Anyone else stop using Google?

[slidey]

Originally Posted by bluesea

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

I haven't been able to log out of the entire Google ecosystem, yet.

So far as I can gather, I depend only on their Gmail service.

Search -> DuckDuckGo default on Firefox
Browser -> Firefox
Google chat -> Whatsapp/Telegram
Google + -> never signed in
Google Hangouts -> Facetime/Skype
Google Maps -> Don't log in, or set your location and then turn Data OFF

Also, I spent close to an hour a while back going through all the Privacy settings and removing all of the wonderful auto opt-in's Google had so thoughtfully enrolled me into.

[happycampyer]

Not long ago, Tim Cook made a pithy observation: "A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product." George Orwell was mostly right, although he was off by a couple of decades. I wonder how a company like DuckDuckGo makes money?

[professerr]

Originally Posted by nicrump

tuen off location services, clean cache and temp files and as en extra measure use a proxy server when you want an un-tuned full query return.

Still might not work. Each person's browser settings and similar other variables are remarkably unique and can be easily used to track, and eventually, identify you. Here's a place you can check and see if you are unique: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

I believe this method is already used in mainstream sites.

[unterhausen]

I use duckduckgo sometimes. Google has a bad habit of guessing what you want based on things they know about you. Well, sometimes I just want what I searched for. It can be really frustrating when you do a search for something, and it isn't the right thing, and then you change the search term to get what you really want and they essentially go back to what they served up for the previous search term.

I had duckduckgo as my default for a long time. Unfortunately, when I'm hunting spammers google is a lot better at it so I switched back

[fuzzalow]

I am concerned about this topic while also being not concerned about it. And the reason for this ambivalence centers around my perception as to how the data that is acquired about my online activity is used:

1. as merely one number component to derive an aggregate projected whole or,
2. as surveillance of individual activity to intrude on my privacy even if for "beneficial" commercial or consumer ends or service offerings

Web-based relevance, and hence financial value, is driven by the underlying numbers of what an be aggregated to drive advertising. I don't have much concern for my search or browser activity getting sloshed into a pool of this size because I see the goal and motivation in my web activity as less individual and more demographic. Of course, I also know that computing power makes it easy to parse and analyze aggregate pool data to the granularity of smaller groupings to reconstruct an identity representative of me if there was the need to target a "me-type" demographic profile. So basically for this kind or research, I have little to no privacy concerns.

To zero-in on me specifically, I'm not all that concerned either. Call me naive. There is not all that interesting to find out. I dunno who would want to spy on me in the paranoid, threatening way that is hinted about in conversations such as this. Unless the ominous "THEY" or Big Brother get at medical records or attorney/client transcripts, everything else is already out there or can be data-mined and composited back to replicate pretty much everything I do.

The credit card companies already know far more about you than the effort Google is willing to devote to find out about any one specific individual. The IRS already knows all they need to know about any US citizen. Privacy concerns for me center around intent and how intrusive the sampling. For example Web browsing I do not care about but I would never submit to a DNA swab unless lawfully enforced to do so. The SCOTUS decision last term granted equivalence of DNA to fingerprints.

I do not live in fear. Call me naive. If I have truly missed or misconceived the actual danger I'd be grateful if someone could explain to me otherwise.

[daker13]

Originally Posted by biker72

I use the incognito mode in Google Chrome. No record of where you've been.
There are a number of things that you can turn off in Chrome.

I do think Google has made some improvements with respect to privacy... probably because their previous stance ('what have you got to hide?') was hurting their bottom line.

[thegunner]

Originally Posted by daker13

I do think Google has made some improvements with respect to privacy... probably because their previous stance ('what have you got to hide?') was hurting their bottom line.

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

[daker13]

Originally Posted by thegunner

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'

http://www.computerworld.com/article...-to-hide-.html

[fuzzalow]

Completely different set of rules for privacy concerns where it concerns private commercial enterprise like Google. Although I am not overly troubled by what Google may do with the information they glean from my internet activity, I am supportive of those that desire anonymity. I'm not sure how a customer that uses their services can find fault with the fact that Google will try to extract value from what their customers do - as the old saying goes "Nuthin' for nuthin'".

Much less of an issue in a free democracy than the inherent danger and risk regarding web privacy in a place like China where reading & saying the wrong things might make a person disappear.

Originally Posted by thegunner

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits unreasonable search and seizure to the citizenry. Patriot Act erosion of privacy concerns aside, make and keep the bar extremely high for government to get any information on the goings on of its citizenry. I don't recall any democratic government going to Google demanding data be surrendered on their customer's web activity.

Originally Posted by daker13

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'

http://www.computerworld.com/article...-to-hide-.html

However indelicately phrased in how that was said, it was honest to a fault and awkwardly hinted poorly at moralizing. I doubt Google or Mr. Schmidt could care less about what their customer's shouldn't be doing.

For me, privacy is a difficult thing to maintain in a modern, information suffused world. Driver's license, credit card activity, mortgage and/or real estate held, investment or securities owned, automobile titled, etc, etc, etc. Your stuff is out there and there's nothing you can do about it. And short of going off the grid, the fact that maybe someone or something might be prying at my web activity is fairly small beans to me.

Whadda they gonna find out, that I didn't download pictures of Ana Kornikova but instead liked pictures of Steffi Graf? Don't gotta spy on me for that, heck I just told you!

[ergott]

If you want privacy you have to add a VPN to your list of things to do. You can change your IP address to your heart's desire.

If you look carefully, incognito mode will still send your data out. It just doesn't save your session. Not the same thing.

[texbike]

Originally Posted by daker13

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'

^This! If you're concerned about privacy, then the internet probably isn't for you. Neither are cell phones, credit cards, ATM cards, cable TV, health records, etc. Anything that can collect data and tie it to your identity is not going to help your privacy. As others have suggested, using an anonymizer or a secure browser like Ghostery can help, but really, how truly secure are those?

Use cash for purchases and carrier pigeons for communications and you should be fine.

Texbike

[thegunner]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

Whadda they gonna find out, that I didn't download pictures of Ana Kornikova but instead liked pictures of Steffi Graf? Don't gotta spy on me for that, heck I just told you!

that doesn't make sense to begin with.

[redir]

I started using Google when it first came out and you needed a referral to use it, remember those days? I loved it! I still do but I do not like some of their polices and things they have done. I'm on Android so my phone is married to Google and it works great. I still mostly browse on a desktop and when I do I almost always use Tor browser.

[marsh]

There is good reason to be paranoid if you have a dissenting opinion these days,
just Google (ha!) Nato3, Chicago Police Department's use of Stingray towers,
urban black sites, etc. Tor browser + burner cell phones if you really want to opt out.

[slidey]

The cavalier nature of those who are all too willing to sell their data is the dominant nature of most people anywhere, and it is being exploited to its fullest in the US/UK only now. I agree that Credit Cards, Cell phones, Google products, Facebook, etc all lead you to an auto opt-in with a small percentage opting-out.

However, this smart-aleck attitude of "Hey, i've got nothing to hide so mine me all I can...what are you afraid of, eh?" doesn't quite cut it, for me. Just because you're doing nothing harmful at night, doesn't mean you'll let people videocam you while you're asleep would you? If you would, then you're much bolder than I - all the power to you.

What bothers me is the stupidity/intractability in the logical reasoning of the govt/industry, on this data mining issue. The claim that collecting more info will lead to better intelligence/insight is preposterous. You now have amassed a bloody huge haystack, and you're still searching for just that needle. We're now in the comfort zone of rich technical uncouths who throw hardware at the problem i.e. buy bigger/faster hardware to do the same thing they were doing on a smaller scale (with questionable results: industry-wide average Click Through Rate is 0.11%). Google's proposed solution to the above abysmal rate is trying to do some fancy accounting to bump it up by filtering/invalidating out all the impressions that are not viewable, very interesting/presumptuous a claim/attempt. Lets see how many corners are cut, or how many opt-ins are placed in various updates of their browser to reach that goal (anyone notice that Chrome update is now at Google's will, and not yours).

In effect, a whole host of half-assed methods are put in place, and will continue to be employed to make spurious connections, reproduce numbers based on manufactured constructs of viewability, and to cluster together various sorts of different users into one big pool.

It has also been reported that Google officials have been visiting the white house at least once every week during this presidency. One can presume that if there isn't already a collaboration between advertisers/intelligence officials, there will be some sort of blind-faith adoption of some of the marketing sauce to identify 'pools' of bad elements, whose 'conversion rates' are higher than above, etc. See what I mean? Sheer manipulation of statistics to come up with the numbers to show one's bosses that 'hey look at us - we're working!'

What works for marketing, is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things and can't/shouldn't be adopted for anything serious without a careful study of the repercussions - we all know how that works out. Marketing is making stuff up out of thin air...everything flies.

So yeah, be slipshod about your data all you want - but pay some attention to think things through. Your data is not free, and shouldn't be. Have some sense of ownership as opposed to just throwing it away to the next fancy, connected toy/ad.