GOOGLE Globalno Dobro ili Zlo

Mnogo pratis X-Files..

Medjutim, ukoliko korisnik koristi Google Toolbar ili Google Deskbar onda je sasvim moguce identifikovati korisnika od strane Google-a jer za to nisu potrebni nikakvi kolacici. Google Toolbar/Deskbar su instalirani kod samog korisnika i mogu da kreiraju i posalju jedinstvenu identifikaciju nazad prilikom koriscenja, cime omogucavaju google-u da razvija korisnicki profil.

No, to je sasvim druga prica, koju nisi ni spomenuo.

Slag na tortu.... Poslednji u nizu udara na privatnost predstavlja Google Desktop Search, koji analizira i indeksira fajlove na vasim diskovima i usput se javlja kuci saljuci "statisticke informacije o lokalnim pretragama". Vasi podaci, tvrdi Google nece biti poslati centrali - a i cemu to, kada oni vec znaju vise o vama od vas samih?

alex: Ako uspes da povezes nekoliko unikatnih ID google kolacica sa tvojim profilom i pritom uspes da objasnis to bez "teorija zavere" argumenata, mozda (ali MOZDA) cu da se zamislim oko toga.

RobertNestaMarley: U daljem citiranju izvestaja CIA se navodi da kolacici uopste nisu potrebni i da je Google u stanju da stvori vas profil tj. prefernecu i bez njih

RobertNestaMarley: Sigurno se sada pitate ako Google kolacic istice 2038 godine..

Unix Time-om

RobertNestaMarley: Kolacica

RobertNestaMarley: U daljem citiranju izvestaja CIA se navodi da kolacici uopste nisu potrebni i da je Google u stanju da stvori vas profil tj. prefernecu i bez njih

Uprkos pozitivnoj slici o najmoćnijem svetskom pretraživaču, javljaju se i teze da se Google pretvara u servis koji zastupa neke manje altruistične interese. Da li je to samo logična posledica popularnosti i sveobuhvatnosti ovog pretraživača ili je u pitanju još jedna globalna obaveštajna zavera?

Google se navodno trudi da za svaku vašu pretragu obezbedi najkvalitetnije rezultate, sortirane od najboljih ka manje relevantnim.

Ali, lista uglavnom počinje tzv.”sponzorisanim likovima”

na prvih n strana ima linkova ka vama potpuno beskorisnim stranicama, čiji je jedini zajednički imenitelj mnoštvo Google oglasa vezanih za vaše ključne reči.Autori ovakih stranica su stručnjaci za pozicioniranje stranica na Google-u

pobornici Inernet privatnosti bunili su se protiv Google "kolacica" koji sadrze jedinstveni ID broj

Google bi mogao da analizira tekst svih vasih poruka koje ste napisali ili primili

Jedina "kvaka" je u tome sto se za koriscenje ovog servisa morate registrovati tj. da upisete svoje licne podatke

Slag na tortu.... Poslednji u nizu udara na privatnost predstavlja Google Desktop Search

Zasto Google zaposljava bivse agente NSA i CIA?

Google na svojim severima prakticno drzi kopiju Inerneta i u poziciji je da odluci da li nesto postoji ili ne. Da li tu prednost koristi?

Ali Google skuplja informacije dok si on line tj. dok ti je browser ukljucen i dok si na njihovoj stranici i dok vrsis pretragu i ides na linkove sa Google-ovih stranica. Tako da ti nahadno automatsko brisanje kolacica i ne pomaze nesto mnogo

we took recent entries that were referred from searchers at Google who clicked on our CIA on Campus site. The fact that the user clicked on a link from the Google search results page caused their Google search terms to appear in our log:

www.google.ca/search?hl=en&...ent+&btnG=Search&meta=

www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&...hom%3F+by+Carol+Cina&meta=

www.google.ca/search?q=CIA&...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.ca/search?q=cia&...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.ca/search?q=psychol...ie=UTF-8&start=40&sa=N

www.google.com./search?q=Hadle...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.com.au/search?q=dut...ie=UTF-8&start=60&sa=N

www.google.com.ph/search?q=Cen...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.com.tr/search?q=j.m...;ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...O-8859-1&q=cia+recruitment

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...suicide&btnG=Google+Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=CiA+recruitment

www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=McCone+Commission

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...esident&btnG=Google+Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...ion+cia&btnG=Google+Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=biomedical+in+CIA

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...+McCone&btnG=Google+Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...hester+Institute+of+Technology

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...s+at+Michigan+State+University

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...+africa&btnG=Google+Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...=%22AAA%22+%2B+social+sciences

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...raduating+1941&btnG=Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...ential+persons&btnG=Search

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...ie=UTF-8&q=cia+recruitment

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=cia+statue

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...ead+dictators+and+rioting+mobs

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...ment+michigan+state+university

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...generation+x+military+veterans

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...UTF-8&q=history+of+the+OSS

www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...8&safe=off&q=CHAOS+cia

www.google.com/search?hl=th&am...%89%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%B2

www.google.com/search?num=100&...gordon+craig%22+german+history

www.google.com/search?q=%22CIA...l=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1

www.google.com/search?q=Rampar...tion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?q=cia&am...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.com/search?q=cia+me...ie=UTF-8&start=20&sa=N

www.google.com/search?q=clergy...ie=UTF-8&start=40&sa=N

www.google.com/search?q=grayso...amp;hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?q=john+h...sity&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?q=mcmich...;scoring=d&tab=nw&sa=N

www.google.com/search?q=rit%20...sure&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?q=stanfo...irefox-a&start=10&sa=N

www.google.com/search?q=tufts+newspaper&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

www.google.com/search?sourceid...&q=%22RIT%22+AND+%22CIA%22

www.google.de/search?q=cia&...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.de/search?q=how+to+...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.it/search?q=cia&...ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

www.google.se/search?hl=sv&...=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=


The IP address that allowed us to look up where you are coming from is on the same log line as the referrer information that shows your search terms. By putting the two together, we frequently know who you are and what you are thinking.

@Ivan Dimkovic

Pa bez kolacica nikako, ali ako koristis neku od google pomocni aplikacija veoma lako, npr za sad se zna da se to radi pomocu google toolbara-a i deskbar-a, a za sta sve se jos ne zna, vjerovatno za svaku google app koja za rad zahteva izlaz na net, a to je bas svaka.

ja sam jako srecan zbog toga sto search vise nije "glup" vec na osnovu moje istorije pretrage moze da me usluzi bolje.

Cookie ID nema blage veze sa licnim podacima.

Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal

Google offers more storage for your email than other Internet service providers that we know about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it. Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of time. For a few months they showed a note saying that messages left in the trash folder for 30 days would be automatically deleted, but many users reported that this never happened. Now that message, which is still present for the spam folder, is gone from the trash folder. Google wants very much to get to know you better.

Google has been spinning their original position in press interviews, and with an informal page described as "a few words about privacy and Gmail." When we see fresh material from Google, we check the modification date at the bottom of the terms-of-use page and privacy page for Gmail. If these dates are still April 6 and April 8, we know that nothing has changed. Google can modify these pages too, any way they want and whenever they want, unilaterally. But at least these two pages carry slightly more legal weight than other pages, because Google should attempt to notify users of significant changes in these formal policies.

A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been illegal. For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish. All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public." Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil," and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong interpretation of Google's actual position! Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is different on issues that matter.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.

Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion. Why should we send email to Gmail accounts under such draconian conditions?

Problem 2: Google's policies do not apply

The phrasing and qualifiers in the Gmail privacy policy are creepy enough, but nothing in any of Google's policies or public statements applies to those of us who don't have Gmail accounts. Google has not even formally stated in their privacy policy that they will not keep a list of keywords scanned from incoming email, and associate these with the incoming email address in their database. They've said that their advertisers won't get personally identifiable information from email, but that doesn't mean that Google won't keep this information for possible future use. Google has never been known to delete any of the data they've collected, since day one. For example, their cookie with the unique ID in it, which expires in 2038, has been tracking all of the search terms you've ever used while searching their main index.

Matt Cutts, a software engineer at Google since January 2000, used to work for the National Security Agency.

Keyhole, the satellite imaging company that Google acquired in October 2004, was funded by the CIA.

"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." — Google CEO Eric Schmidt, February 9, 2005

You can use Scroogle to get Google's results without the tracking !

no ads · 28 languages · also scrapes Yahoo


Problem 3: A massive potential for abuse

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?

Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.


Problem 4: Inappropriate ad matching

We don't use Gmail, but it is safe to assume that the ad matching is no better in Gmail, than it is in news articles that use contextual ad feeds from Google. Here's a screen shot that shows an inappropriate placement of Google ads in a news article. We also read about a lawyer who is experimenting with Gmail. He sent himself a message, and discovered that the law practice footer he uses at the bottom of all of his email triggered an ad for a competing law firm.

Another example is seen in the Google ads at the bottom of this story about Brandon Mayfield. There are two ads. One mentions sexual assault charges (sex has nothing to do with the story), and the other is about anti-terrorism. The entire point of this article, as well as a New York Times piece on May 8, 2004, is that a lawyer has had his career ruined due to overreaction by the FBI, based on disputed evidence. He was arrested as a material witness and his home and office were searched. The NYT (page A12) says that "Mr. Mayfield was arrested before investigators had fully examined his phone records, before they knew if he had ever met with any of the bombing suspects, before they knew if he had ever traveled to Spain or elsewhere overseas. His relatives said he had not been out of the United States for 10 years." The only evidence is a single fingerprint on a plastic bag, and some FBI officials have raised questions about whether this print is a match. While Mr. Mayfield will get his day in court, it appears that Google's ads have already convicted him, and for good measure added some bogus sexual assault charges as well. Would Mr. Mayfield be well-advised to send email to Gmail account holders to plead his case?

The Wichita Eagle is pleased to present Google's recommendation for an alarm company that can "protect your home and family." One tiny problem is that the trigger for this ad is an article about an alarm installer who worked for this company for 14 years, while moonlighting as a serial killer.

Our last example shows three ads fed by Google at the bottom of a Washington Post column titled "Gmail leads way in making ads relevant." The columnist argues that Google's relevant ads improve the web, and therefore she finds nothing objectionable about Gmail. These Google-approved ads offer PageRank for sale, something which only a year ago, Google would have considered high treason. Yes, these ads are "relevant" -- the column is about Google, and the ads are about PageRank. But here's the point: A relevant ad that shows poor judgment is much worse than an irrelevant ad that shows poor judgment. The ads at the bottom of her column disprove her pro-Google arguments. She has no control over this, and is probably not even aware that it happened.

Most writers, even if they are only writing an email message instead of a column in a major newspaper, have more respect for their words than Google does. Don't expect these writers to answer their Gmail.

Evo nekih informacija vezanih za vasu IP adresu u cilju dokazivanja kako se uz pomoc internet adrese moze doci do
"personally identifiable information."

Jednostavno ne postoji niko na ovom svetu ko moze da me ubedi da Google ne zloUpotrebljava informacije u cilju Sve mocnog Dolara!

Drugim recima Bavice se "drugom stranom medaljona"

Ja se vodim time da Google ima pristup velikom broju informacija i da moze sa njima da radi sta hoce bez icijeg znanja i odobrenja.

Naravno Google-a ne zanimaju mi "smrtnici" vec njima bitini ljudi. Jednostavno ne postoji niko na ovom svetu ko moze da me ubedi da Google ne zloUpotrebljava informacije u cilju Sve mocnog Dolara! i tacka (.)

I trudicu se svim silama da dokazem svoje teze i prezentujem ih sirokim narodnim
masama.

Shodno tome u izradi je Anti Google site. Koji ce obradjivati sve strukture i elemetne Googla. Drugim recima Bavice se "drugom stranom medaljona"

Ako je tebi zarada = zloupotreba onda mislim da imas ozbiljan problem sa predstavom o svetu u kojem zivis. Sto pre preporucujem neku dobru knjigu iz organizacije drustva i ekonomije, cisto da skontas da nije nikakav greh zaradjivati pare.

Ivan Dimkovic:
Ja to nemam na mom kompu... pretpostavljam da uz taj softver dolazi i EULA gde pise sta Google uzima od tebe... citajte EULA pre nego sto instalirate softver.

Ivan Dimkovic:
Pitanje: u obicnom google searchu... gde vi uopste dajete Google-u do znanja ko ste? Taj cookie je potpuno anoniman i moze se uvek brisati.

RobertNestaMarley:
U pravu si Google je cool i ga prosto volimo, a sta ce Google biti za 10 godina? Kako znas da Google ove informacije koristi da bi tebi pruzio sto bolju uslugu? Ko moze da garantuje za sta se koriste sve informacije?

RobertNestaMarley:
I na kraju Kada bolje razmislim odustajem od ove teme ona ovom forumu jer koliko vidim nema ni p od podrske. Svi razmisljate lokalno dok ja pisem globalno. Ne razumevanje, vickasti komentari... Zasto bih trosio vreme i zivce na sve to. Niko nije stao ni da razmisli svi su samo osuli paljbu.

Zavrsio sam srednju ekonomsku skolu i ne trebaju mi dodatne knjige niti tvoje pametovanje. Zarada je ok dok je legalna. Ali ako se zloupotrebom dolazi do $ na neLegalan nacin... druga prica zar ne.

I na kraju Kada bolje razmislim odustajem od ove teme ona ovom forumu jer koliko vidim nema ni p od podrske. Svi razmisljate lokalno dok ja pisem globalno. Ne razumevanje, vickasti komentari... Zasto bih trosio vreme i zivce na sve to. Niko nije stao ni da razmisli svi su samo osuli paljbu.

Pored toga, na prvih n strana ima linkova ka vama potpuno beskorisnim stranicama, čiji je jedini zajednički imenitelj mnoštvo Google oglasa vezanih za vaše ključne reči.Autori ovakih stranica su stručnjaci za pozicioniranje stranica na Google-u, kojima se ne isplati da vam daju ikakav sadržaj – oni samo žele da vi kliknete na jedan od GoogleAd-ova, čime zaradjuju oni, Google, i kompanija ni čiji ste sajt otišli.