Not sure about Google
I've been a fan of Google for quite a while now. Their products, and the products they have acquired, have been excellent.
Email is email, but Google does a good job with theirs. Google Earth, which I think they bought from somebody else, is outstanding. The traffic feature for Google Maps is revolutionary. Sketch-up is excellent, but again I think they bought that one. I don't use Google docs, but I know people who love 'em. I'm not going to list all the stuff they do, but even though some of it is *meh*, most of them are outstanding.
But last week, Google had me pissed off and my daughter in tears. It's because of Google+. I signed up for Google+ and have been trying it out. It's fine. Basically, it's a non-Facebook Facebook. I thought it would be neat to invite my kids to Google+. I didn't want them getting active with friends and stuff, but I thought it would be a safe way for them to do stuff online with just the extended family, and I would keep a close eye on them.
Google doesn't have the age restrictions listed anywhere obvious. But I figured if my 12 y.o. daughter wasn't old enough, they would just say "Nope. Sorry. You're too young." So she got to the page where it asks for your d.o.b., and she asked me what to put down. I told her to tell the truth, because I figured this was going to be her real account and one day it would look weird if she's all grown up and her age is off. So she told the truth, and Google said she was too young to have a Google account. Not a Google+ account, a Google account. They shut down her Gmail account! This is an account I signed her up for when she was a baby. She uses it to email everyone. It's her real name. Not unicornfan2000 or any crap like that. This was going to be her account through adulthood, and she was going to be one of the few in her generation who were early enough to snag their real name in Gmail.
So she was devastated and just started sobbing. She had lots email addresses for friends who had moved away, and no easy way to get them back. She saw her social connections being cut. She's already at an emotional age, and this just completely pushed her over the edge. I was frantically looking at the options, and they said that *if* it was a mistake and we entered the wrong birth date, all we had to do was fax a copy of her birth certificate to Google to prove she is an adult. Also, she could enter her credit card number to prove she was an adult, and they would charge like 50 cents to her card. I figured my credit card wouldn't work, because the name wouldn't match, and I wasn't about to go forging her birth certificate to get her email back. I was furious at Google. The FUCKERS! So my wife came up to see what all the ruckus was about. She figured, it couldn't hurt to enter her own credit card info, so she did. Google charged her like 50 cents, and my daughter's Gmail account was turned back on. Even though the names didn't match. All they cared about was that a kid could get their hands on a credit card.
So that's what turned me against Google. Even though it turned out OK in the end, why did they have to put us though that?
An then yesterday, my wife updated Firefox, and the Google bar, which was already crippled in the last version of FF, was removed entirely. Google won't support it any more. This multibillion dollar company apparently can't find the resources to support their toolbar any more. I assume they are trying to push Firefox users to Chrome. That's something right out of Apple's or Sony's playbook.
Don't be evil. Bullshit. You make my daughter cry, and I'm going to harden my heart against you.
To be the devils advocate, if you lied about her age to begin with to set up her gmail, why would you be surprised for them to suspend her account when they find out the truth? By using their services, you agree to play by their rules. If you refuse to follow their rules, is it not within their rights to then refuse service?
I don't recall there being a question about age to sign up for e-mail, but that was about a decade ago.
How do I get rid of my google+ account. I think it sucks ass.
Big fat smelly ass.
I'll do it now in honor of your daughter. Eff 'em.
And that Chrome crap sux too. If the mess with my firefox I might make a deal with the debbil and go back to IE. Ugghhhhh
Fuck'em.
I once skimmed a
long interview where a "live in the boonies on your own land & generate your own power" anarchist sat down and talked with a "rent an apartment in LA and slip through the cracks" anarchist. At some point, the boonies anarchist was talking about how much crap he jumps through to be left on his own -- having to pull permits in order to build a shed, etc, even though he owns the land -- and how much more free one can be, in a sense, by just paying rent instead.
I'm not sure which side of the fence this falls on, but fuck google, go for the dot-com. [email]daughter@family.com[/email], or [email]daughter@firstnamelastname.com[/email] $5-10 a year to sit on the domain, probably not much more than that for a POP3 account somewhere.
Being of the generation to have [email]firstlastname@gmail.com[/email] is, definitely, a fleeting moment. But, if your email address is a strangely consumerist way to benchmark your generational pigeonhole, it's at least slightly less so to do it outside of a corporate framework.
My kids have opened the Fazebook Pandora's box. The phrase that came to mind when the wife and I were discussing it was "the commoditization of our children." It will be allowed, but the teenage males who talked them into it are now suspect or possibly shitlisted.
sorry your daughter was upset glatt. sorry there was no one for you to punch in the mouth for making her cry, too.
We should be able to think of someone to punch in the mouth.
Google can shove their toolbar.
...where a "live in the boonies on your own land & generate your own power" anarchist sat down and talked with a "rent an apartment in LA and slip through the cracks" anarchist. At some point, the boonies anarchist was talking about how much crap he jumps through to be left on his own -- having to pull permits in order to build a shed, etc, even though he owns the land...
An anarchist, that gets permits...
[SIZE="5"]Fail.[/SIZE]
I don't recall there being a question about age to sign up for e-mail, but that was about a decade ago.
I have a new Gmail account as of yesterday, and I wasn't required to tell them my age.
I do too (for a Fb sockpuppet).
I have loads of gmail accounts becuae I'm a wicked terrorist. You never need to give your DOB for gmail.
They asked me for my cell phone number, you know, "in case I forget my info". If I didn't want to use my cell phone number, they said that was no problem, I could just give them a friend's cell number!?
Morans.
I wasn't asked any of that either. All I had to do is give my home phone # in order to get an automated call with my account activation #.
I am not pleased with google+. It requires participation and linkage to lots of stuff that you did not previously have to share if you didn't want to share it. I am thinking of bailing.
I have been very happy with everything Google, until G+ came along.
Tell me how to bail ... I hate it.
They asked me for my cell phone number, you know, "in case I forget my info". If I didn't want to use my cell phone number, they said that was no problem, I could just give them a friend's cell number!?
Morans.
OH,, LOOOOK! there's a tshirt!
I use google whenever its an option, the search engine is great, google code has been a major boon to open source development, and they've turned youtube from almost shut down due to copyright violations to 1 billion a year in revenue.
for me, the turning point was back in 2005 when google refused to produce search results the doj subpoenaed. it is not so much that they fought for my right to privacy online, its the fact that yahoo, msn and aol all bent over for the doj.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.htmlThat was 6 years ago. I thought they were great then too. Where is their compass pointing now? They are deleting email accounts all willy nilly without making their policies clear.
I failed to read all of the replies, but just so you know,
Here is why!
This privacy act is in place to protect your child. You should calmly contact Google and give them your WRITTEN CONSENT to allow her to use Google+. I believe, according the all the legal jargon in that link, children are not allowed to have any sort of memberships (accounts, whether it be email, forums, gaming etc) UNLESS a parent gives consent. If you are calm about the way you proceed getting this account back, you really shouldn't have any issues with Google reinstating her email address.
Google is only following law, they are not trying to make your life hell. What other company gives their workers payed NAP time?
This is amusing. I clicked on Google's home page just a moment ago, and they have this huge arrow pointing to the Google+ link in the corner. It's like they are saying, "HEY! Don't forget about Google+! We're still here!!!"
It's a complete failure at this point. Nobody is using it.
hahaha... Yeh, I deleted my account already. It was more like a linked in account than FB.
not so.
I heard a voice on the radio today say that the recent quake in the land of f@ceb00k caused them to move to google plus.
meh
Yeah someone at the FB headquarters got bored and pushed the big "Screw with things" button. Again.
FB is very annoying right now.
Maybe it's time to unplug.
Totally agree Nirvana. It's a real PITA.
It boggles my mind how inventive Google has been over the years.
This morning, I tried the new (to me) feature in the Google search engine.
It all started in the "pic association" thread with
this image.
I copied/pasted that image to Google's Images Search Box,
and came up with
this image of the same girl
Isn't that amazing technology ?
There are so many things about Google that impress me,
including their mission statement, Do not do evil.
But there does seem to be some changes happening with the new CEO
that make me wonder if Google's creativity has peaked,
and they will be joining the advertising and patent war rat races
with F@cebook et al.
Can someone please translate this article for me...
I don't understand what Google did in the first place... or what difference it makes to users.
CNET
1/3/12
Google has demoted its Chrome home page in results for a search
using the keyword "browser" following an effort to have bloggers
promote the Google browser that backfired
The demotion is a response to a campaign in which bloggers
were found posting low-quality content related to Google Chrome in an effort
to promote a Google video about King Arthur Flour.
At least one of the posts had a hyperlink to the Chrome download page,
which can help a site rise in Google search results through Google's PageRank algorithm.
But paying people to include such links violates Google's guidelines.
google returns search results for search terms.
in normal operation, the uppermost "hits" are often paid for advertisements. They usually have a pastel colored background. It's very subtle, and the text looks like the text of the other hits out in the regular internet. for uncareful users, they might be clicked on. this is good for the advertiser because now they have the potential customer at their site. yay capitalism. the location in search results is a HUGE big deal. Higher is better. You, or any other person can "buy" what google calls "adwords".
You could "bid" for having your ad appear when a given search term(s) is submitted to the all-knowing google. So could I. If I bid more than you then my results would appear higher on the page than yours. we could both have active bids, both have active hits, both have our ads appear for the same search term. this is google's genius business model. people pay to have their links/ads appear in the search results from google.
Of course, google returns non commercial hits too. they have a formula more secret than coca cola and kentucky fried chicken combined as to what constitutes a good hit. many people make beaucoup bux by reading the entrails and producing web pages that will rank highly. And, it's a moving target. But it is possible to do, let's face it, SOME hit will be the top hit (non commercial). There's a concept/act called a googlebomb, for example. Back in the day, if you searched for "miserable failure" you'd get George W Bush as the number one result. ha ha. Poor Rick Santorum. folks have figured out ways, sometimes by brute force, to get a search term to land on top.
Now, consider these ingredients: google sells ads/search results for profit. google produces some products, including a browser called "chrome". google has a lot of fanboys with really big brains. the next part is ... speculation.
if the fans all got together and made one of these guerrilla campaigns to cause google's product, browser chrome, to have especially high search rankings, it could be viewed as unfair. Like back in the day when Microsoft bundled internet explorer on computers with windows. they were found to be cheating, using their advantageous position to promote their own product. Google wants to avoid even the appearance of misconduct (there are real, actual, published rules) and so they've *manually demoted* (moved lower, I know you know what demoted means, but in search terms/hits, this is literally true, lower on the results list, and it's the kiss of death) the hits that "lead" to a link for chrome. They don't want to be accused of using their own tool, which is absolutely ubiquitous to promote their other product.
Does this help?
Thanks V, that does make more sense to me now.
So then, I have a follow up question...
I got the feeling from reading about this episode that maybe
Google actually paid some "fan boys" to do the manipulation.
I don't know if they were paid $ or something else, or it was just my interpretation
Do you get that reading too ?
Nah, This looks like an honest mistake and G00gle is just being precautious.
Today's news makes it apparent payments were made to bloggers.
Maybe this restores a bit of confidence in the directions of new management at Google.
Computer World
By Gregg Keizer
January 4, 2012
Google downgrades Chrome ranking after paid-link monkey business
Slaps own browser with 60-day penalty, buries download page in search results
The decision to demote Chrome's PageRank
-- the rating Google assigns to sites based on how many other sites link to them --
came after bloggers Aaron Wall of SEO Book and Danny Sullivan
of SearchEngineLand [COLOR="DarkRed"]revealed a marketing campaign that paid other bloggers[/COLOR]
to create generic posts which linked to a video touting Chrome to small businesses.
The problem, said Wall and Sullivan, was that Google's own rules prohibit paying for links.<snip>
"We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently
in order to provide better search results for users," said the Google spokesman Tuesday.
"While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations
of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard,
so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."<snip>
No, I don't agree that that story make it clear that google was paying for search results.
I followed the links in your story, the fellow that is making the complaint is in the business of making money by claiming to improve search results for his clients. And in fact he bemoans the "hoops google makes small businesses jump through" to rise in the ranks. He's clearly got an interest in the story, in fact, an interest somewhat adversarial to google's since he shows his frustration at their policies that make it hard for him to make money.
I don't see any other claims, any other evidence that google was the payer for the marketing campaign. Have you heard anyone else saying this or offering any evidence?
https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/NAWunDzJSHC
Matt Cutts - Yesterday 5:36 PM - Public
Sorry that it took me until now to comment on the situation that Danny wrote about at http://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pagerank-reduced-due-to-sponsored-posts-106551 . I’m in Central America this week and my ability to reach the internet hasn't been great.
I’ll give the short summary, then I’ll describe the webspam team’s response. Google was trying to buy video ads about Chrome, and these sponsored posts were an inadvertent result of that. If you investigated the two dozen or so sponsored posts (as the webspam team immediately did), the posts typically showed a Google Chrome video but didn’t actually link to Google Chrome. We double-checked, and the video players weren’t flowing PageRank to Google either.
However, we did find one sponsored post that linked to www.google.com/chrome in a way that flowed PageRank. Even though the intent of the campaign was to get people to watch videos--not link to Google--and even though we only found a single sponsored post that actually linked to Google’s Chrome page and passed PageRank, that’s still a violation of our quality guidelines, which you can find at http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769#3 .
In response, the webspam team has taken manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome for at least 60 days. After that, someone on the Chrome side can submit a reconsideration request documenting their clean-up just like any other company would. During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page.
Read the comments as much as you like, there's a vast amount of context there, more than I can regurgitate here. The upshot is that the thing they tried to do, buy video ads for chrome, is legal, and legitimate and within the guidelines. Of the video ads they bought, one was made in a way that had an aspect that caused the pagerank to be affected, a violation of google's policies. this video ad produced by someone else and paid for by google, was what was being complained about by the two SEO entrepreneurs/authors. It has been corrected, and a penalty applied for the violation.
in the comments, there's a lot of back and forth about whether or not the rule is being applied fairly, some say yes, some say no. about whether or not the penalty is too harsh as it stands on the books, yes and no again. about whether or not google's punishing google the same wayfor the same violation as it would punish other companies, large and small. no surprise, some say yes, some say no.
TO ME. It seems that google's following their own rules. not only that, they're being extra diligent about following them since they're being punished for the actions of a third party. whatever. I also find it above and beyond that the manager in charge of this crap is answering the issue while on vacation in central america, and doing so in this very public way.
I believe this is acting in accordance with their words. Words are cheap. These actions though are not made out of hot air. This is what "doing no evil" looks like. Transparent, accountable, honest. That's my take on it.
How can you stay mad at a company that has an interesting response when you ask for walking directions from The Shire to Mordor?
(has to be walking directions, not automobile, transit or bicycle)
Well V, thanks for taking the time to follow up all this.
So as I'm now understanding the iterations and translations,
Computer World has added to the confusion that was originally
reported by CNET that was surfaced by others in the plural,
(probably those who were still circling the squirrel on the tree)
but should have been in the singular, about one blogger
who has a vested interest in pounding on Google,
but whose management has now gone well beyond
the norm of what was necessary to remedy a problem
they did not create in the first place.
,,, all this at the house that Jack built.
Right ? :rolleyes:
Well V, thanks for taking the time to follow up all this.
So as I'm now understanding the iterations and translations, Computer World has added to the confusion that was originally reported by CNET that was surfaced by others in the plural, (probably those who were still circling the squirrel on the tree) but should have been in the singular, about one blogger who has a vested interest in pounding on Google, but whose management has now gone well beyond the norm of what was necessary to remedy a problem they did not create in the first place. ,,, all this at the house that Jack built.
Right ? :rolleyes:
Close.
I'm not sure who the first reporter was, so I won't speak to that.
One story, repeated several times, right.
There was one blogger, but he had no interest in pounding on google, he was apparently paid by a group at google to produce video advertisments. the ad he produced had the offending element in it (something about the absence of a nofollow parameter, I think).
The parties I implied that had a grudge are involved in SEO businesses/authors (Search Engine Optimization, from the perspective of a customer who would like to see their results move higher in the results list). There appears to be just the two of them that broke/are the source of the story. They are not the ones that were hired by google, not the ones that produced the ads, neither the valid non offending ones nor the one that did offend.
Yes on the rest about google's response, etc.
I'll toss this into the fray ...
I can't paste a lot of what is there as so much of it is screenshots.
Definitely worth a look though.
*SIGH*
It's the same story, by the same two fellows, Danny Sullivan, editor in chief of SearchEngineLand.com and Andrew Wall, author of some damn search engine book. I find it interesting that the exclamatory headline is only found on his site. I can't find anything like the same kind of apoplectic language anywhere else. Same story. Same two guys. Same, not additional, evidence. Still cites one post that does not include the nofollow attribute.
that story was from 02 Jan. the story on 03 Jan is that Google did what they said they'd do, they demoted the results for chrome.
sorry. Looked like there was more info there to me than I read in the others from yesterday.
I want to control what I put out there. I certainly don't want FB or Google or any other system I use to do it without my permission.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Your-World-Twitter-Facebook-EPIC,news-13856.htmlGoogle’s Results Get More Personal With “Search Plus Your World”
Google’s search results are undergoing their most radical transformation ever, as a new “Search Plus Your World” format begins rolling out today. It finds both content that’s been shared with you privately along with matches from the public web, all mixed into a single set of listings.
The change is live now, though not everyone will see it until it fully launches over the next few days. It’s only for those signed-in to Google.com and searching in English. You’ll know when it happens, because Google will alert you with a message like this above your search results:
The new system will perhaps make life much easier for some people, allowing them to find both privately shared content from friends and family plus material from across the web through a single search, rather than having to search twice using two different systems.
However, Search Plus Your World may cause some privacy worries, as private content may appear as if it is exposed publicly (it is not). It might also cause concern by making private content more visible to friends and family than those sharing may have initially intended.
The new format and features will also likely cause Google to come under renewed fire that it is leveraging its search engine to favor its own content and crowd out competitors.
Below, a detailed look at what’s involved with Search Plus Your World, from how it works to some of the issues it raises.
Whats up with this? Thoughts from the more computer savvy, please.
Link Google’s Results Get More Personal With “Search Plus Your World”
Whats up with this? Thoughts from the more computer savvy, please.
Link
Classic, that is a very interesting link.
But in a way, it appears to me as one of those "expansions" that
could eventually lead to downfall of Google's very success.
It has the same fragrance as the privacy issues of FaceBook.
I would like to believe all Google searches yield a "good faith" result,
based on some sort of scholarly derived algorithm.
But with the new Google+YourWorld, do I start worrying that may not be the case.
The idea is ridiculous of changing search results just because another
Dwellar- or FB- or Google-contact, visited Neiman Marcus or
my picture is in someone's Picasso file and Google's "facial recognition" is overly eager.
Another issue coming to my mind is among family members using the same computer.
Will my 8-yr old granddaughter suddenly get postings of my postings or postings from Dwellars ? :eek:
New code for the Cellar postings: NSF8yrolds
And, how many "pages of personal" results will take up screen geography.
One of my favorite sayings is: "There is a special hell for people who design packaging"
A corollary may soon be added for overly eager Google MBA software designers.
Or, maybe I'll just hit the "un-friend button" for the world.
Here's the whole thing
Last year Google founder Larry Page became Google CEO. And he noticed that a large part of the value of the Internet is in its ability to leverage social connections.
Facebook had just announced that it had figured out that it could target advertising to you because you told it what you like. This had pretty massive implications for a search company trying to pitch you ads based on what you are looking for.
Page also saw a world where companies who fail to quickly change direction are put at great risk.
So in April 2011, Page told his employees that the size of their bonus would be tied to the success or failure of the company's "social strategy".
This is a rather ham-handed way to turn a company's attention, but remember that the Google hiring plan, for the last 10 years, was intended to create a "monoculture" of geeky problem-solvers...
...and you know just how social those folks are... maybe because you are one...
But the problem is that Google has now sullied its otherwise-pristine search results with self-promotion, which it has never done before.
<snip>
But the problem is that Google has now sullied its otherwise-pristine
search results with self-promotion, which it has never done before.
HLJ, do you feel the "sullying" is in the "self-promotion" or in the "social strategy" ?
It seemed to be the latter because in Classic's link, Google spoke of
being willing to connect with FB --- If FB was willing to expose "deeper data".
.
This is an interesting article and project... "Do No Evil" ... particularly to me as an Google uber-fan.
And as someone who loves it when "hoisted with his own petard" happens in real life.
eWeek.com
Clint Boulton
1/23/12
Facebook Targets Google+ With 'Don't Be Evil' Tool
Facebook, Twitter and MySpace have ganged up on Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG)
controversial personal search results feature with [COLOR="DarkRed"]Focus on the User[/COLOR],
an effort to show what Google's search results would be like
if they retrieved results from other Web services.<snip>
The output of Focus on the User is the Don't Be Evil bookmarklet,
which taps Google's own ranking of its organic search results to determine
what social content should appear in Google+ results
--such as results from Facebook, Twitter and other sources
--instead of just the Google+ posts, photos and brand pages that currently surface
in Search, plus your world.<snip>
How does this Google+-modifying hack work?
For results where Google decided that it's relevant to surface Google+ pages
as a result in any of the areas where Google+ content is hardcoded,
the bookmarklet searches Google for the name of the Google+ page.
From there, the tool identifies the social profiles within Google's top 100 results.
"The ones Google ranks highest—whether they are from Flickr, Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, MySpace, Quora, Tumblr, Foursquare, Crunchbase, FriendFeed,
Stack Overflow, Github or Google+
— replace the previous results that could only be from Google+,"
according to the Focus on the User FAQ page.
Oh, oh, wait: here comes a man in a business suit...
The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly taking on the issue as part of its antitrust investigation into Google's search business.
Google knows the name of the-man-in-the-suit's mistress, swiss account number, and deepest secret fear. :cool:
My opinion of the new management at Google is dropping rapidly...
Caveat emptor !
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html
Washinton Post
Cecilia Kang
1/24/12
Google announces privacy settings change across products, users can’t opt out
Google said Tuesday it will require users to allow the company
to follow their activities across e-mail, search, YouTube and other services,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]a radical shift in strategy[/COLOR] that is expected to invite greater scrutiny of its privacy and competitive practices.
The information will enable Google to develop a fuller picture of how people use
its growing empire of Web sites. Consumers will have no choice but to accept the changes.
The policy will [COLOR="DarkRed"]take effect March 1 and will also impact Android mobile phone users,
who are required to log-in to Google accounts[/COLOR]
<snip>
[ATTACH]36950[/ATTACH]
Gmail will now become another junk address for me if that happens.
So ... What else can I use? anyone?
I have to use gmail for work and since my machine at work doesn't work, I'm hosed.
Gmail will now become another junk address for me [COLOR="DarkRed"]when[/COLOR] that happens.
So ... What else can I use? anyone?
FTFY
I'm really getting the urge to cut all electronic ties... I'll just surf Lemann's for the necessary equipment.. DOH! ;)
Great! Thanks Lamp.
I just checked my other email accounts with aol & yahoo ... they're all full of spam/scams and asst BS. Frikkin fuuuhhhhh
Just in case someone does want to cancel and delete their Google account, here is a link and brief directions...
MyDigitalLife
How to Close and Delete Google Account, Gmail, Talk, Orkut, Web History and Other Google Services
<snip>
If you no longer want to use any or all of the Google services,
you can delete and remove and delete any number of Google services
from your Google Account. Or if you wish, user can delete and close Google Account completely,
together with all services and information that associated with the Google Account.
Briefly, this is the procedure...
Read what Google says will happen if you do close and/or delete your account
Sign in and login to your
Google Account at
https://www.google.com/accounts/.
Click on Edit link beside
My products heading.
You will see two sections –
Delete a Service and
Close Account.
To delete and remove a service from Google Account, pick an appropriate
Delete <service name> link.
To completely [COLOR="DarkRed"]terminate and delete[/COLOR] Google Account and all services in one action,
click on the
Close account and delete all services and info associated with it link.
Google will ask you to click on several check boxes to document you really do want to delete a service.
It's all straight forward and quick.
The information will enable Google to develop a fuller picture of how people use its growing empire of Web sites.
Sounds to me like they want this information to plan their business expansion/market strategy, rather than sell to marketers.:confused:
That's exactly what they want you to think.
Now take your pill and keep watching TV.
If you're afraid get a dog!
Well then just get a friend with a dog to live next to you! Or something!
But srsly, so what if multiple Google products share what they know about you? You do realize that if you have a club card at your local supermarket, they know every single thing you've ever bought there.
But what harm has it done to you? None. Never met anyone who had anything bad happen to them as the result of having a club card. For years people claimed that the insurance companies were going to figure out who was buying condoms and shit like that -- well guess what, 15 years on, none of that slippery slope stuff seems to have happened. They used the data just like they said they were going to.
OMG they are going to TARGET you with ads. OMG you know what that means? You'll see ads for things you might actually want, while using Google's excellent services for free! Yup, sucks to be you!
And if you are running Firefox, (and probably other browsers that I don't know too well) you can go into private browsing mode when you want to do searches for hemorrhoid cream or whatever. They can still see that someone at your IP address is doing those searches for spots to bury dead hobos, but they aren't linking them to your account because you won't be signed in. Then when you want to use your cookies again so you don't have to remember your Cellar password, you just exit private browsing mode. In Firefox it's: tools> start private browsing and then to stop, it's tools> stop private browsing. Or just use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+P.
But srsly, so what if multiple Google products share what they know about you? You do realize that if you have a club card at your local supermarket, they know every single thing you've ever bought there.
But what harm has it done to you? None. Never met anyone who had anything bad happen to them as the result of having a club card. For years people claimed that the insurance companies were going to figure out who was buying condoms and shit like that -- well guess what, 15 years on, none of that slippery slope stuff seems to have happened. They used the data just like they said they were going to.
OMG they are going to TARGET you with ads. OMG you know what that means? You'll see ads for things you might actually want, while using Google's excellent services for free! Yup, sucks to be you!
That's pretty much the way I feel about it.
Maybe with a bit less sarcasm. :D
(was that over the top? i feel like i can't control my sarcasm knob these days)
But I'm afraid of dogs!
SamIam has some trained
attack kitties you might be able to borrow.
Thanks UT. Message received.
I may need a reminder though.
(was that over the top? i feel like i can't control my sarcasm knob these days)
Not really. Just joshin' ya'.
(was that over the top? i feel like i can't control my sarcasm knob these days)
...maybe eat some more protein.
:p:
I'm really getting the urge to cut all electronic ties... I'll just surf Lemann's for the necessary equipment.. DOH! ;)
Lehmann's is a gateway drug pusher. Before you know it you'll be chipping flint and pounding sinew. Don't say I didn't warn you.
BTW, Lehmann's is developing a non- electric version of the internet.
@UT, you're right it does suck to be me, but that has nothing to do with google.
<snip>But what harm has it done to you? None.<snip>
OMG they are going to TARGET you with ads. OMG you know what that means?
You'll see ads for things you might actually want,
while using Google's excellent services for free!
Yup, sucks to be you!
Having been raised in the era when "1984" was a best-seller, I strongly doubt
Google's new business plan would be restricted to customized ads.
Last May, Facebook and Google were contemplating purchase of Skype,
until it was bought for $8.5B by MicroSoft.
Google+ was initiated with the User's real name.
The US Supreme Court denied law enforcement to attach GPS to someone's car
without a search warrant. But why will LE need a search warrant
when they can just do a FaceBook-, Google-, or Bing- search to follow an individual's activities.
Silly, I know, but ... how do you, or anyone, know there has been or will be no harm done.
In particular, I worry that employers (businesses) will exploit this in whatever way they see fit.
Gizmodo
Mat Honan
1/25/12
Google’s Broken Promise: The End of "Don’t Be Evil"
This has been long coming. Google's privacy policies have been shifting
towards sharing data across services, and away from data compartmentalization
for some time. It's been consistently de-anonymizing you, initially requiring real names
with Plus, for example, and then tying your Plus account to your Gmail account.
But this is an entirely new level of sharing. And given all of the negative feedback
that it had with Google+ privacy issues, it's especially troubling
that it would take actions that further erode users' privacy.
<snip>
What this means for you is that data from the things you search for,
the emails you send, the places you look up on Google Maps,
the videos you watch in YouTube,
the discussions you have on Google+ will all be collected in one place.
It seems like it will particularly affect Android users,
whose real-time location (if they are Latitude users),
Google Wallet data and much more will be up for grabs.
And if you have signed up for Google+, odds are the company even knows your real name,
as it still places hurdles in front of using a pseudonym (although it
no longer explicitly requires users to go by their real names).<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]So why are we calling this evil?
Because Google changed the rules that it defined itself.[/COLOR]
Google built its reputation, and its multi-billion dollar business, on the promise
of its "don't be evil" philosophy. That's been largely interpreted as meaning
that Google will always put its users first, an interpretation that Google
has cultivated and encouraged. Google has built a very lucrative company
on the reputation of user respect. It has made billions of dollars in that effort
to get us all under its feel-good tent. And now it's pulling the stakes out, collapsing it.
It gives you a few weeks to pull your data out, using its data-liberation service,
but if you want to use Google services, you have to agree to these rules.
Then there is Google's YouTube connection...
[YOUTUBE]5wkANapgWgE[/YOUTUBE]
I agree with Lamplighter on this.
Anyone know how the facial recognition software accomodates for youth features? Is there an age past which they can be sure your face isn't growing? I thought, for example, that men's ears and noses could continue growing to a certain degree their whole lives.
yeah, this is no big deal to me. maybe, since I never have looked for a penis enlargement product, my emails will have something I actually am interested on the right side.
Sick of my tapatalk sig
for example men's ear and nose hair grows like crazy after a certain age.
FIFY
Then there is Google's YouTube connection...
You have linked to an explanation of facial recognition software on the iPhone and told us that this suggests YouTube is a Problem... why?
It appears to be because somebody filmed the explanation, and put that video on YouTube.
This is paranoia out of ignorance, and demonstrates your lack of understanding so thoroughly that it's painful to point it out, like I'm being harsh on you.
You have linked to an explanation of facial recognition software
on the iPhone and told us that this suggests YouTube is a Problem... why?
It appears to be because somebody filmed the explanation,
and put that video on YouTube.
This is paranoia out of ignorance, and demonstrates your lack of understanding
so thoroughly that it's painful to point it out, like I'm being harsh on you.
UT, Do you mean ignorance of the technical aspects of facial recognition software,
or ignorance of the abuse that might result from Google's new policies?
I am certainly ignorant of the former, but I'll argue the latter.
I feel several issues were revealed in that link.
Primarily that law enforcement will undoubtly be using the software in the field - without warrants - for "identification".
Thus "mug shots" will permanently accumulate of completely innocent individuals.
Likewise, the existing database of YouTube will no longer be under the control of the User, and civil rights will be out the window.
Here is another example... this one focused on Google's Picasa, but it the same for YouTube
Cyberbullying Research Center
Sameer
10/7/2008
<snip> We’ve also pointed out how individuals can unwittingly open their friends
up to victimization by posting or revealing personal information or pictures about them to social networking sites.
This will continue to be a problem, particularly with new developments in technology.
One example that stands out in my mind is Google’s new version of Picasa, their photo-editing and sharing software.
They’ve implemented a facial recognition system that can analyze one picture
and then scan for matches across hundreds or millions of others.
As an innocuous example, I might want to upload a picture of myself, tag it as “Sameer Hinduja,”
and then allow the software to be continually scanning other photo albums/galleries (e.g., Picasa or Flickr)
to see if anyone else might have uploaded another picture of me.
Apart from visual confirmation (when I look and verify if the person in those other pictures is, in fact, me),
further corroboration can be made if they are tagged as well (either with my name or one of my fun nicknames!).
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Extending this logic, it is easy to envision how someone with malicious or perverse intentions
could use this technology to stalk someone else, or even create a dossier of knowledge
about that person (based on the pictures) useful for gaining their trust or developing a rapport.
[/COLOR]
I am a bit concerned. And this is only the beginning as we move forward in this increasingly panoptic digital age.
The issue is NOT the technical aspects of facial recognitions software.
Nor is the issue a matter of whether or not law enforcement has the right to identify a person.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The issue is the change in control of the information obtained by Google
... without the consent of the User.
[/COLOR]
OK, you confused me by objecting to YouTube and then posting a YouTube video entirely unrelated to YouTube.
You are now just complaining about technology and data privacy in general terms, not about Google. Got it.
And BTW, yes, law enforcement needs a warrant to ask Google about specific issues, and Google's new and entirely transparent privacy policy won't change that, nor would it change the amount or connection of information available to law enforcement.
And BTW yes, if a person makes their Facebook page available to the public it will also be available to cops. And if they don't, it won't. Okay then?
The issue is the change in control of the information obtained by Google... without the consent of the User.
It's entirely consensual. You read their privacy policy and if you don't agree with it you don't use all the free Google products.
There's almost no change. And if somebody had asked you a week ago whether Google uses your Google Maps lookups to improve your Google search experience, you would have said, well I fucking hope so, because that's a no-brainer, has no impact on my privacy, and would be extremely useful information that would help me get to what I'm looking for and improve my life.
Don't pee yourself because the WaPo wrote an inflammatory headline. You'll be peeing yourself every morning!
It's not
unrelated to YouTube, and I'm not complaining about technology.
In my post immediately above, I specifically said:
The issue is NOT the technical aspects of facial recognitions software.
Nor is the issue a matter of whether or not law enforcement has the right to identify a person.
The issue is the change in control of the information obtained by Google
... without the consent of the User.
Likewise, you miss my argument when you say:
And BTW yes, [COLOR="DarkRed"]if[/COLOR] a person makes their Facebook page available to the public...
That little word "if" carries a lot of weight.
Google's new policy takes the "if" out of the equation.
The (signed in) Google User can no longer opt out.
There's an old saying that Congress can write any law,
and Congress can also change any existing law.
On March 1st, Google will show how this option can spread.
Google doesn't publish your information at all!
And it still won't!!
It's just telling you, openly, that it's going to do what every single other company in the world has always done!!!
As an innocuous example, I might want to upload a picture of myself, tag it as “Sameer Hinduja,”
and then allow the software to be continually scanning other photo albums/galleries (e.g., Picasa or Flickr)
to see if anyone else might have uploaded another picture of me.
Apart from visual confirmation (when I look and verify if the person in those other pictures is, in fact, me),
further corroboration can be made if they are tagged as well (either with my name or one of my fun nicknames!).
OK, this tidbit from that article really interested me. It's the ultimate vanity search, and I really want to do it. I would love to see what other pictures of me are out there in the world. I'm certain they exist. I've been to enough tourist destinations and gotten in front of enough people taking pictures of the White House or whatever that I'm sure strangers have my picture. I downloaded the most recent version of Picassa and can't figure out how to do what they are talking about. Picassa can scan the images on my computer and also in my web albums for pictures of me. But how do I get it to scan Flickr or strangers' Picassa albums? Or is he saying a hacker could do that?
I want my ultimate vanity search.
Are you saying someone could google my goo-goo-googly eyes? :eek:
That's what Lamplighter's article is saying, but I don't think so.
The government probably can, sure. But us regular stalkers can't.
I just hope they don't have ass recognition software, or some people will never be able to run for public orifice, I mean office. Or shouldn't. ;)
UT may be right about my paranoia.
I opened my email this a.m. and there was a email from Google, explaining their new privacy policy :eek:
OMG, are they reading my posts on The Cellar ?
Then, slowly I remembered I had posted a question on Google Help forum the other day.
Crisis averted :redface:
Actually, I got the same email in both my gmail accounts.
In trying to figure out how to to the ultimate vanity search, I went to gmail, google+, and picassa. All 3 had notices of the new policy.
Here's the sort of thing to be paranoid about:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57366443-281/hawaii-may-keep-track-of-all-web-sites-visited/
Hawaii's legislature is weighing an unprecedented proposal to curb the privacy of Aloha State residents: requiring Internet providers to keep track of every Web site their customers visit.
Its House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing this morning on a new bill (PDF) requiring the creation of virtual dossiers on state residents. The measure, H.B. 2288, says "Internet destination history information" and "subscriber's information" such as name and address must be saved for two years.
But actually, no need to be paranoid about it after all... it'll be struck down as unconstitutional, if it ever does pass. Moronic state legislators are always making news with their moronic ideas of what good law is.
It's kind of amusing to see how Google has you pegged.
Go to
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/onweb/
and make sure you are logged in to Google.
For me:
Your categories
Below you can review the interests and inferred demographics that Google has associated with your cookie. You can remove or edit these at any time.
Arts & Entertainment - Movies
Arts & Entertainment - Movies - Classic Films - Silent Films
Beauty & Fitness - Body Art
Business & Industrial
Computers & Electronics
Shopping - Apparel
Your demographics
We infer your age and gender based on the websites you've visited. You can remove or edit these at any time.
Age: 45-54
Gender: Male
I recently looked up Heidi Klum's Halloween costumes to show my wife when I heard Heidi and Seal were splitting. So that may be the body art connection. and I looked up Metropolis for some reason recently. So that's the silent movies. I'm only 44, so it offends me that they have me lumped in with the higher age group, but *shrug*.
They have me as 25-34 and interested in Beauty and Fitness as well.
This proves that nobody at Google is looking at my pics.
No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far.
If you want to persist* your opt-out of interest-based ads from all NAI member companies, you can install the Keep My Opt-Outs plugin.
*love the use of "persist" here
Lotta text, but none of the info like you display. I'm logged into gmail. Am I missing something?
They're pretty much spot on for me. Interest in technology and computer programming. Interest in movies. But it thinks I'm in the 25-34 age group.
Maybe it's averaging out my real age and the fact that I act like I'm 12.
It thinks I'm a BOYYYYYYY. :bawling:
Business & Industrial
Computers & Electronics
Games - Online Games
News - Broadcast & Network News
Shopping - Apparel
World Localities - North America - USA - Midwest (USA) - Ohio
Your demographics
We infer your age and gender based on the websites you've visited. You can remove or edit these at any time.
Age: 35-44
Gender: Male
I'm logged into Gmail. Am I missing something?
I'm logged into Gmail. Am I missing something?
Click on the link in Glatt's post #93
I did and this is what I got:
Ads on the web
Make the ads you see on the web more interesting
Many websites, such as news sites and blogs, partner with us to show ads to their visitors. To see ads that are more related to you and your interests, edit the categories below, which are based on sites you have recently visited. Learn More
Your interests are associated with an advertising cookie that's stored in your browser. If you don't want us to store your interests, you can opt out below. Your ads preferences only apply in this browser on this computer. They are reset if you delete your browser's cookies.
Watch a video: Ads Preferences on GDN explained
Your categories and demographics
No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far. You can add or edit interests and demographics at any time.
Your cookie
Google stores the following information in a cookie to associate your ads preferences with the browser you're using:
id=(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Visit the Advertising and Privacy page of our Privacy Center to learn more.
Google is a participating member of the Network Advertising Initiative and follows the industry privacy standards for online advertising. You can opt out of this cookie, as well as other companies' cookies used for interest-based ads, by visiting the aboutads.info choices page. If you want to persist your opt-out of interest-based ads from all NAI member companies, you can install the Keep My Opt-Outs plugin.
Google may use your Google account information, such as items you +1'd on Google websites and across the web, to personalize content and ads on non-Google websites. If you'd like to control how you see +1 recommendations from people you know, and how your +1 recommendations are shown to others, please visit the +1 button settings page.
I get the same thing classic. I think it's because I routinely delete my cookies
Computers & Electronics - Software - Operating Systems - Linux & Unix
Computers & Electronics - Software - Operating Systems - Windows OS
Home & Garden - Home Furnishings - Clocks
World Localities - North America - USA - Texas
Your demographics
Age: 35-44
Gender: Female
The clocks thing is from the last few days, I was researching a sunrise clock for Minifob. And the Linux/Unix stuff is Mr. Clod using my system when he's on call, not me. But I don't ever bother to delete my cookies, so I'm not sure why this is all it can come up with for me. I am an enigma they just can't pigeonhole!
Google thinks I'm a teenager living in my parents basement.
Google thinks I'm living in my parents basement.
Google thinks you're tw? just kidding, but I gotta admit
his would be an interesting one to see. :eek:
No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far.
I delete everything, every time I close a browser. I run ccleaner every time before I log out of a profile.
HA!
Your demographics
We infer your age and gender based on the websites you've visited. You can remove or edit these at any time.
Age: 65+
Proves that my process of always posting false info in every profile I fill out has worked..... :)
HA!
Proves that my process of always posting false info in every profile I fill out has worked..... :)
Well sure. We all know old people are liars. :D
Well sure. We all know old people are liars. :D
Of course they are. Look at Lamplighter! ;) Perfect example.
Of course they are. Look at Lamplighter! ;) Perfect example.
You have a small, mean spirit, Merc.
A new CEO takes over the business, feels he must do something different to distinguish himself.
I predict Larry Page will cause Google to jump the shark...
NY Times
David Streit
2/9/12
An ‘Entertainment Device’ Is Expected From Google
SAN FRANCISCO — Google is developing a home entertainment device,
according to people with knowledge of the company’s plans,
in a move that would bring it more broadly into consumer electronics.
The device, which exists as a prototype and will eventually be sold as a branded
item to consumers, is the company’s most significant venture into hardware.
While the initial purpose of the device will be for streaming music,
the eventual use could be much wider.<snip>
Larry Page, who last year took the reins of the company he co-founded,
has been intent on moving into hardware.
The entertainment device has been in the works for more than a year,
before Google made a $12.5 billion deal to buy the handset maker Motorola Mobility,
the most likely manufacturer of the device. That acquisition is likely to close next week.
Lose it or Google will use it...
CNET
Charles Cooper
February 29, 2012
Clock counts down as Google privacy change looms
For the congenital procrastinators out there
--and yes, you know who you are--don't complain about not being warned.
In less than 24 hours, Google will hit the switch and start linking your data
across the company's e-mail, video, social-networking, and other services.
Since my history is deleted each time I log off, there is apparently nothing for me to do.
Do people still save their search histories? Do you?
Out of curiosity - If so, Why?
Do you have a G-mail account, or G+, or YouTube, or Documents, or Picasa, or Calendar, or .... ?
[SIZE="1"]yay gmail is mandatory at work[/SIZE]
yes. The gmail account has already been bastardized. That happened a long time ago. The ads that come up that are so "personalized.
They're already reading every email.
The sheer amount of data that Google collects bothers me, even though I really like their products. Google Chrome is the best browser for me, that I have used, and now I have everything set up the way I like I really can't be bothered to get a new browser.
Anyway, it really sucks that they would do that to your daughter. If there's an age limit then they should make it clear that there's an age limit. There's a lot of stuff they don't make all that clear...
The sheer amount of data that Google collects bothers me, even though I really like their products.
Do you file taxes electronically? Then that company owns information on your tax return. If concerned about something as trivial as Google, then be far more concerned about what your bank shares with others.
How much about you is routinely sold for profit? Go to annualcreditreport.com to learn what others routinely know about you. What Google knows is trivial.
BTW, that is not freecreditreport.com - something that can end up costing money if not careful.
One of the rules of the internet is that any site with "free" in it will try to take your money.
Google keeps calling me fat. I keep getting ads for some plus size clothing company called The Woman Within. Which is offensive because it implies that if you're overweight your 'woman' is 'within'...way 'within', not 'without.' Also the models are those 'plus-size' models who aren't really 'plus-size' making you think if you buy their clothes you will look 'un-plus-size' like the real 'woman within.'
WTF Google? Are you looking at me, or did you arrive at this conclusion because that one time I told someone to bite my big fat ass? :lol:
Google is hard on my self-esteem. Google needs to rethink their plan. Google can bite my big fat ass.
The
Exec from Goldman-Sachs is making news, and so
the news media is picking up on another story today by
James Whittaker, a well known Exec who left Google recently.
It's worth reading the entire blog, but here are some snips.
JW on Tech
Why I left Google
13 Mar 2012
Ok, I relent. Everyone wants to know why I left and
answering individually isn’t scaling so here it is, laid out in its long form.
Read a little (I get to the punch line in the 3rd paragraph) or read it all.
But a warning in advance: there is no drama here, no tell-all, no former colleagues bashed
and nothing more than you couldn’t already surmise from what’s happening
in the press these days surrounding Google and its attitudes toward user privacy and software developers.
This is simply a more personal telling.<snip>
It turns out that there was one place where the Google innovation machine faltered
and that one place mattered a lot: competing with Facebook.
Informal efforts produced a couple of antisocial dogs in Wave and Buzz.
Orkut never caught on outside Brazil. Like the proverbial hare confident enough
in its lead to risk a brief nap, Google awoke from its social dreaming
to find its front runner status in ads threatened.<snip>
Larry Page himself assumed command to right this wrong.
Social became state-owned, a corporate mandate called Google+.
It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn’t enough.
Search had to be social. Android had to be social. You Tube, once joyous
in their independence, had to be … well, you get the point.
Even worse was that innovation had to be social.
Ideas that failed to put Google+ at the center of the universe were a distraction.<snip>
The days of old Google hiring smart people and empowering them to invent the future was gone.
The new Google knew beyond doubt what the future should look like.
Employees had gotten it wrong and corporate intervention would set it right again.<snip>
As it turned out, sharing was not broken. Sharing was working fine and dandy,
Google just wasn’t part of it. People were sharing all around us and seemed quite happy.
A user exodus from Facebook never materialized.
I couldn’t even get my own teenage daughter to look at Google+ twice,
“social isn’t a product,” she told me after I gave her a demo,
“social is people and the people are on Facebook.”
Google was the rich kid who, after having discovered he wasn’t invited
to the party, built his own party in retaliation.
The fact that no one came to Google’s party became the elephant in the room.<snip>
Perhaps Google is right. Perhaps the future lies in learning
as much about people’s personal lives as possible.
Perhaps Google is a better judge of when I should call my mom
and that my life would be better if I shopped that Nordstrom sale.
Perhaps if they nag me enough about all that open time on my*calendar
I’ll work out more often. Perhaps if they offer an ad for a divorce lawyer because
I am writing an email about my 14 year old son breaking up with his girlfriend
I’ll appreciate that ad enough to end my own marriage.
Or perhaps I’ll figure all this stuff out on my own.
The old Google was a great place to work. The new one?
Maybe that's why their stock is down to $618 per share.
I used to believe Google could do no wrong, but I've been
sliding down the slippery slope for some time now
Wolf
posted a comment about Google Map's new feature "Quest".
Quest now shows up on the regular Google Map default screen,
and there's a "learn more" video clip.
[YOUTUBE]rznYifPHxDg[/YOUTUBE]
Once again I'm questioning what this company is doing under it's new CEO leadership.
It looks as though Google is time-warp-marketing back to the 1990's
with a plastic hardware devise that has to be hard-wired
to dial-up access to the internet, and graphics that are archaically appalling.
I don't see any really new features beyond the usual Google Maps.
What market (if any) are they targeting ?
What market (if any) are they targeting ?
A really geeky one.
What I love is what it does to the streetview.
Best feature ever!
I hate April Fools Day
Now that makes sense !
I fall for every thing that comes down the road every year at this time
Google search is acting oddly. There's no suggestion when I start typing and when I click on the results, I'm taken to another search engine, like ask.com.
That’s not odd, well actually that is normal on search engines. They gave search result that can be found on another SE, just like partners.
had something like that... grrr can't remember EXACTLY the details, but the upshot was that for some reason, I'd installed some add-in for firefox and the effect (UNINTENDED) was that all my searches that failed got redirected ...
uninstalling the add-in was a little more complicated than normal, but worthwhile since I use search A LOT, but I used the add-in less. easy decision, moderately difficulty resolving it. look for something you recently changed about your browser to change your search engine preferences. I found the answer by googling the name of the search destination I'd been redirected to. good luck.
But how can he google ask.com if google keeps being redirected to ask?
Like, whoah, dude.
Goggle going where no man has gone before...
PCWorld
By Jared Newman,
Aug 8, 2012 1:30 PM
Google Tests Feature that Shows Gmail Messages in Search Results
A new Google search experiment lets Gmail users to see
relevant e-mails alongside regular search results on Google.com.<snip>
Google doesn't search your Gmail account every time you run a Web search.
Instead, it offers to show Gmail results for certain types of queries, such as band names and locations.
When Google has Gmail results to show, a box on the right-hand side of the screen
says who the messages are from. You can then expand this box to see snippets of each message,
and from there you can jump into Gmail to read the whole thing.
The search is of your own Gmail account. You're not going to see search results including strangers' email. The only way this is a privacy issue is if you share your computer and are still logged in to Gmail.
It may be annoying to get the extra results, but that's a different issue.
For now...
but I suspect advertisers / employers will not be able to stay away from emails
any more than they have from GPS or anything else that Google collects and is now the owner.
My background is in genetic disease, and I have seen what can
happen when personal information gets into the wrong hands.
My feelings about the internet come from this, and recently
Google is acting more and more like the "wrong hands".
We realize that emails on the internet are not private.
Maybe it's time for apps that move emails via https
For now...
but I suspect advertisers / employers will not be able to stay away from emails
any more than they have from GPS or anything else that Google collects and is now the owner.
My background is in genetic disease, and I have seen what can
happen when personal information gets into the wrong hands.
My feelings about the internet come from this, and recently
Google is acting more and more like the "wrong hands".
We realize that emails on the internet are not private.
Maybe it's time for apps that move emails via https
...
gmail has been available via strictly https for some time now.
And you're right, email has the security equivalent of a post card. If you want more security than a post card, you'd better take explicit steps.
but I suspect advertisers / employers will not be able to stay away from emails
any more than they have from GPS or anything else that Google collects and is now the owner.
I don't understand this part of your remarks. I don't know what risk there is from employers regarding my email, not in the context of hybrid web/gmail search results. and gps? What's the risk there? That my employer knew/knows my route? Presumably when I'm doing work for them, sure. If they're tracking me when I'm on my own time, that's a totally different issue, presumably because I've opted IN for some location based system like Latitude. That's my problem, not my employer's. How can I complain about my employer following me around when I've invited put it all out there for my fans to follow?
Or, I just misunderstand you more. Definitely possible. Please feel free to explain or correct me, as you will. Thanks.
...
gmail has been available via strictly https for some time now.
Could you explain that?
Once more, the corporate giant is out to kill off the others.
PCMag.com
David Murphy
September 15, 2012
Google Puts Internet Explorer 8 on Notice, Ends Support in Nov.
Still rocking Windows XP? How about Internet Explorer 8?
If you're a fan of Google's services, it might be time to upgrade to a new iteration of the browser
— or a different browser entirely. According to Google, the company is officially discontinuing support
for Internet Explorer 8 across all of its Web services as of November 15 of this year.<snip>
While Google hasn't made note of any compatibility issues that could happen following the transition,
users still accessing Google apps with IE8 will start to see messages indicating that they should upgrade their browser.<snip>
Jesus Fucking Christ. It is not out to kill off the others. Google supports the current and previous versions of all browsers. That's a good thing. Take a look at this table
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html
And see, mostly down halfway to selectors, how much of CSS3 is not supported by IE8. Those are things that will improve experience that IE refused to support when it developed 8.
Google moves directly ahead and drags IE, kicking and screaming, against its will, into the future. If XP users want to continue they must install a browser that supports modern protocols. Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. It takes five minutes to do that, and they can even install an extension that makes their browser look, feel and act like IE.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
JFC... most users, especially the business community, use IE because
it comes already installed on their PC's or their IT dept refuses to go down
any other path than MS. After all, their "certification" almost demands it.
Think about it.
... Google led the way with SEARCH, SCHOLAR, MAPS, etc.,
and now MS and Apple are developing their own counter-parts.
These moves on the part of Google and Apple look to me as a movement towards
a "stove pipe" industry, due primarily to the advertising/marketing industry jumping
on the FaceBook business model...collect data on users and sell it the marketers.
The ultimate could be that Users will have to decide which
"private customer base" to join... or, It's my way or the (internet) highway.
Ironically, the
first signs of questioning this business model are appearing in today's news
JFC... it's not only about IT. ;)
Could you explain that?
http vs https
http is hypertext transport protocol
https is hypertext transport protocol secure
Secure is better. by making gmail available via https ONLY, they take a big step to secure your information. There's a kind of interesting topic, sidejacking, described in the link.
sorry for the delayed response.
Since I already trust The Google, I'm good to go. Since I already mistrust Microsoft to a greater degree, I'm already on alert.
http vs https
http is hypertext transport protocol
https is hypertext transport protocol secure
Secure is better. by making gmail available via https ONLY, they take a big step to secure your information. There's a kind of interesting topic, sidejacking, described in the link.
:smack: I knew that. Wasn't thinking.:o
Here is a reminder of the old, familiar, public-spirited Google we used to know and love.
Google has introduced
Google Public Alerts, a new feature based on Google Maps
It looks and acts like traditional Google Maps, but clicking on
an item takes you much further into the detailed message text and pics.
Type in the location (e.g., West Virginia) and it's off and running
[ATTACH]41435[/ATTACH]
Here is Google's video introduction
[YOUTUBE]jEHER63hfl8[/YOUTUBE]
Has the Google IMAGE match feature gone away.
Today, when I drag a pic onto the Image Search box, the image loads but then nothing happens... no search... no matching images.
Is this one more "added feature" that Google is adopting ?
Chrome is beginning to suck. A lot.
unresponsive, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging, hanging,
No support from chrome
Yeah, opera works.
Gratias tibi ago. Ego hic septem. Conare bubulae carnis.
Was that yeah, as in verily? or yeah as in chyeah as if?
:lol: I've never used it.
It's just that "opus" means "work" (noun, as in a piece of work) and the plural "opera" means "works".
Monialem deficeret.
I knew I shouldn't have skipped Latin
Proof that Google is breaking the law!
[ATTACH]45025[/ATTACH]
Audible snicker, glatt. Took me a moment.
JFC... most users, especially the business community, use IE because
it comes already installed on their PC's or their IT dept refuses to go down
any other path than MS. After all, their "certification" almost demands it.
...
JFC... it's not only about IT.
This's just one part of it, yeah. Also--am I repeating this for the thousandth time?--business users use applications which are qualified to work properly on certain operating systems and certain browsers. It's not an arbitrary choice on the part of the end-user,
they just want their shit to work.
Can we all agree that there are two completely different OS/browser markets? MS Windows, IE, SQL Server, Visual Studio, .Net, etc. are not archaic dinosaurs which are forcing themselves on the market or exploiting people's lack of sophistication. They work just fine, for their intended purpose.
My problem with Google is they forgot about Dre.
As long as we agree that the "intended purpose" is creating an infrastructure that makes money for Microsoft.
Would it benefit the business community at large for the vendor of their primary infrastructure components to not make money, not have resources?
We agree that all businesses are in business to make money, right? But in the case where a bunch of other people's livelihoods are based on other businesses within the ecosystem, of course you want the entire ecosystem to be making money.
This is just like not liking 'top 40' bands because they are popular. You can't have blind spots where capitalism doesn't apply, or gets overruled by personal bias.
It would really benefit the "business community" to have no vendor and pay nothing for languages, frameworks, SQL database platforms, desktops, browsers and development environments that are free of charge and involve no licensure issues.
[YOUTUBE]snsj0L8-4Iw[/YOUTUBE]
Google is no longer following the "do no evil" software development model.
TechCrunch
You’re Not Just The Product, You’re The Ads (And Your Friends Should Thank*You)
Today, Google announced “Shared Endorsements”,
an expansion of its program of using your Google+ ‘+1s’ in ads.
Now Google can show your activity such as following a brand,
commenting on a post, or reviewing a business in ads
that feature your name and face to people you allow to see the actions you took.
Google lets businesses pay it to share those endorsements with more of your friends
than would have seem them normally in search results, maps, Google+,
and elsewhere. And Google’s not alone.<snip>
If it's your image, you should be able to copyright it and at least get royalties from it's use.
How long will it be until some eager lawyer starts suing Google
for using your image without permission in it's new business model.
Just a small devil's advocate here... part of the inherent, lifelong problem with advertising has been that it lies.
4 out of 5 dentists agree... when asked a loaded question that guides a clear answer
I'm Tiger Woods, and I love Bran Flakes... except actually, I hate them.
Best in its class... where class is defined so narrowly that it is the only candidate.
Everyone understands by now that all ads are complete crap. Many if not most people have TV systems that can skip them, and click-through rates are at all-time lows. The most important factor in whether I buy a product is if people I know and trust say it's good. You can't even trust strangers on the internet because fake reviews are so prevalent.
There's something nice about the idea of getting recommendations from your friends without those friends having to do any work to convey that information. Obviously there are some sensitive products that no one wants to talk about, but if you really like a certain product, why wouldn't you want to allow people to know that you like it?
...but if you really like a certain product, why wouldn't you want to allow people to know that you like it?
My quarrel with Facebook and then Google is/was with the idea that
they are selling "you" without compensating you for the resource.
Likewise, they are selling "you" to others without you knowing where, when, and to whom.
If someone called and asked you to endorse a product, but refused to tell you
how they were going to use that endorsement, would you still give it to them ?
e.g., a silly example...just because you "liked" or "+1'ed" a bar-casino
(or a STD Clinic :eek:) while on vacation last year, are you OK with your kids,
friends, or members of your church randomly seeing that on their iphone ... years from now ?
I'm old school... believing that bad things happen when someone has access to
and/or uses personal information about "you" to make $ for themselves,
especially if they claim to "own" that information and will not allow you to delete or restrict it's use.
... like your medical information being used by insurance companies or employers, etc.
Likewise, for kids who are vulnerable to bullying by classmates over even the smallest of details in the lives.
Your quarrel with Google is that they are a business and are profitable.
I don't mind my friends seeing what I think is good. I kinda like it. It keeps me in their heads. That has value to me.
I also don't mind people making money. Guess what, it's just a medium of exchange.
What I don't like is speculation about what Google MIGHT do in the future. I would rather criticize based on what they've actually done, instead of what might happen in some sort of dis-utopian future.
My medical information has never been used by insurance companies, and so I wonder what happened to all those arguments for the last 20 years where people told me that was happening or going to happen. That was all just bullshit. It turned out that a law was passed making my medical information incredibly private. And that law (HIPPA) is so widely respected, it prevents even good things from happening to my medical information.
Your problem with Google is that they are a business and have power.
No, I used to admire Google greatly. It competed successfully with MS and
made the internet a wonderful advance worldwide. The various projects
(MAPS, Scholar, ... etc.) were beyond what
any company or person had done before.
FaceBook/Twitter/etc were entertainment fluff, but so be it.
What changed was when FB declared ownership of the data people had
been allowed/enticed to load into their database under the company's
implied shell of semi-privacy ( "friending" )
Google changed when Jobs died and a new CEO took the company in a whole new direction.
Google followed suit of FB and declared ownership of everything people had entered or used in their projects.
Now they are declaring they can use your G-mails, MAPS, or any
other information they have to sell "you" to any other company.
My problem with Google is not that they are a business,
but that they have abused the power they gained.
"declared ownership" fucking christ even the words you choose. "Declared" how. You mean they issued a news release? "Ownership" how. They need my permission to do anything with what I've given them, and both FB and Google have respected that boundary with extensive and careful privacy settings. How is that ownership?
Settle down, every new Google announcement is not for you to pick over to determine the end of the world or the beginning of "evil", whatever that means to you. "If you give permission, your friends will now see your picture." OHH EVIL!!! THIS MEANS THEY WILL DEFINITELY PUT MY IMAGE ON PUBLIC BILLBOARDS AND THE WORST PART IS I WILL SEE NO RECOMPENSE!!! THEY WILL BREAK INTO MY HOUSE AND LOOK THROUGH MY DRAWERS AND STEAL MY SPARE RUBBER BANDS!!!
Wow ! Sorry UT to rile you.
All that you've expressed as your opinions is that, your opinion.
So be it. I have no problem with whatever you decide for yourself.
I would appreciate the same consideration... without the conjectures and rhetoric.
I'm sorry but I am prepared to go to all caps lock on this issue.
I assume that's not a threat :rolleyes:, but I don't understand the dept of emotion.
In anycase, I started this sub-thread with the recent announcements by Google.
FaceBook is also going further down the same road...
TechCrunch
10/10/13
Facebook Removing Option To Be Unsearchable By Name,
Highlighting Lack Of Universal Privacy Controls
“Who can look up your Timeline by name?” Anyone you haven’t blocked.<snip>
Facebook is removing this privacy setting, notifying those who
had hidden themselves that they’ll be searchable.
It deleted the option from those who hadn’t used it in December,
and is starting to push everyone to [COLOR="DarkRed"]use privacy controls on each type of content they share[/COLOR].
But there’s no one-click opt out of Facebook search.
With the roll out of Graph Search, the avenues for sniffing out someone’s profile
grew exponentially. Basically every piece of personal information
(and soon the content you post about) could bring you up in a search.
If you publicly list that you live in San Francisco, a Graph Search for
“People who live in San Francisco” could lead someone to your profile.<snip>
After that, the way people can stay hidden is to manually restrict
the visibility of each piece of their profile. And that is a bit of a chore.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]You’d have to go through every piece of personal information in
your About section and set its visibility to ‘Friends’ or ‘Only me’.[/COLOR]
At least Facebook provides a quick way to restrict the visibility of all your old News Feed posts.
For people with stalkers, though, Facebook may have just gotten a bit more dangerous.
Facebook tells me the way to keep a specific person from finding your profile
or viewing any of your content is to block them.
But what if your stalker just signs up for a fake profile with a new name?
Then they could search and find you.
I think it would be useful to think about Google, Facebook, et al in light of this aphorism:
If you're not a paying customer, you're the product.
Just like broadcast radio, the majority of websites, and anyone else who operates solely on ad revenue.
Reddit nails it:
Google isn't using your information to advertise random products, they're taking reviews that you've created on G+ and publishing them.
I'm sorry, but when was the last time that you put a review on the internet intending for no one to read it?
My quarrel with Facebook ... is/was with the idea that
they are selling "you" without compensating you for the resource ...
The compensation is that I get the social interactions from FB ...
Sent by thought transference
So, anybody know how long between seeing the Google car and the street View image going live? I waved.
They edit people out before they render it to the live server.
They edit people out before they render it to the live server.
They are going to erase Wolf? OMG!!!
No, they just blur faces.
Does anyone care about about regulation of European “internet competition rules” ?
I don’t… A pox on both their houses…
Microsoft, Once an Antitrust Target, Is Now Google’s Regulatory Scold
NY Times - DANNY HAKIM - APRIL 15, 2015
Not long ago, Microsoft was the scourge of European antitrust regulators.
It was fined once, twice, three and four times.
Finally, after Microsoft paid more than $3 billion, Europe left it alone.
Now, Google is firmly in Europe’s cross hairs: Antitrust regulators on Wednesday
formally accused the company of abusing its dominance.
And Microsoft is relishing a second act in Brussels, playing the role of scold instead of victim.
Here are the players …. No, Here is the player...step-twin of the Koch brothers
Microsoft has links, to varying degrees, with the three initial complainants
that sparked the antitrust investigation into Google.
And Microsoft has founded or funded a cottage industry of splinter groups.
[1]
[COLOR="Red"]The most prominent, the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace[/COLOR],
or Icomp has waged a relentless public relations campaign promoting grievances against Google.
Icomp hosts webinars, panel discussions and news conferences.
It conducted a study that suggested changes made by Google
to appease regulators were largely window dressing.
[2]
Ciao, a German comparison shopping site, claimed that its agreement to use
Google’s search services restricted its ability to do advertising deals with Google’s rivals.
[COLOR="Red"]The site was bought by Microsoft before the company filed its complaint.[/COLOR]
[3]
The third complainant, the French search company Ejustice.fr,
has been advised by Jacques Lafitte. [COLOR="Red"]Mr. Lafitte, a Brussels lobbyist,
previously served as a top corporate affairs official for Microsoft in Europe.[/COLOR]
I'm still bitter at the Germans for banning street view in their country.
I bet they use street view all the time to look at other countries.
twice other night I woke to find my computer running. Next morning I looked and was Google updater running every hour. Reset that task and maybe will stop that shit.
I'm still bitter at the Germans for banning street view in their country.
I bet they use street view all the time to look at other countries.
About a dozen German cities are covered by Street View.
This might be the beginning of complete coverage of the country, on the other hand perhaps partial coverage is all that will be permitted.
Once the corporate name-change is completed...
Will people start saying they "Alphabeted", instead of "Googled" a topic ?
I don't think so...
No, because Google will still exist, it just won't be the umbrella.
Although you maybe right, they have a new logo that's easier to carve into park benches, and tattoo by resisters. :eek:
WOW, xoB, that is such a major, life-altering change for Google.
I'm thinking they spent close to a $million on consultants coming up with that barrier-breaking logo.
There's no limit now for the Corporation, after showing such historical-restraint in the color skeme,
combined with such mind-blowing use of an entirely new font.
I'm impressed beyond words,
...especially when I appreciate the design genius of tilting the final "e" just that precise number of degrees.
.
Pretty sure they've given up caring what you think, or what I think. They're much, much more interested in what your grandchildren think. It's a design change intended to appeal to them, not us.
Young minds are easier to [strike]warp[/strike] mold.
But they still do what I want them to do, better than anyone else.
If they make the best burgers, but they do bad pizza, I'll still go to them for burgers.
It's slightly better than the previous logo
Once the corporate name-change is completed...
Will people start saying they "Alphabeted", instead of "Googled" a topic ?
I don't think so...
No no no no...
you are Googling when you are searching for online content by keyword.
You are Alphabetting when you are sending a robot army to start a war.
Do we say Johnson & Johnson instead of Band-Aid?:rolleyes:
Today Mr. Clod took my stepdaughter to her counseling appointment, and when he entered the address into his phone Google cheerfully announced (on screen, not actually out loud) that he had been to this same location one year ago, and would he like to store it in his list?
It was also quick to let him know that no one could see this data except him... and presumably any Google employee, and anyone who hacks his phone, and anyone who hacks the right Google server.
But he just sighed and moved on, because none of us are going to stop using smartphones or GPS or Google. We've given up, they can just have all our data.
You're not sure about Google; but, Google's sure about you.
That's pretty funny, sexobon.
Clod, just curious, why did Mr Clod enter into his phone the address of the office?
Because it's usually my job to take her, and he'd only been there once (a year ago.) Unless he's completely 100% familiar with where he's going, he lets Google Maps tell him how to get there.
Any dwellars familiar with using Chromcast on a Mac (desktop) ?
I've been trying to make it work, and did for the first time.
But now I have forgotten or lost something that is needed.
In any case, in my ramblings thru the Google atmosphere,
I got the following msg, which doesn't conflict with my expectations of Big G,
but nonetheless it does seem a bit explicit and frankly "scary" to me.
Can someone explain this popup msg - where it says "It can now:" ?
.
