You're almost there. No one here is going to understand this, but it wasn't an intentional undermining on Google's part. They made a mistake that was turned into an exploit by 3rd parties and for that error $22M is the penalty.
What nonsense. Not only is your description completely false, bearing no relation to reality, but Google's actions were certainly intentional, and not at all "inadvertent". Not only that, but Google's statement is nothing but self-serving double speak -- i.e., a lie.
They want info on us whether we are comfortable giving it to them or not. Why else deliberately side-step my privacy settings?
This is why Google offers "free services". They want their greasy fingers in every area of your life. The advertisers are their real customers, not us. Google see you and I as nothing more than food for their real customers.
I just bought the RRS app "Reeder" for Mac OS and iOS. It's a great app, but you are "required" to sign in with Google. What is that all about? I don't care about logging in on a web browser to check my RRS feeds. I don't need it and I don't want it. There is NO reason for signing into Google to be mandatory, except that Google wants to know what's in my RRS feed.
On the same note, there is no reason at all to force you to sign in just to use the detailed options on search but they do that too.
For instance, you can search for images and you can click various options on and off, but they aren't saved unless you sign in, so if you don't sign in you have to re-click to enable disable all the options. every. single. time. As someone who uses image search a lot and doesn't sign in, this drives me absolutely batty!
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
On the same note, there is no reason at all to force you to sign in just to use the detailed options on search but they do that too.
For instance, you can search for images and you can click various options on and off, but they aren't saved unless you sign in, so if you don't sign in you have to re-click to enable disable all the options. every. single. time. As someone who uses image search a lot and doesn't sign in, this drives me absolutely batty!
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
I have Little Snitch installed on my iMac at home. Guess who routinely keeps trying to call home? If you guessed Google, you get a gold star. Every day when I get home from work, there is at least a couple of alerts that Google is trying to phone home. No browser windows were open and I think that the only full-blown Google app that I have installed (but not running) is Google Earth and I might just dump that one too. Little Snitch is a wonderful app for monitoring what apps are trying to call home and lets you set your own rules, so you are in control. (Reeder is not yet installed on this computer)
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
How do you do that? I'm running ML but am not sure how this works.
This is a totally separate thing from the European Wi-Fi debacle.
Sorry, I worded my original post very poorly. A fine per violation of privacy settings in Safari on each home/business network. There are millions of Safari users, and assuming they are all on individual personal networks, that could be at least hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
Using arbitrary numbers: $100 fine per violation + 1 million Safari users violated = $100 million. And I'm using extremely conservative estimates.
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
I opened a YouTube account years ago, before Google purchased them, just so I could make an occasional comment. Then a while back I was presented with this risible canard - the chances of me losing or forgetting my settings are zero - so I have always sought out the very small font option to bypass this 'security' measure. It occurred to me that your mobile phone is a tracking device - give Google your number and they will know where you are at all times. This is not a good thing. It's depressing how many people are sleepwalking into this dystopia of total information awareness.
Continued breaches since they really have no incentive to stop.
I only disagree because I think the "do not track" feature in browsers is changing the game. Since a browser now (edit: or will soon) let you request greater privacy, what to do about companies that disregard that request has become an issue. California is already considering laws that would force companies to honor "do not track" or face fines. Google and Facebook are arguing it would ruin them and the industry can self regulate. If Google and/or Facebook keep showing disregard for privacy, they will loose that argument.
So I believe this does far more damage than you may believe. If Google continues to make mistakes (whether intentional or not) like this, some states will start to step in. That's the last thing Google (or Facebook) wants...
Folks get two programs Saft which allows you to block any and all advertising hitting your web browser. Second program is Little Snitch and block all things google. I do not block the actual google.com but all it derivative service this they use to track you like google analytics which the use to analysis your habbits on the web.
I surf the web and search without google having any feed back from my computer and I do not see their target advertising which is fine with me. The other program you can use is net shade which will mask you home IP from google knowing your locations, but that can bring up some prettying interesting search results.
I only disagree because I think the "do not track" feature in browsers is changing the game. Since a browser now (edit: or will soon) let you request greater privacy, what to do about companies that disregard that request has become an issue. California is already considering laws that would force companies to honor "do not track" or face fines. Google and Facebook are arguing it would ruin them and the industry can self regulate. If Google and/or Facebook keep showing disregard for privacy, they will loose that argument.
So I believe this does far more damage than you may believe. If Google continues to make mistakes (whether intentional or not) like this, some states will start to step in. That's the last thing Google (or Facebook) wants...
California already proposed some rules changes, which is why Safari, Firefox, Explorer and Chrome all now offer Do Not Track settings. Here's how to set' em up:
In Safari 6, there is a "Ask websites not to track me" checkbox. (Preferences > Privacy) To me, this sounds like they decide whether to comply with my wishes. It should read "TELL websites not to track me". They don't get a say in this - I decide, not them.
Comments
"We bypassed your privacy settings to help you, Joe Consumer, have a better internet experience. All for you. We promise."
Originally Posted by BostonBri
Do consumers get anything for Google's privacy breach?
Continued breaches since they really have no incentive to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
... Imagine if Google had to pay hundreds of thousands per infringement of data collected from each WIFI network. Justice.
This is a totally separate thing from the European Wi-Fi debacle.
Obviously too low of a fine, our pathetic government continues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
You're almost there. No one here is going to understand this, but it wasn't an intentional undermining on Google's part. They made a mistake that was turned into an exploit by 3rd parties and for that error $22M is the penalty.
What nonsense. Not only is your description completely false, bearing no relation to reality, but Google's actions were certainly intentional, and not at all "inadvertent". Not only that, but Google's statement is nothing but self-serving double speak -- i.e., a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
They want info on us whether we are comfortable giving it to them or not. Why else deliberately side-step my privacy settings?
This is why Google offers "free services". They want their greasy fingers in every area of your life. The advertisers are their real customers, not us. Google see you and I as nothing more than food for their real customers.
I just bought the RRS app "Reeder" for Mac OS and iOS. It's a great app, but you are "required" to sign in with Google. What is that all about? I don't care about logging in on a web browser to check my RRS feeds. I don't need it and I don't want it. There is NO reason for signing into Google to be mandatory, except that Google wants to know what's in my RRS feed.
On the same note, there is no reason at all to force you to sign in just to use the detailed options on search but they do that too.
For instance, you can search for images and you can click various options on and off, but they aren't saved unless you sign in, so if you don't sign in you have to re-click to enable disable all the options. every. single. time. As someone who uses image search a lot and doesn't sign in, this drives me absolutely batty!
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
On the same note, there is no reason at all to force you to sign in just to use the detailed options on search but they do that too.
For instance, you can search for images and you can click various options on and off, but they aren't saved unless you sign in, so if you don't sign in you have to re-click to enable disable all the options. every. single. time. As someone who uses image search a lot and doesn't sign in, this drives me absolutely batty!
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
I have Little Snitch installed on my iMac at home. Guess who routinely keeps trying to call home? If you guessed Google, you get a gold star. Every day when I get home from work, there is at least a couple of alerts that Google is trying to phone home. No browser windows were open and I think that the only full-blown Google app that I have installed (but not running) is Google Earth and I might just dump that one too. Little Snitch is a wonderful app for monitoring what apps are trying to call home and lets you set your own rules, so you are in control. (Reeder is not yet installed on this computer)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Also interesting is that with Mountain Lion you can see that Google has their fingers in your contacts application even if you have never signed in at all. Chrome now requests access to your contacts. For what? I've never used Chrome as anything other than my second string browser for Flash related content, but apparently it's been accessing my contacts in the background all this time. Bastards.
How do you do that? I'm running ML but am not sure how this works.
Thanks,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is a totally separate thing from the European Wi-Fi debacle.
Sorry, I worded my original post very poorly. A fine per violation of privacy settings in Safari on each home/business network. There are millions of Safari users, and assuming they are all on individual personal networks, that could be at least hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
Using arbitrary numbers: $100 fine per violation + 1 million Safari users violated = $100 million. And I'm using extremely conservative estimates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's also very underhanded the way they try to get you to link your phone and your personal info every single time you try to use Gmail (if you haven't already relented). Before you can use your mail they present you with a screen with all kinds of scary talk about how your information could be in danger if you don't "authenticate" yourself (give them all your personal info like phone number etc.). There is a dialogue so you can say no, but the button to say yes is large, in your face, and positioned right under your cursor, whereas the "opt out" button is a teeny, teeny, tiny text link on the bottom that it's easy to miss. Most people would just reflexively click the big blue button that links their phone to the account.
I opened a YouTube account years ago, before Google purchased them, just so I could make an occasional comment. Then a while back I was presented with this risible canard - the chances of me losing or forgetting my settings are zero - so I have always sought out the very small font option to bypass this 'security' measure. It occurred to me that your mobile phone is a tracking device - give Google your number and they will know where you are at all times. This is not a good thing. It's depressing how many people are sleepwalking into this dystopia of total information awareness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Continued breaches since they really have no incentive to stop.
I only disagree because I think the "do not track" feature in browsers is changing the game. Since a browser now (edit: or will soon) let you request greater privacy, what to do about companies that disregard that request has become an issue. California is already considering laws that would force companies to honor "do not track" or face fines. Google and Facebook are arguing it would ruin them and the industry can self regulate. If Google and/or Facebook keep showing disregard for privacy, they will loose that argument.
So I believe this does far more damage than you may believe. If Google continues to make mistakes (whether intentional or not) like this, some states will start to step in. That's the last thing Google (or Facebook) wants...
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Full disclosure: AppleInsider uses Google ads and is bypassing your Internet privacy settings as a result.
lol, Little Snitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Full disclosure: AppleInsider uses Google ads and is bypassing your Internet privacy settings as a result.
Full disclosure: Adblocker, Ghostery and Better Privacy maintain my internet privacy settings.
Folks get two programs Saft which allows you to block any and all advertising hitting your web browser. Second program is Little Snitch and block all things google. I do not block the actual google.com but all it derivative service this they use to track you like google analytics which the use to analysis your habbits on the web.
I surf the web and search without google having any feed back from my computer and I do not see their target advertising which is fine with me. The other program you can use is net shade which will mask you home IP from google knowing your locations, but that can bring up some prettying interesting search results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue
Full disclosure: Adblocker, Ghostery and Better Privacy maintain my internet privacy settings.
Full disclosure: Take it from a programmer: the only way to guarantee online privacy...never get online.
Nope, not even an admission of guilt it seems.
Which is why I want to limit adding anything more to google of my life and removing as much as I can
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
I only disagree because I think the "do not track" feature in browsers is changing the game. Since a browser now (edit: or will soon) let you request greater privacy, what to do about companies that disregard that request has become an issue. California is already considering laws that would force companies to honor "do not track" or face fines. Google and Facebook are arguing it would ruin them and the industry can self regulate. If Google and/or Facebook keep showing disregard for privacy, they will loose that argument.
So I believe this does far more damage than you may believe. If Google continues to make mistakes (whether intentional or not) like this, some states will start to step in. That's the last thing Google (or Facebook) wants...
California already proposed some rules changes, which is why Safari, Firefox, Explorer and Chrome all now offer Do Not Track settings. Here's how to set' em up:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/how-turn-do-not-track-your-browser
Google's the most evil company. They've paid more privacy-related fines than any other tech company in the history.
In Safari 6, there is a "Ask websites not to track me" checkbox. (Preferences > Privacy) To me, this sounds like they decide whether to comply with my wishes. It should read "TELL websites not to track me". They don't get a say in this - I decide, not them.