Should we be paranoid about the new Google?

[van]

I've been hearing some bad things about Google's new privacy agreement
that takes effect March 1st.
Anyone have any thoughts about this before the Google Thought Police
come and round us all up?; - )

[TD]

Why acknowledge paranoia only now? Big Brother and it's
**constituents** have not just arrived. They've *been here and built
well-cemented-in-and-bunkered-colonies, over, under, sideways and down
our noses. Be happy it is merely 2012 and just carry on, on March 2nd
like it's any other previous century.

-TD

[The MAN]

"Privacy"? What privacy? It doesn't really exist these days.

We get all excited about "free" email, only to be bombarded by
Google ads, and at their mercy as they collect consumer data on all
of us, and are able to read our most "private" emails.

Just assume all the websites you visit, and all the emails you
write are public domain, and you'll be ok.........

[Ric]

The Yahoo Jazz Guitar Group spends a lot of time on this and similar
topics...

[Greg D]

On Feb 3, 5:43 pm, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think we should be paranoid about everything. That way we're bound
to be right! :)

Companies have been tracking our browsing habits for years via
cookies. Google is just trying to bring it all undef one roof.

This is my take: that the once seemingly endless choice on the web is
becoming smaller as power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands.
To wit:

* Google rules already rules the search engine world and is head-to-
head with FB for providing targeted content at individuals based on
the stuff they know about us. They are trying to take over the desktop
by making the OS irrelevant by making apps run in the browser
(Chrome). They want to own the cloud of most often used desktop apps
with their Google Apps. Their vulnerability? Probably nothing.

* FB rules the social networking and gathers data about us that makes
Google salivate. Advertisers and investors think FB is worth billions
as we'll soon see with their IPO. Their vulnerability? Cell phone
texting; maybe hand-held mobile devices altogether; we'll see.

* Twitter rules cell phone broadcasting.

* The few large behinds-the-scenes companies that insidiously gather
data about us via cookies and little watchdog malware apps on our PCs.

The effects of this consolidation of power include:

* The online campaign by a large content producer and the search
engine king that had an effect on US govt policy that set out to
protect the digital rights of content producers.

* The use of Twitter and FB to organize the Arab Spring movement.

* Targeted marketing of advertisements, news, and other content. now
see sites I've visited like MF showing up in windows of other sites I
browse for content.

There is a real fear among open-government/democracy/social equity
advocates that:

1. Targeted marketing of content/news can be used to sway public
opinion by being able to target individuals on a basis not even
dreamed about 10 years ago.

2. Targeted marketing limits our perspective on the world by limiting
our choices. That as targeted marketing becomes stronger and more
embedded, it will become harder to find alternate sources of opinions
and news since the targeted marketing model will be following you to
ensure you only see what their model says you should see.

3. As more and more print sources dry up and TV outlets consolidate
around two extremes of the political spectrum, preserving the last
bastion of democractic access to content - the web - becomes
impossible.

4. The technology have-nots are falling farther and farther behind as
more and more govt services move to the web since it is now becoming
increasingly easier for govts to do so. Govts can save money by
closing up brick 'n mortar outlets, which negatively impacts those who
can least afford it.

5. That once power is fully consolidated and competition on the web
and perhaps the desktop is quieted, governments perhaps along with the
private sector will exert even more control over the web thus skewing
what we see and hear and ultimately how we view the world. We've seen
Twitter and Google collaborate with governments to limit free speech.
And if you can collapse free speech outlets down to one or two
microphones just think of the mindset you can create.

[Frisbieinstein]

Google refused to let me log in until I gave them my phone number.

Facebook refused to let me log in until I identified the faces of ten
friends.

They said it was for security. Sure. Right.

[The MAN]

Craigslist does the same thing: Security code sent to your
cell phone number, which you are forced to give if you want to post an
ad.

This makes it easier for law enforcement to catch a Craigslist
rapist or killer, but there is obviously a flip side to any coin...

[The MAN]

So right there, we see that the people in general have also been
empowered by the web, but at the same time, enslaved by it to some
degree.

Gains can be a Loss......

[TD]

>       Gains can be a Loss......- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The web is a web.

[thomas]

On Feb 3, 5:43 pm, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Use this one instead:

http://duckduckgo.com/

[Greg D]

Well put and very deep.

[van]

Thanks, Tom. Now, what's the best way to access this NG without using
the G word?

[TD]

Try the F word.

[Nil]

On 03 Feb 2012, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:

What part of the policy bothers you?

(I haven't read the new agreement yet.)

[Tim McNamara]

In article <Xns9FF2A9C...@127.0.0.1>,

There is less ability to opt out of Google stalking you on the Internet
to track your interests, serve you targeted advertising and sell data
about your Internet activities to others.

On March 1 I will be pulling the plug on my Google account. Fini. I'll
pick a different default search engine. And I am sure they will really
notice my protest. Ha!

--
This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in
unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.

Theodore Roosevelt

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-04 12:41:03 +0000, Greg D said:

> I think we should be paranoid about everything. That way we're bound
> to be right! :)

Sure, be paranoid about everything but the validity of conspiracy theories.

> Companies have been tracking our browsing habits for years via
> cookies.

And for the most part doing almost nothing with that data. It's only
been in recent years with companies that have the most money to throw
at it that "cookies" really provide anything other than a utility to
the user: "Where was I last?"

> Google is just trying to bring it all undef one roof.
>
> This is my take: that the once seemingly endless choice on the web is
> becoming smaller as power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands.
> To wit:
>
> * Google rules already rules the search engine world and is head-to-
> head with FB for providing targeted content at individuals based on
> the stuff they know about us. They are trying to take over the desktop
> by making the OS irrelevant by making apps run in the browser
> (Chrome). They want to own the cloud of most often used desktop apps
> with their Google Apps. Their vulnerability? Probably nothing.

I only use Google for searching, the practical usage of that (for both
Google and its clients) is only in the aggregate. I am .5% of the
searches for an unreleased 1950's Japanese film this month. They don't
really do anything with "what is Gerry searching for". Unless I'm
investigated for "criminality". I should be okay in that regard until
Romney takes office, whereupon being a "non-Republican" may well
conflate with anti-capitalist islamist socialist terrorism… again. :-)
<---

> * FB rules the social networking and gathers data about us that makes
> Google salivate. Advertisers and investors think FB is worth billions
> as we'll soon see with their IPO. Their vulnerability? Cell phone
> texting; maybe hand-held mobile devices altogether; we'll see.

I'm not sure what you mean by "vulnerability". Vulnerable to a
non-commercial entity, .e.g. criminal enterprise? Fortunately I bailed
on FB after a few months of the noise.

> * Twitter rules cell phone broadcasting.

Again that counts me out. I get enough random noise from the barking
of neighborhood dogs. Better content too!

> * The few large behinds-the-scenes companies that insidiously gather
> data about us via cookies and little watchdog malware apps on our PCs.

Got a mac, so no malware. I've never heard cookies amounting to
anything of any value, despite their frequent reference as trojan
horses and soul-thieves and such. Please provide any links for
clarification if you got 'em.

> The effects of this consolidation of power include:
>
> * The online campaign by a large content producer and the search
> engine king that had an effect on US govt policy that set out to
> protect the digital rights of content producers.

I think you know the "protections" that were involved there were to
protect large commercial enterprise at the expense of American
liberties, don't you?

> * The use of Twitter and FB to organize the Arab Spring movement.

Of this, there is no doubt, and myriad others including the recent
protests in Russia, Occupy Wallstreet and other bona-fide grassroots
activity.

> * Targeted marketing of advertisements, news, and other content. now
> see sites I've visited like MF showing up in windows of other sites I
> browse for content.

Much of which I don't see as I have a lot of traps for such installed
in my browser.

> There is a real fear among open-government/democracy/social equity
> advocates that:
>
> 1. Targeted marketing of content/news can be used to sway public
> opinion by being able to target individuals on a basis not even
> dreamed about 10 years ago.

The efficacy and ubiquity of propaganda has never been more pronounced
with the Americans United ruling leading the pack--wholly unrelated to
the above technological expansions.

> 2. Targeted marketing limits our perspective on the world by limiting
> our choices. That as targeted marketing becomes stronger and more
> embedded, it will become harder to find alternate sources of opinions
> and news since the targeted marketing model will be following you to
> ensure you only see what their model says you should see.

I disagree that having more targeting lessens your access to more
sources. Had the "antipiracy bill" gone through it would have become a
tool for killing "alternative" sources of opinion.

> 3. As more and more print sources dry up and TV outlets consolidate
> around two extremes of the political spectrum, preserving the last
> bastion of democractic access to content - the web - becomes
> impossible.

Sadly true, particularly if the two extremes are the far-right and the
centrist.

> 4. The technology have-nots are falling farther and farther behind as
> more and more govt services move to the web since it is now becoming
> increasingly easier for govts to do so. Govts can save money by
> closing up brick 'n mortar outlets, which negatively impacts those who
> can least afford it.

The complete acquiescence to migration to the net has killed or is
killing multiple industries, among them the sales of print media,
music, clothing, appliances, technology and myriad other objects.

> 5. That once power is fully consolidated and competition on the web
> and perhaps the desktop is quieted, governments perhaps along with the
> private sector will exert even more control over the web thus skewing
> what we see and hear and ultimately how we view the world. We've seen
> Twitter and Google collaborate with governments to limit free speech.

I've yet to see this limitation.

> And if you can collapse free speech outlets down to one or two
> microphones just think of the mindset you can create.

I'm surprised that you haven't indicated how vulnerable we are as a
national enterprise, as well as a social culture to cyber warfare. The
right hack can bring down the entire net in the US making it impossible
to get access to shipping records for the operation and stock of
grocery stores, banking, the operation of water, gas, petrol systems
and electricity--it's practically endless the tasks that have been
relegated to internet operation and access. If it were crushed for,
say, two months, this nation would be in total chaos.
--
There will be no economic recovery without addressing taxes:
http://tinyurl.com/76pqm4q

[Gerry]

I never have had a problem with this. I don't, in theory, have a cell phone.

[Gerry]

Are you serious? Really? Try this;

Forte Agent - http://tinyurl.com/4l0p

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-07 06:31:45 +0000, Tim McNamara said:

> In article <Xns9FF2A9C...@127.0.0.1>,
> Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Feb 2012, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
>>
>>> I've been hearing some bad things about Google's new privacy
>>> agreement that takes effect March 1st.
>>> Anyone have any thoughts about this before the Google Thought
>>> Police come and round us all up?; - )
>>
>> What part of the policy bothers you?
>>
>> (I haven't read the new agreement yet.)
>
> There is less ability to opt out of Google stalking you on the Internet
> to track your interests, serve you targeted advertising and sell data
> about your Internet activities to others.
>
> On March 1 I will be pulling the plug on my Google account. Fini. I'll
> pick a different default search engine. And I am sure they will really
> notice my protest. Ha!

Well, you gotta protect yourself. What will you be using.

Also, upstream, I forgot to mention that most moden browsers have the
option to block cookes from 3rd parties and advertisers, or altogether.
Also even location indications for such services can be rejected.

Flip a bit, save your soul!

[Tim McNamara]

In article <2012020809361418686-address@domaincom>,

Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:

> Got a mac, so no malware.

So far. As a long term Mac user (26+ years) I am aware that there is no
reason for the platform to be invulnerable, and as it grows (Apple is
now the world's leading brand of personal computing products between
Macs and the iPad, and way out there if you include the iPhone) those
systems will be targeted.

The hackability of Macs has been demonstrated.

[335]

On Feb 7, 12:31 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns9FF2A9CB8688nil...@127.0.0.1>,

>
>  Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> > On 03 Feb 2012, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
>
> > > I've been hearing some bad things about Google's new privacy
> > > agreement that takes effect March 1st.
> > > Anyone have any thoughts about this before the Google Thought
> > > Police come and round us all up?; - )
>
> > What part of the policy bothers you?
>
> > (I haven't read the new agreement yet.)
>
> There is less ability to opt out of Google stalking you on the Internet
> to track your interests, serve you targeted advertising and sell data
> about your Internet activities to others.
>
> On March 1 I will be pulling the plug on my Google account.  Fini.  I'll
> pick a different default search engine.  And I am sure they will really
> notice my protest.  Ha!
>

what do you use for standard email?

won't the other search engine companies be doing pretty much the same
thing with the info they have on you?

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-09 02:41:52 +0000, Tim McNamara said:

> In article <2012020809361418686-address@domaincom>,
> Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> Got a mac, so no malware.
>
> So far. As a long term Mac user (26+ years) I am aware that there is no
> reason for the platform to be invulnerable, and as it grows (Apple is
> now the world's leading brand of personal computing products between
> Macs and the iPad, and way out there if you include the iPhone) those
> systems will be targeted.
>
> The hackability of Macs has been demonstrated.

Right. But so far, no malware or viruses. It is certainly possible
and eventually be a reality, as is the end of my life and that of
Earth. Until then, it's party time!

[David J. Littleboy]

If you do email through your local ISP, then only that ISP has the
possibility of stalking you.

There was life before gmail...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<e618c686-5a3a-47ab...@uc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

I have an ISP and use them for my e-mail and Usenet access. I use Mail
for reading and sending e-mail and MT-Newswatcher for Usenet.

> won't the other search engine companies be doing pretty much the same
> thing with the info they have on you?

I don't have any accounts with Yahoo or Bing et al, whereas I have
accounts with several Google properties (YouTube, a couple of blogs,
calendars, etc. Those will all be nuked now that Google is seeking to
consolidate them and integrate their tracking data from various accounts
into a nice package of privacy invasion and sale to the highest bidder).