Comments on: Google Privacy Fail; Asa Dotzler is right http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/ Frank Goossens' Twitterless twaddle Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:48:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: frank http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3998 frank Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:15:29 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3998 even if Google would not share it's data voluntary, the fact that a large part of your life is in their databases is a threat when hackers access that info <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html" title="google may be pulling out of china because of hackers targeting human rights activists there" rel="nofollow">as apperantly happened in china</a> even if Google would not share it’s data voluntary, the fact that a large part of your life is in their databases is a threat when hackers access that info as apperantly happened in china

]]> By: frank http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3820 frank Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:54:23 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3820 That might be the case Eric, but that would very much be out of the scope of the blogpost I mentioned Daniël Brandt because he's the man behind Scroogle as an anonymous entry to Google, not because of his involvement with various other projects (concerning Wikipedia amongst others). That might be the case Eric, but that would very much be out of the scope of the blogpost I mentioned Daniël Brandt because he’s the man behind Scroogle as an anonymous entry to Google, not because of his involvement with various other projects (concerning Wikipedia amongst others).

]]> By: metasonix http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3814 metasonix Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:16:43 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3814 If you're going to call Brandt a "weirdo", you could at very least give a similar sobriquet to certain of the administrators at Wikipedia that he has had years-long disputes with. I GUARANTEE they are "weirdos". If you’re going to call Brandt a “weirdo”, you could at very least give a similar sobriquet to certain of the administrators at Wikipedia that he has had years-long disputes with. I GUARANTEE they are “weirdos”.

]]> By: Philip Paeps http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3779 Philip Paeps Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:41:08 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3779 Well - if you're allowing Google to read your email, you're pretty much fucked, aren't you? Even if you delete all the email they've already seen, you can't make them "unsee" it. The statistical analysis has been done. You're already part of the fabric. While it's true that you need to be logged in to read your email, you don't need to be logged in to search. You're merely choosing to stay logged in for convenience reasons. Arguably, logging out would not make much of a difference either: they know it's you based on your IP, and you've already given them a boatload of statistical data to further confirm that it's you. I agree that "not using the internet" is not the solution. I also don't dispute the fact that there is a wealth of information on the internet. If you care about privacy at all, you just need to be a bit more clever about getting at it. Your use pattern may differ, of course, but I find that most of my searches tend to be for data which can easily be stored offline in bulk: manuals, standards, datasheets. Clearly this data can be found once and stored indefinitely. Well – if you’re allowing Google to read your email, you’re pretty much fucked, aren’t you? Even if you delete all the email they’ve already seen, you can’t make them “unsee” it. The statistical analysis has been done. You’re already part of the fabric.

While it’s true that you need to be logged in to read your email, you don’t need to be logged in to search. You’re merely choosing to stay logged in for convenience reasons. Arguably, logging out would not make much of a difference either: they know it’s you based on your IP, and you’ve already given them a boatload of statistical data to further confirm that it’s you.

I agree that “not using the internet” is not the solution. I also don’t dispute the fact that there is a wealth of information on the internet. If you care about privacy at all, you just need to be a bit more clever about getting at it.

Your use pattern may differ, of course, but I find that most of my searches tend to be for data which can easily be stored offline in bulk: manuals, standards, datasheets. Clearly this data can be found once and stored indefinitely.

]]> By: frank http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3774 frank Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:07:41 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3774 ah Philip, I was thinking about you while writing the above post :-) as I still use Gmail (although replacing that is on the table as well), I have to be logged into Google. Regarding working disconnected; you might have a point there, but if the problem at hand is 'privacy while on the internet' saying not to use the internet is a workaround, not a solution ;-) ah Philip, I was thinking about you while writing the above post :-)

as I still use Gmail (although replacing that is on the table as well), I have to be logged into Google.

Regarding working disconnected; you might have a point there, but if the problem at hand is ‘privacy while on the internet’ saying not to use the internet is a workaround, not a solution ;-)

]]> By: Philip Paeps http://blog.futtta.be/2009/12/15/google-privacy-fail-asa-dotzler-is-right/#comment-3770 Philip Paeps Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:36:08 +0000 http://blog.futtta.be/?p=2505#comment-3770 You could just gate traffic to Google through tor. Make sure you're not accidentally logged in with a "Google Account" that identifies you though. Also make sure you're not accepting Google cookies which can be used to build up a profile of you. Also: try to think a bit more instead of going straight to Google. I find that working "disconnected" in a room with easy access to reference books and on a machine with local copies of manual pages and standards, is often significantly more productive than having a web browser open all the time. You could just gate traffic to Google through tor. Make sure you’re not accidentally logged in with a “Google Account” that identifies you though. Also make sure you’re not accepting Google cookies which can be used to build up a profile of you.

Also: try to think a bit more instead of going straight to Google. I find that working “disconnected” in a room with easy access to reference books and on a machine with local copies of manual pages and standards, is often significantly more productive than having a web browser open all the time.

]]>