Google - Privacy and other issues

[Jeff Knows]

Could I just make it clear that they didn't listen for any specific or personal information at-all? They collected ALL information, personal information just happens to be contained within it.

It wasn't a malicious act by Google. Even if it was, what the hell are Google going to do with a couple of passwords and your last five visited websites? Blackmail you? Come on.

Google has absolutely no need for the information they collected. It was generic internet guff anyone could pick up with a bit of know-how. If Google did want to Blackmail people, or do anything nefarious with peoples private data they have several MUCH better sources they could use.

They have every email I have sent or received in the last 3 years for a start, the sites I visit, my bank details, my address, where I go and when, who I know, who I do business with, what websites I run, who visits them, all the websites THEY visit, who I call, what I like, what I don't like. The list is pretty endless. What they would collect while driving by my house is pathetically little in comparison.

Your silly if you think the information collected was of any use to Google whatsoever. That points me to 'accidental'.

Hot off the press ...

Google illegally divulges user searches, suit claims


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/26/google_privacy_flap/

.

Google in 'standard internet practice' shocker. More at 10

Yahoo, Bing, Ask, Cuil.. any search engine you can find does the exact same thing. If you don't want Google to know what you are searching for, perhaps don't use Google to search for it?

 

[Dawg]

Hot off the press:
(Shock, horror, crisis.)

American lawyer sues somebody.



Google lawsuit

 

[movietub]

Have I missed something in this whole Google shocker?

As far as I can work out, they only listened to public broadcasts of data (any old data) to locate wifi hot-spots. Obviously they need to intergate the source to see find out whether its a secured/unsecured/private/public service and so on.

How is this anymore offensive than walking down a street and noticing that house number 20 has blue curtains, whilst number 22 has a red front door. Then noticing that the next building is pub, and making a mental note to visit it sometime?

That wouldn't be illegal or intrusive, even if I walked down the millions of streets that Google has. And If I did walk down a million streets, I'm sure I would see plenty that people would not have wished me to... But I'm not doing anything wrong still. Surely, by the same premise, it's inevitable that if you scan the globes wifi systems you will pickup personal things that careless people were broadcasting.

So what have I missed?

 

[Jeff Knows]

Well, they weren't doing it to list open WiFi spots. The idea was if they drove down your street and you had an open WiFi going they could 'note down' the specifics of your router and tag it with it's GPS location, roughly.

Then, if in the future someone goes on Google maps who doesn't have GPS capability on their phone, Google would be able to approximate their location by looking at what WiFi networks are around them (You can get rough distance from a router based on it's signal strength, so they could triangulate fairly accurately)

Apple does the exact same thing through a company called Skyhook, on the iPod Touch.

The problem is, the software Google used to collect the WiFi information was written two years prior to the streetmap project, for something completely different. The team saw it could be used and jumped on the oppertunity of not writing lots of lines of code. This happens, especially in techy companies, all the time. It saved them lots of man hours.

What they didn't know was this code also looked for and stored any data being sent over the WiFi networks it was noting down the locations of. So every open router they hit to get it's details, they got whatever was being transmitted through it at the time.

A snippet of information really, they were driving by after all. Some people think that it's stealing, some people think it's a privacy violation, others don't particularly see the harm, some blame the users. They didn't get anything you couldn't get wandering down a street with a netbook and some knowhow. Less even, and unlike a person who purposefully goes out with a laptop Google don't have any need for the information they collected as a company.

It is 600Gb's of data, from the entire world (or atleast where they drove). That kind of data could easily vanish into Google's massive cloud without much notice I think.

It is possible the guy behind the project did it intentionally, he was fired afterall... but if that is the case, I still think it's unfair to vilify Google for it. They hired a bad man, they sacked him, they segregated and secured the information and so far they have complied with any government requests to delete it (Ireland)

 

[Dawg]

But The Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn is on Google's case:

"Better still, point Google in the direction of Tony Martin's farm in Norfolk. He'd soon put a stop to their little game."

Basically, shoot them. Direct armed psychopaths in the direction of Google, ignore facts, law and common sense. Kill Google!

Puts some people's arguments into a kind of perspective....

(And yes, I was surfing for clown pron when I found that Mail article.)
​

 

[movietub]

Well, they weren't doing it to list open WiFi spots. The idea was if they drove down your street and you had an open WiFi going they could 'note down' the specifics of your router and tag it with it's GPS location, roughly.

Then, if in the future someone goes on Google maps who doesn't have GPS capability on their phone, Google would be able to approximate their location by looking at what WiFi networks are around them (You can get rough distance from a router based on it's signal strength, so they could triangulate fairly accurately)

Apple does the exact same thing through a company called Skyhook, on the iPod Touch.

The problem is, the software Google used to collect the WiFi information was written two years prior to the streetmap project, for something completely different. The team saw it could be used and jumped on the oppertunity of not writing lots of lines of code. This happens, especially in techy companies, all the time. It saved them lots of man hours.

What they didn't know was this code also looked for and stored any data being sent over the WiFi networks it was noting down the locations of. So every open router they hit to get it's details, they got whatever was being transmitted through it at the time.

A snippet of information really, they were driving by after all. Some people think that it's stealing, some people think it's a privacy violation, others don't particularly see the harm, some blame the users. They didn't get anything you couldn't get wandering down a street with a netbook and some knowhow. Less even, and unlike a person who purposefully goes out with a laptop Google don't have any need for the information they collected as a company.

It is 600Gb's of data, from the entire world (or atleast where they drove). That kind of data could easily vanish into Google's massive cloud without much notice I think.

It is possible the guy behind the project did it intentionally, he was fired afterall... but if that is the case, I still think it's unfair to vilify Google for it. They hired a bad man, they sacked him, they segregated and secured the information and so far they have complied with any government requests to delete it (Ireland)

I understand now.

But it still sounds a little like my analogy of walking down a street and noticing the colour of someones curtains. I have no right to know what colour a strangers curtains are of course. But they chose to hang them near a window, so I do know...

How is that any different from Google accidently noting a few odd packets of pretty meaningless data when driving down a street? The only person that could suffer is the person chosing to make them public in the first place.

Is there anything more to this other than ignorant people running round screaming of doom on hearing the words 'internet' and 'passwords'?

 

But The Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn is on Google's case:

"Better still, point Google in the direction of Tony Martin's farm in Norfolk. He'd soon put a stop to their little game."

Basically, shoot them. Direct armed psychopaths in the direction of Google, ignore facts, law and common sense. Kill Google!

Puts some people's arguments into a kind of perspective....

(And yes, I was surfing for clown pron when I found that Mail article.)
​

No its spelt PORN dear.

I suppose its a harmless hobby,but you will go blind.

Earl

 

[Jeff Knows]

I understand now.

But it still sounds a little like my analogy of walking down a street and noticing the colour of someones curtains. I have no right to know what colour a strangers curtains are of course. But they chose to hang them near a window, so I do know...

How is that any different from Google accidently noting a few odd packets of pretty meaningless data when driving down a street? The only person that could suffer is the person chosing to make them public in the first place.

Is there anything more to this other than ignorant people running round screaming of doom on hearing the words 'internet' and 'passwords'?

No your analogy is fine. I would say ignorance is a bit harsh, the concepts and technicalities of the web are harder to understand than how glass works =)

Essentially, anything on the web that isn't wrapped in a secure connection is public. It's sent through hundreds of servers across the world on it's way to it's destination and any one of them could have a peek inside on the way by. Set yourself up inside that stream and you could read everything if you wished.

I think people just generally didn't know this is how the internet works, maybe they assumed it was all encrypted or it was sent from their laptop to the router with laser beam-like concentration and precision, I don't know.

I think it's media hype, let's all jump on a bandwagon and blame a multi-national, claim they've used their clever-geek-brains to commit crime against us. It's absurd. It's not Google's fault people weren't aware this was possible.

 

[movietub]

No your analogy is fine. I would say ignorance is a bit harsh, the concepts and technicalities of the web are harder to understand than how glass works =)

Essentially, anything on the web that isn't wrapped in a secure connection is public. It's sent through hundreds of servers across the world on it's way to it's destination and any one of them could have a peek inside on the way by. Set yourself up inside that stream and you could read everything if you wished.

I think people just generally didn't know this is how the internet works, maybe they assumed it was all encrypted or it was sent from their laptop to the router with laser beam-like concentration and precision, I don't know.

I think it's media hype, let's all jump on a bandwagon and blame a multi-national, claim they've used their clever-geek-brains to commit crime against us. It's absurd. It's not Google's fault people weren't aware this was possible.

But that is ignorance - even if it's understandable ignorance.

My point is the only people that can possibly be affected are those that either do understand, and chose to go public wuth their data. Or don't understand, and chose to use the technology without thinking about it.

So who is there that is complaining that actually has valid complaint?

It's laughable that an organisation with more wealth than several countries, that already has an effective monopoly on online advertising, would want to do anything underhand on such a small scale. Thats like a millionaire risking stealing a fiesta for a joy-ride. They already have a ferrari at home.

Sure Google could use all sorts of data maliciously one day and could do so very effectively. But if they ever did, I feel the plan would be a bit more impressive than spending billions on a street-map 'cover story' in order to get a few hundred gb of data, in the knowledge that at least 99.99999999% of it would be of no use or interest to anyone.:|

 

[bdw]

I have to say that the naiveté of some people in here surprises me but this discussion (which I started) was intended to document the unprecedentedly high number of privacy and other actions that are taking place against Google worldwide. It was not intended to be a case for the defence - just a record of these cases that others have brought. The rights and wrongs of these will be decided in court.

A lot of stories have surfaced during the last few months about Google and privacy issues. I thought it would be a good idea if we documented some of these here to see exactly where they are heading.

Much of what Google is doing has already been proven to be llegal and that is a fact. We can take that as a given.

This was not intended to be a hate fest for all you guys who think we are "silly", "stupid" and "ignorant" for being concerned that what Google is doing may be wrong. If you think that the actions of international corporations like Google are harmless why not just have a laugh on us (now now dear, it's only a commercial!) and let those of us who have these concerns get on with the discussion?

Why has it aroused such antagonism amongst some of you?

 

[stugster]

Why has it aroused such antagonism amongst some of you?

Because it's b0ll0cks.

 

[bdw]

Eric Schmidt misspoke about telling people they should move house (but does not apologise!)

The Register ...

From The Register ...
The suggestion that you should move house if you want to escape surveillance by his fleet of black Opels is therefore a coherent position for Schmidt. However, the fact that Google has charged its PR operatives to massage the message this morning shows we're not the only ones who think his frequent "misspeaking" is a liability.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/26/schmidt_misspoke/

.

 

[bdw]

Because it's b0ll0cks.

Oh! I see.

 

[stugster]

Oh! I see.

Glad we've got there.

 

[movietub]

I have to say that the naiveté of some people in here surprises me but this discussion (which I started) was intended to document the unprecedentedly high number of privacy and other actions that are taking place against Google worldwide. It was not intended to be a case for the defence - just a record of these cases that others have brought. The rights and wrongs of these will be decided in court.

Much of what Google is doing has already been proven to be llegal and that is a fact. We can take that as a given.

This was not intended to be a hate fest for all you guys who think we are "silly", "stupid" and "ignorant" for being concerned that what Google is doing may be wrong. If you think that the actions of international corporations like Google are harmless why not just have a laugh on us (now now dear, it's only a commercial!) and let those of us who have these concerns get on with the discussion?

Why has it aroused such antagonism amongst some of you?

Hmmm... Fair enough.

But what exactly are your concerns? It's a given that Google do some stuff in some countries which could be called illegal. So do I, and I'm not actually evil. I'm probably not a concern to society at all! It would be impossible for Google to keep rolling out there 'big (massive) ideas' without red tape issues and lawsuits. But we now have Google Earth and streetview, both of which are great achievements. You actually need to be a bit bonkers to sign off a project that involves photographing every street on the planet seamlessly... And we should applaud that bravery.

But what is the core fear? So far as I can work out, it's that so many of us poor data into Google, that we are aware they could one day use it for less friendly purposes. But you could say the same about any trusted friend that you discuss a private issue with.

Really this is just a question of trust then. We all willingly feed Google data, but can we trust them with it? To answer that, you have only to figure out if they would ever benefit from abusing that trust.

And I genuinly don't see how they could do better by being underhand than they already do by simply being useful online.

 

[bdw]

But what exactly are your concerns?

My personal concerns? Just about everything that Eric Schmidt has said publicly during the last few months. He is Google's CEO - the top man - and if this what he is willing to quoted on publicly one can only guess what is being discussed privately.

 

[movietub]

My personal concerns? Just about everything that Eric Schmidt has said publicly during the last few months. He is Google's CEO - the top man - and if this what he is willing to quoted on publicly one can only guess what is being discussed privately.

What has he said publicly that is of concern though? Is this not all simply down to interpretation? Strikes me as a figure that believes if he is up front and honest publicly then the public will appreciate it. He may be wrong about that of course! But that's not to say he's keeping the 'real Doctor Evil' stuff for the secret volcano lair meetings.

There just doesn't seam to be any substance to these concerns.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

IMuch of what Google is doing has already been proven to be llegal and that is a fact.

"Much" of what Google is doing??

Surely you mean "a few things"?

Steve

 

[movietub]

"Much" of what Google is doing??

Surely you mean "a few things"?

Steve

Quite! I'm sure if you went through the Google accounts you would deduce that pretty much everything they have ever done is legal, known the world over and that their number one goal is to remain useful, and therefore succesful.

I bet Google as an organisation spends less time law breaking than the average citizen does without even thinking about it. I.e. Popping a mint into your mouth whilst driving is more easily definable as illegal and dangerous than Google acknowledging the existence of public broadcast wifi data.

 

[Optegris]

Because it's b0ll0cks.

Could you be more direct, not sure I follow?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

This subject is discussed in the Guardian Tech Podcast this week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/audio/2010/oct/26/tech-weekly-google-streetview-audio

Steve

 

I suspect that many people do not realise that if you are relying on organic listings on the search engines then you are in competition with there PPC systems.

Earl

 

[bdw]

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?

 

[Esk247]

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?

Yeah but aren't you just making life more complicated for yourself by doing that? it's like choosing open source programmes over any brand products just because you don't like the moral or ethos of the companies involved, by doing that you get an ever decreasing circle and end up isolating yourself from new products and benefits as they come to market.

To be honest, you're emails and searches are already being logged by the government anyway and I'm sure that a lot of the data sent around our area is sifted through by the local RAF base which is operated by the americans and is classed as an 'Early Warning Centre' with other departments that monitor web and telephone traffic.

Invasion of privacy? hell yeah but if you try taking on the government or these companies single handedly you lose out, it's like chipping away at a massive rock with a blade of grass.

 

[bdw]

Yeah but aren't you just making life more complicated for yourself by doing that?

Not at all. There's nothing complicated about it and it makes me work faster as I am not distracted by my personal Google homepage. I use Firefox so all I have to do is click the appropriate link when I need log in. Dead easy.

I'm sure if you went through the Google accounts you would deduce that pretty much everything they have ever done is legal, known the world over and that their number one goal is to remain useful, and therefore succesful.

Do you really, honestly believe that? Do you really think that Google's No.1 goal is anything but profit?

To be honest, you're emails and searches are already being logged by the government anyway

No, not a chance!

 

[Esk247]

No, not a chance!

are you sure about that

unless you're using some kinda mirror/mask thingy for your IP and such then all information is filtered through...well you already know all that.

I always take the assumption that the government/departments/BT are accessing my data for 'research purposes' or summink.

 

[ComJan]

Google recieved their initial Tech from the National Security Administration which has just built a computer storage center in colorado the size of a football field.

 

[Jeff Knows]

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?

Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical and narcissistic?

First off, if you don't like the information Google collect on you, don't use the services and only logging in when you need them isn't going to 'help' you in the slightest. All it's going to do is stop the ads you see being as relevant. Although I bet you run an adblocker too, which makes you the thief if you wish to be that pedantic about technicalities.

Secondly, do you really think you are that interesting? Are Google going to pay some shmuck to read up on the daily goings on of bdw? I doubt it. They throw you in the pile with everyone else and churn it through the algorithm, you, I and everyone else on this forum are not even a blip on the radar.

You seem to take what Google does as a personal insult, despite signing up and continuing to use their services. Who's the one being morally ambiguous here, the company who offer free services in exchange for marketing data or the user who uses said services without delivering the data?

 

[bdw]

Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical and narcissistic?

Not at all! How on earth did you get to that daft conclusion? Now I am described as "narcissistic" and a "thief" for discussing security implications at Google.

There's no need for you to get personal and I would be very offended were it not that your conclusion is so obviously wrong.

You seem to take what Google does as a personal insult, despite signing up and continuing to use their services. Who's the one being morally ambiguous here, the company who offer free services in exchange for marketing data or the user who uses said services without delivering the data?

A personal insult? Give me a break!

But you are wrong about this. Google does not insist on anything in return for the use of its services. It's a free service supported by advertising and anyone can opt out if they like. No one is required to deliver that data but that is not what the thread is about.

Once again we have someone who takes the hump when anyone has the temerity to suggest that Google is anything other than a cuddly, philanthropic worldwide benefactor. I say again this is not what the thread is about. It is not even really about what you or I think about this. All we are trying to do is document the many security problems with which Google is involved to see where they are going with this. We can then draw our own conclusions.

Do we have your permission to continue? :|

.

 

[bdw]

Google wants more people logged in!

http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/14/schmidt-social-google/

 

[stugster]

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?

When have they done this?

 

[Esk247]

But aren't Google just changing the 'Terms and Conditions' by saying that 'to use our website effectively and for for free you must provide x amount of data'?

I don't much like having personal information online. I'm more concerned with things like Facebook. It's so easy to find someone these days, where they work, who they're married to, who their friends are and whether they're in a job or not.

When people use Facebook to its full power, facebook has your photos, your location, your IM address, your friends lists....and a whole host of other things.

Can Google be trusted 100%? no, it cannot, but neither can any other search engine or social media website. They all hold personal information.

 

[bdw]

But aren't Google just changing the 'Terms and Conditions' by saying that 'to use our website effectively and for for free you must provide x amount of data'?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by changing the T and Cs? What I can tell you is that I am perfectly capable of finding what I need on the Internet without Google having to suggest things to me. It's a search engine, that is all and I honestly do not need them to tell me what I may be interested in buying. That's fine for companies that actually sell things, like Amazon.

As you say Facebook is another major privacy concern but I think the difference there is that people volunteer this information. They actually provide it whereas Google mostly just take it and most people are unaware that they are doing so.

 

[Esk247]

Well i agree with you about the targetted advertising bit. If they keep that up i'm going to get really p***** off because it's really annoying when all of your results change to suit something you searched for an hour or 2 hours ago.

I think YouTube have started using that system, monitoring what you search for then displaying what they call 'relevant ads' but if i'm searching for hamster food i don't want adverts for hamster food to constantly be shown on my entire screen. How frickin annoying.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I think YouTube have started using that system, monitoring what you search for then displaying what they call 'relevant ads' but if i'm searching for hamster food i don't want adverts for hamster food to constantly be shown on my entire screen. How frickin annoying.

First question: Which ads would you like to be shown?

Follow up question: How is Google meant to know that?

Steve

 

[Esk247]

First question: Which ads would you like to be shown?

Follow up question: How is Google meant to know that?

Steve

First Answer: I only want to see adverts that may relate to the website i'm on and not targetted at somethin i looked at an hour ago (it seems to be slow at catching up)

Second Answer: Google is trying to implement a new advertising technology, but in doing so, it is p****** people off with it. I want to search Google to find products, services and information, I dont want it to show adverts from my search results all the time, all it would be showing me is web design ads and computer ads...all it would show my missus is ads for houses and ads for shoes..useless.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

First Answer: I only want to see adverts that may relate to the website i'm on and not targetted at somethin i looked at an hour ago

Has it occured to you that Google - who make money based on whether people click the ads - may have data that shows people are more likely to click the ads they're showing than the ads you think they should be showing?

Second Answer: Google is trying to implement a new advertising technology, but in doing so, it is p****** people off with it

They're pissing you off with it... and you've decided that everyone is the same as you...

Steve

 

[bdw]

Do you want to know what information Google holds on you (or admits that they hold on you)?

Click this link ...

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

.

 

[Esk247]

Has it occured to you that Google - who make money based on whether people click the ads - may have data that shows people are more likely to click the ads they're showing than the ads you think they should be showing?



They're pissing you off with it... and you've decided that everyone is the same as you...

Steve

Where did i say 'everyone' is the same as me?

I can only speak from MY EXPERIENCE of this type of targetted advertising. For instance, I know that a lot of people like targetted advertising, they want a text message when they walk past a pizza shop to tell them there is an offer on, half price pizzas, but I PERSONALLY hate that intrusion in to my life, i want to use Google as a tool, as a search tool, i want to be able to find content that I am searching for and not content that google 'suggests' to me.

I'm sure there will be a large uptake of those clicking the ads initially, but that would be normal wouldn't it? it's new and different, you're doing your search for hamster cages and then all of a sudden, all the adverts are hamster related..COOL..for 10 minutes..then it gets annoying

IN MY PERSONAL OPINION Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Where did i say 'everyone' is the same as me?

You wrote:

Google is trying to implement a new advertising technology, but in doing so, it is p****** people off with it

Not "some people", "people".

You're assuming that, because you feel one way, that must mean a lot of people feel that way.

If not - if you were only talking about a handful of people - why would it be an issue?

I PERSONALLY hate that intrusion in to my life, i want to use Google as a tool, as a search tool, i want to be able to find content that I am searching for and not content that google 'suggests' to me.

Does it occur to you that your goals aren't the same as the goals of the shareholders of Google Plc?

I'm sure there will be a large uptake of those clicking the ads initially, but that would be normal wouldn't it?

Why would it?

IN MY PERSONAL OPINION Steve

That's your personal opinion. It's the opinion that, despite the fact they have access to the data, Google are making a mistake.

My personal opinion is that, given they have access to all the data, Google know what's making them money.

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

(Because it's not based on me being able to guess better than someone can know.)

Steve