Google reportedly ignoring Safari users' privacy settings to better track its ads [u] - Page 2

Cookies are only part of this tracking issue, there are also Local Shared Objects (LSO), aka Flash cookies. These ignore browser settings and secrete themselves in the Flash player folder in your library. I use Firefox as my main browser and the add-on 'Better Privacy' deals with them - as of today it has removed 5,138 of them! All placed there without my knowledge or consent.

Google created an operating system for mobiles called Android that is now the number one in the world, a realm which was originally dominated by Apple.

Google is also the number one competitor to Apple's iTV project.

They are also the market leader in cloud applications, an area that Apple is desperate to gain traction in.

So to not consider that competition is to be either mildly dyslexic or something so far worse I dare not insult you with it. But I do hope you take a moment to learn about capitalism and how the world works, it really is a rich and interesting history.

So when is Google not going to be evil. I thought it was their motto. Like "trust me" "I'm good for it" "just the tip"

Google is a spyware company that does search. Why is this story a surprise to anyone?


I'm switching off gmail (which is hard) to mobile me email (iCloud) . Also thinking of blocking all Google IP addresses from my network.

If you pay for Google Apps for Business you can avoid all the adverts, it is really quite cheap for professional mail services with a 99.99% SLA.

Yes, but that doesn't prevent them from snooping through your documents and mail.

Even if thy say they don't do that, they've been caught in lies so many times, that they have no credibility.

The more I experience this big brother stuff, the more I am hating it. For the last months, I have tried to get my Safari to behave such that if I visit a site (say some product site) not suddenly all my Google ads are about that product. I have no problem with advertising, but I really, really, really, dislike targeted advertising. It is an invasion of my privacy.

But getting rid of it has become almost impossible. I can drop all cookies, but then I also loose useful cookies like settings for sites I regularly use (e.g. the login in these forums). I have now ended my google accounts, my YouTube accounts, and everything I could think of to block this.

What I really need is a whitelist option in Safari, where for every cookie, I get a panel asking me if I want it or not, so I can accept the few cookies I want and need while losing the rest.

[QUOTE=cy_starkman;2048628][QUOTE=anthropic;2048593]I still can't believe in this day and age that privacy is an issue, you have none, the government knows everything, Apple knows EVERYTHING, Micro$oft knows EVERYTHING, now Google also know EVERYTHING.
We might all hate it, but unsolicited advertising is not illegal. Personally, I don't think Google and other advertising systems should be permitted to read any cookies except for the ones that they write in the first place. It really annoys me when I see custom ads derived from my cookies. I know I can set Safari to "Private Browsing" to stop this, but there times when for other reasons, I don't want "Private Browsing" turned on.

As far apps that "steal" names from your address book: Congress should make this illegal unless the user grants explicit permission.

Although I believe that Google has done more good for making the Internet what it is today than most other companies, I still don't let them track my browsing so easily. It is really simple to prevent the actions described in the article, and my settings would have not allowed for the tracking cookies even if I was using Safari instead of Opera. I don't think you can blame companies for trying to get what they need, when they aren't breaking the law, and when there are dead simple preemptive measures you could have taken.

They managed to spin what they did better then most politicians!

Back in the days (1997-2001) when I did web development I made extensive use of hidden frames and JavaScript -- it was a very good way to quickly display the response to a page request and get something on the screen, while getting the anticipated next request in the background... Really nice for a slow speed Internet connection.

The only time I used cookies was to maintain state in a transactional system like a shopping cart.

In those days the only ads were banner ads that some clients requested on their web pages.


I never thought about it before, but this Google exploit opens some interesting possibilities:

1) Serve a web page with a hidden frame

2) A JavaScript script starts when the hidden frame is loaded

3) The script loads a different page into a hidden frame

4) The script scans the loaded [hidden] page for ad clicks

5) The script executes the ad click -- possibly loading another [hidden] page


The result: Anyone with web programming talent can develop a web page that issues ad clicks (to itself or any other site)...

So, you would have a web site that was self-sustaining -- each time you serve a page, it would issue a few ad clicks on your behalf. The ad clicks would be counted, the ads would be served, you'd get paid, and the user would never see the ads...


Isn't it ironic that, by using this exploit, Google may have demonstrated the means of its own undoing -- paying people for ads that never get seen.

Quickly, the advertisers would realize that the "Google" ads aren't very effective -- they are paying Google a lot of money to serve ads, but nobody buys anything (because they don't see the ads).


Now, Google would realize that something was wrong, and reverse engineer your web pages to see what you are doing...

To get around this, you could do the exploit server-side, or in the browser itself...

You steal my cookies... I'll steal your cookie jar

Thoughts?

According to the article here at AI:
"Users of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome were not affected. Nor were users of any browser (including Safari) who have opted out of our interest-based advertising program using Googles Ads Preferences Manager."

Here's my problem with "targeted" ads. They claim that it's a good thing to offer me "relevant" ads and that I will benefit from that. If I want to see relevant ads, I'd like to have a button that says "make ads relevant to my browsing behavior". That way I'd be in control.

My 12 year old son loves bikes. He spends a lot of time surfing the web for bike parts, and learning about the sport of cycling. Yesterday, he was doing homework on the computer, and had to look up information about American History. Ads for bike companies were displayed next to the search results. He thought it was "creepy" that the computer knew that he likes bike stuff.

What if I go away for the weekend, and the dogsitter uses my computer to view pornography. When I return, the computer now thinks that I like that kind of thing and starts showing me ads for that "interest". This is not a good thing.

So the Mountain Lion Developer Preview has Safari 5.2, right?

I imagine in the launch version of 5.2, we'll see not only a cookie blocker that gets around this ILLEGAL NONSENSE, it will have built into it a Google Analytics circumvention, a script that automatically blocks Google Ads, even if you don't have AdBlock installed, and dozens more blockers for Google's services.

Screw them. Someone needs fired at least.


And you believe them, do you? That's not according to AI. That's according to a Google spokesperson.

I haven't seen evidence they're lying to AI. Perhaps you have more information on it showing Google's statement was false? I've also plainly missed the section where the illegal part happened.

I don't agree with Google nor anyone else attempting to circumvent a user's plainly stated intentions to opt out of participating in targeted ad programs. Apple has a dedicated link for that as does Google. That's not what's claimed here tho is it? That's why I question this "illegal" stuff supposedly taking place.

I also don't completely agree with working around Safari's cookie controls since some users might be aware they weren't used by default and might assume that "cookie tracking" isn't being done. I also don't see this a a huge issue either.

Exactly. I don't believe anything they say any longer, I just need to find a good email host, I don't want to host my own domain.


Thats when I switched to duck duck go, targeted ads are creepy. I was also getting ads for local businesses and other personal stuff. no thanks, I'm almost done with them, too big brother for me.

google doesn't sell android, they made a free operating system which other OEM's are using such as motorola, samsung, htc etc google do sell some nexus series but they are far from outselling iPhone which is still no.1 selling smartphone


time will tell


desperate? just yesterday tim cook said there are around 100m iCloud users which looks a decent number of users

Same here. I dumped using anything of theirs late last year. Do not trust them in the least little bit.

I'm just a skeptic is all. We'll have to wait a while to see how this plays out.

I don't think this is so much about privacy issues, like you said, we're all a little naive to assume we have any real privacy on the internet. This however is different, Google is not only going about this without the permission of the user but is ACTIVELY going against the wishes of the user by bypassing the preferences a user has ACTUALLY selected and doing so in a backdoor, secretive manner which is what makes this malicious, sneaky, dishonest and probably illegal.

If they had've simply added a dialog box that asked for permission in order to make my browser experience better, I probably would have given them the permission to do so.
I imagine that a lot of other people would also have given them permission, while others probably would have declined.
Unfortunately Google wasn't interested in 'doing the right thing' and only getting the information of SOME users when they could do the 'sneaky' and likely 'illegal' thing and get the information of ALL users.

I guess that "being good" and "doing no evil" depend on your own definition of both "good" and "evil", Google obviously have a different definition than most of us though and they know they do, otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to do this in such a "sneaky" backdoor manner.

At least they haven't yet issued a press release saying they did this "for the good of the internet" like politicians do things "for the good of the country"

[QUOTE=cy_starkman;2048628][QUOTE=anthropic;2048593]I still can't believe in this day and age that privacy is an issue, you have none, the government knows everything, Apple knows EVERYTHING, Micro$oft knows EVERYTHING, now Google also know EVERYTHING.
Acronym. An anagram is making different words with the same letters. Like taking the words debit card and rearranging the letters to create the words bad credit.

Today's lesson is brought to you by the acronym FYI.

Tell me how to shut off my gmail address please. Also, how do I find the range of IP numbers for google so I can block them from my network? TIA

read: we have shitloads of money but didn't want to spend it, or the time, to test things. sorry we got caught.

remember, we do no evil.

or something.

1. Google has demonstrated themselves to be so dishonest and deceptive, time after time, that there is, rightfully, a presumption that they are lying. With no credibility, because they have no history of honesty or straight dealing, It's up to them to offer proof that they are telling the truth.

2. Not being illegal doesn't make it ethical or "right". Google clearly went Black hat on this one and clearly and intentionally circumvented user expectations of privacy. That, even by their own twisted definition, is being evil.

I expect it is most difficult for senior employees, and not so difficult for juniors.


Access to the raw data doesn't indicate how the data are used, abused or leaked. The identity verification of Google+ makes it that much easier to cause privacy problems.


Surely you don't think I give Facebook a pass. If anything you're aiding Facebook by saying loss of privacy is a fact of life.

Good of you to admit Google and the rest make mistakes. That's all the more reason to worry. (btw: Facebook didn't have to pay for the current Google PR problem.)

Free services do not per se require giving up personal information. Basic capitalism says companies will do whatever they can get away with to make money--laws against it be damned. For example, consider Google's flouting of copyright laws. That doesn't mean regulations aren't helpful or that most companies aren't mindful of the laws. Google kind of stands out there on its own in that regard.

It's not so difficult to maintain your own e-mail server (and calendar server and contacts server). I believe there's a market for super-easy solutions.

Dirty Google

Incomprehensible! A veteran AI poster hates Google. Whodathunkit

If Apple did this, you guys would be talking about how awesome they are for quickly addressing the concern.

What's this? There's bias toward the company for which the website exists and bias against the company known for lying to customers, stealing their data, and who stole their mobile OS from the company for which this website exists?

NO. REALLY.

If this had happened with Apple (even though it couldn't) and they released a similar statement, I would have been equally skeptical that anything had been actually done about it.

I accepted gmails terms to be searched forever to open a gmail account.
Little Snitch told me the computer wanted connect to google as I visited every site this month.

I canceled my gmail account. End of story.

Screw Google!

This is just one reason Safari sucks arse as a browser, and Google has shown how evil it really is.

How is this in any way Safari's problem?

If people wanted the features of other browsers they could just, you know, use them.

FWIW Google's Chrome browser does offer an "Incognito" mode, which means "pages that you open and files that you download while in incognito mode arent recorded in Chromes browsing or download history. We also make sure all new cookies are deleted when you close your incognito windows."

Just an FYI for those using Chrome but afraid of your browsing history and searches being recorded for posterity.

1) Apple has no interest in the mobile operating system market, you're thinking of Microsoft.

2) Competitors to the current Apple TV box include: TiVO, cable companies, XBox to a certain extent, whilst a revised full Apple Television would compete with Samsung, Sony & other TV manufacturers, not Google.

3) Apple is not trying to compete with Google's webapps, that's Microsoft with Windows Live & Office, Dropbox, Analytics & Advertising companies. Apple wants good-quality, reasonably priced services for its existing customers, that they can include in their ecosystem and control the future of. Trust, Google is not worried about me.com killing gmail.com.

They might of course have similar areas of interest, but it's the motivation & reasoning underlying these interests that determines whether they are competing for the same customers. Google's customers are, on the whole, other companies, whereas Apple's are consumers. There's no need to be condescending to someone you believe doesn't understand a concept like "competition".

Oh wait.

Private browsing options only keep the local app from recording your history, it won't keep Google, Facebook, AI or whomever from being able to record and track you.

Then you might want to visit this site:
http://www.google.com/goodtoknow/manage-data/ads/

Notice that Google Chrome even allows for persistent "Opt-out" settings across other browsers and sites. Try "Keep My Opt-Outs" extension for Chrome as a good start.

Does he really expect us to believe that Google stops tracking you because you stop storing local history or click on an "opt-out" link? We aren't that naive. With Google, assume there is no opt-out until they prove there is, continually, each day.

What's that? They can't prove there is? True. But, then, we have absolutely no reason to believe them just because they say there is, and every reason to disbelieve them.

I suppose you're going to tell us next that the Safari extension that Google made to let us opt-out of Google Analytics actually opts us out of Google Analytics, then.