#2 2012-05-23 08:06:37
Eric Schmidt's views on privacy ( "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place") are puerile and self-serving. I am in the process of eliminating Google from my life, but after almost a decade of trusting them (yeah I'm an idiot) it's not as easy as I thought it would be to disengage. Duck Duck Go is a great search engine - but I need to find a new email service and a browser that works as well as Chrome.
Offline
#3 2012-05-23 09:24:40
Change from Chrome to Chromium and run it in Privacy mode. Install Ad Block Plus and 99% of the tracking cookies and other identifying marks are removed. Even Google can't track you then. You won't get any autosuggest for sites or targeted google searches, but it will evaporate about 99% of the tracks you leave behind.
The cyber world mirrors the real world. Remember, you used to have to pay extra not to be listed in the phone book.
I haven't changed my primary email address in over 15 years, 18 I think. So I'm sure it's everywhere. So it's already on every list everywhere. But tracking what websites I have been to and what forms I fill out is a vastly different process than wardriving my network and packet sniffing my wifi traffic. That's when you pass over from passive to active and cross the line. I don't care how big they are, how altruistic they pretend to be, it's no different than if I went to Google headquarters and started dumpster diving and posting company paperwork.
Offline
#4 2012-05-23 10:38:41
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Remember, you used to have to pay extra not to be listed in the phone book.
I still do this, not that it hides me from anyone but idiots. Shelter from idiots is reason enough.
Last edited by choad (2012-05-23 10:39:11)
Offline
#5 2012-05-23 11:14:41
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Change from Chrome to Chromium and run it in Privacy mode.
What's the Google affiliation with the Chromium Projects? I'm asking for the obvious reason, they'll build back doors into anything they touch.
Last edited by choad (2012-05-23 11:17:57)
Offline
#6 2012-05-23 15:26:40
choad wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Remember, you used to have to pay extra not to be listed in the phone book.
I still do this, not that it hides me from anyone but idiots. Shelter from idiots is reason enough.
Being unlisted is the only acceptable way to manage a phone. Mine rings about twice a week, generally attributable to parents or distant friends, and yet I still manage to resent its shrill intrusion into my peaceful life. Chains for niggers or pacifiers for babies; that's what phones are - tethers, whips, instruments of social oppression.
[There are limits, Wilber. The graphic illustration in this context is out of place.]
[Yes, fair enough. It's just difficult for me to express how much I hate phones without resorting to obscenity.]
Last edited by WCL (2012-05-23 15:58:40)
Offline
#7 2012-05-23 21:58:52
choad wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Change from Chrome to Chromium and run it in Privacy mode.
What's the Google affiliation with the Chromium Projects? I'm asking for the obvious reason, they'll build back doors into anything they touch.
Chromium is the open-source version of Chrome (I think the biggest difference is the lack of the auto-updater, but I don't use it). If Google put a back door in there the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be loud and obvious.
I would personally recommend that you just install Chrome, don't use Google as your search provider, and uncheck the "send usage data" thing when you first install it. Then you'll get the automatic updates and stable build, but won't be sending data back to Google (other than normal browsing data like tracking cookies, etc., which you can solve with various extensions like AdBlock). The Chrome Team really does stay on top of security fixes, and that's why I'd say to go that way, but if you still don't think that's good enough there's no reason to be afraid to use Chromium.
Offline
#8 2012-05-23 22:02:03
WCL wrote:
Eric Schmidt's views on privacy ( "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place") are puerile and self-serving. I am in the process of eliminating Google from my life, but after almost a decade of trusting them (yeah I'm an idiot) it's not as easy as I thought it would be to disengage. Duck Duck Go is a great search engine - but I need to find a new email service and a browser that works as well as Chrome.
Eric Schmidt has a penchant for saying creepy things, but you really are taking him out of context. What he's saying is that no, there is no way to wipe what you've done from the Internet. It was a discussion about whether there should be a universal right to be "forgotten". People here should know better than most that this is impossible when it comes to the Internet.
Offline
#9 2012-05-23 22:22:16
Important to remember:
The Nazis used government data to systematically pursue Jews and other unwanted groups. The East German secret police, the Stasi, similarly controlled data to monitor perceived enemies.
What the fuck?:
Google argued that its data scooping was legal in the United States. But it told regulators it could not show them the data it collected, because to do so might be breaking privacy and wiretapping laws.
I've given up on being invisible whilst on the grid, best I can hope for is to hide in the herd (but near enough to the edge to make a run for it). As I get older I'm considering going off grid altogether, I'd miss High-Street but it would be worth it.
Offline
#10 2012-05-23 23:44:02
tojo2000 wrote:
WCL wrote:
Eric Schmidt's views on privacy ( "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place") are puerile and self-serving. I am in the process of eliminating Google from my life, but after almost a decade of trusting them (yeah I'm an idiot) it's not as easy as I thought it would be to disengage. Duck Duck Go is a great search engine - but I need to find a new email service and a browser that works as well as Chrome.
Eric Schmidt has a penchant for saying creepy things, but you really are taking him out of context. What he's saying is that no, there is no way to wipe what you've done from the Internet. It was a discussion about whether there should be a universal right to be "forgotten". People here should know better than most that this is impossible when it comes to the Internet.
I rue the day I got Gmail; I have about 10 Gmail addresses, depending on the subjects of the emails I send. I just HAD to get away from Hotmail (and the spam); Yahoo didn't look like a good option, and Charter (my broadband provider) has a really shitty email service.
It took me quite a while to move away from IE several years ago, but I'm glad I moved over to Firefox. I won't move over to Chrome, because I don't want Google snooping on me. And I don't have Twitter, G+ or Facebook accounts because I don't want future employers snooping on me, either.
Offline
#11 2012-05-23 23:53:25
tojo2000 wrote:
Eric Schmidt has a penchant for saying creepy things, but you really are taking him out of context.
Granted, I was, in this one instance. BUT - there is a bigger context to this man, and consequently to the company. I signed up for Google+ until I learned that my pseudonym was not welcomed by Google, at which point I deactivated and left a pointed comment or two for Eric that I doubt he ever received. DuckDuckGo Schmidt+Anonymity (I know you don't need to, Tojo, you're probably more on top of this than I am) and you'll see that the man is promulgating a false dichotomy between Privacy and Anonymity. It's fine to be Private, he says, as long as you're not Anonymous. That's all the wedge that's needed. He is corporatism's and fascism's bosom buddy - and those aren't nice soft pillowy bosoms - those are duolithic vampire titties that suck their sustenance from the wilting corpse of personal autonomy. Using Google is no longer a safe option.
Offline
#12 2012-05-24 08:32:40
choad wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Change from Chrome to Chromium and run it in Privacy mode.
What's the Google affiliation with the Chromium Projects? I'm asking for the obvious reason, they'll build back doors into anything they touch.
In Chromium it's an open source project. You are welcome to download every line of the source code and inspect it for backdoors at your leisure. If there was anything hinky hidden in it, lots of people would know about them by now. No guarantee that Chrome hasn't added any "extra" secret sauce, but you are welcome to compile Chromium yourself, if you please.
Still, buy your good books for cash.
Offline
#14 2012-05-24 16:27:26
AladdinSane wrote:
You didn't think Facebook was FREE did you? Facebook has a single data center that draws about 30 megawatts continuously. That's 21.6 Billion watt-hours per month @ about $0.09 / kwH is about $1.9 million dollars a month, just in electricity for ONE of the three data centers they are building. Plus the salary of about $3500 employees.
Yet you pay nothing for their service. So where did you think they make the money? The magic money machine in Washington? Or maybe they all do it out of the goodness of their little fuzzy hearts...
Offline
#15 2012-05-24 20:13:53
Whatever, the cool kids have moved on to newer and better things; the only thing left on facebook is spinster aunts and grandmothers.
Say, didn't someone here try to setup a High-street facebook group a while back???
Offline
#16 2012-05-24 20:25:31
GooberMcNutly wrote:
AladdinSane wrote:
You didn't think Facebook was FREE did you? Facebook has a single data center that draws about 30 megawatts continuously. That's 21.6 Billion watt-hours per month @ about $0.09 / kwH is about $1.9 million dollars a month, just in electricity for ONE of the three data centers they are building. Plus the salary of about $3500 employees.
Yet you pay nothing for their service. So where did you think they make the money? The magic money machine in Washington? Or maybe they all do it out of the goodness of their little fuzzy hearts...
http://www.famousquotesabout.com/quoteI … ying-a.jpg
Whether Facebook makes $1 or $1 billion is of no consequence to me; however, they are like Google in terms of not giving a damn about people's privacy and security.
Offline
#17 2012-05-24 21:12:04
tojo2000 wrote:
Eric Schmidt has a penchant for saying creepy things, but you really are taking him out of context.
I've seen the man's homes in Greenwich and Nantucket. Can you tell me he's any different than the degenerates he enables?
~ click ~
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#18 2012-05-24 21:15:35
choad wrote:
tojo2000 wrote:
Eric Schmidt has a penchant for saying creepy things, but you really are taking him out of context.
I've seen the man's homes in Greenwich and Nantucket. Can you tell me he's any different than the degenerates he enables?
https://cruelery.com/sidepic/ericschmidt.png
~ click ~
It's not clear at all which degenerates you're referring to.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#19 2012-05-24 21:29:32
tojo2000 wrote:
It's not clear at all which degenerates you're referring to.
Schmidt wasn't specific, was he? Let's assume he was alluding to the Chinese.
Understand, ok? If the question sounds hostile and personal, it is. That's not to suggest you should take it personally.
Offline
#20 2012-05-24 21:36:55
choad wrote:
tojo2000 wrote:
It's not clear at all which degenerates you're referring to.
Schmidt wasn't specific, was he? Let's assume he was alluding to the Chinese.
Understand, ok? If the question sounds hostile and personal, it is. That's not to suggest you should take it personally.
So this is about the period during which Google pre-blocked results? I have a hard time getting my panties in a bunch over that. If you do business with China then you're supporting a regime that censors, no matter what the business is. It's not like other companies that I won't name who actively helped the Chinese government hunt down and arrest dissidents. It's not like the Chinese people were going to get uncensored results anyway. Even with the current system the same results are censored, just at a different layer. I prefer this way because it makes a statement, but the result is a no-op. However, I can completely understand why people would be disgusted with it. It was extremely controversial within Google as well.
By the way, I don't think he was specifically talking about China, although that's a good example. There are a lot of countries making noises about how they want to silo their Internet access. If enough of them do it that it starts to become the status quo, then it poses a real threat to the Internet as we've enjoyed it.
Offline
