I've been using Chrome sense release with absolutely no problems. :D
Printable View
I've been using Chrome sense release with absolutely no problems. :D
Clever observation. Yes that is a huge issue cause I change my IP quite frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Some internet providers give you IP from a shared pool every time you connect.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
Also, some people use their laptops out of home....
2 more headlines:
tgdaily:Chrome is a security nightmare, indexes your bank accounts.
cnet:Google's Omnibox could be Pandora's box.
Quote from second link:Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
"Provided that users leave Chrome's auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browser's Omnibox, even before a user hits enter. What's more, Google has every intention of retaining some of that data even after it provides the promised suggestions. A Google representative told CNET News that the company plans to store about 2 percent of that data--and plans to store it along with the Internet Protocol address of the computer that typed it."
I want a browser designed to protect my privacy not invade it. The fact you can disable part of the spying is irrelevant, their clear intent to spy and store for profit at the expense of individuals is enough to make me steer clear.
And from first link, it sounds like they spent all their effort in ways to track, and security was an afterthought. The EULA is simply laughable.
You can say what you want, but about everything google has touched thusfar has turned into gold.. Google.com, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Code very useful, hell now this.
Considering their impressive track record.. I see some good things coming in the future of Google's web browser. Once we get addons and skin changes, this browser will rock.
they rewrote the eula.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
I think I will stay with Opera for now. One process for tab isn't very fun when you have 60+ tabs open and 512mb of ram...
Umm, did you download a new version of the browser, or are you still referring to the same copy you downloaded a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanmartini
"Hey lets change the text to make it more confusing so that people actually think that a EULA will affect their web browser"
Does that make any sense to you? All they did was change a text file, nothing has changed from data theft point of view.
I hope this is a wake up call to all those people that install google "junk" on their desktops. Every software that comes out of google is questionable, and people seem to think "Hey wow google is so nice. They spend millions of dollars every year on FREE software!". Even google earth keeps track of locations you were interested in :rolleyes:.
Microsoft does it for the money, everyone knows and so they would never care about your personal data. Not like google does. I think that if the Microsoft PR team was any good, they would begin using this to their advantage and totally destroy google's image.
I love this post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
Chrome is threatening to me, it signifies the beginning of an OS-like platform they are destined to create.
Google will possess a monopoly worse than mankind has yet seen.
wow, if you guys only knew how much of your sh|t is available to :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:s like me WITHOUT you or me using Chrome you would stop getting on the internet all together.
chrome isn't stealing your data and its not putting your exact info out there in search engines as you type.
all its doing is pulling a URL history JUST LIKE IE and FIREFOX DO!
as long as your on https or 128bit ssl, your fine, for the most part :)
OS-like? The platform is so pathetic...all web apps I can think of have very little functions with very low performance. Plus security concerns. Advantages?.........:idea:. They don't need installation. Usually it doesn't apply as most require registration instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
I don't see myself ever using them regularly. I use only maps as I don't know any good (and free ;)) offline alternative.
Maybe so, but Jowy's point still holds because that is their primary objective. Getting a faster javascript engine is the first step (google's baby). Then comes the developement and deployment of various applications through your web browser.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Stage 1 of ...
Google Chrome 0.2.149.29 Beta is out!
Changes:
Currently Unknown
Any difference?
Firefox is not permanently storing what I type in a search box along with my IP address and a unique identifying number. My IP provider writes over the data in time, so while it is available for a while, it is not permanently stored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
As you accurately point out privacy concerns abound. So should the consumer then support a company whose very goal is to profit by invading consumer privacy, and thus help set the bar even lower? Or should he refuse and in essence demand companies make products that improve privacy.
To me that argument is like saying...look at all the crime around, it is everywhere...might as well embrace it and support those who do it.
And even if all they are storing is seach data...for now...I am not going to support anyone moving the privacy bar in the wrong direction...cant wait to see how low it will go.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2ldf3m9.png
some skins for Chrome :)
click for download
How to install this theme:
1. Close Chrome if you have it running.
2. Browse to the following folder (Replace USERNAME with your user):
Windows XP: C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\LocalSettings\AppData\Google\Chr ome\Application\0.2.149.27\Themes
Windows Vista: C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Appl ication\0.2.149.27\Themes
3. Backup the default.dll there (If you should decide to use the default theme again)
4. Replace the default.dll there with the default.dll in the zip
5. Run Chrome and enjoy the theme!
If you are concerned about privacy then you should not use the internet, it's as simple as that. Every single search engine stores some search data. From a privacy point of view, Chrome is just as bad as FF, IE and Safari. Then something else, Chrome is, just like FireFox, open source so anyone can look at the source code and check what it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
BTW, the EULA was changed within 2-3 days after the first public release of the beta, just check this:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/softwa...In-48-Hours/p1
From 0.2.149.28 on the bug where you can completely crash the whole thing is gone (involving invalid input followed by :%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykocyber
The carpet bomb flaw, which originates in an old WebKit version is still there, though.
I noticed with 0.2.149.29 that new facebook is working properly...
Just installed .29 too, it is still the old AppleWebKit/525.13 version, so still vulnerable. :(
Why does it keep going back to search engines! So right now when I am using IE or Firefox, you are telling me google has access to all my bookmarks, all the links I visited, and every piece of data I have submitted over the internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
There is a huge difference! Everyone knows this about search engines, they keep the search terms you used. But probably 70% of links I visit, I do directly from the URL. Imagine google stores that I visit xtremesystems.org 3 times a day. don't give me bs that this is the same as using IE/Firefox.
Tried chrome briefly the other day, works quite well, I like it, however will stick to FF for the addons/extensions.
There are differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Google is admitting they will be assigning a unique number that identifies the individual even if that individual uses different IP addresses over time, and permanently storing the information for profit. Google is intent on making it easy to invade my privacy 20 years from now even if my IP address has changed hands many times.
And any argument that Chrome is not much worse than the status quo, my response is it is a step in the wrong direction. If consumers refuse this product, they can steer developers towards products that improve privacy, instead of those that worsen it.
And regarding not using the internet, I am less concerned with my privacy at the status quo than the naive or apathetic consumer towards those that invade it.
1. It's far less information. Google knows my searches on their site. Not whole browsing history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
2. With other browsers I decide which search engine gets the information.
3. As rge's, my approach is also - give them the least that's practical.
I've heard somewhere else that not really, however not from very reliable source and I don't know what to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Do you know of anybody who succeeded with compilation and compared the results to these from google?
Also, with Chrome comes Google Update, which AFAIK is not open source.
you can easily shut off google update. Chromium.org is where the source code is if you want to compile it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
If you ask me, then it's easier to change the default search engine on Chrome than it is on IE for example. Say you have IE as your default browser and have it set up to use Live search as it's default search engine, then when you install Chrome and run it it will say that it's default search engine is Live search and asks if that's OK with you. They will not force their own search engine down your throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
BTW maybe you should read this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google...comment-132727
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common...me-objections/
But regardless what search engine you choose, google gets the information anyway.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Wrong link there's no comment with such number in this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Read and found nothing interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
No Google wont, how would they manage to do that? They will not gain any more information from you than what Mozilla or Microsoft would gain from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
I'll post the same link again for you:
Google's Omnibox could be Pandora's box.
What is that supposed to prove? If you don't want Google to get any information from you, then you will simply have to use a different search engine. The problem is, every other search engine has the same kind of practices as Google. So from a privacy point of view there is no difference between using Firefox, Chrome or IE.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
While a Google software engineer in search engine optimization has the knowledge and contacts to explain the privacy issues of Chrome, "to the best of {his} knowledge" as he states in link, he may also be a bit biased in his blog. Since it is open source...time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
And what about the unique identifying number that is to be stored with the individual's data which will defeat those that have varying IP addresses? Anyone know the purpose of that, not being argumentative, would actually like to know?
The issue is that changing search engine in Chrome doesn't prevent google from getting search queries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
You use chrome=>google knows what you search for and where you browse. As simple as this, using different search engine with Chrome actually hurts your privacy because you give your data away to 2 companies.
I'm thinking that the web browser is the bottleneck here, which is why Google started developing their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Now of course, you may argue that if you need a new web browser to fully take advantage of these web apps then you have only moved the problem (still need to install new software locally). Which is why I think it makes sense for Google to either develop their own operating system, or partner up with an already existing Linux distribution where their web browser can be installed by default.
Actually it does usually apply, because a desktop application needs to be installed several times if you use more than one computer. It also generally needs to be reinstalled with the operating system. On a web app, you only really need to register once.Quote:
They don't need installation. Usually it doesn't apply as most require registration instead.
Use portable software. From my experience it actually lives longer than web submissions, because I've lost several passwords in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
I won't argue this way because you install browser once for all webapps. Just like you install OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
But instead I'll tell you why are web apps so slow:
There are 2 factors. One is that they are written in a scripting language, which has to be interpreted at runtime and therefore will always be way slower than machine code. I seriously doubt that they'll ever manage to make JavaScript engine "just" 10 times slower than C++ in usual tasks. However, at some point in the future it may not be a problem, possibly CPUs will catch up and make this difference small enough not to be noticeable. But this makes claims like "we'll offload your machines' work to our servers, so home computers will become small, cool, quiet boxes" laughable.
The second problem is internet connection. I've been using several lines ~1-2MBit and there have always been lag caused by network traffic. Again, maybe one day....but still: what for?
1-2Mbit is really in the lower end of the spectrum, unless you count dial-up. At the same time, online applications like Google Docs doesn't require you to be connected while working on documents. "Gears" which comes included in Chrome by default allows you to use Google Docs off-line.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Obviously there are shortcomings with online apps (which you pointed out), and I think Google will attempt to address those problems with Chrome.
Keeping portable software up-to-date can be complicated, and I'm not sure it's even legal to make commercial software portable.Quote:
Use portable software. From my experience it actually lives longer than web submissions, because I've lost several passwords in my life.
Not in this part of the world. 1Mbit is standard here and 20/6 max that money can buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
Any example? Because I use a lot of it and don't see any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
Depends on the license. It's sometimes, though rarely illegal to make and use, especially with big companies like MS or Apple. This makes Visual Studio the only program I have to reinstall with Windows. It's usually illegal to distribute such programs, but not illegal to distribute instructions / dedicated software that makes it portable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
I had a portable copy of Photoshop CS2 on my harddrive which I couldn't update. A lot of portable software also uses hacked executables and dll's which cannot be patched.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Most licenses I've seen have been limited to a single computer, so you can't just take your copy of Office 2007 and install it on your laptop, your desktop, your neighbors computer...Quote:
Depends on the license. It's sometimes, though rarely illegal to make and use, especially with big companies like MS or Apple.
Last year I used a service that very well could be described as an online application, called zamzar, which performs conversions between multiple file formats. No registration is required, and all the heavy number crunching involved is handled by a server. In this case there is extremely little requirements on the local computers processing power. It really only need to be able to render the GUI and send/receive the data. Of course if you wish to use this to convert movies, you will need a fast connection.
It was Thinstalled Photoshop, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
Indeed, portabilization done with Thinstall causes update problems (it can be patched, but it's hard...). But I'm pretty sure that all Thistalled software that you can download from the net is illegal anyway. Why? Because of 2 things:
-Thinstall costs 5000$. It is the smaller problem.
-It's license requires you too pay fees for any Thinstalled work that you distribute.
A lot of software is licensed for number of users or people who use it at the same time. As I said, MS and some other (mostly) big companies use per-machine licensing though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
Good point. Thank you, it's the first program I know to indeed offload processing to servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
BTW, I'll test it's performance one day. :p:
it has come so far that even the german federal office for information security warned about the security flaws in chrome and google's eula as well as habits of collecting data.
seems like the the initial hype around google got stuck pretty fast.
Then here is the official word on it from Google itself:Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
That unique identifying number is used when you do an update and when you opt in to send them usage statistics and crash reports. Chrome will check for updates by itself, so there is no way of turning this of, those usage and crash reports have to be manually turned on so no worries there. BTW Firefox also has a unique identifying number, which is also used for the same things as what it is used for in Chrome. This is not surprising though, as Chrome basically takes Firefox and replaces it's Javascript and page rendering (Gecko) engine with Google's V8 Javascript engine and the WebKit page rendering engine. I'm pretty sure that IE has the same kind of identifiers as both Chrome and Firefox, although that is probably more tied in with the serial number of the OS and such.
Changing search engine in Chrome actually does prevent Google from getting any search query data from you. The auto-suggest feature that is integrated in the Omnibar actually only works with search engines that support it. I have tried it with different search engines, it does not work with Live Search, but it does work with Wikipedia and Google of course. Also changing what search engine it uses by default is miles easier than it is with IE, in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
For some reason I just don't trust google, other than using their search engine from time to time I will NOT install any of their software.
1) Google Desktop = Bloatware, in fact does anyone know what this is supposed to do other than come preinstalled on all NEW Dell PC's?
2) Google Toolbar = Spyware
3) Chrome, from what I have read = buggy, bloated, spyware and arguably malicious
4) Google Earth = not bad actually, in fact quite good, albeit a bit creepy when you think about the "Google" collecting all these images of the world...
5) Google Streets...hmmm even more creepy than google Earth, in fact I would go so far as to say that THIS invades privacy.
Does anyone else get the slight gut feeling that Google could be the "commercial" public front to the CIA, or the NSA or maybe some other sort of US government organisation?
John
Any data that passes through the US is subject to US laws. Including unrestricted access to such data by government officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Is this law an exception then? I think the same goes for any data going through the dutch fibers, only to have the officials replaced with some Dutch people.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
:up:
JohnZS, don't worry it's not the CIA or NSA, just the BVD :)
But I'm in Great Britain I don't see why the US Patriot act should also effect me?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
:confused:
So are you saying that since the majority of web servers or web traffic is either hosted in the USA or at least passes through it the US government are in control of this?!?
Marvin
Are you referring to the Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Domestic Security Service?
I would rather them be in control than....you know... *looks over shoulder* the G-MEN from Google.
John
GB is doing the same, as is Germany, I am sure of this. Every state has some kind of monitoring for traffic through their sovereignty, it's just that for what the CIA is doing the cat's out of the bag. We can only speculate about the amount of monitoring. With Google it's just one more party that wants to listen on everything you utter in public, be it virtual or real.
Lol yeah I was joking ;)
And it's only normal that anything passing through a countries territory is subject to it's laws. If it weren't, Holland would have more export I promise you :rofl:
It's been discussed many times before, but the majority of traffic goes through them yet that doesn't give them any control over it. Their allowed to listed in on things, and I guess that is such an necessity that even my own feeling of privacy wouldn't make me say it is wrong to monitor this traffic. But it doesn't mean 'THEY' can change what results you get from your search engine ect.
google = spyware
Let's be honest, what the US government does with their knowledge is not the same as any other agency. Given the recent changes in policy and snooping permits (not really requiring permits now), other countries still do not have laws that violate your rights as much as the states. Most countries don't give a damn about your data (unless its china).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin_The_Martian
The way I feel about US internet data policy is: I'd rather have my data go through germany, denmark, and china than the US (well UK is pretty bad too, but google doesn't have data warehouses there). But thats just me.
That doesn't show it's on google's servers, It's just saved under recent history then pulled up as a auto-suggestion feature. if you clear your history, it goes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Honestly, You guys need to be so worried about such subjects. If they wanted your data, They would have it without you knowing and Not put it in some Auto-Suggestion Feature of their browser.
OMGZ THY R SPYIN ON MEZ. SPY SAPPING MY BROWSER.
Google Desktop is Like Windows Search. It acts the same and everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
True, but here in the Netherlands if they expect you to have terrorist bonds they can get taps on you without a court order as well. The Dutch people are just not that aware their privacy is invaded so much almost as much as they don't seem to care. Maybe we're one of the few people who seem to agree with the notion; I got nothing to hide so please waiste your time going through my garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
I honestly think that last sentence holds allot of truth :)
I still would not be surprised if Google ARE connected to the CIA or some other such US government organisation.
Think about it, over the years Google has established a "soft and cuddly" brand name which many people blindly trust. Ironically browsing a few forums and news sites which have reported the release of Chrome brings up many people saying
"Everything google does is great"
"Google are amazing"
In fact it's fair to say Google have more Fanboys than ATi, nVidia or AMD!
As they found out in Troy....beware of the Trojan horse....could Google (or Chrome) really be the Trojan horse of modern times?
John
There is some partial truth to that as Google has had to hand over some information to the US government at some point in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
There is some more here if you want to read something about "Google Critisism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
But in general, Google is willing to pay quite a bit of money just to keep it's users anonymous, like here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
OK, so currently exist search engines that you can use to prevent google getting your search data with current version of Chrome. I feel much better, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
CNET claims:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
If they store IP, then it's definitely not stored locally.Quote:
What's more, Google has every intention of retaining some of that data even after it provides the promised suggestions. A Google representative told CNET News that the company plans to store about 2 percent of that data--and plans to store it along with the Internet Protocol address of the computer that typed it.
Very sane approach, I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin_The_Martian
Still, I don't feel comfortable with a big brother looking at me all the time I browse the net though.
OK, the scroll function on my HP notebook with Vista SP1 only works on downward scroll direction. Up doesn't work.
And its a little more sensitive.
....
Ok but consider that I said that with the following in mind: the amount of data to shift through it much to large to look at it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
When I say, go through my garbage, I expect maybe to get looked at a couple of times a year or something because I am either visiting a board with some shady background, or exchange emails with someone 'they' feel should be watched. If that's all the attention my data traffic get's, why should I worry about it?
Now, if some company/organisation is looking at everything I sent my whole life in the hopes of getting something dirty on me, that would invade my feelings of privacy.
But I don't think this is the case, as I said how much traffic goes around the net daily and how many people do you expect to be monitoring it? You would need an 1:1 relationship to really get me worried, and so called 'intelligent traffic sniffers' are imho bs as I don't think their actually that intelligent at all.