What is Digg?58 Comments
- batmanz, on 08/13/2008, -8/+39"Don't be evil."
...yeah, right. - fafnir314, on 08/12/2008, -2/+26Big Brother is advertising
- matdevdug, on 08/13/2008, -1/+23Didn't Google admit to this several times? It also lists it on their privacy page.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy_highlights.h ... - ironeus, on 08/12/2008, -3/+19There's a distinguishable difference between reading 'keywords' for related ads and behavioral tracking, especially if the end user is not informed. Anonymous surfing will only become more difficult.
- suckanucka, on 08/13/2008, -5/+16I would still trust Google many times over the government........
......for now. - harmil, on 08/13/2008, -1/+10The real news from the article:
"Google, in its letter to committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), Markey, Stearns and Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), stressed that it did not engage in potentially the most invasive of technologies -- deep packet inspection, which companies such as NebuAd have tested with some broadband providers. But Google did note that it had begun to use across its network the "DoubleClick ad-serving cookie," a computer code that allows the tracking of Web surfing."
So, what does this mean? It means that Google issues cookies when you see an ad on some random site. When you see another site with an ad, they show you ads that relate to both sites. After you've seen Google ads on dozens of sites, they have a good idea of what you might be interested in, and show you ads for that. If this bothers you, you simply turn on the Firefox feature in which you are asked about each cookie, and deny cookies from ads. Ad-blocking software will do this automatically.
That's it kids. - DarkSpan, on 08/13/2008, -3/+11There's always somebody watching you
- Apocalyptic0n3, on 08/13/2008, -0/+7I love how someone dugg you down for pointing out that the article was just restating previously known facts.
- borez, on 08/13/2008, -2/+9They may be coming in... but adblock is slamming the door in their faces.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Beats me, since I have all ads blocked and most cookies disabled.
- scabbers, on 08/13/2008, -1/+6Google recommends: Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
- imasuperDOTcom, on 08/13/2008, -4/+9Google is, intentionally or not, one of the most dangerous companies on this planet today.
Even if they weren't evil (and personally, I think they are), they could be cohersed into handing over the ridiculous amounts of data and personal information they have.
If they weren't evil, they'd be responsible and disclose their retention policies, and make them realistic.
Google == evil. - elementop, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Then you woke up... :D
- j0hnk377y, on 08/13/2008, -3/+8At what point does Google become the new hated IT company like IBM in the 90's and Microsoft currently is?
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Personal privacy should be the default choice in any Web experience and there should be an option to allow snooping. Unfortunately, the opposite is true today because it makes the most sense for snoopers.
- yojiffyskippy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4What does Google have to do with you being mediocre?
- imasuperDOTcom, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5Wait until the government subpoena, or worse, NSA letter makes Google hand over everything. Then you'll agree that google is evil whether they want to be or not.
- TheJimid, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I always felt like Captain Crunch was looking back at me....
- digghasnoethics, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4Its not the House Energy and Commerce Committee Google needs to worry about. Such things are being considered criminal offences in Europe (witness Viviane Reding and Phorm). Given Google's business dealing across the continent, they could find themselves in a whole heap of trouble.
Best bet is to stop such behaviour fast, or learn the lesson of Microsoft. - duckyinc, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5Well lulz @ those people who put every info about themselves on the interwebz
- FutureGuy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Depends on who you ask, to me Google is same as MS. They just have a much better PR department, and for that reason I lean towards MS. Yup I said that, glad I don't have to pay for every digg downs.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3We've had something very similar in the UK recently. Phorm, they call it. The bigger ISPs - BT, Carphone Warehous, Sky - have admitted to running secret tests of the technology here, and are planning to run more.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/216912/eu-questions-go ...
It's not so much the tech itself that worries me, but the secretive, unethical nature of the testing. They obviously know that promoting a system that watches your behaviour online and then fires ads at you will be deeply unpopular, so they've just done it anyway, queitly, in the dark.
Maybe they have Google to thank for the inspiration. - harmil, on 08/13/2008, -6/+9Correct, "don't be evil," is a guiding principle at Goolgle, which should really make you stop and think for at least a tenth of a second before assuming that some random digg-whoring article might just be right, and Google might be sniffing through your underware drawer. Nope, this is basically just "OMG, Google is showing you ads in exactly the same way that they've been doing since the start, and have been informing users from the start. They're evil!"
Please stop trying to look for something horrible in everything Google does. They are quite capable of making their own mistakes, you don't have to invent them. - FutureGuy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3*cough* "do no evil" *cough*
Google is a wolf in sheep's clothing, they did do an awesome job with the clothing though, must be Armani or Prada. - MasterDwarf, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Nothing is free.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -3/+5Googlesoft
- m4csrgh3yk3v, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2"If there is going to be a 'SkyNet' in the United States, it's gonna be Google...you have no clue what kind of information Google is gathering on you, me and everyone"
-Steven Rambam, former FBI agent.
Privacy is dead people, get educated and expect more than what you are getting. - SniperGX1, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3The big news here isn't just that google uses targeted ads. It can be summed up with "Google did note that it had begun to use across its network the "DoubleClick ad-serving cookie," a computer code that allows the tracking of Web surfing." DoubleClick was the worst privacy invasion to hit the Internets. The do no evil company bought them and instead of killing them once an for all like we had hoped they would do (the right thing). They decided to bring em back stronger than ever.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3Selling my information and tracking me across sites that do not belong to them, like scumbag DoubleClick, is what really pisses me off. This is why I block all cookies unless I'm signing in to an account.
- harmil, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2So by your thesis, Google is evil because they're popular. Of course, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo!, and any other large Internet service including ISPs and datacenter providers have access to a great deal of information as well, so they're all evil.
There's one and only one difference. Google's well known phrase, "don't be evil," didn't appear in an ad. It appeared in their S-1 filing with the SEC. This document is what investors are handed when they invest, and it warns them of any potential pitfalls in investing. Google explained the phrase in that document and made it clear that they were willing to lose money in order to maintain their ethical standards. Why does that matter? Because no other public corporation that I know of makes such a claim in their S-1, and thus they are all beholden to the stockholders to do anything short of actually breaking the law to make money for said stockholders. Google could claim quite reasonably in a court of law that they warned their investors that they would lose money if push came to evil shove.
You see companies aren't evil. They're just amoral by default, and incented to do whatever it takes to increase stockholder value. Google suffers from these same pressures, but unlike most of their peers, they have at least some protection from that phrase that you find so abhorrent. - Whitey07, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Oh ***** I don't know why I said it..
- Whitey07, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I still like Google, just I didn't know this I should choose what I write next time then..
- elementop, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3@harmil: Quote: "So by your thesis, Google is evil because they're popular."
Uh, no...he's saying that Google is evil because they collect unbelievable quantities of data about everyone that uses their services. They are evil because they track every move you make that uses one of their services (and it's getting hard to find an on-line resource that doesn't touch/isn't touched by Google somehow anymore). And they are evil because they don't tell you what information they are collecting about you, they don't tell you how long they keep this data and they don't tell you how you can expunge information they have collected about you.
The fact that they are popular only means that pretty much everyone with an Internet connection is in the same boat. - harmil, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3Your definitions are skewed. They collect less information than, for example, CNN does (I've dealt with CNN.com and THEY are quite possibly deserving of the label in question), but yes, they have an order of magnitude more users of more services, so yes they have access to a lot of traffic patterns. Of course. They use this information in the most obvious ways that anyone aware of their business model would expect, and which they lay out in their privacy policy.
Look at what Google is doing closely. Look at what Yahoo! is doing closely. Look at how the Web operates. Google has consistently attempted to champion privacy, public access to useful information, open source software, the environment, and cheap infrastructure services such as email. Evil is not the correct word. - orchidee2, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Google is probably the most predestined Website for tracking interests and habits of an individual. It would nearly be a miracle if they didn´t make use of this data. For Microsoft, Google & Co, everything you can make money with is a possible business!
- harmil, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1You liked Google, and then... what? You read the terms of use and privacy documents that they've made public for years? You read the thousands of articles about how they actually are a business and make money by displaying targeted ads and have for years? What changed, exactly?
- ljmunz, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Wait for what exactly?
When that occurs (if it hasn't already), I wouldn't hold your breath for a press release or an update to their Privacy Policy - FutureGuy, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Why digg him down, he speaks the truth. Google is now the gatekeeper of the Internet and all the information in it, and its doing everything it can to keep it that way. Even a company the size of MS couldn't do much to slow their progress towards complete takeover of Internet search, and for those who think that's a good thing keep it mind that it would be much much worse then having MS total monopoly on the desktop. There can't be anything called "free" search engine, it takes billions to set up and run such an operation, google's monopoly will ensure that only it gets all the click revenues and it can dictate what it charges for its adwords, already the prices are ridiculous, google alone is responsible for a good chunk of the price of things you buy on the Internet, there is a google tax, its just not that obvious and its only going to get worse.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Google can suck my yahoo
- Bertram23, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0The day it happens we all get to apply it retroactively starting whenever we want anyway. I personally intend to have had my doubts since first seeing Gmail but I imagine there will be more astute souls out there who will have seen a terrible future in store from the moment they first saw the creepy logo.
- isgk, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0But are you expecting Google to know what you are doing when you are at let's say cnn.com? That's what the doubleclick cookie allows them to do; which is fairly similar to what phorm does with it's tracking cookie. Phorm does it for everything but with Google it just tracks doubleclick or google sites which unfortunately is probably in the >50-60% range of popular websites these days.
- metz8504, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0In some cases, the ads that show up because you are being "spied on" are actually beneficial to the user, so it is not all bad.
- insomniacal, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1"Even if they weren't evil (and personally, I think they are), they could be cohersed into handing over the ridiculous amounts of data and personal information they have."
Beyond coercion, such a collection of personal data is a major temptation for both hackers and unscrupulous employees. If you build it, they will come. - insomniacal, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2That depends on what the definition of evil is, doesn't it?
- imasuperDOTcom, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1@suckanucka:
I feel baited :( - suckanucka, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1Was baiting this reply, agree completely.
- Whitey07, on 08/13/2008, -5/+4I liked Google now I'm mediocre...
- pw378, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1The only evil here is when ISPs sniff traffic in order to determine what you are doing online. If I visit Google, I expect them to know what I search for. But when packets just pass through an ISP I don't expect them to use Phorm and Deep packet sniffers to spy on me.
Thats just wrong, very wrong. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -1/+0FAIL... Linux is free
- mnky9800n, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1I don't think the LAtimes needs to digg-whore.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is