Woman: On the internet. They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.
Man: ..and where did you read that?
Woman: On the Internet
I realize that you may not wish to read the Google disclosure because you couldn't then continue to make believe what you say isn't there really isn't there. For others the policy is here, and the disclosure listed under "Information We Share".
As for you JR, feel free to continue with FUD in the face of facts sir. No reason to change now.
And the fandroid troll emerges. Why do you come here? If this were a story about Apple, you sir, would be foaming at the gills in anger. You sir are one brain dead hypocrite. Do not come to an Apple forum with your garbage, FUD. It's clear you work for google in some way, as you can never admit to any wrong doing by your beloved overlord. I suggest YOU sir watch this (as you demand other to do with any of your linked material).
Please stop polluting this forums, just go away. Nobody but you thinks your rubbish adds anything here. Your inferiority complex is obvious, why else do you come here, unless you're being paid to do so? Google are, and always will be, the biggest fraudseters on the face of gods earth. Now bug off.
Might I suggest you follow your own advice and go too. It would improve the site a lot if there were less people here who indulge in this kind of low level ranting.
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.
Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is.
Not to completely skip over the 'flaw', but hasn't anyone noticed "News.com.au reported that "this story was amended at the request of Google."?
First, Cnet caves to their corporate masters and removeds a product from contention for an award at CES, now their "news" arm "amended" a story at the request of a paid advertiser.
And the fandroid troll emerges. Why do you come here? If this were a story about Apple, you sir, would be foaming at the gills in anger. You sir are one brain dead hypocrite. Do not come to an Apple forum with your garbage, FUD. It's clear you work for google in some way, as you can never admit to any wrong doing by your beloved overlord. I suggest YOU sir watch this (as you demand other to do with any of your linked material).
Please stop polluting this forums, just go away. Nobody but you thinks your rubbish adds anything here. Your inferiority complex is obvious, why else do you come here, unless you're being paid to do so? Google are, and always will be, the biggest fraudseters on the face of gods earth. Now bug off.
Well put, couldn't have written it better.
It had a go at me asking whether English was my first language. That's all you will get from him. He is incapable of responding to questions, like a little child answers a question with their own, so immature.
I refuse to have anything to do with google except for YouTube, the ads are background noise that don't register.
I want Apple to remove them as one of the default search engines, but not sure whether they will.
I hate google it's that simple.
I have to agree that Chrome is a good browser, and I wish Apple took the web browser race a bit more seriously. But I always felt that Apple (going back to the days when Steve Jobs was willing to make Internet Explorer the default browser in OS X, perhaps as a concession to Microsoft's terms to agreeing to invest in Apple) never really cared that much about winning the browser wars. It was a means to an end, which was to spur on the adoption of OS-agnostic HTML5 (something that leveled the playing field against Windows and technologies like ActiveX and Flash, which were always implemented better on Windows). With Firefox, Opera, and Chrome now sustaining HTML5 adoption, I think Apple is now content to let Safari slide, and that's a shame. I noticed that while FF, Opera, and Chrome have moved to a far more rapid release schedule, browsers like Safari and IE are (more or less) tied to the release of OS versions, so Apple's HTML5 feature compliance tends to lurch forward in annual cycles. I want Safari to be a no-compromise HTML5 compliant WebKit-based browser. The fact that Apple backed-off developing the Windows version of Safari tells me they're content to let others take the lead in browsers. I could use Chrome, but I'd rather use Safari (and I do, warts and all).
Regarding the other thing you said about Google and privacy is that yes, I don't like how Google went from spidering and indexing the web, to gathering information about its users. I'd rather they be a kick-ass search engine that works for users, not data collector of users' data that serves Google's interests.
Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.
It had a go at me asking whether English was my first language. That's all you will get from him. He is incapable of responding to questions, like a little child answers a question with their own, so immature.
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
2) I feel my ability to debate a topic, which in no small part is being able to see the opposing side's argument, is having had many debates with him over the years. I don't usually come away agreeing with his PoV but I often come away understanding it, even if just a little bit, because of his ability to form a cohesive, well thought-out, and cited response.
Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.
Chromium OS is open-source and I think the licensing would allow you to remove everything that calls home. WIth modern webcode there is no reason why Chrome can't be a stand-alone OS that doesn't need to be connected to the internet and Google's services to work. It has a Linux foundation and getting access to local storage is possible. We've already seen what HTML5/CSS3/JS can do as a UI with WebOS and Windows Metro.
Here is a recent story about how Chrome OS first got started. In a Microsoft-ian fashion Google rejected the idea of a super-fast OS that is loaded into RAM but then later took the idea and ran with it after the original developer was gone.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.
No idea. I only use Chrome on my Windows PC at work because IE sucks really bad, and I don't login to any Google account while I'm using it. As for "my" contacts database, it's actually the company's Exchange database, so they aren't my personal contacts. Besides, other than the browser cookies, whatever Chrome on my work PC tracks can't be used to identify me, only my work PC.
However, on my personal machines (Macs) I don't use Chrome at all. I use Safari for everything and Firefox for a small handful of sites that don't work correctly in Safari.
Again, searched for the story in news.google.com. The search returns just two stories (one of them this), and it provides a link to "all 68 news sources."
But clicking on the link reveals just the same two stories!
What happened to the other 66?
Google says, however, that the 'selection and placement' were all left to a 'computer', so I am sure they're not to blame!
Well now, 22:20 GMT, a search for "google play store" in the US Edition of google News doesn't list appleinsider anymore within the First 10 pages, as it did 4 hours ago. We all have become irelevant as it seems. The algorithms of google should know why. I Do Not. But, perhaps m$ is behind all this. I mean The appearance of this topic in the australian blog. Then... I would Not know If I preferred google or m$. probably none of them. But I care about privacy and I don't want to store my data at a company I cannot Trust. I believe only an encrypted cloud is a good cloud. The others are all evil, no matter which company is behind it.
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
I sometimes use "it" to refer to a person when I don't know (for sure) their gender. Some people use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but "they" is plural. The alternative is to say "that person" or "he/she". Cumbersome. The other, rarer case for using "it" is for anyone whose gender identity is "complicated."
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
2) I feel my ability to debate a topic, which in no small part is being able to see the opposing side's argument, is having had many debates with him over the years. I don't usually come away agreeing with his PoV but I often come away understanding it, even if just a little bit, because of his ability to form a cohesive, well thought-out, and cited response.
Well, ignoring the fact that his responses aren't usually well cited -- his citations often range to have nothing to do with the topic to actually contradicting his point, if you read them, which he's counting on most people not doing -- his responses are nothing more than spin, deflection, misdirection, and often outright lies. This isn't a debating society, and there's no reason we have to be "fair and balanced". After all, the truth is usually biased, and debating it doesn't change that fact, especially when one side isn't engaged in honest discussion but is here to "shape" the story.
I sometimes use "it" to refer to a person when I don't know (for sure) their gender. Some people use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but "they" is plural. The alternative is to say "that person" or "he/she". Cumbersome. The other, rarer case for using "it" is for anyone whose gender identity is "complicated."
I understand how it can be used that way but I don't think that was the intent of the OP.
I do wish we had a truly gender neutral word to describe a person in the singular that doesn't have a pejorative tone. Perhaps we use the word it to denote an unknown gender but then add as prefixes the first letter of she and he to denote these as possible options. For example, "Shit had a go at me asking whether English was my first language." I see no downsides¡
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.
Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is.
Ah TS, are you being willfully ignorant ? The Apple definition of non-personal information is, to put it mildly, defective, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. It is really quite asinine in this context to ignore the fact that the Apple definition is absolutely contrived and not in any way compatible with internationally accepted definitions of personal information: Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.
If the definition had been invented by some idiot with no professional experience in privacy law it might be excusable, but that's not the case. It was defined by professionals who are familiar with privacy laws and regulations worldwide. But when it comes from a professional then it must be assumed that it is intentional.
The point is that it is trivial to link various pieces of "apple-defined" non-personal information to identify people. This is why the laws are formulated to include "identifiable" personal information. So please, give it a rest. Nobody can be so stupid as not to see through that. But since we don't have any insight into what apple is really doing it is a bit difficult to say more than it looks like a ruse which will create the illusion that they are not processing personal information while at the same time opening a back door to permit it. To me it seems quite obvious that the specific inclusion of "direct" in the definition, is something that requires closer examination.
And before you start arguing that this is a US Company and subject only to US laws, you may wish to wise up on definitions of personal information in various state laws and federal regulations (HIPAA for example). In any case, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Apple definition is incompatible with privacy law in the majority of countries which have any such laws at all.
Either way I'd call it a flaw. The only difference I see if it's an unintentional flaw in coding/design or an intentional flaw in the basic security of the livestock customer.
I can almost see "Google Cattle" term emerging in opposition to "Apple Sheep"...
Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.
So you object to the idea of Apple stating that their customers have eyes of a certain color. You'd prefer third-parties not even know that Apple's customers have eyes at all. Got it.
Originally Posted by Euphonious
135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.
Plenty of us really need to go outside more.
I ask because I genuinely don't think you know: you do realize this is a discussion forum, right?
Might I suggest you follow your own advice and go too. It would improve the site a lot if there were less people here who indulge in this kind of low level ranting.
But, why does it want to upload your entire Contacts database, even if you don't have and aren't logged into any sort of Google account? What it is is a good piece of spyware, and its primary purpose is to collect information about you and send it back to Google.
I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac and I stopped using Chrome. It calls home repeatedly every session. Firefox and Safari call home maybe one a week to check for updates. Other than to check for updates, a browser has no reason to call home. You are right it is spyware.
Comments
Http:www.scroogled.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ah, just like the State Farm commercial!
Man: Where'd you hear that?
Woman: On the internet. They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.
Man: ..and where did you read that?
Woman: On the Internet
I realize that you may not wish to read the Google disclosure because you couldn't then continue to make believe what you say isn't there really isn't there. For others the policy is here, and the disclosure listed under "Information We Share".
http://wallet.google.com/files/privacy.html
As for you JR, feel free to continue with FUD in the face of facts sir. No reason to change now.
And the fandroid troll emerges. Why do you come here? If this were a story about Apple, you sir, would be foaming at the gills in anger. You sir are one brain dead hypocrite. Do not come to an Apple forum with your garbage, FUD. It's clear you work for google in some way, as you can never admit to any wrong doing by your beloved overlord. I suggest YOU sir watch this (as you demand other to do with any of your linked material).
Please stop polluting this forums, just go away. Nobody but you thinks your rubbish adds anything here. Your inferiority complex is obvious, why else do you come here, unless you're being paid to do so? Google are, and always will be, the biggest fraudseters on the face of gods earth. Now bug off.
Might I suggest you follow your own advice and go too. It would improve the site a lot if there were less people here who indulge in this kind of low level ranting.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.
Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is.
Not to completely skip over the 'flaw', but hasn't anyone noticed "News.com.au reported that "this story was amended at the request of Google."?
First, Cnet caves to their corporate masters and removeds a product from contention for an award at CES, now their "news" arm "amended" a story at the request of a paid advertiser.
Well put, couldn't have written it better.
It had a go at me asking whether English was my first language. That's all you will get from him. He is incapable of responding to questions, like a little child answers a question with their own, so immature.
I refuse to have anything to do with google except for YouTube, the ads are background noise that don't register.
I want Apple to remove them as one of the default search engines, but not sure whether they will.
I hate google it's that simple.
Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
2) I feel my ability to debate a topic, which in no small part is being able to see the opposing side's argument, is having had many debates with him over the years. I don't usually come away agreeing with his PoV but I often come away understanding it, even if just a little bit, because of his ability to form a cohesive, well thought-out, and cited response.
Chromium OS is open-source and I think the licensing would allow you to remove everything that calls home. WIth modern webcode there is no reason why Chrome can't be a stand-alone OS that doesn't need to be connected to the internet and Google's services to work. It has a Linux foundation and getting access to local storage is possible. We've already seen what HTML5/CSS3/JS can do as a UI with WebOS and Windows Metro.
Here is a recent story about how Chrome OS first got started. In a Microsoft-ian fashion Google rejected the idea of a super-fast OS that is loaded into RAM but then later took the idea and ran with it after the original developer was gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.
No idea. I only use Chrome on my Windows PC at work because IE sucks really bad, and I don't login to any Google account while I'm using it. As for "my" contacts database, it's actually the company's Exchange database, so they aren't my personal contacts. Besides, other than the browser cookies, whatever Chrome on my work PC tracks can't be used to identify me, only my work PC.
However, on my personal machines (Macs) I don't use Chrome at all. I use Safari for everything and Firefox for a small handful of sites that don't work correctly in Safari.
Well now, 22:20 GMT, a search for "google play store" in the US Edition of google News doesn't list appleinsider anymore within the First 10 pages, as it did 4 hours ago. We all have become irelevant as it seems. The algorithms of google should know why. I Do Not. But, perhaps m$ is behind all this. I mean The appearance of this topic in the australian blog. Then... I would Not know If I preferred google or m$. probably none of them. But I care about privacy and I don't want to store my data at a company I cannot Trust. I believe only an encrypted cloud is a good cloud. The others are all evil, no matter which company is behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
I sometimes use "it" to refer to a person when I don't know (for sure) their gender. Some people use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but "they" is plural. The alternative is to say "that person" or "he/she". Cumbersome. The other, rarer case for using "it" is for anyone whose gender identity is "complicated."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.
2) I feel my ability to debate a topic, which in no small part is being able to see the opposing side's argument, is having had many debates with him over the years. I don't usually come away agreeing with his PoV but I often come away understanding it, even if just a little bit, because of his ability to form a cohesive, well thought-out, and cited response.
Well, ignoring the fact that his responses aren't usually well cited -- his citations often range to have nothing to do with the topic to actually contradicting his point, if you read them, which he's counting on most people not doing -- his responses are nothing more than spin, deflection, misdirection, and often outright lies. This isn't a debating society, and there's no reason we have to be "fair and balanced". After all, the truth is usually biased, and debating it doesn't change that fact, especially when one side isn't engaged in honest discussion but is here to "shape" the story.
I understand how it can be used that way but I don't think that was the intent of the OP.
I do wish we had a truly gender neutral word to describe a person in the singular that doesn't have a pejorative tone. Perhaps we use the word it to denote an unknown gender but then add as prefixes the first letter of she and he to denote these as possible options. For example, "Shit had a go at me asking whether English was my first language." I see no downsides¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.
Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is.
Ah TS, are you being willfully ignorant ? The Apple definition of non-personal information is, to put it mildly, defective, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. It is really quite asinine in this context to ignore the fact that the Apple definition is absolutely contrived and not in any way compatible with internationally accepted definitions of personal information: Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.
If the definition had been invented by some idiot with no professional experience in privacy law it might be excusable, but that's not the case. It was defined by professionals who are familiar with privacy laws and regulations worldwide. But when it comes from a professional then it must be assumed that it is intentional.
The point is that it is trivial to link various pieces of "apple-defined" non-personal information to identify people. This is why the laws are formulated to include "identifiable" personal information. So please, give it a rest. Nobody can be so stupid as not to see through that. But since we don't have any insight into what apple is really doing it is a bit difficult to say more than it looks like a ruse which will create the illusion that they are not processing personal information while at the same time opening a back door to permit it. To me it seems quite obvious that the specific inclusion of "direct" in the definition, is something that requires closer examination.
And before you start arguing that this is a US Company and subject only to US laws, you may wish to wise up on definitions of personal information in various state laws and federal regulations (HIPAA for example). In any case, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Apple definition is incompatible with privacy law in the majority of countries which have any such laws at all.
135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.
Plenty of us really need to go outside more.
I can almost see "Google Cattle" term emerging in opposition to "Apple Sheep"...
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.
So you object to the idea of Apple stating that their customers have eyes of a certain color. You'd prefer third-parties not even know that Apple's customers have eyes at all. Got it.
Originally Posted by Euphonious
135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.
Plenty of us really need to go outside more.
I ask because I genuinely don't think you know: you do realize this is a discussion forum, right?
+1
I think you just coined a new term.
Warning: Some Google Cattle posts may contain some horse's ass comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
But, why does it want to upload your entire Contacts database, even if you don't have and aren't logged into any sort of Google account? What it is is a good piece of spyware, and its primary purpose is to collect information about you and send it back to Google.
I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac and I stopped using Chrome. It calls home repeatedly every session. Firefox and Safari call home maybe one a week to check for updates. Other than to check for updates, a browser has no reason to call home. You are right it is spyware.