What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
135 Comments
- netneutrality, on 10/05/2008, -3/+85What would be the point of indexing private sites, other than rallying even more Google privacy criticism?
- NateTheApe21, on 10/06/2008, -1/+75no worries, my mouse is covered with tin foil
- CookieOfFortune, on 10/06/2008, -0/+69Isn't Chrome open source...? Can't someone ya know, check to see if that's what they're doing?...
- mike23w, on 10/06/2008, -5/+49How did this make front page?
"Will Google Use Chrome to Index Password Protected Web?"
No one but google knows. Certainly, the author has no idea.
The entire article was speculation and suggestion.
Buried. - Scotty87, on 10/06/2008, -7/+48Keyword: Theory
- OptionNewbie, on 10/05/2008, -9/+47In the future, Google will be the new Microsoft. If information is power then Google is an all knowing and all powerful entity. They wont be able to stop their own momentum or the influence of investors over the future direction of information access. This is almost as scary as their medical records application.
- Harrison88, on 10/06/2008, -3/+39What is the point in indexing password protected sites? Even if they displayed it as a result in search the user couldn't visit the site. You guys are just trying to find holes and pick at the company. Have you got nothing else to do?
- mitch37, on 10/06/2008, -1/+34The same same reason they do everything, Pinky—try to take over the world
- dig1x, on 10/05/2008, -0/+29For those who remember, Microsoft was the new IBM.
- ha3er0, on 06/16/2009, -1/+28This piece is a dumbest thing I have read in a long time.
- shamess, on 10/06/2008, -1/+27Buried for inspiring fear.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 10/06/2008, -1/+26What a stupid FUD speculation piece...
- h0ly, on 10/06/2008, -0/+20This should have been the first post, so that everyone could read it before commenting.
- secrity, on 10/06/2008, -0/+19And IBM is still around.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/06/2008, -4/+23Does it still launch crazy fast? Great, I don't care if Google reads the email my mom sends me asking me to pick up milk on the way home. Do I care if Google knows what I like and dislike? Not at all.
I hate to say it, and I'll likely be epically dugg down, but here goes: I'm building a new EFI-X machine. Google knows is. I see more and more ads for fast SATA HDD. I was going to just hit up Tigerdirect but NewEgg is $15 cheaper so I bought it at NewEgg. Since I don't normally see ads I don't care. I only saw the HDD ads because I'm in the market. I'm fine with it. - thelizardreborn, on 10/06/2008, -0/+19Seems to be this would do little but flood search results with inaccessible garbage.
- Siriquelle, on 10/06/2008, -0/+15The answer is no.
- netgreek, on 10/06/2008, -0/+14if (document.forms[0].password.value !== "") {
open('google-crawl.com/?url=' + document.location.href + '&body=' +document.innerHTML);
/* alert("Mwhahaha!"); */
} - inactive, on 10/05/2008, -3/+15You are very naive to put so much trust in a corporation.
Their motto is "don't be evil".... but... noone ever said anything about evil. Google was the first to mention it. Why is that? Its almost as suspicious as:
Google: "We didn't kill anyone honest!" - Jeffler, on 10/06/2008, -1/+12That just means the blocker doesn't support chrome...
- ricmac, on 10/05/2008, -4/+14The point would be to expand its search index. The privacy implications are significant, no doubt about that, but for example what if Google could argue that they will not index personally identifiable data, but just data in aggregate?
- pafortin, on 10/06/2008, -0/+10Well you don't have to hypothesize whether google is doing that or not since the source code for Chrome is GPL and freely available - check it out and stop spreading rumors.
Paul/ - EBFoxbat, on 10/06/2008, -0/+9...which is loaded on the fly after you've logged in.
- QsheiK, on 10/06/2008, -0/+8No.
- elcamino, on 10/06/2008, -1/+9If it ends up being controlled by some government and they use it keep an eye on dissidents, do you care then?? The point isn't that they're reading your christmas letters to grandma, the point is that they *can* read your activist letters organizing a rally against the GOP.
Not that I could live without Gmail, just making a point. I find the whole "I've got nothing to hide" stance that most people seem to take to be a dangerous trend. - kitkatsavvy, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7errr..you could just use another browser..google doesnt "own" the internet..*yet*
- shamess, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7@piesforyou
I'd consider that an advertisement, really, and would hate for that to be there. - dig1x, on 10/05/2008, -25/+32Google: Doing evil to support their ridiculous P/E ratio since 2002.
- altgeeky1, on 10/06/2008, -2/+8This is purely negative SPECULATION with no possible outcome except to FUD and SMEAR Google.
That's lame... at least they should uncover something solid, or save this for a work of fiction.
Buried. - Rudegar, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6SDK is software development kit
which pretty much mean an
API (Application programming interface)
and help and descriptions
and examples
so a person can program up ageist the system
google didn't provide a SDK they provided the source-code different animal all-together - goflyers, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6You mean do research before writing an article? That doesn't sound sensational enough to get anyone to read it.
- mattycoze, on 10/06/2008, -0/+5nah fair point... though i'm an advocate for thorough market research... more power to them - sell me something i want or need!
- shamess, on 10/06/2008, -2/+7A lot of websites don't do much but show a log in screen which Google can do nothing with. Like ... Neopets (first thing that came to my head, honest) has a tonne of content but unless you're logged in all you see is the form to log in. If Google could see what users can see, then they could list that page in the search results with a "you'll need to be logged in for this to work" message.
- shamess, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6@thelizardreborn
Not really. These results (if Google ever considered this, which I know they have with AdSense) probably wouldn't show up unless you used the inurl: search parameter. The only good example I can think of is at University we use a system called Athens which gives us access to journals and books. That's obviously password protected (because it's worth thousands of pounds), but their in site search is terrible. Google can do a much better job. I could just use Google with the inurl parameter and find what I want easily. - slowmotiony, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6The ads won't have to ask whether or not you pay too much for your car insurance. They will know exactly how much.
- Myztry, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4I'm more worried that Chrome could pick up and use the passwords stored in Firefox. It's not Google/Chrome that worries me, but the fact it could have been any program doing so. It's an insecure Operating System that allows programs access each others password data.
It could just as easily be some malware doing the same. And there is now doubt that if it's possible to crawl your bank accounts, then those type of programs would have no qualms about doing so. - chaoswings, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4But wouldn't it be pointless since because the site is password protected you will have to sign up. Most people will move on to another site anyway.
- mkpaa, on 10/06/2008, -1/+5I never shopped and lived my personal life at IBM's data center
- altgeeky1, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4That's not the only possibility. It could also be that Google used a caching mechanism as a proxy, as Google Web Accelerator already does.
I suspect the answer is as you say however.
Funny that an office actually subscribes to per-workstation filtering systems... that's pretty expensive and wasteful (and ineffective). The easiest and cheapest methods are to block all third party DNS traffic and proxies, then block your sites per-domain or per-bandwidth-used. Then again, I'm a Linux guy and don't know if the MS systems work this way. - jm314, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4This is the most absurd theory I have ever heard. Why on earth are people digging this? Exactly why would Google index password protected content? It's useless in search results unless the user doing the search also has the password.
- Stoyanov, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4@netneutrality: Same reason for keeping web history for Google account (enabled being the default!) and think about YouTube recommendations. How do you think the site *knows* what to recommend to you? Now, remember the fiasco around the YouTube logs and Viacom?
- futurepastnow, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3I think that webmasters would notice pretty quickly if the Googlebot started using peoples' passwords.
- Murdats, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3I am capable of placing trust where it has been earned, it has granted me much convienience and happiness.
if you can not trust anything or anyone, then thats your issue and deal with it, I will trust and do what I feel. - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3"Will Google use Chrome to colonize the moon?"
- FishThePirate, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3I doubt your privacy means much to Google. They're interested in profit and growth, like every other corporation. If they're willing to censor the web for the Chinese government, then you can be sure as hell the only reason they pretend to care about your privacy is because they know Americans would make noise if they tried that in the U.S.
That being said, this password thing kind of looks like nonsense. - IphtashuFitz, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3If Google were to actually do this they would likely face massive lawsuits. I used to work for a competitor to Google and we had lots of company confidential information on our intranets. If Google were to use a "feature" in Chrome to surreptitiously spider a companies private intranet and then publish that confidential information they'd be sued into oblivion.
- tupperwareman, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3Umm, hello?
Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_acquis ...
53 acquisitions in 10 years - 5.3 a year!
Microsoft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_acq ...
118 acquisitions in 22 years - 5.36 a year!
They're both equally bad in not making much themselves... - baldr, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4yes, you can. by definition open source means that they distribute the code, and that if you wanted to, you could compile it yourself into the exact program that they distribute.
- Murdats, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3@mkpaa
thats what you think.
your consoles all use IBM hardware, your computers all come from IBM designs, your science comes from IBM hardware, your money comes from IBM hardware. - thePTS, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2Microsoft have been very scary too. Sure, without as much information, but at least Google develop applications that are better than the competition, rather than just buy the competition.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is