Go Ogle Big brother

by no-google Sat Apr 19, 2003 00:41

You shouldn't really be using a computer at all should you now. At least you shouldn't be using google or infact 99% of the worlds websites that by default collect some if not all the information you are talking about.

Like anything electronic computers leave a signature. Do you know what interesting software tidbits are in your cellphone? PDA?

If you don't want to be traced or recorded:
1. Try using a public computer at your library or internet cafe.
2. Use encryption software like PGP Freeware.
3. Use a spyware blocker like this one:http://security.kolla.de

Google are here to make money. Don't underestimates peoples acknowledgement of that fact.

Lastly, you can collect all the data in the world you want, but without knowing what you want to extract from it before you start, its really not that useful, just ask doubleclick about their cookie fiasco.

by Jim Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46

With reference to "1. Try using a public computer at your library or internet cafe.", public libraries where I live keep a log of users and the machines they used. The http requests are mechanically logged, mostly, I suspect, for fear of naked ladies. For all we know, they could have installed a key logger as well.

by Fred Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:12

The thing about cookies which people tend to forget is that while they establish a persistent user identity, they don't connect that identity with anything extrinsic to the web transactions themselves. So, for example, unless you key in your name in a web form on the cookified site, the cookie won't know your name.

One way around this, so far as I can tell, is for the site to use the ip address together with Internet Service Provider ip logs to determine the ISP customer details of the web visitor. This assumes a level of co-operation from the ISP which private companies would be unlikely to obtain. Despite recent legislation to force ISPs to store ip logs for inspection by select government agences, so long as the private and public sectors remain separate, there will be no way of connecting persistent state data with other more personal data.

Inevitably however, with increasing partnership between the private and public spheres, it seems inevitable that that will change. The war on terrorism creates the perfect pretext for such a move. Already we see the beginnings of such a move in the form of a Corporate Security Officer Conference in the US.

"In February, 2003, CSIS brought together Chief Security Officers (CSOs) from major corporations across the United States for a one-day conference to discuss how the private sector can interact more effectively with the federal government on terrorism risks and to compare perceptions and current strategies to reduce threat vulnerabilities."

http://www.csis.org/hs/

by Eoin Dubsky Sat Apr 19, 2003 14:24

http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/proxy.htm

No cookies, no search-term records, access log deleted after 7 days... Trouble is, how do we know that Google-watch isn't being watched by the NSA?

by Jim Sat Apr 19, 2003 21:32

Also, it's always within the user's control to simply delete cookies and even, in the case of google at least, refuse to accept them. More worrying is the storing of server transaction logs which usually include visitor ip addresses. Quite independently of cookies, if used in conjunction with ISP access logs, these can tie an account holder identity to a web transaction history.

by tim Mon Apr 21, 2003 23:19

Who's to say google-watch isn't a smart piece of COINTELPRO?

I'd be far more worried about things like Carnivore:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/carnivore/carnivore.htm

than google. And dont think for a second that every single govt. spy / police agency in the world hasn't got something like this up and running.

by Albo Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:45

Why not simply turn off the cookies on your browser?

by John Madden Wed Apr 23, 2003 18:07 johnmadden at eircom dot net

I was asked about this in an email by a friend. I thought I'd post my comments here aswell. Excuse the length.

1: Google's immortal cookie

Cookies reside on the client computer. If you don't like google's cookie, there are several steps you can take to block it (don't allow
cookies from .google.ie, .google.com etc., frequently delete cookies on your computer etc. etc.). Nearly every site you visit these days will
put a cookie on your computer. Consider, even if these cookies don't live as long as googles, if you visit a site regularly that has a cookie
on your computer, then the site can just replace that cookie with another one after reading the last one. This point is shite -- if users
don't like the idea of google being able to record what they search for etc., then block the cookies. It's up to the user.

2: Google records everything they can:

Google are out to make money. The more they can refine a search for users, the better their service gets. Anyway, there are ways around this
aswell -- delete the cookies (or block them), use a proxy server (that way the IP of the proxy is recorded, and not your IP). That way, the data they collect cannot be traced back to you at all. Again, something that can be combatted on the client side easily enough.

3: Google retains all data indefinitely:

Again, this is related to refining searches to make the engine more efficient for end users. A good point made at the bottom of the page is
that this data is useless to anyone unless they know what they're looking for. What good is this data to (eg.) "the spooks in Washington"? All it can contain is a bunch of cookie id's, ip addresses and search terms. I'm sure they could bullshit and say something like they can find
people who want to build chemical weapons by what they search for, but they still have to find the people after that. And, I'd say terrorists would have more brains than to leave themselves open like that -- as I've already said, most of this information can be obfuscated at the client side by deleting cookies and using proxy servers.

4: Google won't say why they need this data:

Do you really care why google need it? It really can't possibly cause anyone any damage.

5: Google hires spooks:

Once again, I see no problem with who google hire. They're a company -- they'll hire the best person for the job. Where that person worked before google really has no bearing on it does it? Even so, it still comes back to the whole argument of obfuscating the data from the client end.

6: Google's toolbar is spyware:

Unless the toolbar sends lists of files on the computer, sniffs for passwords etc. I can't see how it can be classified as spyware. If all
it does is report back on what pages you've searched using the toolbar (with cookie ID etc.) then it does the same as the search engine. Unless
it follows what you browse, and sends that back -- that would be spying. But, of course, if you use the search engine to find the pages and
navigate to them from there, then it's the same thing really! The only worry I have about it is with it "phoning home" with every page you surf
-- but this is documented and only happens with the Advanced Features turned on. As with the automatic update -- Microsoft do it all the time,
and to a greater extent. This point is just scaremongering.

7: Google's cache copy is illegal:

If it was, then someone would've challenged them on it by now. I do agree it should be "opt-in" for webmasters and not "opt-out", but again, this can be controlled by webmasters with meta tags and robots.txt files (they disallow access to directories in the web directory to web crawling bots that collect terms for search engines).

8: Google is not your friend:

Again, I don't agree with this. I think this is nothing but scaremongering. The only valid point I see here is about webmasters trying to take advantage of "known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms", but then, I'm of the opinion that only sly underhanded webmasters would look to do this. I don't see why any valid company or website would try this -- the only thing it would do is increase traffic to the website, probably so the webmaster(s) get advertising revenue.

9: Google is a privacy time bomb:

Bullshit -- unless the data can be tracked back to someone, it's useless to anyone other than the search engine itself. Plus, it depends on
cookie ID's to record your tracks -- these can easily be countered by steps I've stated above. I've never given google any personal data, and
it has never asked for any. The only way it could possibly identify me is by cookie ID, which I have deleted several times -- not purposely,
but for testing of websites I was developing (I just deleted all cookies instead of the ones I wanted to test).

So, overall, I think this is just scaremongering. Unless someone can show me how google can identify me without doubt and show me everything I've browsed, I'm in no way worried by this. All the measures google take are to improve their site for end users, and most of these can be blocked by those users if they like (or, by webmasters if they wish also).