Google - Privacy and other issues

[Esk247]

Well i'm not getting involved in another thread like the moo cushion argument i've already had.

So by 'people' i meant those who i've talked to about this, the other half, some of my customers etc. So more than one, but I keep forgetting that I have to insert a 'Disclaimer' at the end of everything I say because it is taken in a literal sense instead of just a comment on a forum about a subject that has been raised by someone else.

Would these changes benefit Google Plc? Yes
Do they benefit me, a consumer? PERSONALLY <<<< me not anyone else, not it does not benefit me at the moment or from my experience of it over the last few weeks since these targetted adverts started appearing.

My gripe with them is that they're slow to respond to changes in search behaviour e.g. listing adverts for something i've searched for an hour ago.

I also don't like the idea whereby if someone else were to use my computer straight away it would display adverts relevant to what i was searching for before they started using it. e.g. that person will have a general idea of what i've been looking for on the interwibble << but this is a totally separate argument and can of worms.

It's a mixed bag of views, clearly.

 

[bdw]

Not "some people", "people".

If you want to be pedantic.
Not "all people", "people".

I'd suspect that, in this instance, my personal opinion is worth a lot more than yours.

From what I am reading I would suspect that Esk's opinion is closer to public opinion than yours. I am seeing more and more people complaining in forums that Google is annoying them or giving them security concerns.

Sorry - posted at same time as above.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

From what I am reading I would suspect that Esk's opinion is closer to public opinion than yours. I am seeing more and more people complaining in forums that Google is annoying them

People in forums complaining about stuff? Well, I never.

It reminds me of a scene from the Simpsons:

Homer: Two hours!? Why did they build this Ghost Town so far away!?
Lisa: Because they discovered Gold right over there...
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything!

I stand by my claim that (A) Google is doing this for a reason and that reason is more money and (B) Google + data is a lot smarter than a bunch of forum dwellers who think that, despite not seeing any data, they know better.

Steve

 

[bdw]

Sorry, you've lost me. :|

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Sorry, you've lost me. :|

Really? My simple argument that facts beat guesswork is over your head?

Steve

 

[bdw]

Yes, I only have a small head.

 

[Esk247]

Google + data is a lot smarter than a bunch of forum dwellers who think that, despite not seeing any data, they know better.

Better for who though? the person using the search engine or Google Plc?

I'm sticking on the side of the person using the search engine.

I don't know better than Google, I don't have the data. All i'm saying is i don't like the way they're intruding on my online life in order to satisfy their own development..without asking me if thats ok first. Maybe they should state on the homepage that they will take X amount of data from you for using the free service.

Although, in the other thread, they're talking of Google merging Google Maps data and natural search results data to give a location to your business when people are searching by location....i see this is a benefit to both Google and the person searching for something locally.

 

[estwig]

I don't like Tesco, for no particular reason, so I don't go to Tesco
I don't like my local VW dealer, there a bunch of thieving lying gits, so I don't go there either.

Why do people think Google has to behave in a way they approve of, if you don't like Google, don't use it. Google owes you nothing.

 

[Esk247]

I don't like Tesco, for no particular reason, so I don't go to Tesco
I don't like my local VW dealer, there a bunch of thieving lying gits, so I don't go there either.

Why do people think Google has to behave in a way they approve of, if you don't like Google, don't use it. Google owes you nothing.

Well i don't use Google for my own searching but my customers do and I have to build websites that fit within the parameters set by google and bing. Therefore I have to use Google to reach the mass market.

I like the Google interface, they do so much right but then lack so much in areas like data handling. They want to know EVERYTHING. Thats the problem, the days of being able to search almost anonymously are gone, they can now tie your facebook details to your search habits and they can create there own profile of you...without permission to do so.

It's taking the term of 'analysing your target market' to a whole new level.

Is Gordon Brown behind this new idea by Google? he wanted to know how many people came to visit our house in the last census..and what I had for tea.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Google + data is a lot smarter than a bunch of forum dwellers who think that, despite not seeing any data, they know better.

Better for who though? the person using the search engine or Google Plc?

I'm sticking on the side of the person using the search engine.

I'm not taking sides.

I expect there to be a price for using a service. In the case of publishing, that price is usually ads.

I remember a story from the early 90s where Scottish Television was showing a Rangers-Celtic game.

They were still showing ads when the 2nd half started and this guy phoned to complain about it - "Why are you showing ads when the effing football is on?"

To which the girl bluntly replied, "There wouldn't be any effing football if it wasn't for the effing ads."

As Estwig said, if you don't like the price of using a service, don't use that service.

Steve

 

[Esk247]

but Steve, we don't know what the price is! they won't tell us.

 

[estwig]

but Steve, we don't know what the price is! they won't tell us.

The price is your Soul, and the Souls of your children!!

Alternatively I believe a Moo cushion about covers it!!!

 

[Jeff Knows]

If you are worried, opt out. http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy_tools.html

Google provide the tools to do so, which is more than most of the competitors do. Ofcourse they could just be pretending because they are an evil company, right?

Or go look at what Ad categories they've slotted you into, they'll let you remove those to. http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/

Or perhaps all the Google services you are associated with and what they know? http://www.google.com/dashboard

 

[movietub]

Many people do not realise that when using Google while they are logged in for Gmail or whatever they are collecting all the information that you submit. Many people don't realise the implications of this. Personally I am now only logging in when I have to. They are getting no more voluntarily from me. They will have to steal it ... but then that's what they do anyway, isn't it?

Sensationalism is a strong point of yours then?

Of course if you use a Google product they will collate data. I collate data about my customers - to better serve them. Of course I only want to better serve them to get more of their money, but thats business. The same could be said about Google.

Similarly if I see a customer pull into our car park in a 5 series, as opposed to a clio, I would take note and probably introduce them to the more expensive end of our product range first.

This is what all businesses do to some extent - normally to the greatest extent they can! I can't see anything in what you have said that is concerning or even suprising. Certainly it's not bad practice.

Is it just because Google are very big? I admit that one company holding the levels of information they do is a powerful thing, but is it a bad thing? They use it to better target ads... And I can't imagine anything melevolant they could ever do that would make them more money than that. So whats your concern?

As for stealing... slander..?

 

[bdw]

Sensationalism is a strong point of yours then?

Don't make me laugh! Where did that come from? All I am doing is documenting the stuff that Google is doing as reported on different sources. Don't blame me, blame all the millions of others who question their activities. Don't shoot the messenger!

I can't see anything in what you have said that is concerning or even suprising. Certainly it's not bad practice.

Then that's fine. Move on and let we paranoid people discuss this amongst ourselves.

(Actually this is what bothers me most about this situation. Why do all of you guys feel compelled to defend Google's unquestionably questionable processes? Wake up and smell the coffee or go away and let me catalogue it.)

 

[bdw]

Moving on...

Google Agrees to Change Ad Policy to Settle Case,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/technology/29google.html

.

 

And I can't imagine anything melevolant they could ever do that would make them more money than that.

So you enjoy getting unsolicited e-mails and phone calls from robots just as you is sitting down to dinner.

On the web the more your details are known so the square root of the garbbage that hits you does.

As for melevolant,I do believe some of the worlds security organisation may be able to help you out there.

Googles motivation will be to make money by hook or by crook.

Earl

 

[movietub]

Don't make me laugh! Where did that come from? All I am doing is documenting the stuff that Google is doing as reported on different sources. Don't blame me, blame all the millions of others who question their activities. Don't shoot the messenger!

Then that's fine. Move on and let we paranoid people discuss this amongst ourselves.

(Actually this is what bothers me most about this situation. Why do all of you guys feel compelled to defend Google's unquestionably questionable processes? Wake up and smell the coffee or go away and let me catalogue it.)

I don't feel compelled to defend Google. I feel that it's wrong to 'catalogue' (or in other words spread the bad word) without being able to demonstrate that you have sought the real truths yourself, and fully understand the accusations.

Read back, and you will notice that I have tried to avoid making statements, and instead asked questions. I have said how I see the situation, and asked people with the opposite viewpoint to justify it. In other words, debate.

If uou want to simply to make a new list of all accusations against google, but not discuss that list, then you would be being actively anti-google. And if you are publicly standind against a company you need to be able justify your views.

 

[movietub]

So you enjoy getting unsolicited e-mails and phone calls from robots just as you is sitting down to dinner.

On the web the more your details are known so the square root of the garbbage that hits you does.

As for melevolant,I do believe some of the worlds security organisation may be able to help you out there.

Googles motivation will be to make money by hook or by crook.

Earl

It ain't desirable, but if you use anyone services, you accept they learn a little about you. If you use Google services all day long, then pro rata they know a lot about you.

Yes Google want to make money any way they can, they are in business. My point is, why would they bother or risk deliberetly sneaking around pinching data and breaking laws, when they can make huge amounts of money doing things that are quite legitimate?

 

It ain't desirable, but if you use anyone services, you accept they learn a little about you. If you use Google services all day long, then pro rata they know a lot about you.

Yes Google want to make money any way they can, they are in business. My point is, why would they bother or risk deliberetly sneaking around pinching data and breaking laws, when they can make huge amounts of money doing things that are quite legitimate?

Er Greed is the usual reason people do naughties.

P.S I don't want a gaggle of roller skating yobs in mountain view knowing FA about me .

Earl

 

[bdw]

My point is, why would they bother or risk deliberetly sneaking around pinching data and breaking laws, when they can make huge amounts of money doing things that are quite legitimate?

Aha! I think you are getting it but that is a question that only G can answer.

 

[movietub]

Er Greed is the usual reason people do naughties.

P.S I don't want a gaggle of roller skating yobs in mountain view knowing FA about me .

Earl

Greed may be a motivator of naughtiness, but not if the small amount of money from naughtiness would jeapordise the massive legitimate success you already have. It's so obvious that Google have no use for a few hundred passwords or credit card details they could pick-up by listening to a few unsecured packets of data travelling via wifi. The organistaions listed at about £150bn. Thats twice our national defecit, and we are considered a rich country still. I doubt very much that the chairmen asked harry and sam in the streetview van to swipe a few facebook passwords whilst on their rounds taking piccies.

Would you steal pick and mix if you had earned £50m a year?

 

[movietub]

Aha! I think you are getting it but that is a question that only G can answer.

They have answered it. And on a technical level, the answer makes complete sense. If you don't have the technical understanding, then the answer will sound as much like BS as the average politicians answer of course.

But what they did, by accident... I could stand outside most house right now with my laptop and do the same thing. It wouldn't even be illegal. You are allowed to record stray radio waves in the air. So long as you don't do so in a targetted fashion and catalogue results etc.

When you detune a radio, part of the static will be peoples passwords and private emails. Or pictures of themselves naked, being sent via mms. What Google did was the equivilant of record some of that static, but they did not break it down and restructure it into readable information. That was done my investigators looking at what the recorded portions of static contained.

 

[bdw]

Back bench debate to take place on this today.

"A few weeks ago, I visited its offices and was reassured about the 'fragmentary' and harmless nature of the data. Since then, however, it has been pressured into a U-turn by freedom of information requests in other countries. Google's invasion of privacy is starting to look like a pattern."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/28/ico_google_halfon/

.

 

[bdw]

But what they did, by accident... I could stand outside most house right now with my laptop and do the same thing. It wouldn't even be illegal. You are allowed to record stray radio waves in the air.

You do not seriously believe that this was an accident do you? The absurdity of this claim has been discussed by people involved in software since it was first uttered. Software cannot invent features by itself (or by accident).

Oh and how could a car whose sole function was to take images for streetview possibly record this type of information "by accident"?

.

 

[stugster]

Are you still going on about this bdw? Don't you have better things to do?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

"A few weeks ago, I visited its offices and was reassured about the 'fragmentary' and harmless nature of the data. Since then, however, it has been pressured into a U-turn by freedom of information requests in other countries."

Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I just believe whatever people tell me. Google told me it was ok, so I knew it must be ok. Then some other people told me it wasn't, so now I know it isn't."

Classic case of a politician meddling in things he doesn't understand.

Steve

 

[bdw]

Are you still going on about this bdw? Don't you have better things to do?

Yes, and I am going to continue to "go on" about it, am I not entitled to? That is why I started the thread. Actually I probably do have better things to do. I am quite busy trying to get my workload sorted out before I go on holiday but like many thousands of others I think this is worthy of continued examination and tracking.

I must admit that I am very puzzled that this has become so upsetting to you that you felt vindictive enough to try and damage my reputation and that you continue to post about it?

What I am doing is not that bad is it? It's just a discussion after all. I would suggest that you forget about it if it bothers you so much because it's not going to go away unless the mods pull it. You could try asking them to do so if you think it is in any way out of order.

A Question
A few of you seem to be quite passionate in your belief that Google is totally straight (and you are of course entitled to hold that view) but do any of you have any objections to this thread continuing? They are debating this in parliament so isn't it valid that we should be debating it in here?

.

 

[bdw]

Incidentally, doesn't this make you just a wee bit nervous?

https://www.google.com/dashboard/?pli=1

 

[stugster]

Looks like complete transparency to me.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

A few of you seem to be quite passionate in your belief that Google is totally straight (and you are of course entitled to hold that view) but do any of you have any objections to this thread continuing?

Not at all. I think the points you've raised are entirely legitimate points for discussion.

Steve

 

[Jeff Knows]

You do not seriously believe that this was an accident do you? The absurdity of this claim has been discussed by people involved in software since it was first uttered. Software cannot invent features by itself (or by accident).

Oh and how could a car whose sole function was to take images for streetview possibly record this type of information "by accident"?

.

Ok now you are just showing your blind ignorance.

It's been explained several times, the software the streetcar team used to gather MAC address and tag it with GPS locations they themselves did not write. They plucked it out the massive Google code archives from a project that was written the year before and simply slotted it in.

Why should they bother spending the man hours to write thousands of lines of code when someone else at Google had already done it? That code happened to also have the ability to gather information from wireless networks and this was turned on by default.

They didn't notice because 600Gb of data pulled in across the entire world is absolutely nothing when you are pulling in a high quality 360 degree image of the world every second and then dumping it all into Google's central storage reserve, which has got to be just vast.

I have no issue with tabs being kept on one of the worlds largest data companies. I have issues with someone has bias and willfully ignorant to the facts of the issues as you have proven yourself to be leading the reporting.

 

Ok now you are just showing your blind ignorance.

It's been explained several times, the software the streetcar team used to gather MAC address and tag it with GPS locations they themselves did not write. They plucked it out the massive Google code archives from a project that was written the year before and simply slotted it in.
.

Pot and kettle come to mind.

So why would google want a piece of software like that and for what purpose.?:|

Earl

 

[bdw]

Ok now you are just showing your blind ignorance.

I have noticed that some of the Google supporters in here seem to be unable to make their points without trying to be superior, rude (and ignorant). Please try to discuss this without being abusive.

.

 

[Jeff Knows]

Pot and kettle come to mind.

So why would google want a piece of software like that and for what purpose.?:|

Earl

I don't know, but Google has thousands of coders who all get 20% 'personal time' to use Google resources and work on their own projects. The amount of software they churn out is astonishing and it doesn't surprise me in the least someone was playing with WiFi capability.

Google have plans to provide free WiFi networks to major cities, they already do so in their native Mountain View, CA. Perhaps it was a project to test WiFi security? Perhaps it was a smitten Googler who unwisely choose to use Google services when writing a program to snoop on his good looking neighbour? It's speculation at this point. However the fact remains the code wasn't written for the express purpose of collecting that data en masse via the streetcars.

I have noticed that some of the Google supporters in here seem to be unable to make their points without trying to be superior, rude (and ignorant). Please try to discuss this without being abusive.

.

Please try to discuss using fact, rather than fobbing off counter evidence by feigning insult. There is nothing abusive about calling you ignorant when you willfully ignore the facts presented against your argument.

FYI, I have difficulty believing you are offended by being called ignorant when in the same sentence you return the insult. Hardly the best way to make a solid point there bud.

 

I don't know, but Google has thousands of coders who all get 20% 'personal time' to use Google resources and work on their own projects. The amount of software they churn out is astonishing and it doesn't surprise me in the least someone was playing with WiFi capability.

yep and I just happened to have invented the atom bomb whilst playing with me Mecano set.

Earl

 

[Jeff Knows]

You are right, the person who originally wrote it likely was upto something shady. But the data collection wasn't all it done and it wasn't why the streetcar team utilized that software.

If your atomic bomb looked like a microwave and cooked food like a microwave a person could be excused from blowing up their country trying to have themselves a quick chicago town pizza.

 

[stugster]

yep and I just happened to have invented the atom bomb whilst playing with me Mecano set.

Excellent example. It's how you use it that comes into play though. If Google were going to be all evil as people suspect, they would have kept schtum about having that data. They didn't. Why not? Because they realised they had it, and wanted to fix things.

 

[bdw]

FYI, I have difficulty believing you are offended by being called ignorant when in the same sentence you return the insult.

I will admit that I have this unnatural weakness that often forces me to respond to insults but I tend to retaliate not intitiate.

 

Excellent example. It's how you use it that comes into play though. If Google were going to be all evil as people suspect, they would have kept schtum about having that data. They didn't. Why not? Because they realised they had it, and wanted to fix things.

Nothing to do with them being evil just trying to earn a crust.

The disclosure of the rogue employee who happened to write a program that happened to end up on street view ,was the finest bit of wriggling I have seen in quite a while.

Earl