Google Chrome web browser

[m^2]

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.

1. It's far less information. Google knows my searches on their site. Not whole browsing history.
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.

Then something else, Chrome is, just like FireFox, open source so anyone can look at the source code and check what it does.

I've heard somewhere else that not really, however not from very reliable source and I don't know what to think.
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.

[ryboto]

1. It's far less information. Google knows my searches on their site. Not whole browsing history.
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.
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.

[Helmore]

1. It's far less information. Google knows my searches on their site. Not whole browsing history.
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.
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.

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.
BTW maybe you should read this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google...comment-132727
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common...me-objections/

[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.

But regardless what search engine you choose, google gets the information anyway.

BTW maybe you should read this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google...comment-132727

Wrong link there's no comment with such number in this topic.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common...me-objections/

Read and found nothing interesting.

[Helmore]

But regardless what search engine you choose, google gets the information anyway.


Wrong link there's no comment with such number in this topic.

Read and found nothing interesting.

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.

[m^2]

I'll post the same link again for you:
Google's Omnibox could be Pandora's box.

[Helmore]

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.

[rge]

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.
BTW maybe you should read this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google...comment-132727
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common...me-objections/

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.

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?

[m^2]

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.

The issue is that changing search engine in Chrome doesn't prevent google from getting search queries.
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.

[Theli]

OS-like? The platform is so pathetic...all web apps I can think of have very little functions with very low performance.

I'm thinking that the web browser is the bottleneck here, which is why Google started developing their own.

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.

They don't need installation. Usually it doesn't apply as most require registration instead.

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.

[m^2]

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.

Use portable software. From my experience it actually lives longer than web submissions, because I've lost several passwords in my life.

I'm thinking that the web browser is the bottleneck here, which is why Google started developing their own.

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.

I won't argue this way because you install browser once for all webapps. Just like you install OS.

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?

[Theli]

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.

Obviously there are shortcomings with online apps (which you pointed out), and I think Google will attempt to address those problems with Chrome.

Use portable software. From my experience it actually lives longer than web submissions, because I've lost several passwords in my life.

Keeping portable software up-to-date can be complicated, and I'm not sure it's even legal to make commercial software portable.

[m^2]

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.

Not in this part of the world. 1Mbit is standard here and 20/6 max that money can buy.

Keeping portable software up-to-date can be complicated

Any example? Because I use a lot of it and don't see any difference.

and I'm not sure it's even legal to make commercial software portable.

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.

[Theli]

Any example? Because I use a lot of it and don't see any difference.

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.

Depends on the license. It's sometimes, though rarely illegal to make and use, especially with big companies like MS or Apple.

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...

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.

[m^2]

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.

It was Thinstalled Photoshop, right?
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.

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...

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.

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

Good point. Thank you, it's the first program I know to indeed offload processing to servers.
BTW, I'll test it's performance one day.

[RaZz!]

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.

[Helmore]

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.

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?

Then here is the official word on it from Google itself:
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.

The issue is that changing search engine in Chrome doesn't prevent google from getting search queries.
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.

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.

[JohnZS]

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

[ahmad]

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.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Any data that passes through the US is subject to US laws. Including unrestricted access to such data by government officials.

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.



JohnZS, don't worry it's not the CIA or NSA, just the BVD

[JohnZS]

Any data that passes through the US is subject to US laws. Including unrestricted access to such data by government officials.

But I'm in Great Britain I don't see why the US Patriot act should also effect me?!?

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

[p2501]

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.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

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

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.

[itznfb]

google = spyware

[ahmad]

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

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.

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).

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.