Am I alone in thinking that Google are going just a bit too far lately?

[bluelamp999]

Firstly, I'm no tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. I've used and appreciated Google products for close on a decade, e.g. search and Gmail.

However, just lately there seems to an an onslaught of big G products with somewhat worrying implications.

Consider...

The 'personalised' search history that requires explicitly opting out - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html

The DNS servers - http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/

Proposed HTTP replacement - http://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html

Then there's the explicit opt out required for browser advertising - http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/

Not to mention the browser and the imminent OS...

The fact that some of the above require a higher than usual degree of tech/Internet savvy to avail of the opting out choice, the fact that the least 'private' option is the default, the pronouncements by CEO Eric Schmidt - http://blogs.computerworld.com/15234/google_ceo_if_you_want_privacy_do_you_have_somethi ng_to_hide

All the above seem to imply that the gloves are off and they're going flat out for net domination.

As mentioned, I'm no paranoid delusionist (I think!) but it looks like the days of 'Don't be evil.' are being replaced with a cold monopolist outlook.

I could, of course, be wrong...

[TheNessus]

If they are going to far, humanity will catch up sooner or later.
If they are going to far and humanity won't catch up, their endeavors will fail and retract to mere mail and search.

[falconindy]

How dare they try to provide alternative solutions to aging technologies!

MORE POWER TO THE STATUS QUO.

[BigCityCat]

I use yahoo search. That's one way to get around it. Use something else.

Also their browser is open source so an exact clone has been made that does not have have the spyware. So there is an alternative that is even the same browser. Not to mention all the other browsers available.


Iron browser is developed by a German software company SRWare. It is based on the open source Chromium source code and has the same feature as Chrome. What makes it different is that all the privacy features, such as Client ID, Google update, Google suggest are stripped off and it is able to provide a more secure environment for its users.

http://maketecheasier.com/iron-browser-a-secure-alternative-to-google-chrome/2009/07/08

[H4F]

I noticed that myself recently. but for now its just the best thinks that I can use is from google. gmail and search.

[LinuxFanBoi]

However, just lately there seems to an an onslaught of big G products with somewhat worrying implications.

Already removed chrome and changed my Firefox default search engine (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=ixquick&cat=all&advancedsearch=1&as=1&appid=1&lver=3.5&atype=0&pp=20&pid=2&sort=&lup=) to ixquick.com.

It's a matter of principal as others have said before, it's my way to fight back against Google's business model. Hopefully enough people will figure out what Google is up to and vote with their feet, to force Google to take people's privacy seriously.

[GeekWithAn8]

Personally, I'm not too worried about privacy because seriously, where in our world today, including the net, can you really have that? (Guess what the military/secret service sector does on us all the time...) While I don't necessarily agree to these invasions I think it's pointless to fight against them. Unfortunately. Anyway, when I first read the title of this thread I though this was going more into the direction of Google's diversification into the products market, like Wave, Chrome OS and most significantly, the Android phone OS. That to me is kinda scary...

[LinuxFanBoi]

Personally, I'm not too worried about privacy because seriously, where in our world today, including the net, can you really have that? (Guess what the military/secret service sector does on us all the time...) While I don't necessarily agree to these invasions I think it's pointless to fight against them. Unfortunately. Anyway, when I first read the title of this thread I though this was going more into the direction of Google's diversification into the products market, like Wave, Chrome OS and most significantly, the Android phone OS. That to me is kinda scary...

I don't think the average person need be concerned with protecting every aspect of what they do online, but they should be aware of what SHOULD be kept private. For me I prefer all aspects of what I do to be private, but that's just me. Online banking and purchase information, P2P activity and any activity that is, or if taken out of context could be considered illegal should be kept encrypted.

[murderslastcrow]

Hm. I didn't know about this lack of privacy thing. XD

I'll have to do some more research on it. I'm sure you guys have good reasons for your claims, notwithstanding OP's comments.

Still, I think Google's just trying to establish themselves, not monopolize the internet. They mostly support open technologies. If their technology is better, and open source, I don't see why not use it, since they're just contributing.

If we don't like what they're doing with it, we fork it to serve our needs. Simple as that.

[LinuxFanBoi]

If we don't like what they're doing with it, we fork it to serve our needs. Simple as that.

It seems someone already has.

http://maketecheasier.com/iron-browser-a-secure-alternative-to-google-chrome/2009/07/08


For those who are tempted to use Google Chrome, but are concerned about your privacy being recorded by Google, you can stop worrying now. Iron browser is an exact clone of Google Chrome, without the privacy annoyance features.

[Shpongle]

Iv noticed that too , i plan to switch to iron when it becomes a bit more stable , still on chromium for now , but id trust google before i trust ms or apple , at least they support open source. I dont agree with theyre privacy policy though. if someone were to own or buy google they would essentially have a profile on most of the worlds computer users. and could use that information for whatever they wish. thats why we have to fight the privacy rights. staying open source is the best way! as we get to see whats in our programs and can change them if we dont like it

[BigSilly]

While I don't necessarily agree to these invasions I think it's pointless to fight against them...

Yeah, resistance is futile and all that...

[lightstream]

Any business will aspire to monopolise the markets it operates in, and will also branch out into new markets (which it will also seek to dominate).

Think of it as survival of the fittest. Companies differ in their approach and how they go about this, but the pressure to monopolise is common to them all.

As individuals with an interest in an open market, it doesn't do any harm if we all stay alert and do our bit to encourage competition, such as using alternative search engines, and resisting Google's increasing attempts to make themselves more and more the centre-point of the internet.

[joey-elijah]

All of this "OUR PRIVACYYY!!" etc is senseless, herd-repeating hype.

What privacies are being supposedly invaded that you're not happy about? As you've said yourself you CAN opt out or use a different search engine.

When has anyone been hurt, damaged or left in tatters by Googles' privacy policies? They haven't.

Pretty much all of the concerns over Google's provacy are the exact same ones you'll find using any search engine.

Google doesn't know who the hell you are personally. No-one is say there looking at what YOU searched for. It doesn't know your name, it doesn't know your face. You're just a string of numbers and letters and so is any data related to what you're searching for any what browser you're using.

It's all just data that is assimilated. Data from billions of searches every hour. It's all just data and non-identifiable at that. So it tells the google brain what browser a searcher is using and what time they search... but how is that potentially dangerous?! You really think somone is going to walk into a Google datacentre and somehow plow through gazzillions of strings of data and somehow, out of it all, find out that 234agasbddbx_c is actually Mr Buntu User and he looked for some hax0rs code at 12.13am? Really?

One of Chromes' features is a bar that knows what you're looking for. DOn't take that too literally - there isn't a man sat feeding in terms to chromes' omnibar from a page with your name on it. It's math deciding it. and math ain't got agenda.

Of course the only other issue is that Google has to keep all of this data for around 9 months in case the government wants to look at it. but that's a legal requirement and google doesn't do anything with that data.

It's nothing personal!

[LinuxFanBoi]

Google doesn't know who the hell you are personally. No-one is say there looking at what YOU searched for. It doesn't know your name, it doesn't know your face. You're just a string of numbers and letters and so is any data related to what you're searching for any what browser you're using. It's nothing personal!

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots, only a subpoena.

[bluelamp999]

All of this "OUR PRIVACYYY!!" etc is senseless, herd-repeating hype.

'''

It's nothing personal!

It's not the notional concept of web 'privacy' I'm particularly worried about. It's pretty much a given that anything you commit to the cloud is recorded, retained and researched.

It's the fact that Google seem to making a preemptive push to corner the control of certain essential facets of Web infrastructure. I fear that the Web/Internet/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is going to end up run by one corporation and that Google are aggressively jockeying for that prize.

[murderslastcrow]

I'm pretty sure no one can own the internet.

[bluelamp999]

I'm pretty sure no one can own the internet.

Wait and see...

[chris200x9]

I'm pretty sure no one can own the internet.

All your internetz are belong to us.

[starcannon]

You needed a poll with this lol.

The easy answer is, no, they have not gone too far. It is a voluntary choice to use or not use google. If their practices make you uncomfortable, you can use another search engine, email provider, or indeed set up your own email server.

Options exist; google is not the only game in town.

GL and HF and thanks for investing in Reynolds Aluminum Wrap.

[Exodist]

This is why I dont use chrome.

[MooPi]

All FUD, I'd even go as far to say it's Microsoft driven. If you listen to the video, Eric Schmidt implicates all search engines. I don't do anything on the web that I'll ever worry about. Besides I go to the free wifi down the street for my pron addiction. I meant to say PRON.

[Frak]

Darn Google for making better implementations and releasing the source codes under fully-free licenses (of course, with the exception of DNS). How dare they.

[Hated On Mostly]

At a minimum, Google's view on privacy is hypocritical.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/


If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker.



Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google.

http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people



The generous explanation for Schmidt's statement is that he's revolutionized his thinking since 2005, when he blacklisted CNET for publishing info about him gleaned from Google searches, including salary, neighborhood, hobbies and political donations. In that case, the married CEO must not mind all the coverage of his various reputed girlfriends; it's odd he doesn't clarify what's going on with the widely-rumored extramarital dalliances, though.


One should be highly wary of anyone who says "do as I say, not as I do".

[SoloSalsa]

No, you are not alone. Two years ago, I would have called Google my
favourite company. But now I am searching for alternatives. My ideas
are similar to those in this discussion:
http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps.php?id=0284 (http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps.php?id=0284

)

.
The first "evil" thing bigG did is force Chemoogle (an unrelated
chemistry search engine) to change its name, but that is minor.

What I dislike about them takes a long time to describe. Their
mission was originally to make all information easier to access.
However, since there is more and more financial interest in the Web
(especially with people pouring personal infos in social networks),
everything online is following this trend of less intelligent info,
more short-attention entertainment, and more advertising to pay for
the entertaining bits.

One example is Google Video: it was just for video, and allowed
downloads. But they ditched it for youtube, try their hardest to
complicate downloads, and orient the whole site toward watching more.
It bothers me that the "recommended" box is always expanded, but "from
this uploader" is most-always initially closed. Also, that ads appear
OVER the video, unlike their non-obtrusive text Web ads.

I hate that they have such immense focus on telephone and
communication services. Frankly, I wish they never made Android, as
it took all focus away from OpenMoko and other freedom projects. What
does Wave have to do with finding good information? Am I the only one
who knows what Wave is, but does not care for it?

Of course, with all the "popular" short attention span stuff online
now, comes the marketing, the huge SEO industry and other shady
effects of commercialisation. I wish Google tried harder to block all
of that crap. There are things I would have found online easily two
years ago, but now are nowhere near the front of Google results.

I am looking for a search engine that allows paid membership and ZERO
advertisements. I am not just looking for ad-blocking solutions.
Even if I never see the ads, they are still being made. I want a
service worth paying for, and since it is paid, will NEVER advertise
to its subscribers. It is easier to trust a company that delivers for
a price, instead of delivering ads alongside the service.

[3rdalbum]

HTTP desperately needed updating. The ideas that Google implemented have literally been around for 10 years (I remember reading about them on a website back in high school) and it's obvious that the W3C doesn't care about the real web standards, only on these daft proposals that don't help anybody. Timed Text and XML Events, anyone?

Google has an interesting idea regarding DNS. The real value of their DNS service is not in you using Google's service, but in your ISP implementing the same idea so your domain resolution happens a lot quicker. What's wrong with having a DNS that's free for anyone to use? OpenDNS does the same thing.

I don't know anything about the search and advertising stuff so I can't comment on that; but search and advertising is Google's business.