Discussion on:

Google promises Chrome is not phoning home with your Web data

Original post:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=3942

I have a gmail account, I use it for my crap account, why not it was free. But I won't use any other Google product such as Chrome since I heard one of the founders explain how the more you used Google search it could better refine your results based on your history. I don't know if Bing does the same but at least its not Google. They say its not collecting data but while the program is starting it has already contacted Google for uppdates before you see anything on the screen, Firefox does the same thing and so does Safari. Obviously information is being shared. IE has a different mechanism for updates so I actually feel a little more protected, and don't think it is sharing info with Redmond otherwise MS would have come up with a superior search engine before Bing.

I think TechRepublic is waving with a piece of paper like Neville Chamberlain did. Once Google turns into Big Brother, any critical notes won't show up in the search results ergo won't exist. Who do you trust with your data: a government or a private company? None I would say. 1984 is coming fast and we are all happy to sell our soul for extra airmiles.

1984 is alive and thriving. Just because Winston Churchill Smith is not waking up to forced calisthenics from his 2 way TV yet doesn't mean it's not on the horizon. Look at the travesty that the US House just voted for last night. What a load of crap. Does the government get to choose insulin or diet modification? And to tie it all in neatly, does the government collect its own information or just strong arm private companies into providing it? Either way it is an insidious invasion of privacy.

But this bill purports to control costs over the long term, which definitely needs to happen. There's something seriously wrong with the system when health care cost increases exceed 5% (and insurers are raising premiums 10%) in the middle of a major recession. I'm glad you've got the money to pay for it; I don't.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Washington-Watch/13016

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/09/16/health_insurers_plan_10_rise_in_rates/

Not even college costs are rising that fast. http://www.usnews.com/education/paying-for-college/articles/2009/10/20/college-costs-jumped-1000-in-2009.html

..has a major government program (or is it pogrom) ever resulted in cost reductions? When Medicare was passed, they said it would cost X. Instead, it is costing XXXX. Same with prescription drugs. And, by the way, the system we are currently under was foisted upon us by Big Brother. Hence the mess.

To steer back on topic: no, I don't trust Google.

Does "Big Brother" also double as "they", "them" or "jackbooted thugs"?

The system we are currently under was foisted upon us over the past 40 years by Big Insurance, Big Medical and Big Pharmaceuticals, ably aided and abetted by Congress (both Democrat and Republican), state government, and the American people, all of whom kept asking for "more, More, MORE." That system has gaping holes, and it's obvious that you have never been caught in any of them; I hope you never are.

etu

Pretty much all of the above. But it would never have been foisted upon us without the involvement of Congress (the opposite of Progress).

Make it better! It needs to cover more people!

And now, we're pissed at them because they gave us what we wanted? It's time for the people to grow up, face the music, and put forward something more useful than punch lines and sound bites.

a majority did not want this bill. I certainly did not want it. In this case, Congress went against the will of the people.

I don't disagree that this bill sucks, But the system we have now sucks just as much.

I have two children in their 20s, neither of whom can get health insurance because of "pre-existing conditions," even though both were covered under my insurance until they turned 21. Without insurance, my youngest son's medication runs somewhere around $1800/month. Suggestions?

That's their ultimate objective. Yeah, I want some petty bureaucrat poking into my medical history. This monstrosity is completely unconstitutional. I'm sorry for your situation, but where is the morality in allowing some government functionary to reach into my pocket and take money out to pay for your health care? I realize such activity has been going on for decades, but that doesn't make it right. Yes, the current system (also brought to you by the government) needs fixing, but this bill is the exact wrong prescription. Get ready for taxes to go way up. And allowing the IRS power to police this thing is frightening.

The system is almost totally broken and there is no way to fix it that anybody likes. I'm glad you are happy with the payments you're making now; hell I'm happy with mine too. Today. But all I see for the next decade is exponentially increasing premiums; will you still be happy with what you have when your share of the premiums hits $2k or $3k/month for minimal coverage? If we don't do something now, it will happen in between 5-10 years at the current rate of increase.

If we could get it, health insurance for my youngest son would cost over $2k/month and we could not make a claim on his condition for the first year under that policy. Outside his condition, he's disgustingly healthy, so we'd be paying almost $24k for absolutely nothing the first year, even if we could remotely afford it. That's the system we have now.

As for the reaching into the pocket, as I understand it, that shouldn't happen. I don't want any of your money any more than I think I should be required to pay for somebody else's treatment. The requirement that I've seen will be that everybody purchase insurance and the insurance companies cannot deny anybody, but can adjust premiums accordingly. The additional premiums should increase insurance companies' premiums to cost ratio, allowing them to, if not reduce premium rates, reduce the growth in those rates.

It's economy of scale and, if it was going to be done, it had to be done this way. I've already said I don't like what we got, but unfortunately, I don't see an alternative that will hit at the heart of the problem: health insurance and treatment costs have risen so high that people can't afford health insurance or health care.

The "insurance man" came by the house in person to collect. I was too young to know what kind of "insurance" it was.

I did know that, once my parents agonized over it, and wrote the check, it was mustard and mayonnaise sandwiches, when bread thereafter could be afforded.

I was old enough to know that there was something wrong about it.

I am old enough, still, to know there is something wrong about the whole God-damned thing.

Old enough to know it has to do with perceptions of reality.

...person who is milking the system. I know someone who complains that she can't work due to terrible pain in her hands from fibromyalgia, but she can play World of Warcraft 40-60 hours per week. I have no problem helping those that truly need it, but knowing my tax dollars are supporting these lazy people gets under my skin. What is being put in place to stop this?

Also, now that this healthcare takeover is in place, the next step is granting amnesty to around 12M illegal immigrants. Who will support the percentage of immigrants who can't or won't find jobs? We will! And why are they doing it? Because granting amnesty and healthcare to 12M immigrants means more votes. It's downright wrong and selfish.

Just my $.02

It needs work, but it's not broken. It works for me and has for years. I don't know anyone for whom it's not working. They complain about how much the premiums cost but not about the care they get. Could it be fixed? Does it need fixing? Yes, but not by a government take-over which is what this bill is the beginning of. Even the bozos that passed it don't know what is in it. That dimwit Pelosi even said that it must be passed before we see what's in it. What kind of crap is that? Am I the only one that sees a problem with that kind of thinking?

How is forcing the insurance companies to cover everyone going to reduce premiums? They won't be allowd to charge what they need to cover what they will have to pay out. Eventually, they will go broke and the only option will be the "public option" which means we all pay. With an $11+ trillion debt and a defecit somewhere near $2 trillon, we can't afford it.

If you think costs are going to go down, you've got another thing coming. No government program ever costs what they say it will. They just pick some number out of their you know what, make sure it's not a round number so the sheeple think they actually put some thought into it and use that. It always ends up costing way more. Then they have to raise taxes and/or cut benefits which leads to rationing. They will end up taxing everything to pay for this albatross. Sure, your premiums may not go up much, but everything else will to cover it. And in the end, they will be reaching into my wallet to pay for your care.

This is classic. Government creates the problem to begin with, then they "ride to the rescue" when the public complains about it and thing s just get worse.

Like I said before, I don't want some unelected (or elected) government functionary poking around my medical affairs.

Besides, it's unconstitutional. Every time government grows, freedom diminishes. This is un-American.

1984 is late but it is arriving.

How did we get so far off-topic?

with your inability to distinguish "program" from "pogrom."

Remind me never to ask you what's on the program...

My wife says I have a weird sense of humor. I certainly do know the difference.

It is a travesty. We are losing our freedoms more all the time. Reminds me of the old Steppenwolf song "The Ostrich." Here is a portion of the lyrics:

"You're free to speak your mind my friend
As long as you agree with me
Don't criticize the father land
Or those who shape your destiny
'Cause if you do
You'll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew
We'll send out all our boys in blue
They'll find a way to silence you"

Or is that the "boys in purple?"

No chrome for me. No Gmail for me. No Droid for me.

I don't believe a word they say!

Soon it will be known who we are (individual identity and all social/ physical network relationships therein), where we are, where we go, who we're with, who we meet and all that we watch, read, eat, buy, touch and do.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/0,1000001161,39290141-39001108c-20089176o,00.htm

Anybody who has used a credit card or any type of bank card for the past three or four decades has directly consented to have such information collected. The difference today is not in the collection, but in the granularity provided by the interconnection of all those formerly independent data stores.

If that's a problem for you, you have two choices:

Convert to cash-only; or

Build yourself a cave.
Move down in the ground.

To single out automatic updating as a culprit in data recovery is not entirely fair. Surely the only data transmitted in that case would be related directly to transmitting version number and comparing it to the database's latest. I'm unsure that any personal information (such as web history, cookies, most visited sites) is transmitted during this transaction.

Although I prefer Chrome over all browsers mentioned, I'm sure that no other browsers are any more secure than Chrome. For the End-User, Chrome is the best thing going--speed (javascript engine) and security (built-in sandboxing)...

To avoid using a more secure browser for theory is quite short-sighted, in my opinion... Other factors should be of more concern--such as DNS servers and ISPs... not web browsers.

At the end of the day, Comodo has built a wonderful Chromium-based browser in "Dragon"... It provides the speed of Chrome with more security... Give it a shot...

I will give THAT a shot!

once promise they didn't keep the information on your browsing they knew about from Google Analytics, and didn't they once say they didn't track what you did through the Google search engine?

Yet, when I read the article about Google Buzz, I went to my Google account, I use Gmail and Google Groups, and found a setting for a thing called Dashboard, entered that, and found a setting called Web History. Anyway, in driving around the dashboard, I deleted all information they had and turned off everything I could. I can only assume the information was deleted and everything turned off. Before I did that, I had a look at the information they had, and it included data on Google searches going back about three years, and some information on web sites I'd visited, for about three years or so - and I have NEVER used Chrome, so the web sites had to come from Google Analytics before I found a way to disable that.

I have another Gmail account in another name, and I checked that, and found the same sort details recorded when for that account. The details for both accounts were different, so they must have been some sort of different tag in the system based on the account I first logged on with in each session, as I can't think of any other way they could have separated the two user IDs.

Do I trust Google to be telling me the truth about what Chrome does and doesn't do, about as much as I trust similar statements by Microsoft - which is as far as I can throw BOTH corporate headquarters.

Just little white lies, they won't harm you!
If you didn't want all that information tracked you wouldn't use the internet now would you?

and I don't throw very far anymore!! I won't be trusting Google in the near future; they will have to disclose a LOT before I start believing them! Changing their EULA would help.

Now I don't trust Microsoft either, but at least I'm only dealing with ONE untrustworthy factor, and not two!

A guy just has to try and limit the damage. At least Google seems to be "getting it" that they will never take over the market from Redmond if they don't make a huge effort to gain trust.

Any mistake they make from now on is just going to add to the problem; they should tread lightly on this, if they know what is good for them!!

The controversy with China is one good move to get me liking them some more; but we will see about trusting later!!

openDNS allows blocking Google Analytics data (among many other things). I would *never* use Google's DNS server if I was trying to keep them from collecting my personal history.

If you set up your router to use openDNS, it protects all attached computers and all accounts, too, so you and Jason should look into this.

I use the Ghostery add-on in Firefox to block Google Analytics as well a lot of other stuff on webpages.

Come on now, you know IT and you know that even the most sophisticated encryption can be broken. What is that you are doing that you think is "safe". 10 years ago you could park a van on the street and see every character that showed up on a green screen terminal. 15 years ago HAM radio operators could "tap" into the PSTN and make phone calls. Many stores send credit card info in open text (not as many as before, but still). Hackers do not advertise what they have hacked. Why would you ever feel "secure"?

now requires that all card info be sent encrypted if it's sent over an open network. This includes anything that exits a firewall and all wireless transmissions.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/pci_dss.shtml

All merchants regardless of size and number of transactions are required to comply or they lose their authorization to accept payment cards.

You have the stupid merchants that email your data after the SSL session is over. Or they don't use VPN between servers on a insecure or public LAN/WAN.

I may never know which merchant leaked my data, but I guarantee it wasn't me! It would be my luck it would be the IRS.

... privacy is a mirage

which forms a "firewall" between your PC and Google.
"Google cannot set a cookie, doesn't see your IP address, cannot tell which searches are from the same person"

Check out the Scroogle Scraper at http://www.scroogle.org/

Thanks for this! Scroogle provides a link for creating an IE7/IE8 search provider right on the main page.

Sincerely, why worry about Google if you're not worried about the feds? What is the most nefarious thing Google will do with your info? Big brother, on the other hand, has been tapping into not only your internet communications, but is recording everything that travels across a wire or through the air.

The FBI admits they can turn on the microphone on your cell phone without you knowing it, the NSA has a trap in AT&T (and other) data centers, and GPS/cell tower triangulation paints a very nice picture of where you are physically throughout each day as well.

I'd be really worried if the feds didn't need a search warrant to look at all of that information they are collecting. Since they have never violated our rights by ignoring the laws concerning such, we can all sleep a little better at night, can't we!

Of course, we all think we live these lives of little interest, but once somebody decides anybody who has read "Catcher in the Rye" needs to be watched, you better hope it's not anywhere in your scope of tracked experience.

Baaa Baaa

Not everyone lives in the USA, so those of us who don't don't have to worry about such things, most of the time. It is also impossible to track me through a cell phone, since I don't use one or need one yet.

So, that leaves me to pull the plug on Analytics and other advertisers by doing whatever I can. Since Google's analysis is for advertisers, I don't do them all that much good. When was the last time I followed a web site ad or Google link to an advertiser's site? Can't recall... adverts don't even catch my eye any more.

All the govt needs to do is claim their investigation was terror-related and the warrant requirement simply disappears thanks to the Patriot Act. They don't even need to have any kind of physical proof to back up their claim.

Luckily the Patriot Act has no teeth in Australia. We do have our own anti-terrorism laws but they aren't quite as draconian (yet).

you have your own big brothery

When I went to Google Dashboard, I was pretty shocked to see how much data Google was collecting on me.

Of course, it's nice that Google decided to start disclosing this info and allowing users to control it, but most users will be blissfully unaware of it. That's why I want to keep writing about these Google privacy issues on a regular basis.

As google already mentioned in the video (I didnt watch it but read what was mentioned in the article), Chrome doesnt collect any additional information compared to other browsers. Doesn't mean I am comfortable with what Google is collecting via other browsers irrespective of it being chrome or Firefox :/

Google saying ?Using Chrome doesn?t mean sharing any more information with Google than using any other browser? does not say very much. You get Google toolbar for 'free' with lots of other downloads, and then it sits there watching everything you do on the web. Witness it serving up your most accessed sites independent of history and favorites...

When I was registering for gmail, I was specifically asked If I want BHistory to collect data.
I just ticked it off and no history is collected since ... unless they do it anywaya without showing it.
So as always, it pays to take time, when you register for anything.

I have a Gmail account. That's all that Google has right now.

Or at least all they're willing to tell me...

That's one of the things that ultimately makes Firefox superior, its extensibility allows for tools like NoScript and other great add-ons.

Of course, the challenge is that some add-ons can lead to performance and security problems.

The only add-ons I'm running right now that are active during page loads are NoScript and AdBlock Plus.

All the rest are on-demand add-ons for download assistance, link verification, clearing browser tracks, etc.