Google/Big Brother

[Asheville Joe]

Thanks for your considered reply.  Maybe privacy is really totally 
gone.  Sometimes, I think there's a little left.

One small point, I do use the Google toolbar for Mozilla (on Linux), but 
since it's open source, it probably isn't spyware.

Joe

John Seth wrote:

>Hmmm... where to begin...
>
>1. _Google's immortal cookie_: Placing a cookie for 2038 is not new, for
>any website webmaster.  I have had to do similar things per request and
>for other reasons since I am a webmaster. It basically guarantees if
>people futz with their computers date and time or other odd issues, the
>cookie won't expire.  I didn't know that google did it.
>
>2. _Google records everything they can_: Every corporate website or
>other site that utilizes WebTrends Live, or other web analysis suite to
>scour webserver logs or live action, tracks user traffic, patterns,
>browser and computer info, among many other things.  I do it for every
>site I run, and I use Urchin Web Analytics Software for Linux:
>http://www.urchin.com/
>
>Face it, your bank and credit card companies track every move you
>make... I lost my bank atm/credit card, and within one day my bank
>called me and asked if my card was stolen... I replied "no" and then had
>them wait, indeed, my card was missing from my wallet, and they knew
>before I did.
>
>3. _Google retains all data indefinitely_: I retain all my webservers
>logs until I feel I need more HD space.  Considering I have almost a
>terrabyte, I've got webserver logs going back five years or more.  Most
>any website and/or web server admin does this without ever disclosing it
>in the policies. By this I mean, hosting providers, ie: rackspace (as a
>pure example) or any other hosting company in addition to the company
>paying for the service...
>
>4. _Google won't say why they need this data_: Nor will any other
>company except for "Market Analysis"
>
>5. _Google hires spooks_: spooks? lol... Geeks and Computer Security
>guru's.  Who doesn't? Many system admin's I know were once script
>kiddies, crackers, and packet pup's... now their computer security
>consultants, system admin's and the like... including many on staff
>where I work... I know a few of us on this list could fit this bill.
>
>6. _Google's toolbar is spyware_: This I have no clue about. Then again,
>I refuse to use IE.  I made the mistake of opening once to test a
>customer webpage and found it caused an error and had to close, not
>before putting four new spam icons on my desktop.  In my opinion, if you
>use IE, you will get taken advantage of.  If people want popup blockers
>and a standards compliant web browser, check out Mozilla, or it's many
>projects.  Opera's not too bad either.
>
>7. _Google's cache copy is illegal_: If this is the case, AOL better get
>rid of it's cache servers. Businesses such at Artera Turbo and others
>that cache websites to help improve bandwidth consumption (which many
>ISP's have) are also illegal.  As a webmaster, it doesn't bother me to
>use SSI (.shtml webpages) and use a static webpage with the following:
>
><meta http-equiv="pragma" content="no-cache" />
><meta name="date" content="2003-10-16T21:36:27-05:00" />
>
>   Using PHP or SSI you can change the content field of 'date' to by the
>current time, fooling cache servers into thinking the content has
>been updated. Point 2: when a site of mine crashed and the backup
>tapes died and vault copies were running late, Google's cache helped
>me pull the site back up with less effort.
>
>8. _Google is not your friend_: Nor is AOL... but 75% of the traffic to
>most of my sites comes from AOL users. If it was up to me, I'd deny AOL
>from accessing any of my sites. Since they control so much of my
>traffic, I won't, or else I'd shoot my own foot. Every company,
>especially the size of Google, has issues.  If you got over 3 million
>emails a day, would you answer them all?  As for as search engine
>submissions, I submit to them all, google just happens to be on the
>list.
>
>9. _Google is a privacy time bomb_: Cookies can only do so much, if you
>let them.  If you don't like a company, deny cookies from them.  If you
>don't want a lot of tracks, make a habit of clearing cookies every so
>often, less they'll figure out about you in particular.
>
>... as for the last letter printed on that page... Google gets most of
>it's stuff from DMOZ.org, an open source website directory and adds its
>own stuff into it along the way depending on whatever preferences they
>desire.
>
>Just my two pence. Being a webmaster, Search engines are a big deal to
>me... but to me it sounds like someone wanted to gripe about something
>pertaining to personal privacy.  In this day and age, when the gov't can
>use a satellite to watch a person walking on a sidewalk, banks track
>your every move, and open networks using wireless routers (there's 33
>open wireless networks in my neighborhood... imagine in the city?),
>etc... you're better off being a hermit living off the land, and no job
>in order to not be tracked.
>
>It already affects linux, watch RedHat's movements... they do whatever
>the majority wants, that is until the money trail leads elsewhere such
>as RH's enterprise series, leaving non-paying customers out of the loop.
> It's business, no matter what, in business, money talks.  Thank
>goodness Linus Torvalds doesn't let money spoil him or the kernel
>developers.
>
>  
>

-- 
"Were there none who were discontented with what they have, the world would never reach anything better." --Florence Nightingale; English nurse, reformer