Editorial

If you spy on me, at least do it openly

It's easy to blame Apple for the breach of their users privacy due to a flaw in their Safari browser. After all, you might reason, they wrote the software, and it's their fault for not finding the bug sooner. But that's really not a fair way of looking at it. Sure, you could argue that the world isn't fair, either, and therefore you aren't obligated to look at anything fairly, but I reject that argument: the blame falls mainly on Google and the others involved.

Why, you ask, do I single out Google? Other companies, like Gannett and Vibrant, were involved, too, weren't they? Don't get me wrong, those are fairly well known companies, but they don't come close to the level of ubiquity that Google has achieved in the life of the average person. Google is a Fortune 500 Company, but they're not acting like it. No, not at all; they're acting like Eastern European hackers. Not that I have anything against Eastern Europeans - it's just that there are a lot of hackers there. Just ask Wired.

At this point you may be wondering what the hell I am talking about. Let me explain. A few days ago, as loyal readers of Neowin will no doubt know, Google's dirty laundry spilled out into the open when it was alleged that they, along with the others I've already mentioned and some more besides, have been exploiting a bug in Apple's Safari browser and tracking users without their consent. You'd think a company who's privacy policy has been at the center of so much controversy might be just a tiny bit more careful, but that would require Google to change their whole business model, which isn't happening any time soon.

There's no such thing as perfect software. All of it has bugs, no matter who made it, no matter how hard they tried to make it perfect, flaws inevitably slip in. This is especially true of browsers. IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. From time to time, companies happen to run across such bugs while building software for platforms other than their own. In such situations, it is considered ethical to kindly inform the software maker of their error, so that it may be promptly patched, even if they happen to be your rival. It's just good manners, and it's good for the industry as a whole.

In this case, Google happened to find a bug in Safari which allowed them to trick the browser into accepting cookies without permission by tricking the browser into thinking the user was trying to submit a form, which they weren't. Rather than telling Apple so they could fix it, Google took a play from identity thieves and malware makers and decided to exploit the bug to their non-evil heart's content.

Some folks may rise to Google's defense, either because they don't see the problem here (doubtful), because they really love Google (possible), or because they really hate Apple (likely). I'm not trying to defend anyone here, and the only agenda that I have is that of a person who happens to value his privacy, thank you very much. Maybe it's dead to you, but not me. I intend to take the comforting blanket of privacy with me to my grave.

There's no two ways about it: Google did a very bad thing here. Anything else is just denial. I've been uncomfortable with Google's constant prying before, but at least I knew about it then. Doing something like this behind everyone's back is a different matter entirely, and it makes you wonder what other kinds of nasty tricks are going on behind the glass walls at Mountain View. Microsoft has pointed out that IE9 doesn't have any such flaws, and I certainly hope that's true, but if it did, do you think Google would let anyone know?

Telling your customers you are keeping track of what they do so you can feed them targeted ads is one thing, but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

So shame on you, Google, and everyone else who was involved in this. When you found the flaw in Safari, you should have alerted Apple immediately so it could be patched. But no! You decided to screw your customers out of their private information behind their backs.

Google Is Watching You image by Dr. Nour

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia developing new social network, apps for iOS and Android

Next Story

Rumor: Windows Phone Tango coming to China in March

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why, you ask, do I single out Google? Other companies, like Gannett and Vibrant, were involved, too, weren't they? Don't get me wrong, those are fairly well known companies, but they don't come close to the level of ubiquity that Google has achieved in the life of the average person.

Facebook does come close, and isn't even mentioned in the article.

"There's no such thing as perfect software"

But in Googles case, every bit of their s**t sucks!!

Have not and will not ever use ANYTHING of theirs!!
Not even close to the greatness that everyone seems to think they are. Just a bunch of idiots who follow what everyone else THINKS is cool!!

Kind of sounds just like Firefox, which I've noticed NOT everyone is clamoring about anymore, and Chrome. 2 other times I will NEVER use, at least not, and if I do, it will be the "other" versions of these programs like Palemoon, Waterfox, SRWare Iron, etc.......

In this case, Google happened to find a bug in Safari which allowed them to trick the browser into accepting cookies without permission by tricking the browser into thinking the user was trying to submit a form, which they weren't. Rather than telling Apple so they could fix it, Google took a play from identity thieves and malware makers and decided to exploit the bug to their non-evil heart's content.

Hey, guess what: Google did fix the webkit bug themselves 7 months ago.

Using the bug to track users was obviously wrong, there's no excuse for that, but you can't go blaming Google for not telling Apple when Google did in fact fix it. When it comes to the bug itself it's Apple's fault that it was still present in their browser.

Microsoft has pointed out that IE9 doesn't have any such flaws, and I certainly hope that's true, but if it did, do you think Google would let anyone know?

Cheap unwarranted shoot at Google, see above.

also tons of people are blocking google analytics cookies are *******s. lots of webmasters use that for website stats. those stats are helpful to webmasters like what operating systems visit our sites, the browsers, the regions, the sources, etc. it's extremely important and without it lots of webmaster would have no clue who has visted thier site and many other stats programs like awstats aren't complete enough. and lots of others charge a ton if you get a ton of visitors. many sites don't have the cash to spend 200.mo on stats from another company that does the exact same thing google analytics does (and sometimes tracks more and using the same methods) for free.

Using a private (self made browser) on Solaris Just ask the folks at waterfox for some code assistance. It's VERY minimal. Oh and also duck duck go is a nice search engine

I don't use Google anymore since my friend told me he once typed Google into the google search and he brought down the internet..
use BING...

Who *really* cares who tracks what? We all know we're being tracked, and has for years, so the only way to not get tracked is to be overly paranoid and use layers of protection - kinda like using five condoms at once while having sex. It works, but is bloody annoying and not very comfortable. I say let the corporations have their data. Bet it help them a lot knowing my nightly searches for "smiling licorice cameras".

Yep, it's true: Google are the next Microsoft. They said they wouldn't be, but they are. Which is a shame, because some of the things they do are great, like the SPDY project. But it's not the developers -- they just seem to have a really corrupted management.

Meph said,
Yep, it's true: Google are the next Microsoft. They said they wouldn't be, but they are. Which is a shame, because some of the things they do are great, like the SPDY project. But it's not the developers -- they just seem to have a really corrupted management.

Ironically, the 'evil' Microsoft wasn't even the 'Microsoft' people believed it was. Microsoft has never invaded privacy, and has jumped through hoops to try to kill any concern.

When Windows started offering 'feedback' on crashes to Microsoft, they created a massive automated non-human accessible system that obfuscated any non machine code crash related information. Yet people claimed Microsoft was 'spying' on them.

Even in the 90s, they were not the Bully or even technically a monopoly. It it wasn't for Orin Hatch and key industry players like Oracle, Dell, IBM, Sun, Novel, and Netscape there would have never been an investigation. These companies had motive and were greedy, it was more about their market losses to Microsoft because their products sucked than anything Microsoft was doing.

Dell was greedy as they wanted the better OEM deals, and then when customers complained, they blamed Microsoft. Dell was NOT forced to lock into an exclusive OS distribution contract.
*Which was common in the computing industry, and IBM used the same contracts for OS/2, but most OEMs wouldn't sign with IBM.

Out of the entire investigation of looking through millions of emails, they found a 'handful' of emails where employees and managers were angry with a company, which is very common in any company.

As for the DR-DOS issues, Microsoft had a few technical reasons to circumvent compatibility as any changes would have created a support nightmare for Microsoft. Windows was their software, if they didn't want it to run on DR-DOS, that was their choice, just like if I don't want my software to run on another platform, I can include code to prevent it from working on other platforms. This is not illegal, this is what developers do when they do not want the hassle of supporting an environment that they did not design their software to work. (Windows was moving to new internal 32bit memory handling and 32bit FS access, and there was no way Microsoft could guarantee DR-DOS would continue to work if there were changes in DR-DOS or updates to Windows.)
*And Microsoft paid them $155 Million in a settlement, that without the anti-trust compounded legal issues, Microsoft could have won against DR-DOS. (And $155 Million is more than DR-DOS could have possibly ever made during that timeframe.)

Microsoft tried to get Wordperfect and Lotus to write 'Windows' versions of their software, I remember the private and public correspondence between the companies, where Microsoft even offer to help financially support and give them access to developers to assist in creating a Windows version of the products. Both companies told Microsoft to go pound sand, and refused the help. A year later, When Word and Excel was 'patched' to run on Windows 3.x, the sales started to hurt Wordperfect and Lotus. (Word and Excel didn't even run on Windows 3.x for a long time, as Microsoft was always more focused on the Mac versions, as that is where Word and Excel made money. You could boot into 'real' mode and run the Windows 386/2.0 Word and Excel, but it was a nightmare.)

Then when Wordperfect did release a Windows Version, they bypassed the Windows font and printing systems, shipping their own printer drivers even, and it was buggy and horrible. So they blamed Microsoft for undocumented APIs, which if they had written Wordperfect to just use the Windows printing model, they wouldn't have had the problems, as the APIs were irrelevant, and easily discoverable if they freaking opened the DLLs like everyone else did.

Microsoft hasn't been perfect, but 'trying' to do the right thing has been more of their mission that people realize. Gates is an ethical person, and money always has meant very little to him. He was driven to expose people to technology and get computers in the hands of more people easier. Which he accomplished. (People forget that before getting married and building his house, he was worth Billions and yet still lived in the same Apartment for years.)

I was more referring to the IE6 fiasco, but still, that was very interesting. Thanks for writing that. And you're right. Thanks to the media, it's affected popular belief of what they're actually like.

I've been on the edge with Google last 2 years.
I've been wanting to track how many KB they been stealing from me and send them a bill charging them for the amount they SNOOPED UP! 1 KB = $ 1... Nah more!

rippleman said,
google and apple are the VERY COOLEST things for the latest "HATE FAD"... fads come and go...

Just like trolls like you. You come in here, troll, and then go. Ha!

We all know Google does this, Don't use Google. It really is that simple. Use Bing, Yahoo ect...... Same as Facebook, if you do not like what the FREE service is doing, don't use the FREE service. Just me I guess.

NoMansLand said,
We all know Google does this, Don't use Google. It really is that simple. Use Bing, Yahoo ect...... Same as Facebook, if you do not like what the FREE service is doing, don't use the FREE service. Just me I guess.

Your argument is invalid. Everyone does this. Nothing is "free" in this world. Advertising and data mining funds these services. And because Google makes the best trade for us, thinking people will continue to use it.

NoMansLand said,
We all know Google does this, Don't use Google. It really is that simple. Use Bing, Yahoo ect...... Same as Facebook, if you do not like what the FREE service is doing, don't use the FREE service. Just me I guess.

Oddly, Facebook, a social site, that you post tons of information on yourself has access to less information than Google does for an average Gmail user.

Facebook user protection policies are a core aspect of their model.

Microsoft has been working with Facebook to further increase their security models over the past couple of years as well, and DEMANDING more robust security and privacy from Facebook. Which is why there are a ton of privacy controls and default locks in Facebook now.

(Microsoft dumped MSN Groups and invested in Facebook. Instead of trying to compete, they decided to help make Facebook better and work directly with them.

Which offers a bit more 'faith' in Facebook, as Microsoft demands a high level of security and privacy. This is why SkyDrive/Live/Hotmail are so protected, that only the end user GUID from LiveID can be used to 'decrypt' your information on MS services, that also keeps Microsoft from being able to read the user's data.)

NoMansLand said,
We all know Google does this, Don't use Google. It really is that simple. Use Bing, Yahoo ect...... Same as Facebook, if you do not like what the FREE service is doing, don't use the FREE service. Just me I guess.

YOU assume everything is FREE. That makes you a moron.

thenetavenger said,

Oddly, Facebook, a social site, that you post tons of information on yourself has access to less information than Google does for an average Gmail user.

Facebook user protection policies are a core aspect of their model.

Microsoft has been working with Facebook to further increase their security models over the past couple of years as well, and DEMANDING more robust security and privacy from Facebook. Which is why there are a ton of privacy controls and default locks in Facebook now.

(Microsoft dumped MSN Groups and invested in Facebook. Instead of trying to compete, they decided to help make Facebook better and work directly with them.

Which offers a bit more 'faith' in Facebook, as Microsoft demands a high level of security and privacy. This is why SkyDrive/Live/Hotmail are so protected, that only the end user GUID from LiveID can be used to 'decrypt' your information on MS services, that also keeps Microsoft from being able to read the user's data.)

Cool, but then again Facebook was also exploiting this same bug.

Is Google actually doing anything different beginning the date of this new Privacy Act than they were prior, or are they just making you accept the terms to it now making it legal ?

Good editorial, and I agree wholeheartedly. I think however that anyone who thinks that Google wishes to respect your privacy is as naive as someone that thinks that the Oil companies want to care for the environment.

Invasion of privacy is what Google do, it's their primary source of income. But to exploit a browser flaw to aid their revenue stream puts them in the same league as malware writers.

I keep paraphrasing this quote in Google threads at the minute: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.". It happened to Microsoft in the 90's, it happened to Apple in the 2000s, and it'll happen to Google in to 2010s.

[u]Addendum[/u]
I also appreciate that while Google do want to track everything that we do on the internet, DigitalFox hinted toward it in his comment that this does have a benefit to us as users. It allows, potentially, more personalised search results and a user experience that is much more tailored to our own needs, and in an internet that contains almost an inexhaustible stream of garbage, this can improve our internetting immensely. It also gives us relevant advertisements, which can be all round more helpful to websites such as Neowin, who need our ad interest to support their income, and even to us as users, who see adverts that are relevant to our interests and make us more likely to click.

Edited by Majesticmerc, Feb 19 2012, 6:45pm :

I'm a Windows user, iPhone user, Windows Phone 7 user, PlayStation user and a Google search engine user, plus more companies i use products every single day...

So why did I just say that, because I'm no fanboy..

And I'll just say this:

This is just the beginning of finding out all the crap behind scenes Google is doing for gathering data and what it does with it (I'm also referring to the latest news about the US congress checking Google") ...

Why do I still use Google search engine?
Honestly? Well unfortunately I still haven't found a better one in terms of results...

Do I know that from a point of privacy, I have 0 when using Google?
Yes, but like I said, I'm waiting for something similar or better in results!

I've been using Bing for several months now (in Chrome lol) and I don't miss Google Search at all. Bing's search results are almost always what I'm looking for. In fact independent studies have shown Bing is more likely to give you the results you want the first time: http://www.itproportal.com/201...rate-google-experian-finds/

Set Bing as your default for a week, don't use Google at all, and see for yourself. I bet after a solid week of using only Bing you won't miss Google either. Don't let prejudices or biases cloud your judgement.

Best part: Bing gives you rewards points. They essentially pay you to use their search engine!

Nick Kessler said,
I've been using Bing for several months now (in Chrome lol) and I don't miss Google Search at all. Bing's search results are almost always what I'm looking for. In fact independent studies have shown Bing is more likely to give you the results you want the first time: http://www.itproportal.com/201...rate-google-experian-finds/

Set Bing as your default for a week, don't use Google at all, and see for yourself. I bet after a solid week of using only Bing you won't miss Google either. Don't let prejudices or biases cloud your judgement.

Best part: Bing gives you rewards points. They essentially pay you to use their search engine!

I tried to use Bing for a few days but the conclusion was that Google was just in another league, for example at the time I was doing AS Physics, I searched for Moments on Bing and got some celebrity rubbish, meanwhile Google gave me exactly what I needed.

thealexweb said,

I tried to use Bing for a few days but the conclusion was that Google was just in another league, for example at the time I was doing AS Physics, I searched for Moments on Bing and got some celebrity rubbish, meanwhile Google gave me exactly what I needed.

First thing that came up when I searched for "moments" on Bing was the physics one. I think it learns from your previous searches to know what you're looking for. Although I've never searched for "moments" until now to test your claim, I have searched for a lot of technical info on Bing, so maybe that's why I got the result I was looking for and not "celebrity rubbish" as you say you got.

Enron said,

First thing that came up when I searched for "moments" on Bing was the physics one. I think it learns from your previous searches to know what you're looking for. Although I've never searched for "moments" until now to test your claim, I have searched for a lot of technical info on Bing, so maybe that's why I got the result I was looking for and not "celebrity rubbish" as you say you got.

I just checked it again, they've updated it to almost match Google's however if you compare all the links of the first page on both searches Google's are slightly more relevant.

Nick Kessler said,
I've been using Bing for several months now (in Chrome lol) and I don't miss Google Search at all.

No offence but why are you using Chrome is you don't want to use Google? At least try Chromium which is the spyware free version of Chrome.

thealexweb said,

I just checked it again, they've updated it to almost match Google's however if you compare all the links of the first page on both searches Google's are slightly more relevant.

Alright well I'll give you that. Google still has the edge, but Bing is improving. Still needs a lot of work outside of the US though.

Digitalfox said,
I'm a Windows user, iPhone user, Windows Phone 7 user, PlayStation user and a Google search engine user, plus more companies i use products every single day...

So why did I just say that, because I'm no fanboy..

And I'll just say this:

This is just the beginning of finding out all the crap behind scenes Google is doing for gathering data and what it does with it (I'm also referring to the latest news about the US congress checking Google") ...

Why do I still use Google search engine?
Honestly? Well unfortunately I still haven't found a better one in terms of results...

Do I know that from a point of privacy, I have 0 when using Google?
Yes, but like I said, I'm waiting for something similar or better in results!

There ARE times Google search results are better, but 99% of the time Bing will get you what you want, and sometimes Bing is better than Google if you learn to use how it 'thinks'.

For concerned people, I tell them use Bing, and only if they don't get what they want, forward the search to Google.

Bing works by trying to figure out the 'undestanding' level of the person seeking the search. So if you put in terms in a layperson manner, it will return the popular things from this perspective. However, if you up your terminology, it will provide more technical results on any subject.

Google mixes the technical and non-technical in their results, so if you are technically minded, you might get more 'technical' answers from a single word or two search. However, if you use a 'bigger' word or add a technical term, Bing will spot you as more informed and get you better results.

Anthonyd said,

No offence but why are you using Chrome is you don't want to use Google? At least try Chromium which is the spyware free version of Chrome.

I use Chrome because it's the best browser, in my opinion. It's fast, secure, constantly updated, has the best interface, and it has the extensions I want.

Chromium is missing many features, most notably auto-updating. IE9 is nice but doesn't have the extensions I want (or spell check for that matter). Firefox... well enough said. Anyway, I've given them all a fair shot (even Safari) but I always come back to Chrome.

Using Chrome as my browser doesn't mean I have to use other Google products like Search and Gmail. Just like using IE doesn't mean you're tied to Bing and Hotmail.

Also, Chrome does let you opt out of usage tracking and even personalized ads.

Edited by Nick K, Feb 20 2012, 4:00am :

Nick Kessler said,

I use Chrome because it's the best browser, in my opinion. It's fast, secure, constantly updated, has the best interface, and it has the extensions I want.

Chromium is missing many features, most notably auto-updating. IE9 is nice but doesn't have the extensions I want (or spell check for that matter). Firefox... well enough said. Anyway, I've given them all a fair shot (even Safari) but I always come back to Chrome.

Using Chrome as my browser doesn't mean I have to use other Google products like Search and Gmail. Just like using IE doesn't mean you're tied to Bing and Hotmail.

Also, Chrome does let you opt out of usage tracking and even personalized ads.

Have you tried Firefox lately? UI isn't as nice as Chrome, but it's a better overall browser IMO and more polished. Chrome is awful at handling lots of images on a page, and has very choppy scrolling.

Misunderstanding of nomenclature. Safari "bug" is not a bug - it's a feature. And so Google is simply providing a better service to a more featured software. /s^2

Does the author know that the tracking is done only if the user has signed in and explicitly give permission to opt for that feature?? because this statement from the author is completely wrong("tracking users without their consent")

" but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them."
The cookies dont collect any personal information just an FYI.

There is so much hate in this article and thats not a sign of a good article/Writer...

" IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. "
That line to me shows pure hatred!!! No one is saying Chrome had no bug and others have!! A good article should weigh in both side of the story.

Edited by still1, Feb 19 2012, 6:22pm :

You'll never convince these paranoid people that they're just being paranoid. They're determined to hate Google out of ... ignorance I guess? "Wah Google is bad, but other services do the same thing and sometimes much more but we wuv them." *shrug*

still1 said,
Does the author know that the tracking is done only if the user has signed in and explicitly give permission to opt for that feature?? because this statement from the author is completely wrong("tracking users without their consent")

" but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them."
The cookies dont collect any personal information just an FYI.

There is so much hate in this article and thats not a sign of a good article/Writer...

" IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. "
That line to me shows pure hatred!!! No one is saying Chrome had no bug and others have!! A good article should weigh in both side of the story.


But aren't you opt in per default? Which means that when you first start the application ******** of infos are already sent before you opt out.

Anthonyd said,

But aren't you opt in per default? Which means that when you first start the application ******** of infos are already sent before you opt out.

when u create a Google account none of the Google service will be linked to it.. you have to manually go to each service and opt for the service like Google+, doc etc. when you create an account there is an option called "Enable Web History".. you can disable it and none is tracked.
So, before you start an application go and change the settings... Also, do anyone care to look what they were tracking? its the service like +1(it can be disabled too) you do on a page and things like that... if someone is cautious they should have read the privacy first and adjust it accordingly and i am sure no one would have read the privacy policy...
here is a link if you want to opt out http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/

still1 said,
Does the author know that the tracking is done only if the user has signed in and explicitly give permission to opt for that feature?? because this statement from the author is completely wrong("tracking users without their consent")

" but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them."
The cookies dont collect any personal information just an FYI.

There is so much hate in this article and thats not a sign of a good article/Writer...

" IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. "
That line to me shows pure hatred!!! No one is saying Chrome had no bug and others have!! A good article should weigh in both side of the story.

Do you know that not only Google but many other corporations and organizations track internet users with or without their permission. Even if you opt out of those things, this doesn't change a thing, you are still tracked and nothing is different, your setting is just off. Even if you have Google web history off, your history on google searches is still recorded, probably even outside google search, they probably install a tracking cookie so once you visit Google, you are already "infected".

You are being delusional, random guy, if you really think that by clicking some buttons, changing something in the settings or using NoScript or Ghostery you are invisible and hidden, you are lying to yourself.

The only way to stop being tracked is to pull out your internet cable. The only way to become less tracked is to use some browser like Opera or Firefox, or something that no one know (that probably is really old and lacks many important features).

THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT ORGANIZATIONS FROM TRACKING YOU. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.


GET USED TO BEING TRACKED, OR JUST STAY OFF THE INTERNET. It's that simple.

still1 said,
Does the author know that the tracking is done only if the user has signed in and explicitly give permission to opt for that feature?? because this statement from the author is completely wrong("tracking users without their consent")

" but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them."
The cookies dont collect any personal information just an FYI.

There is so much hate in this article and thats not a sign of a good article/Writer...

" IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. "
That line to me shows pure hatred!!! No one is saying Chrome had no bug and others have!! A good article should weigh in both side of the story.


Did you know that Google made an Advertising Cookie Opt-out Plugin (here: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/) for Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome. You will notice that Safari is NOT on that list. Why? Because Safari is set to block 3rd-party cookies by default. And if you did not change that setting, the plugin does exactly what Safari setting does.

Google words were:

Safari is set by default to block all third-party cookies. If you have not changed those settings, this option effectively accomplishes the same thing as setting the opt-out cookie.

After the article from the Wall Street Journal appeared, the text disappeared and was changed to:

If you're using any other browser, you can look for a common feature, which accomplishes the same as setting the DoubleClick opt-out cookie: Find a setting in your browser's settings that allows you to only accept cookies from sites you visit, or only "first-party cookies". This option may also be described as "blocking third-party cookies."

When you think that you are not being tracked while, in fact, you are and you are not being told, that is pretty much without consent, I believe.

The WSJ article : http://online.wsj.com/article_...QjAxMTAyMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html

still1 said,
Does the author know that the tracking is done only if the user has signed in and explicitly give permission to opt for that feature?? because this statement from the author is completely wrong("tracking users without their consent")

" but you simply do not exploit a bug to gain more information about them."
The cookies dont collect any personal information just an FYI.

There is so much hate in this article and thats not a sign of a good article/Writer...

" IE has bugs, Safari has bugs, and yes, children, so does Chrome. "
That line to me shows pure hatred!!! No one is saying Chrome had no bug and others have!! A good article should weigh in both side of the story.

If your facts were correct, I would agree...

Google's 'exploit' used Google+ to circumvent the tracking protection. So yes, people had to 'also' be Google+ users, but once logged into Google+, it gave them access to more than just 'cookies'.

Google+ also does not tell users that they will be subjected to browser monitoring, when they sign up for the service.

What Google's policies and EUL admit are damning enough, but this was even outside of that.

Google has made billions on insider information, selling trend data, and watching key people of power. It isn't 'just' about ads, or they would not be worth anymore than the other Ad companies that do well, and existed before and after Google. Ad revenue is big, but not Google's income big.

still1 said,

when u create a Google account none of the Google service will be linked to it.. you have to manually go to each service and opt for the service like Google+, doc etc. when you create an account there is an option called "Enable Web History".. you can disable it and none is tracked.
So, before you start an application go and change the settings... Also, do anyone care to look what they were tracking? its the service like +1(it can be disabled too) you do on a page and things like that...

Ok. I see how you can contradict yourself within the same paragraph. Shows how much of a credible source of information you are.

Duh. Many people care about being tracked. Don't you see people complaining about it?

still1 said,

if someone is cautious they should have read the privacy first and adjust it accordingly and i am sure no one would have read the privacy policy...

Sure, nobody read it. If nobody read it, then why is it there? To save Google's ass. Not our asses.

Obviously, it doesn't work and people don't like it.

Google should ask users at the instant where they steal information whether they want to allow the stealing of information. That's called EXPLICITLY ASKING FOR CONSENT.

still1 said,

here is a link if you want to opt out http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/

Are you ****ing kidding us?

Saex_Conroy said,

Do you know that not only Google but many other corporations and organizations track internet users with or without their permission.

So everybody is allowed to steal your information without your permission. Good to know.

Saex_Conroy said,

Even if you opt out of those things, this doesn't change a thing, you are still tracked and nothing is different, your setting is just off.

That's why it is illegal.

Saex_Conroy said,

Even if you have Google web history off, your history on google searches is still recorded, probably even outside google search, they probably install a tracking cookie so once you visit Google, you are already "infected".

That's why it is illegal.

Saex_Conroy said,

You are being delusional, random guy, if you really think that by clicking some buttons, changing something in the settings or using NoScript or Ghostery you are invisible and hidden, you are lying to yourself.

The only way to stop being tracked is to pull out your internet cable. The only way to become less tracked is to use some browser like Opera or Firefox, or something that no one know (that probably is really old and lacks many important features).

THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT ORGANIZATIONS FROM TRACKING YOU. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.


GET USED TO BEING TRACKED, OR JUST STAY OFF THE INTERNET. It's that simple.

Your solution is so moronic that you would just sit there and take it like Jesus. LOL How the **** do you get off calling everyone else an idiot? You sound like an idiot to me.

Edited by Jebadiah, Feb 20 2012, 12:49am :

Jebadiah said,

Your solution is so moronic that you would just sit there and take it like Jesus. LOL How the **** do you get off calling everyone else an idiot? You sound like an idiot to me.

What do you suggest then?

Saex_Conroy said,

What do you suggest then?

I recommend passing a law that makes tracking of any kind 100% illegal. All businesses that depend on it should be banned. Stalking is considered criminal, so why not online?

This will in turn be an incentive for companies to produce tangible software instead of vaporware such as "ads" to earn money. Companies that provide any useful goods will automatically survive because people will pay for things that provide value to them. For example, people pay for good quality music. People pay for Wikipedia. People pay for NPR and PBS. People pay for Cable. All of these are examples of businesses that provide tangible goods of value and survive because people find value in having them around.

No business should get away with making money from vapor, which is what Google is a supplier of.

Currently, there is ZERO regulation of such activity online, which is why business models like Google's get away with this criminal activity based on vaporware.