 27 May imposed by Germany's Hamburg data protection authority to hand over such data that the company admitted to have gathered accidentally by its Street View system.

Google missed the deadline imposed by the German regulator arguing it needed more time to consider the possible legal fall-out for sharing such private data with the government.

DSK said that all collection of data or use of previously gathered information by Google Street View in Austria would be banned until it received from Google "a precise technical description of its data-collection activities by 7 June 2010," as well as an answer to a detailed questionnaire.

More from EDRI: Austria puts more pressure on Google Street View (http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.11/austria-bans-street-view-cars).

Quote from: Nurse Rhizome on June 18, 2010, 07:12:11 PM
Just adding 2 cents to an interesting thread.

It's been talked about here before, but one problem is that business practices are creating norms and laws on or about communications, whether of people or ideas (I'm currently trying to stop calling it data or content).  Google getting away with this would further normalize a 'it was just a few seconds – what do you have to hide' practice.  Anything that remakes the point that marketing/governmental surveillance is overthefuckingtop gets applause from me.  Hoping PI do well with this.

From a technical perspective, this is more like your toddler swiping a chocolate bar in the checkout line, returning it when you find out, and the store then prosecutes you for it.

Yes - laws were broken, and Google are legally responsible for everything they do - but if context is unimportant, and it's the principle-of-privacy which must be worshiped, then that seems like a step backwards to me.

Quote from: Nurse Rhizome on June 18, 2010, 07:12:11 PM

Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 16, 2010, 08:29:29 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on June 16, 2010, 06:33:42 PM

QuoteMy question is -- even if it was a stupid mistake like reading an extra two bytes at the end of an SSID, is it worth getting upset about?

Absolutely. And I'm dead serious. They keep nibbling on our privacy from all sides and edges and it's really about damn time we just put a stick in the sand and show it matters to us.

Okay - but when the establishment tries to make "an example" out of an individual, we cry foul.  E.g. the can't-get-tutition-if-you've-been-caught-with-pot law in the US.

Here's where it all falls down for me.  I think there's a massive difference between corporations/governments and a person.  And denying any person the right to an education based on their criminal record?  Egregious.  Creating laws that people can appeal to when they're censored and surveilled by otherwise faceless and unaccountable corps?  Totally worth doing.  It sounds pedantic at this point, but context still matters.

If I thought it was intentional rather than a fuck-up, or if Google had used the data for profit (or even accessed it in storage), or if they had tried to cover it up instead of voluntarily disclosing their error... then I'd have a completely different stance on this issue.  But I can't agree with persecuting anything just because it makes a convenient poster boy for a cause.

If 20% time = 20% of the time you're getting paid to work, it should be on projects of personal interest, then problem = ???.

If you're salaried and you're expected to work more than 5 days a week, then it's less of a perk, especially if you don't have the rights to the projects you code on your weekends.

'Salary'='We don't want to pay you for overtime'

I think this bastard (http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2010/05/technical-details-of-street-view-wifi.html) is trying to troll Trip:

"Although some people are suspicious of their explanation, Google is almost certainly telling the truth when it claims it was an accident. The technology for Wi-Fi scanning means it's easy to inadvertently capture too much information, and be unaware of it. ... It's really easy to protect your data: simply turn on WPA. This completely stops Google (or anybody else) from spying on your private data. ... Laws against this won't stop the bad guys (hackers). They will only unfairly punish good guys (like Google) whenever they make a mistake. ... [A]nybody who has experience in Wi-Fi mapping would believe Google. Data packets help Google find more access-points and triangulate them, yet the payload of the packets do nothing useful for Google because they are only fragments."

Not that I actually buy the core of his argument, and he seems to be a bit of a Google apologist.

Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 18, 2010, 09:23:50 PM
If I thought it was intentional rather than a fuck-up, or if Google had used the data for profit (or even accessed it in storage), or if they had tried to cover it up instead of voluntarily disclosing their error... then I'd have a completely different stance on this issue.  But I can't agree with persecuting anything just because it makes a convenient poster boy for a cause.

I see what you mean.

On the one hand, it is the corp's responsibility to ensure privacy (as defined by the law) is not breached. Even if it can be argued that the breach of privacy was not of any use to the corporation.

It's like when some guy is caught peeping through a hole in the girl's showerroom. But then he argues, "but I only saw a single nipple, and besides, I'm gay anyway!" ...

Ok I guess that analogy doesn't quite hold, but it's a funny one, don't you think? ;-)


And on the other hand, you say, if it was unintentional and they gained no benefit, they can be excused. I can understand that reasoning, especially from a pragmatic view, and if I had any reason to defend Google I'd definitely use the argument.

But I don't. So what remains for me is that they started a huge project (the magnitude definitely determines the severity for me), they made a mistake which caused breach of privacy, and they got lucky in the sense that no "really sensitive" data was captured. But it still means to me that they were careless with ensuring the privacy of the territories they scanned. And while the mistake might have been accidental, the carelessness definitely was not. Add to that Google's track record when it comes to privacy (pretty bad--not as bad as Facebook but still pretty bad) and I still think they should face consequences.

So it's not only that we caught them recording open wifi data, which may have been an accident, it's also that we caught them being utterly careless and irresponsible when it comes to public privacy. And I think that is their real crime. They should not have let this happen and been more responsible, given the power they wield.

I think that's entirely reasonable.

Maybe, but reading it back it also sounds a lot like bullshit reasoning. :)

Thanks for making me realize that, I guess it's better to shit on Google for things they actually really fucked up over (like the $126k Google Checkout deal).

However, there's still a personal reason. And that's that I never liked the whole StreetView project. Even though it has been personally useful to me already several times, as well as fun to play with. I just think the privacy breach of having a megacorporation like Google (http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/04/61ab782f42f1f2d2624a07e92f488269/340x.jpg)* sending out a small army of cars with high resolution panoramic cameras to photograph every single street in America, Europe, Australia and more, is pretty severe.

It's something that really makes me uncomfortable. Big, faceless corp, sending out an army of semi-inconspicuous spying cars (everybody's seen one at some time or another, right?). I remember people joking about exact scenarios like this, a mere few years ago ("Bleep. Hello I am GoogleBot. I will not kill you. Please let me index your house").

Then you add to that Google's cars going onto private roads a few years ago. Another mistake. Then their lawyer saying "you should not expect privacy in this day and age", which they promptly retracted. Another mistake.

But add everything together and I get an image that either they do not care enough, or otherwise Google is not able to keep its privacy breaching behaviour in check. I.e. they're out of control.




* there are different versions of this infographic floating around, the original one was not at all to scale. This one is. But it's not all the servers in the world, Google would own about 2% of them. Additionally the numbers themselves are pretty handwavey or dated, as well as Microsoft and Amazon missing from the chart. Plus I would have expected Akamai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies) to be a LOT bigger.

I've always thought it was creepy and voyeuristic for Google to put a picture of where I live on the internet without my say-so.  I own that fucking house, I own that car--if I want pix of them up on the interbutts, I should have a fucking say-so.  But no, because it's "free to those who use it," it's sanctioned.  Granted, you need my address in order to find it, but it's just fucking creepy and voyeuristic to be.  ITA, Trip, that sending folks out with cars everywhere on the damned Earf to put images of where people live in real time up seems a fucked up thing to do for a faceless, hugeass corporation that already controls a lot of information to begin with.

I know they started out as Ivory Tower eggheads, but they have so much info at their fingertips and have the capacity to get even more still, ad infinititum, that to believe there's never going to be any corruption with that amount of power is just well a little disingenuous.

Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 10:15:09 PM
I know they started out as Ivory Tower eggheads, but they have so much info at their fingertips and have the capacity to get even more still, ad infinititum, that to believe there's never going to be any corruption with that amount of power is just well a little disingenuous.

Perhaps this question is a bit too broad for the topic, but it is apt -- do you think it is possible to create any institution which can hold power without serious corruption?

Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 10:15:09 PM
I've always thought it was creepy and voyeuristic for Google to put a picture of where I live on the internet without my say-so.  I own that fucking house, I own that car--if I want pix of them up on the interbutts, I should have a fucking say-so.  But no, because it's "free to those who use it," it's sanctioned.  Granted, you need my address in order to find it, but it's just fucking creepy and voyeuristic to be.  ITA, Trip, that sending folks out with cars everywhere on the damned Earf to put images of where people live in real time up seems a fucked up thing to do for a faceless, hugeass corporation that already controls a lot of information to begin with.

The Microsoft/photosynth approach is to scour sources like flickr and automatically generate a 3d model of the environment based upon overlapping photos taken by the public.  So, assuming an open-source version of that technology could be created, would it be less creepy if it were an Open Community project where anyone can contribute data, no one owned it or had exclusive control over it - but we all still ended up with the really useful functionality which streetview provides?

The only problem with that though, is that bandwidth/cpu/storage costs are still not cheap enough for it to be feasible for an ad-hoc community to absorb.  Within the next 5-10 years that equation will probably change, but then -- it would no longer be creepy for Google to have streetview data which everyone else has too!

ONE MORE FOR THE if you have nothing to hide AND THE
what could possibly go wrong AND THE no really it's not like
they could do anything bad with all that info CROWDS

(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/roglol.gif)


Google Engineer Stalked Teens, Spied on Chats (http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-on-chats)

We entrust Google with our most private communications
because we assume the company takes every precaution to
safeguard our data. It doesn't. A Google engineer spied on
four underage teens for months before the company was
notified of the abuses. READ MORE (http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-on-chats)

Quote from: from the articleIt seems part of the reason Barksdale snooped through the teens' Gmail and Gtalk accounts was to show off the power he had as a member of a group with broad access to company data. A self-described "hacker," Barksdale seemed to get a kick out of flaunting his position at Google, which was the case when, with a friend's consent, he pulled up the person's email account, contact list, chat transcripts, Google Voice call logs—even a list of other Gmail addresses that the friend had registered but didn't think were linked to their main account—within seconds.

Highlighted to point out that, indeed, as I suspected, having multiple Google accounts helps shit fuck all to keep them separate, as it takes mere seconds to get the other accounts (I suppose by filtering on IP).

Please note that this is mentioned nowhere in their Privacy Policy. They claim they don't do it, they don't correlate data in this manner, not between separate accounts. Could be. Could be that this guy made his own specialized query, in which case the "within seconds" in the article must be hyperbole, cause you don't write such a query within seconds, custom queries on this forum also take me minutes. Or he could have scripted it. I mean, could be. Or Google does have this feature built in some easy-access interface for people with the proper permissions, in violation of their privacy policy.


BTW three more articles (that I haven't read yet):

Google confirms - http://gawker.com/5638199/google-confirms-firing-engineer-for-privacy-violations
This guy wasn't the first - http://gawker.com/5638874/david-barksdale-wasnt-googles-first-spying-engineer
Blahblahblah questions - http://gawker.com/5639266/four-questions-google-still-needs-to-answer-about-their-creepy-engineer

Dunno about you guys but Google has recently been extremely worthless to me for most things except the most "superficial" topics.

That is, stuff that you find with your first-guess/two-keywords query is okay, but if the target's not in there, refining or trying a different query doesn't seem to help very much, anymore. Or at least it'll be annoying as fuck. Because Google will "auto-correct" your query terms (which you can circumvent by putting a + in front of them) (maybe they're trying to raise Google+ awareness) which is a hassle, often the results just aren't there, the cache links are missing (or actually hidden somewhere in a menu, I'm told)

Oh and Google keeps auto-focusing the search input field, so I can't use the 1 2 and 4 keys to navigate tabs in Opera, cause I'll be typing these numbers in the search field, and worse, because of "Google Instant Search" (which nobody ever asked for) it'll auto-update the results with those numbers or whatever you typed, which messes everything up,

and on top of that, the thing you're looking for often just doesn't seem to be there, at all. Or perhaps it's buried beneath all those pages that actually don't even contain your keywords.

It's like using the fucking PD search sometimes, may Goddess have mercy on its soul.

So yeah, it's great because for the first time in many many years I actually find myself trying a lot of different search engines.

So far, DuckDuckGo and Yandex (the Russian Google, sort of) are my favourites.

I already keyed many search engines to search shortcuts and bookmarks, but I found myself nearly always using Google anyway, because it's quick and often yielded what I wanted immediately (not that the others wouldn't have btw), but now Google is becoming unusable, I'm glad to be able to give the others a chance.

Another advantage is that I'll discover more of the non-Google-indexed web, which is actually quite a lot (or so I'm told).

I can't recall the last time i used a non-google search engine.
i guess i'll start again.  :)

Quote from: Triple Zero on October 04, 2011, 05:00:46 PM
Dunno about you guys but Google has recently been extremely worthless to me for most things except the most "superficial" topics.

That is, stuff that you find with your first-guess/two-keywords query is okay, but if the target's not in there, refining or trying a different query doesn't seem to help very much, anymore. Or at least it'll be annoying as fuck. Because Google will "auto-correct" your query terms (which you can circumvent by putting a + in front of them) (maybe they're trying to raise Google+ awareness) which is a hassle, often the results just aren't there, the cache links are missing (or actually hidden somewhere in a menu, I'm told)

Oh and Google keeps auto-focusing the search input field, so I can't use the 1 2 and 4 keys to navigate tabs in Opera, cause I'll be typing these numbers in the search field, and worse, because of "Google Instant Search" (which nobody ever asked for) it'll auto-update the results with those numbers or whatever you typed, which messes everything up,

and on top of that, the thing you're looking for often just doesn't seem to be there, at all. Or perhaps it's buried beneath all those pages that actually don't even contain your keywords.

It's like using the fucking PD search sometimes, may Goddess have mercy on its soul.

So yeah, it's great because for the first time in many many years I actually find myself trying a lot of different search engines.

So far, DuckDuckGo and Yandex (the Russian Google, sort of) are my favourites.

I already keyed many search engines to search shortcuts and bookmarks, but I found myself nearly always using Google anyway, because it's quick and often yielded what I wanted immediately (not that the others wouldn't have btw), but now Google is becoming unusable, I'm glad to be able to give the others a chance.

Another advantage is that I'll discover more of the non-Google-indexed web, which is actually quite a lot (or so I'm told).

And here I was, thinking that my Google-Fu was full of FAIL.


Guess I'll have to bookmark DuckDuckGo.

Other ones on my to-try list are: Yahoo and Blekko.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 04, 2011, 05:21:17 PM
And here I was, thinking that my Google-Fu was full of FAIL.


Guess I'll have to bookmark DuckDuckGo.

Yeah I'm pretty sure everybody's Google-Fu has been full of FAIL recently.

what do you think is causing googles results to be slipping?
is it the cat-and-mouse they have with SEOs that are screwing it up?

Quote from: Iptuous on October 04, 2011, 05:41:23 PM
what do you think is causing googles results to be slipping?
is it the cat-and-mouse they have with SEOs that are screwing it up?

No, for some reason I believe they're really good at that and can usually manage to stay one step ahead, or at least not two steps behind :)

Besides, the results I get aren't that spammy.

It's more that they're catering for the best results to "simple" searches. You know, how often when you Google for something, you type two keywords and you're pretty sure it's the top result? I mean that's the easy stuff. That still works, I get fine results for queries like that.
And for people who are just looking for only those searches, the 99% retarded majority, all they gotta do is make sure the results aren't too spammy, because that'll get them viruses and scammed and it means they have to think and Google don't want that. If you optimize for those people, "Google Instant" and the Previews thing, and the search field autofocus crap, that's all really good for them, it makes Google even easier for them. They don't want cache links.

They want Google to "fix" their spelling mistakes, and they want Google to return pages that don't exactly contain the keywords they searched for, as long as they're roughly relevant.

That works excellent as long as you're looking for those typical two-keywords/first-hit queries.

But that's not Google-fu.

See I grew up with the Searchlores school of searching. The keywords, should all appear exactly as typed (in any order) in the search results. If you get too much spam, you add negative keywords, -mp3 -hotmail -myspace -free. If you don't get the right results, you try different combinations of different keywords. Synonyms, etc.

All that stuff doesn't work any longer. Synonyms? With Google "guessing" similar keywords for you, you're going to get the same results! And still don't find what you're looking for! Mostly the same with different combinations.

Searching "for phrases like this" doesn't really work anymore either. Unless you type "+for +phrases +like +this" but really, I shouldn't have to do that.

This is largely me guessing, btw. I do have some indications that they do in fact listen to the tech crowd (Matt Cutts posting on HN), except I haven't really seen them do anything with it.

And even though the other search engines don't run the majority of Internet servers worldwide, I dunno why Google needs that anyway, because the other ones, they always have been almost nearly quite as good as Google. And sometimes even give results that Google doesn't have!

Estimates of overlap between search engines range between 25% to 75% ... So that means 75% to 25% of other search engines is unique, or at least, not indexed by Google. And it's usually the obscure stuff, the old Internet stuff, the not-daily-updated RSS feed blog Facebook likeable stuff.

Which, when you're looking for an old Internet game of Trolling (see the thread in O:MF), is exactly what you want.

Yeah, google has become largely useless and frustrating these days. It sucks.

Unless you're shopping. What does that say about us.

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 07:52:21 PM
Unless you're shopping. What does that say about us.

I'D LIKE SOME MORE THINGS, PLEASE.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2011, 07:58:02 PM

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 07:52:21 PM
Unless you're shopping. What does that say about us.

I'D LIKE SOME MORE THINGS, PLEASE.

MY HOUSE ISN'T QUITE FULL ENOUGH OF CRAP I DON'T NEED.

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2011, 07:58:02 PM

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 07:52:21 PM
Unless you're shopping. What does that say about us.

I'D LIKE SOME MORE THINGS, PLEASE.

MY HOUSE ISN'T QUITE FULL ENOUGH OF CRAP I DON'T NEED.

Oh, you need it, all right.

Or the terrorists win.

How do you know that I don't love America enough?


I LOOK AT THE NEXT FIFTY RESULTS.



Research, bitches, what?

what an effort intensive way to research! If you know what you're looking for, and you use the right bow (search engine) and the right arrow (search string), the info you need will always be right on top.

Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2011, 08:53:25 PMwhat an effort intensive way to research! If you know what you're looking for, and you use the right bow (search engine) and the right arrow (search string), the info you need will always be right on top.

Not sure what you mean?

My point was, Google doesn't seem to work like that any more, hence me stepping out for different engines.

Google now does such a good job of guessing what I REALLY mean that I never get the results I want on the first try, and sometimes not the second or third, either.

LOOK FOR WHAT I SAID, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I PROBABLY MEAN, GOOGLE, YOU COCKFUCKER.

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Google now does such a good job of guessing what I REALLY mean that I never get the results I want on the first try, and sometimes not the second or third, either.

LOOK FOR WHAT I SAID, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I PROBABLY MEAN, GOOGLE, YOU COCKFUCKER.

This.

If I say "Rick Perry" + "Gary North", I don't want to hear about Rick Perry and Gary Johnson.

FUCK'S SAKE.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2011, 10:00:29 PM

Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Google now does such a good job of guessing what I REALLY mean that I never get the results I want on the first try, and sometimes not the second or third, either.

LOOK FOR WHAT I SAID, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I PROBABLY MEAN, GOOGLE, YOU COCKFUCKER.

This.

If I say "Rick Perry" + "Gary North", I don't want to hear about Rick Perry and Gary Johnson.

FUCK'S SAKE.

THERE IS HOWLING RAAAAAAAAGE.

Quote from: Triple Zero on October 04, 2011, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2011, 08:53:25 PMwhat an effort intensive way to research! If you know what you're looking for, and you use the right bow (search engine) and the right arrow (search string), the info you need will always be right on top.

Not sure what you mean?

My point was, Google doesn't seem to work like that any more, hence me stepping out for different engines.

I've been running into this as well. Thanks for the alternatives. I'd seen some buzz about DuckDuckGo, but haven't used it yet.

Quote from: Triple Zero on October 04, 2011, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2011, 08:53:25 PMwhat an effort intensive way to research! If you know what you're looking for, and you use the right bow (search engine) and the right arrow (search string), the info you need will always be right on top.

Not sure what you mean?

My point was, Google doesn't seem to work like that any more, hence me stepping out for different engines.

That was responding to LMNO, who said that if his target isn't on top, he looks at the next 50 results


I'm just sayin -- if you find yourself on page 10, you probably didn't use a good search string.

There can be fun stuff on page 10, though :)

One of the Searchlores tricks was the "yo-yo", which would skip to page 10 right away, to cut out the SEO crap :)

But in general, you're right.

Eh, it wasn't that funny a joke in the first place, so I'll just explain it:

Taking into account Google now give it what it thinks you want, instead of what you asked for, I show my distain for American Consumerism™ by rejecting the topmost searches and exploring other options.


:rimshot:

Quote from: Cramulus on October 05, 2011, 03:00:56 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on October 04, 2011, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2011, 08:53:25 PMwhat an effort intensive way to research! If you know what you're looking for, and you use the right bow (search engine) and the right arrow (search string), the info you need will always be right on top.

Not sure what you mean?

My point was, Google doesn't seem to work like that any more, hence me stepping out for different engines.

That was responding to LMNO, who said that if his target isn't on top, he looks at the next 50 results


I'm just sayin -- if you find yourself on page 10, you probably didn't use a good search string.

:? I very often look deeper in the results pages to find less "popular" results.

Of course, I also frequently use search strings like "shaved baby goats wearing sweaters".

shaved baby goats wearing sweaters were visible on the first result though...  :lol:

sure, there's tons of great stuff to find if you want to wander around the net

What I'm saying is - if you're looking for a specific piece of info, there's usually no reason to dig through 10 pages of results

for example
I was helping my little brother find some info on his college's website. He was on page 20-something. But if he had restricted his search to the college's website, it would have been in the top 2.


LMNO, sorry it went over my head the first time.  :p

Quote from: Iptuous on October 05, 2011, 05:01:00 PM
shaved baby goats wearing sweaters were visible on the first result though...  :lol:

That's why you have to go to page ten, for the less popular results.

 :?
i'm lost....
if you wanted to see exactly what you searched for, and the No. 1 result gives that to you, why do you have to go to page 10?

Quote from: Iptuous on October 05, 2011, 05:08:34 PM
:?
i'm lost....
if you wanted to see exactly what you searched for, and the No. 1 result gives that to you, why do you have to go to page 10?

I think we must be very, very different people, because what you're saying doesn't even make sense to me.

If you stop at page one then you get the same pictures of shaved baby goats wearing sweaters that everyone else gets. You get the same articles. I don't understand why you wouldn't go a little deeper, just to see what's there. :? The most popular results aren't necessarily the most useful or interesting results. Plus, page ten has a really nice blog entry about a trip to Lopez Island, which made me look up land for sale on Lopez. Now I know a ballpark of real estate prices on Lopez, just in case.

It took me a couple of searches to refine it to shaved baby goats wearing sweaters... I started out looking for sheared baby goats, and then when I went into some of the deeper pages I found goats wearing sweaters. If I hadn't clicked into the less popular results to see what there might be, I wouldn't have even known that people put sweaters on their shaved baby goats.

By the way, don't search "hairless goat".

I also usually look through a few pages looking for contradictory information or different perspectives. Doesn't everybody do that? How do you have any idea that the information you found is valid if you just accept the first results you see?

I usually use searching to find pictures for WOMPing, or to quickly look up a term I don't know.

Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 05:34:10 PM
I also usually look through a few pages looking for contradictory information or different perspectives. Doesn't everybody do that? How do you have any idea that the information you found is valid if you just accept the first results you see?

if you're doing a sort of open ended search, or you're not sure what you're looking for, yeah, definitely browse around for other opinions. Some of the most interesting stuff I've found on the net has been from linksurfing and meandering around the data. (that's how I originally found the PD despite researching fractals)

My comment about using good search techniques to get your data in the top 5 hits pertains to finding specific pieces of information. I think the majority of my searches are for literal strings from the specific page I'm trying to find.

Right now I'm looking for a specific piece of info: the text of the Occupied Wall Street Journal. I don't want to look through ten pages of results. By searching using a literal string from the article, the result I was looking for was the #1 hit. Presto!

Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 05:34:10 PM
I also usually look through a few pages looking for contradictory information or different perspectives. Doesn't everybody do that? How do you have any idea that the information you found is valid if you just accept the first results you see?

Depends on what you're looking for.

When I'm looking for documentation on a computer thing, one man-page is as good as the next. Or error messages.

I just checked my recent history of google searches and 9 out of 10 times I knew exactly what I was looking for. Time in Arizona, PyLab documentation, wikisource nyarlathotep, the name of that students association in Delft, Matt Cutts (to see if I got his name spelled right), 7.5L in gal, etc etc.

Most of those aren't really things up for discussion. If it looks like an answer, it's probably the right one. Unless someone decides to lie about the time in Arizona and happens to get to the front page. Except I knew the site I was clicking on because I had been there before (I always forget the timezones), plus I got common sense and remembered "ah yeah it was -9 hours" when I saw it.

And then, sometimes I want to find a recipe, or something like that and then I do check multiple sites.

But when I look for something that's controversial, well I kinda scan for opposing viewpoints, but I look for other thinsg when evaluating the validity of  result than just whether other pages agree with it or not. All viewpoints were not created equal, after all :)

If I'm looking for the hours an office is open or the name of a song or an actor's middle name, I don't waste time looking at alternatives. Those things have very definitive answers. If I'm looking for pictures or more general information, which is pretty typical for me, I look at several pages and I dig into the less popular results to see what's there.

(http://i.imgur.com/rYB5X.jpg)

17:49 <@Pixie> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22death+coffee%22
17:50 <@Pixie> peedee is the second link for searching "death coffee"
17:51  * tripozooO000M goes to see what first link is
17:51 <+tripozooO000M> "Stieg Larsson's Death: Coffee or Conspiracy?"
17:52 <+tripozooO000M> WTF
17:52 <@Pixie> lol
17:52 <+tripozooO000M> this is exactly what I mean when I say Google
                       has gotten incredibly shitty over the past few
                       months
17:54 <@Pixie> yes

:mittens:

DuckDuckGo is now one of the default search engines that ship with Opera:

http://duck.co/topic/duckduckgo-in-opera
http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/10/19/the-hidden-feature-of-11-52-duckduckgo-is-added-to-opera

---

additionally, for people that like trying out different web search engines, there's also

https://ixquick.com/

http://www.gigablast.com/

The allintext: operator helps make Google do more what you want:

https://www.google.com/search?q=allintext:%22death+coffee%22

It still changed the phrase a littlebit ("everything wrong" -> "everything's wrong"), sometimes, but not as much.

Additionally there's http://finderr.org/ which translates your query into quotes and plusses aand then feeds it to Google so that it searches for what you mean. At least, it's supposed to, but it doesn't always work either. Still, try it.

Google Streetview will now be able to take you inside buildings.

Only public buildings, like businesses, of ocurse.  But yeah.

Quote from: Cain on October 29, 2011, 11:35:36 AM
Google Streetview will now be able to take you inside buildings.

Only public buildings, like businesses, of ocurse.  But yeah.

Oooh, I want to be the guy who wears the Google camera-hat!

Quote from: Nigel on October 29, 2011, 04:05:54 PM

Quote from: Cain on October 29, 2011, 11:35:36 AM
Google Streetview will now be able to take you inside buildings.

Only public buildings, like businesses, of ocurse.  But yeah.

Oooh, I want to be the guy who wears the Google camera-hat!

:lulz:

Google's Double Irish/Dutch Sandwich/Bermuda tax evasion trick explained:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201043146825.htm

And why only the largest corporations can pull off shit like this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3204544
http://cameronkeng.com/hn-how-do-i-pull-a-google/

(more of a "Financial Fuckery" topic than Google btw)

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2011, 01:24:15 PM
And why only the largest corporations can pull off shit like this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3204544
http://cameronkeng.com/hn-how-do-i-pull-a-google/

(more of a "Financial Fuckery" topic than Google btw)

This is a sign that google is evil? Anyone who voluntarily hands huge sums of cash to corrupt government wankers whenever their protection guys as much as asks is part of the problem. Tax evasion is tantamount to fucking patriotism in this day and age. Paying your taxes is nice on paper, taxes are used to fix the roads and build hospitals but, in reality, you're handing charity food to Somali warlords in the hope that they'll give it to the hungry.

Um, my point was that only (often very corrupt) mega corporations can pull of tax evasion on that scale because only they have the resources to hire army of (entirely corrupt) lawyers at places like Price Waterhouse Cooper to "start a project".

Those links make it very clear that it is not merely very hard for an individual or small company to do this, but actually impossible.

And that is ALSO part of the problem.

I also said it wasn't strictly about Google.

Google is censoring filesharing/torrent sites:

http://torrentfreak.com/google-starts-censoring-bittorrent-rapidshare-and-more-110126/
http://torrentfreak.com/google-now-censors-the-pirate-bay-isohunt-4shared-and-more-111123/

Not actually in their search results but only in their autocomplete/suggest feature.

I realized that last week when I was looking for an episode of some show. The result I was looking for didn't occur on google, but it was the 4th hit on yahoo.

BTW check it out, if you're a semi-famous rich venture capitalist (Paul Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)), user "pg") that runs a silicon valley startup-incrowd link aggegrator (HackerNews (http://news.ycombinator.com/news)) and suddenly you're no longer the #1 Google hit for "Hacker News" because you purposefully blocked all but one GoogleBot IPs because your site can't cope with their traffic (wtf), then Big Names at Google such as Matt Cutts (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/) will fucking bend over backwards to analyse your problem, "ping the right people" and then email you asking what you'd like them to do.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3277661

:lulz:

(to anyone who's about to reply something along the lines as "I can't believe you're surprised": 1. Kick yourself in the NUTS. 2. Harder. 3. This is the first time I've seen it this blatantly out in the open and now I know some names)

 :lol:

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 25, 2011, 07:57:24 PM
BTW check it out, if you're a semi-famous rich venture capitalist (Paul Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)), user "pg") that runs a silicon valley startup-incrowd link aggegrator (HackerNews (http://news.ycombinator.com/news)) and suddenly you're no longer the #1 Google hit for "Hacker News" because you purposefully blocked all but one GoogleBot IPs because your site can't cope with their traffic (wtf), then Big Names at Google such as Matt Cutts (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/) will fucking bend over backwards to analyse your problem, "ping the right people" and then email you asking what you'd like them to do.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3277661

:lulz:

(to anyone who's about to reply something along the lines as "I can't believe you're surprised": 1. Kick yourself in the NUTS. 2. Harder. 3. This is the first time I've seen it this blatantly out in the open and now I know some names)

Wow.  :lulz:

Oh and it's not even that Hacker News--while an interesting link aggregator for all sorts of breaking tech news--is actually a useful first hit for "hacker news". Hacking (security) is hardly discussed at all¹ and hacking (tinkering) is completely not understood by many of them, seriously inquiring what's the use of jailbreaking an iPhone, saying 99% of consumers don't care about being locked in and neither do they because it does all they need, which is all fine (if stupid+sheepish) but definitely not a hackers POV.

So yeah, it's not even like they deserve the top #1 result for those keywords.


¹though a recent discussion surprised me, there appeared a few people that could provide a CSRF/XSS PoC at the drop of a hat to demonstrate why a certain vulnerability was to be taken serious (cross-site request forgery/cross-site scripting proof of concept) (indeed the acronyms are not particularly consistent)

How to enable "verbatim search" in Google/Firefox:

http://codestruggle.blogspot.com/2011/12/google-verbatim-search.html

(aka, how Google used to work, sort of)

Trip, your a fukin superhero.

Quote from: Telarus on December 02, 2011, 05:48:21 AM
Trip, your a fukin superhero.

Yes, and during daytime, I'm just an ordinary guy posting links to useful Google tricks.

(Don't tell anyone.)

 :lulz:

WOW Google, just wow ...

http://blog.mocality.co.ke/2012/01/13/google-what-were-you-thinking/

Mocality is a startup business building an online directory of Kenyan businesses. "Get Kenyan Businesses Online" is one of the many Google projects worldwide that offers small businesses in 3rd world countries a website and Google placement in a Google directory of Google businesses Google.

And then, this is the story of Google hiring callcentres on various continents to systematically click through the Mocality listings, call up those businesses, claim Mocality works for Google to sell them websites and make even more fraudulent claims.

"Hi there, I have a bank account I'd like to use to facilitate international money transfers. What's that? You're a prince?! That's great news, you're just the man I'm looking for."
                              \ \
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/PaulPaladin/PaulPaladin0704/PaulPaladin070400044/899146-businessman-making-a-phone-call.jpg)

Yeaah I know what it looks like, yet there seems to be something more going on. Here's the story on BoingBoing:

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/13/google-fraudulently-solicits-f.html

"Do No Evil?"

Google said they'll come with a statement soon.

Personally I prefer to jump to conclusions and poop all over them.

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 04:29:07 PM
Google said they'll come with a statement soon.

Personally I prefer to jump to conclusions and poop all over them.

If they need time to think up a statement, I'll just drop my pance now and start the holocaust.

Good man!

But seriously there's several things rather fishy about this.

Some apologists say it's probably random scammers that proxied with a Google IP to pretend to be Google ("pretend to be someone else" is Scammer 101 they say), but it just doesn't add up. Mostly because the only reason those IPs surfaced were because Mocality did some (IMO) rather unexpected reverse-scamming, serving up a fake callback phonenumber to just that IP. I'm not buying that random scammers troubled themselves to get a valid Google-IP proxy just for that eventuality. (an eventuality in which they would be exposed anyhow)

My guess is Google will come with some statement that this was a rogue outsourced team that did not act in accordance with blablablabla

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
Good man!

But seriously there's several things rather fishy about this.

Some apologists say it's probably random scammers that proxied with a Google IP to pretend to be Google ("pretend to be someone else" is Scammer 101 they say), but it just doesn't add up. Mostly because the only reason those IPs surfaced were because Mocality did some (IMO) rather unexpected reverse-scamming, serving up a fake callback phonenumber to just that IP. I'm not buying that random scammers troubled themselves to get a valid Google-IP proxy just for that eventuality. (an eventuality in which they would be exposed anyhow)

My guess is Google will come with some statement that this was a rogue outsourced team that did not act in accordance with blablablabla

Towering self-righteous indignation...RUINED!   :cry:

Man this is the second time I made you cry lately! :( And I don't even get what you're trying to say here?

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:13:01 PM
Man this is the second time I made you cry lately! :( And I don't even get what you're trying to say here?

I just wanted to spaz out, and you RUINED it with your "logic" and your "wait for the facts" and your "let the other side have its say".

It's easy to see you're not an American™.  Or you wouldn't be tromping all over my Freedom™ that way.

Oh man! But I WAS spazzing out and then I thought you were taking the piss over MY jumping to conclusions!

(so I gave with arguments, common European fault)

Let's do it again! FUCK GOOGLE


(and just for you: MOAR PAYPAL FUCKERY: http://christianowens.com/post/15771850658/my-recent-experience-with-paypal-customer-service -- though I think it will be a while--if ever--before they top that violin thing ... that was just ... wow)

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:19:24 PM
Oh man! But I WAS spazzing out and then I thought you were taking the piss over MY jumping to conclusions!

(so I gave with arguments, common European fault)

Let's do it again! FUCK GOOGLE


(and just for you: MOAR PAYPAL FUCKERY: http://christianowens.com/post/15771850658/my-recent-experience-with-paypal-customer-service -- though I think it will be a while--if ever--before they top that violin thing ... that was just ... wow)

Erhalten Sie Ihre Schokolade aus der meinen Erdnussbutter!

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2012, 05:22:32 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:19:24 PM
Oh man! But I WAS spazzing out and then I thought you were taking the piss over MY jumping to conclusions!

(so I gave with arguments, common European fault)

Let's do it again! FUCK GOOGLE


(and just for you: MOAR PAYPAL FUCKERY: http://christianowens.com/post/15771850658/my-recent-experience-with-paypal-customer-service -- though I think it will be a while--if ever--before they top that violin thing ... that was just ... wow)

Erhalten Sie Ihre Schokolade aus der meinen Erdnussbutter!

:fap:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2012, 05:22:32 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:19:24 PM
Oh man! But I WAS spazzing out and then I thought you were taking the piss over MY jumping to conclusions!

(so I gave with arguments, common European fault)

Let's do it again! FUCK GOOGLE


(and just for you: MOAR PAYPAL FUCKERY: http://christianowens.com/post/15771850658/my-recent-experience-with-paypal-customer-service -- though I think it will be a while--if ever--before they top that violin thing ... that was just ... wow)

Erhalten Sie Ihre Schokolade aus der meinen Erdnussbutter!

ERDNUSSBUTTER IST EIN BROTAUFSTRICH, DESSEN HAUPTBESTANDTEIL GEMAHLENE ERDNÜSSE SIND!!!!
INNERHALB DER EU WERDEN FÜR ERDNUSSBUTTER DIE HANDELSNAMEN ERDNUSSCREME, ERDNUSSMUS ODER ERDNUSSPASTE VERWENDET!!!!

ZUSAMMEN MIT PFLANZLICHEM ÖL, SALZ UND ZUCKER BILDEN DIE ERDNÜSSE EINE HOMOGENE, STREICHFÄHIGE MASSE. DER FETTANTEIL VON ERDNUSSBUTTER IST DURCH DEN GROßEN ERDNUSS- UND ÖLANTEIL SEHR HOCH. ERDNUSSBUTTER ENTHÄLT IM SCHNITT 2.500 KJ (597 KCAL) PRO 100 G UND IST REICH AN DEN VITAMINEN E UND H!!!!
                        \

       (http://www.allinfo.plus.com/revision-gcse/Images/hitler_speech.jpg)
       

 :lulz:

Trip wins.

:lulz:

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 05:19:24 PM
Oh man! But I WAS spazzing out and then I thought you were taking the piss over MY jumping to conclusions!

(so I gave with arguments, common European fault)

Let's do it again! FUCK GOOGLE


(and just for you: MOAR PAYPAL FUCKERY: http://christianowens.com/post/15771850658/my-recent-experience-with-paypal-customer-service -- though I think it will be a while--if ever--before they top that violin thing ... that was just ... wow)

Oh, that's PRICELESS.  :lulz:

Google makes a statement!

It was them! Oops!

we do what we must, because we can
for the good of all us
except the ones who are dead
*but there's no use crying over every mistake
you just keep on trying ...* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RthZgszykLs#t=75)

(Roger--or anyone who hasn't heard it, you gonna really like this song)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/115264064268941645500/posts/WfALKwfmCGJ
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3462129

QuoteWe were mortified to learn that a team of people working on a Google project improperly used Mocality's data and misrepresented our relationship with Mocality to encourage customers to create new websites. We've already unreservedly apologised to Mocality. We're still investigating exactly how this happened, and as soon as we have all the facts, we'll be taking the appropriate action with the people involved.

The excuse is that it was an outsourced team that just happened to interpret the instructions "creatively". The problem with this is that this scam has been going on for months so it's pretty gross oversight even if it was just people you hired (in two different locations).

In other news, I know what my opinion was on Microsoft ~10 years ago, but Bill Gates is ... well ... he seems to be a hero in some sense (not the Bradley Manning sense, but there's a lot of senses to hero):

http://holykaw.alltop.com/bill-gates-is-better-than-batman-infographic

Good on him. It's heartening to learn that he is using his wealth for good causes.

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 13, 2012, 11:59:49 PM
In other news, I know what my opinion was on Microsoft ~10 years ago, but Bill Gates is ... well ... he seems to be a hero in some sense (not the Bradley Manning sense, but there's a lot of senses to hero):

http://holykaw.alltop.com/bill-gates-is-better-than-batman-infographic

I will accept his heroism when he makes MS stop fucking with my office software.

Millions of kids, great.  I'm still getting the blue screen o' death.

If you weren't scared of Google yet, read this:

Google goes FUBAR (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/115425-google-is-fubar)

It's quite a bit of over-the-top rhetoric, but you can hardly blame 'em since it's all entirely true and factual, and anyone who has accumulated a sizeable amount of data in one Google Account (GMail, YouTube, Web History aka "not logging out before you use Search") has a right to be severely pissed.

You don't get a choice in the matter. Google decided to bite the hand that feeds it (which are still the consumers, not the stock holders--unlike its competitors Apple and Facebook).

So I have until March 1 to find a decent email provider, wipe my data, and inform all my contacts why I'm deleting my accounts. It's been ridiculous enough that I'm not taking care of my email needs myself anyway, why should they be stored anywhere but on my local machine (which has full-disk encryption, naturally¹), and an off-site backup?

(http://i.imgur.com/NdMbx.jpg)

¹ (OT) Ubuntu provides it by default, does your OS? sorry I'm not usually the one to gloat over using Linux but it just occurred to me how odd it is that they don't provide the option, disk encryption is fully transparent, no (significant) performance cost, it's just that without your login/password someone accessing your machine can only get crypted garbage. And of course if you don't enable it right from the start, I suppose it's a lot of effort to start using it. But I wonder, why would anyone not want this feature enabled by default? Wouldn't you? If your newly installed computer, on first boot asked (like Ubuntu did on installation) "Would you like your hard disk encrypted Y/N?" what would you say?

Thought you'd be posting about this.

Yeah, not impressed.  I'll probably still use my Gmail account as my professional account, for applying for jobs and things, but from here on out, I'm going to be looking for something with an actual privacy policy.

I've Used google for professional stuff and now they are merging that account with my youtube account with it's offensive troll posts and the rage comments from people (my trophy wall).

I've wiped my plus account, I had no choice but to wipe my youtube. The whole mess is bullshit. I'm going to try reduce my reliance on google over the next few weeks, I'm using duckduckgo for my new default search engine, I've blocked google analytics and so on.

Huh, for some reason I had figured google combined all those data already.

Quote from: Faust on January 26, 2012, 12:04:01 PM
I've Used google for professional stuff and now they are merging that account with my youtube account with it's offensive troll posts and the rage comments from people (my trophy wall).

I've wiped my plus account, I had no choice but to wipe my youtube. The whole mess is bullshit. I'm going to try reduce my reliance on google over the next few weeks, I'm using duckduckgo for my new default search engine, I've blocked google analytics and so on.

cheers that -- I refuse to link my gmail and youtube accounts. I keep telling myself I'm going to make a fresh gmail account so I can watch restricted youtube content again, but I never get around to it.

I've been using duck duck go for a few weeks now. Increasingly so since I keep seeing everybody's g+ content as the top hits of my search results, which is WRONG. I just wish duckduckgo had a better image search!

I have no idea what's going to happen with the seven gmail accounts I maintain. Hopefully it keeps 'em all separate like they ought to be.

Good point. I have a gmail account for my band, and a separate one for my own productions.

And hey! Aren't our PD.com accounts Google based?

I try and not use gmail for anything important anyway. This also gives me even more reason to set up a new google account for something I've been thinking of doing.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 26, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
Good point. I have a gmail account for my band, and a separate one for my own productions.

And hey! Aren't our PD.com accounts Google based?

They will still remain distinct. But if you have any service linked to a gmail account through: a picasa, blogger, youtube, google+ or whatever account they are all going to roll into one, all comments you made on your blogger account will be searchable and result in say your google plus account.

I've been using DuckDuckGo quite a lot recently. It even ships as the default search engine for fresh Opera installs.

Unfortunately I feel it's not quite there yet. Sometimes it just doesn't have a particular result, often something on a really old webpage. Thankfully DDG makes it easy to quickly try other search engines, cause "try this result on ..." is just linked above the results.

As for Image Search, I usually use Yahoo Image Search myself:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0WTb_54fc9JKnQAYZiLuLkF?p=reptoid&ei=utf-8&iscqry=&fr=sfp
there's also Yandex:
http://images.yandex.com/yandsearch?text=reptoid
which has links to Bing and "Picsearch.com" (never heard of them):
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=reptoid
http://www.picsearch.com/search.cgi?q=reptoid

BTW notice how they all return very different sets of images for the same word! Which is pretty cool because sometimes you notice images from which you just know they were the first hit on Google Image Search, because you've seen them before.

Quote from: Triple Zero on January 26, 2012, 09:38:40 PM
I've been using DuckDuckGo quite a lot recently. It even ships as the default search engine for fresh Opera installs.

Unfortunately I feel it's not quite there yet. Sometimes it just doesn't have a particular result, often something on a really old webpage. Thankfully DDG makes it easy to quickly try other search engines, cause "try this result on ..." is just linked above the results.

As for Image Search, I usually use Yahoo Image Search myself:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0WTb_54fc9JKnQAYZiLuLkF?p=reptoid&ei=utf-8&iscqry=&fr=sfp
there's also Yandex:
http://images.yandex.com/yandsearch?text=reptoid
which has links to Bing and "Picsearch.com" (never heard of them):
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=reptoid
http://www.picsearch.com/search.cgi?q=reptoid

BTW notice how they all return very different sets of images for the same word! Which is pretty cool because sometimes you notice images from which you just know they were the first hit on Google Image Search, because you've seen them before.

That's true actually. In terms of trolling that could be very handy because I think GImages does its best to remove personal pictures.

mwuhaha

(http://i.imgur.com/iQVSI.jpg)

Gmail figured out my yahoo address. It just asked me if I wanted to import all my yahoo mail into my gmail account. YEAH FUCKING RIGHT.


besides, I have a yahoo address so that I don't have to read tea party newsletters every time I check my e-mail.

https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view?sig=ACi0TCh6z2v-h49p4nLHUJw1DbppVeHtOuCkswxvZG8tQuMLKmu54TaFjTUvZ1oTI4DBJ-A1NhglAGPW9u3kd9k-5s-CwcBjv4_6TWLD30zp4ZkUrhC1o8_RU2i9lQDgJPSZpvH0PhEhdbAocTY0D_RPAXyTQOinjg&hl=en
^I beeeelieve this lets you kinda opt out.

QuoteWhen you opt out, Google disables this cookie and no longer associates interest and demographic categories with your browser.

Excellent.  A minor thing, but now done.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on February 16, 2012, 11:51:53 PM
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view?sig=ACi0TCh6z2v-h49p4nLHUJw1DbppVeHtOuCkswxvZG8tQuMLKmu54TaFjTUvZ1oTI4DBJ-A1NhglAGPW9u3kd9k-5s-CwcBjv4_6TWLD30zp4ZkUrhC1o8_RU2i9lQDgJPSZpvH0PhEhdbAocTY0D_RPAXyTQOinjg&hl=en
^I beeeelieve this lets you kinda opt out.

QuoteWhen you opt out, Google disables this cookie and no longer associates interest and demographic categories with your browser.

:mittens:

THANK YOU

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/02/17/140203/google-accused-of-bypassing-safaris-privacy-controls

Apparently, if you are signed in with a google account, and have 'opted to see personalized ads and other content' (that is, everyone who didn't click GARBO's link above), and are using Safari...

QuoteGoogle added coding to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an invisible form to Google. Safari would then let Google install a cookie on the phone or computer.'

Google will not only ignore your browser's privacy settings, but actively work against it.

According to Google, I am a 25-34 year old male.   :lol:

Quote from: Luna on February 18, 2012, 12:01:14 AM
According to Google, I am a 25-34 year old male.   :lol:

:lulz: That's like when FB thought I was a single gay christian man.

I must have missed the facebook demographics thing. :lulz: I'm sure mine would have bee equally hilariously wrong.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 17, 2012, 03:01:24 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on February 16, 2012, 11:51:53 PM
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view?sig=ACi0TCh6z2v-h49p4nLHUJw1DbppVeHtOuCkswxvZG8tQuMLKmu54TaFjTUvZ1oTI4DBJ-A1NhglAGPW9u3kd9k-5s-CwcBjv4_6TWLD30zp4ZkUrhC1o8_RU2i9lQDgJPSZpvH0PhEhdbAocTY0D_RPAXyTQOinjg&hl=en
^I beeeelieve this lets you kinda opt out.

QuoteWhen you opt out, Google disables this cookie and no longer associates interest and demographic categories with your browser.

:mittens:

THANK YOU

'Welcome!

Quote from: Cramulus on February 17, 2012, 03:01:24 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on February 16, 2012, 11:51:53 PM
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view?sig=ACi0TCh6z2v-h49p4nLHUJw1DbppVeHtOuCkswxvZG8tQuMLKmu54TaFjTUvZ1oTI4DBJ-A1NhglAGPW9u3kd9k-5s-CwcBjv4_6TWLD30zp4ZkUrhC1o8_RU2i9lQDgJPSZpvH0PhEhdbAocTY0D_RPAXyTQOinjg&hl=en
^I beeeelieve this lets you kinda opt out.

QuoteWhen you opt out, Google disables this cookie and no longer associates interest and demographic categories with your browser.

:mittens:

THANK YOU

Hm, I have my browser set to "delete all new cookies on exit", disabled with site preferences for certain sites so I stay logged in to PD, Reddit, HN and ProjectEuler. I just checked, those are the only ones. Also I'm blocking Google Ads and Google Analytics.js.

Still most of those "ad preferences" it fit my profile (computer stuff, mostly).

Oh wait I was logged in to GMail :)

Logged out and I see none. But then, I just deleted them all before I logged out. Oh well, I'll retry another time when I've done some Google Searches and such.

I got some interesting creepy news about Google too, which I'll post later (sorry).

EFF: Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect)

But, when I did this it seemed I never turned on web history in the first place, or maybe I opted out the minute I heard about it. Anyway, good to check before that data gets everywhere and one security hole in one google or youtube service can compromise everything.

On the other hand, I'd rather find a decent mail service so I can just remove the biggest chunk of data: my emails. Well I got one week, still :)

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
EFF: Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect)

But, when I did this it seemed I never turned on web history in the first place, or maybe I opted out the minute I heard about it. Anyway, good to check before that data gets everywhere and one security hole in one google or youtube service can compromise everything.

On the other hand, I'd rather find a decent mail service so I can just remove the biggest chunk of data: my emails. Well I got one week, still :)

You never turned it on, neither had I, but my housemate had.
Once turned on it can never be turned off only "paused".

I never turned it on either, but it was nice to confirm.

I don't remembering being asked if I wanted that at all. I paused it, though.

Do I automatically get a G+ account? I don't want one.

Quote from: That'll be five Twid, please. on February 27, 2012, 05:23:24 PM
Do I automatically get a G+ account? I don't want one.

Nope. At least not yet. I still don't have one on two of my gmail accounts.

Quote from: Pope Coyote of the Wolffnords on February 27, 2012, 05:54:00 PM

Quote from: That'll be five Twid, please. on February 27, 2012, 05:23:24 PM
Do I automatically get a G+ account? I don't want one.

Nope. At least not yet. I still don't have one on two of my gmail accounts.

Cool. So I basically wiped my search history and set up Firefox to block cookies from Google and shit.

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread.

One downside I've founded with blocking Google cookies - that fucking annoying "Imma pre-emptively guess what you're typing" feature starts working again.

Setting a site-specific rule to block JavaScript on the Google Search domains would probably put a stop to that. I bet NoScript can do it.

Wait, you mean that isn't Google Gremlins burrowing into my brain and telling the compute what I'm thinking?  Way to ruin the mysticism for me guys!

It is, but they are summoned by JavaScript incantations and are attracted by cookies.

So isn't my wife. 

:rimshot:

Sorry, as you were. 

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/doj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html

QuoteThe Justice Department is defending the government's refusal to discuss—or even acknowledge the existence of—any cooperative research and development agreement between Google and the National Security Agency.

The Washington based advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center sued in federal district court here to obtain documents about any such agreement between the Internet search giant and the security agency.

The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called "Glomar" response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington sided with the government last July.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear the dispute March 20.

EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request in early 2010, noting media reports at the time that the NSA and Google had agreed to a partnership following the cyber attacks in China that year against Google.

EPIC asked for, among other things, communication between the NSA and Google about Gmail and Google's "decision to fail to routinely encrypt" messages before Jan. 13, 2010.

The NSA's response to the request for records noted that the agency "works with a broad range of commercial partners and research associations" to ensure the availability of secure information systems. The agency, however, refused to confirm or deny any partnership with Google.

The security agency said it routinely monitors vulnerabilities in commercial technology and cryptographic products because the government relies heavily on private companies for word processing systems and e-mail software.

"If NSA determines that certain security vulnerabilities or malicious attacks pose a threat to U.S. government information systems, NSA may take action," DOJ Civil Division lawyers Catherine Hancock and Douglas Letter said in a brief in the D.C. Circuit in January.

DOJ's legal team said that acknowledging whether NSA and Google formed a partnership from a cyber attack would illuminate whether the government "considered the alleged attack to be of consequence for critical U.S. government information systems."

NSA said it cannot provide documents—or confirm their existence—because the information would alert adversaries about the security agency's priorities, threat assessments and countermeasures.

DOJ said media reports about the alleged Google partnership with NSA do not constitute official acknowledgement.

"I'm not saying the NSA works with Google...but the NSA works with Google."

http://gizmodo.com/5893145/google-cozies-up-to-the-pentagon

QuoteOn Monday, the Defense Department's best-known geek announced that she was leaving the Pentagon for a job at Google. It was an unexpected move: Washington and Mountain View don't trade top executives very often. But it shouldn't come as a complete surprise. The internet colossus has had a long and deeply complicated relationship with America's military and intelligence communities. Depending on the topic, the time, and the players involved, the Pentagon and the Plex can be customers, business partners, adversaries, or wary allies. Recruiting the director of Darpa to join Google was just the latest move in this intricate dance between behemoths.

To the company's critics in Congress and in the conservative legal community, Google has become a puppet master in Obama's Washington, with Plex executives attending exclusive state dinners and backing White House tech policy initiatives. "Like Halliburton in the previous administration," warned the National Legal and Policy Center in 2010, "Google has an exceptionally close relationship with the current administration." To the company's foes outside the U.S. - especially in Beijing - Google is viewed as a virtual extension of the U.S. government: "the White House's Google," as one state-sponsored Chinese magazine put it.

But in the halls of the Pentagon and America's intelligence agencies, Google casts a relatively small shadow, at least compared to those of big defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Northrop Grumman, and SAIC. Yes, a small handful of one-time Googlers joined the Obama administration after the 2008 election, but most of those people are now back in the private sector. Sure, Google turned to the network defense specialists at the National Security Agency, when the company became the target of a sophisticated hacking campaign in 2009. The Lockheeds and the Northrops of the world share with the Pentagon information about viruses and malware in their networks every day.

Government work is, after all, only a minuscule part of Google's business. And that allows the Plex to take a nuanced, many-pronged approach when dealing with spooks and generals. (The company did not respond to requests to comment for this article.)

Google has a federally focused sales force, marketing its search appliances and its apps to the government. They've sold millions of dollars' worth of gear to the National Security Agency's secretive eavesdroppers and to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's satellite watchmen. And they're making major inroads in the mobile market, where Android has become the operating system of choice for the military's burgeoning smartphone experiments. But unlike other businesses operating in the Beltway, Google doesn't often customize its wares for its Washington clients. It's a largely take-it-or-leave-it approach to marketing.

"They shit all over any request for customization," says a former Google executive. "The attitude is: 'we know how to build software. If you don't know how to use it, you're an idiot.'"

Some of that software, though, only made it to Mountain View after an infusion of government cash. Take the mapping firm Keyhole, backed by In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency. Google bought Keyhole in 2004 - and then turned it into the backbone for Google Earth, which has become a must-have tool in all sorts of imagery analysis cells. When I visited a team of Air Force targeteers in 2009, a Google Earth map highlighting all the known hospitals, mosques, graveyards, and schools in Afghanistan helped them pick which buildings to bomb or not.

Around the same time, the investment arms of Google and the CIA both put cash into Recorded Future, a company that monitors social media in real time - and tries to use that information to predict upcoming events.

"Turns out that there are several natural places to take an ability to harvest and analyze the internet to predict future events," e-mails Recorded Future CEO Christopher Ahlberg. "There's search, where any innovation that provides improved relevance is helpful; and intelligence, which at some level is all about predicting events and their implications. (Finance is a third.) That made Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel two very natural investors that provides us hooks into the worlds of search and intelligence."
The government and Google have more than a mutual interest in mining publicly available data. The feds ask Google to turn over information about its customers. Constantly. Last fall, the Justice Department demanded that the company give up the IP addresses of Wikileaks supporters. During the first six months of 2011, U.S. government agencies sent Google 5,950 criminal investigation requests for data on Google users and services, as our sister blog Threat Level noted at the time. That's an average of 31 a day, and Google said it complied with 93 percent of those requests.

Google is pretty much the only company that publishes the number of requests it receives - a tactic which sometimes causes teeth to grind in D.C. But it's essential to the well-being of Plex's core business: its consumer search advertising. Google, as we all know, keeps a titanic amount of information about every aspect of our online lives. Customers largely have trusted the company so far, because of the quality of its products, and because there's some sense that the Plex and the Pentagon aren't swapping data wholesale. These small acts of resistance maintain that perceived barrier.

Not long ago - in the middle of the last decade, say - Google held an almost talismanic power inside military and intelligence agencies. Google made searching the web simple and straightforward. Surely, the government ought to be able to do the same for its databases.

"You kept hearing: 'how come this can't work like Google,'" says Bob Gourley, who served as the Defense Intelligence Agency's Chief Technology Officer from 2005 to 2007. "But after a while the technologists got educated. You don't really want Google."

Or at least, not in that way. Even complex web searches are single strands of information. Intelligence analysts are hunting for interlocking chains of events: Person A in the same cafe as person B, who chats with person C, who gives some cash to person D. Those queries were so intricate, government engineers had to program each one in by hand, not so long ago. But lately, more sophisticated tools have come onto the market; the troops and spooks have gotten better at integrating their databases. Google's products are still used, of course. But it's just one vendor among many.

Here's a nice page with lots of links to alternatives to Google's many services:

http://nyms.wikispaces.com/Google+Alternatives

The text may sound a bit "activist" (although knowing Google as we do now, there's not much wrong with how the author words it), regardless I checked a few of the links and it's really a very good comprehensive resource. Even if you're not looking for Google alternatives, there's a bunch of pretty cool web services in there.

If anyone finds a good alternative to GMail though, I'm listening! (I doubt there's much choice except hosting my own, though)