Google sniffing around

[nadir]

as a general question (not aimed at you), why do people not make the same noises against "regular" ISPs if they do not have vastly different terms?

Short ago the laws in germany have been changed. ISP's are supposed to store data for half a year - of everyone.
There was quite an amount of noise against it. (The same laws are valid for europe/EU, if i am correct).

To be honest: I for one can't hear much noise against Google

Google is very present. Thats all about it. I guess. I install linux: it is there. I install firefox in windows: it is there. I go to the library: its the start-page. I hear the people talking: " i googled this and that". And so on.
Thats the thing i don't like about it. The lack of choice. Pushiness.
And a bit more, but not -mainly- the security/privacy stuff (more the style: young, cool, happy: colored. part of it.)

Yep: you didn't ask me. I answered anyway.

[MALsPa]

@MALsPa: At minimum being paranoid is a bit more of fun and the drugs are better than being buried alive.

[dzz]

Is not paranoia fear of that which does not exist and a mental illness?

Data collection in the manner described here is actually happening. Do people really believe google have simply "made a mistake" and the purpose is restricted to just serving ads? The potential for serious abuse is obvious, such activities MUST be publicised and challenged.

[ComputerBob]

as a general question (not aimed at you), why do people not make the same noises against "regular" ISPs if they do not have vastly different terms?

For me, there are several reasons, including the fact that my ISP's business plan is not based on it collecting as much of my private data as possible and then exploting that private data to make a profit.

In response to those who characterize the more-careful among us by using the derogatory term, "paranoid," how would you like it if we started characterizing you by using the derogatory term, "careless?"

The fact is that we are not paranoid. And you are probably not careless. We simply have different privacy standards and different levels of risk tolerance. So let's all show a little respect for differences of opinion.

[MALsPa]

Sometimes I really am too paranoid. Sometimes, I'm too careless. I guess both "paranoid" and "careless" can be derogatory terms. So I guess my feelings should be hurt.

They aren't.

Data collection in the manner described here is actually happening. Do people really believe google have simply "made a mistake" and the purpose is restricted to just serving ads? The potential for serious abuse is obvious, such activities MUST be publicised and challenged.

Yeah, I agree, it has to be watched.

And folks need to be careful about what they put online, because no matter how much you might wish for something called "internet privacy," well...

"If you wouldn't put it on the front page of the local newspaper, don't put it online" is still a good rule of thumb.

[nadir]

In response to those who characterize the more-careful among us by using the derogatory term, "paranoid," how would you like it if we started characterizing you by using the derogatory term, "careless?"
The fact is that we are not paranoid. And you are probably not careless. We simply have different privacy standards and different levels of risk tolerance. So let's all show a little respect for differences of opinion.

That's what i wanted to say.

I am still a bit astonished that nothing but two links to official news-sites lead to the advice "to leave civilization and live in a cave" (or being told to be paranoid).

[mojoman]

That companies and such knows stuff about us is one thing. My bank knows a lot about my finances. My grocer knows what brand of beer I like, and how much of it I buy. But maybe I happen to think that my bank don't have any business knowing what I drink or how much of it? And that my grocer in no way should know how much money I make or have saved? And maybe google shouldn't know either of this?

I'm sure it's perfectly legal in many places to sniff into open networks, taking photographs of people in front of their homes and collect all kinds of information. I live in an apartment building and I'm sure it's legal for me to stand on my balcony and stare into my neighbors apartment all day long. But if I do I shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when I claim that I respect my neighbors privacy. I shouldn't be surprised if my neighbor called me a freaking pervert either.

I'm not particularly paranoid about google or any other company that gathers data about users on the net. I strongly oppose too much intrusion in my private life though and I believe their behavior is totally inconsistent with their claim to respect peoples privacy. Not liking something does not amount to paranoia.

I know full well that there is no or very little true anonymity on the net and I really don't have a problem with that. My ISP only retains its logs for a very short time and does not give out any information unless ordered by a court of law. At least that's what they claim and they may be lying through their teeth but I have no reason to believe so. If they are ordered to hand out information chances are high that it has already been destroyed. (This might change as the EU decided that ISPs must retain data for six months, as Nadir already pointed out. This has been challenged in court and Sweden, where I live, have yet to implement this directive.) I do have a problem with a company, organization, person or government agency gathering all the data they can find on me and compile it to use it for whatever purpose that serves their end. In most cases that purpose will just be to make me buy a lot of junk but I don't approve of the intrusion in my privacy, and that's that really.

Obviously I have a great deal of responsibility to not give out information freely and thus limit my exposure, should I so desire. Not using dubious services and protecting my network are good ways to start. I agree wholeheartedly that the government gathering and or compiling data is far more serious that companies doing so. According to the EU directive mentioned just about all web data emitting from a persons IP will be stored for a long period, just in case it is need by the government. Most of us would be appalled if every letter we got had been opened, photocopied and stored for future use before being sent to us, and every phone call we made or received was likewise recorded. Somehow, if I happen to oppose this sort of thing on the Internet I should "move to a cave and [...] not have anything to do with civilization"? That's just plain daft.

Next thing I know some idiot will probably tell me (again) that if I don't have anything to hide I shouldn't mind being supervised so I'll just answer that right away. Why don't you put an online webcam in your own toilet and have it done with, ok?

[neddie]

For what it's worth, I really do think this sounds like a blunder. I don't think they'll have collected anything meaningful because they're only driving around, so the car is only close to a single network for a very short time. That means they probably can't piece anything meaningful together from the scattered, unconnected data, anything they've got is pretty random. They already have access to far better sources of such data (like the traffic that goes through Google's servers already), so that I doubt this was intentional.

What was intentional, clearly, was the driving-by of wireless networks and the saving of network ids according to position. Whether you like this or not is up to you, but I think it's a different question. Certainly it's a little creepy to have your network id associated with where you are in Google's massive database, but I can't see of a way this would cause big privacy problems. The network id isn't tied to you in any meaningful way, it's just an id. And yes, you are choosing to broadcast this id already.

On the other hand, maybe I'm treating this issue pretty lightly because I don't have wireless

[sossego]

Feh geh duh bow dit!

[Jackiebrown]

as a general question (not aimed at you), why do people not make the same noises against "regular" ISPs if they do not have vastly different terms?

google is very present. Thats all about it. I guess. I install linux: it is there. I install firefox in windows: it is there. I go to the library: its the start-page. I hear the people talking: " i googled this and that". And so on.
Thats the thing i don't like about it. The lack of choice.

I dislike gnome because when I install Ubuntu or Debian, it is there. Sure I can very easily chose something else but I would rather dislike gnome. It is too "present."
You pretty much said you dislike Google because most people prefer it. While that is very cool of you, there is not much Google should do about that.

I would be upset if google required you to only use google if you wanted to use them at all (like apple and microsoft.) Firefox lets me chose whatever search engine I want - in fact, ubuntu defaults to yahoo or bing now. Libraries are a little trickier since they usually lock out the address bar. But that is their policy and not really a pro-google policy. They did this back when they defaulted to yahoo and msn. Heck, google even lets sites like scroogle use their data and allows the user to completely bypass google while still using google's resources.

I understand the privacy concerns as a real issue. Unfortunately, they seem to be the best about not leaking (either on purpose or by some hacker) their user's data to outside companies.

[nadir]

I dislike gnome because when I install Ubuntu or Debian, it is there. Sure I can very easily chose something else but I would rather dislike gnome. It is too "present."
You pretty much said you dislike Google because most people prefer it. While that is very cool of you, there is not much Google should do about that.

I didn't say google should do anything.

I doubt people prefer it, but simply don't know any better.

The comparison with gnome is a bit ... uncorrect. At least when it comes to its "presence". At my library they sure don't use gnome.

I am cool. I know.
Thats why i could admit from my very first post that i ain't got reasons. Not sure if you think you figured it out on your own.
[Site note: Same goes, btw, for *buntu. It runs good for me. I have admitted that, the lack of reasons there, too]

I would be upset if google required you to only use google if you wanted to use them at all (like apple and microsoft.)

I don't understand that. I sure use Microsoft and Linux. I don't think thats what you mean.

[nadir]

- in fact, ubuntu defaults to yahoo or bing now.

Bing, but they seem to have changed its layout.
Ubuntu and google in one shot. I could vomit.

[Damotclese]

People using unsecured wifi should realize that anyone can intercept their data, someone was bound to take advantage of it, not surprised it was google. Governments have probably been doing this for even longer.

Ha! Most people who use the technologies developed by others have little clue about how they work. Most people think "magical spell" if someone talks about Hex. I don't see many people whop set up WiFi routers on their cable Internet suppliers actually reading the warnings when they drag the device out of the box, cable it up, and apply power.

Remember the old Pringles can antennas (cantennas) that we used to build to swipe our neighbor's Internet access and listen in on his IP packets? It seems hardly needed any more since (at least on my street) everybody but me has wide open SEPs with strong signals and no conception of why encryption should be enabled.

Google saw another avenue for making money off of people and they sized it. When caught they claimed Woops! We didn't know that was happening. Our bad. We'll fix it. Thanks for telling us.

[Damotclese]

If you want privacy move to a cave and do not have anything to do with civilization.

Or one could fight back, employ anonomizing software, encryption, fake names, temporary accounts, do something to mitigate the inevitable.

Google used to proclaim that first, they would do no evil. Now that the billions of Dollars are rolling in, virtually everything Google does is evil.

Money corrupts. I would love to be corrupted also.

[sickie]

My WiFi network is open and my SSID (network name) is 'Free for all'. I'm giving free internet access to everyone that's wishing for it knowingly and willingly. All our computers are wired though and no shares are set-up.