What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
103 Comments
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42That's not the point. This is on corpoporate networks. I don't understand how it would be a wise decision to allow it to be installed when it routinely phones home and sends unknown data.
If it weren't made by Google it would be called spyware and we'd be calling for the company's HQ to be burnt to the ground. - tapo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20No, it shouldn't. Google has an enterprise version that allows IT managers to control the enabled settings for this very reason.
- faulkner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20if the systems have sensitive information and belong to the company, yes, the company should be allowed to control the sensitive information, but, no, google desktop shouldn't be banned from end users who own the system and the information on it.
- arrrrrg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17This was on /. some time ago. The relevant facts are:
(1) GD doesn't phone home or upload files by default. You have to turn this on explicitly
(2) There is an enterprise option that allows you to prohibit turning this option on throughout an entire network. There is no reason to ban the software entirely based on privacy concerns alone, when you can simply set this flag. - Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9No sane person would let Google Desktop (or similer programs for that matter) freely roam their hard drive.
I just don't believe Google Desktop isn't sending data about you back to the Google mother ship. - tau175336, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The fact is, Google Desktop is a threat to sensitive documents within any organization. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers" feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google's own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user's computers. Sending, Storing, and searching on an external server, outside of the security of the business, is definitely a security risk, and any information security officer would be smart to ban Google Desktop.
- Tau - ericab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5An IT person like myself cares about the concerns of the end user. However I'm one of those rogue IT people who thinks that instead of immediately telling an end-user "No you can't," I say "Lets see how we can." It doesn't always have to be a fight between end users and IT staff.
- chesterjosiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If your company bans it, it's their right to. Should Google Desktop "be banned"? By whom? Someone in authority over all computer users connected to the Internet? No way.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6> The fact is, Google Desktop is a threat to sensitive documents within any organization.
No, the fact is that *any random software installed by non-admins* is a threat to sensitive documents.
Competent admins that need to worry about divulging sensitive information already stop end-users from installing whatever software they feel like. If you do this, Google Desktop is not a problem, because they won't be able to install it. If you don't do this, then Google Desktop is only the tip of the iceberg. What's stopping your users from running trojans and all kinds of malware? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Any company serious about their security will NEVER let their employees
use any Google software or use the Google search page either for that matter.
Any company like Google whose sole existence is based on archiving and indexing
what people (and companies) do on-line should be kicked out and banned!
Everything else is terminally stupid. - LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Its banned in my company if a user installs it we reimage them and let them talk with their supervisor about their downtime.
I got a new Dell XPS 600 last night and i couldnt believe the amount of ***** that was pre-installed on it including Google desktop, and wild tangent. It was pointless to even turn on i grabbed the XP cd from the box and just imaged it immediately. The ***** part was dell doesnt give me the option of not putting that stuff on my machine. Nowhere in my order did it say i was going to have google desktop pre-installed - master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4anyone who has ever dealt with Sarbanes-Oxley really understands the problems that could be presented with running google desktop
- NuPi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I totally agree with you.
As a search engine i understand the whole need to index information, but not the caching of information.
From a webmasters perspective, or from any author' of online information is concerned, the Google 'cached' feature is a nightmare and at times a liability.
If i decide to take some content off of my webpage, and no longer make it available, I should be in total control. It should not exist in Google's cache for all eternity.
One might counter argue, can't someone just have easily have copied your content and posted it on their blog? Well yes they can, but that is why many sites have a little line on the bottom stating the contents Copyright, and allowed use.
This brings up the question, since google cache is not linking to your info, but actually has a copy of your info, isn't Google infringing on every cached website whos content is protected by copyright?
My suggestion to Google, your algorithms should be smart enough to remove the cached version once your determine that the original link is no longer good, or remove your cache feature alltogether. - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5From what I understand, it doesn't "phone home" unless you set it up in the options to. Unless you are referring to something else that I am not aware of.
- lanfear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Suddenly, every alternative BUT Google's is okay and a non-threat. Even Microsoft alternatives now get praise! What's next, will horses fly?
For me, Google Desktop has made working a lot easier, but one should be aware of how and what the application does, and make an informed decision from there. The documents I view aren't that secret. - Trkstr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Can anyone recommend a decent alternative to Google Desktop for searching? Something that preferably isn't slow windows search.
- technstuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Totally agree, Dell's come preloaded with too much crap I have to uninstall before setting them up for the users. With a corporate environment, and healthcare at that, with tons of sensitive information, it'd be stupid to allow this to stay on the computers. I order a computer with Windows XP and nothing else, I don't want them to take the liberty of putting whatever they want on it before shipping it to me. I can see it for home users, but they should have enough sense not to install extra software for corporate customers.
- ericab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Blah.
http://desktop.google.com/enterprise/
Imagine that, a Google Desktop client that is designed to be secured, deployed, and administered by IT Staff. - zimm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3its not a security risk.
since it doesn't pose a risk unless you specifically change some options and tell it what to do.
employees are the real risk.. get smarter employees! - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Then EVERY transfer tool or FTP tool would be spyware, That is crazy!!!! Google desktop is a tool designed to transfer data from one computer to another IF YOU ENABLE IT TO!!!!! No enable that if that is not what you want. Google is doing an incredable service by doing this and offering a LOT of storage space.
Eric Wilson - thegreatsam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it's the company's desktops storing the company's information, then it should be up to the company to decide whether or not to ban it. For user's at home, if they want Google Desktop to cache all their data, that's their own choice.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Copernic Desktop Search is very good: http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/index.html
- TheRealDeal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Google Desktop should be allowed/disallowed within the walls of a particular corporation. It should not be banned in general. That's ridiculous!!
- LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Apparantly some of you have no clue how fast a pc can be re-imaged. We can drop a new image on a users box have it renamed and on the domain ready for use in 6 minutes. All this can be done remotely via Altiris. Now why send a desktop tech up to the user when we can drag and drop a pc and in 6 minutes its ready to go. Its all about $$$$ figures and in the end its cheaper on manpower to reimage then it is to uninstall.
Why do we not allow it on our machines? because we are a fortune 500 company (i think 160 right now) and we have ALOT of very sensitive data on the machines that google has no need to know. its not just google thats banned its obviously all spyware we just chose to call google desktop spyware unlike most people who think its ok just cause its google. Our reactions are the same for all spyware we used to have techs spending 1-2 hours removing spyware from machines where now we are fixing the issue in under 10 minutes and when you have over 20,000 workstations on your domain this accounts to an easy $500,000/year in money saved on man hours.
As for running scripts honestly we just got tired of writing them and the only thing so far that has taught the users not to install the crap is re-imaging them otherwise we would just do the scripts cause its more logical but were dealing with end-users here and thats the main thing you have to keep in mind. - ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um. dont use it - There now it's gone...
wow....
n00bware.
"where is my pictures!!?? derrr! " - pstreck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if there is not a clearly defined business use for this software why support it all?
- desideal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why would you ban it entirely? Let your corporate policy ban it if required, but in general, it should be made available.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not just create an .msi and push it out with the options that you want? Seems like a no-brainer for me! At my workplace no software gets installed by the user. To let them do that is kinda silly if you ask me.
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3
What's the big deal? There is an Enterprise version of Google Desktop that alleviates the concerns of corporate security... - ericab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In looking out for the companies interests, a happy employee is a productive employee. I believe that so long as what a person is using isn't losing the company money or compromising the interests of the company, why shouldn't they have it? True, the regular version of the Google Desktop may "phone home" but with the Enterprise version, its all controlled based on what the IT staff says it can do, thereby removing the risk of company data floating around in Google-land. No compromised company information/assets, no problem.
- jesusfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or you would just only allow the enterprise version to be installed. problem solved. and look! no FUD
- evoleddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is no way is should be allowed to be installed on company computers.
Employees should not be allowed to install anything. Any IT tech will tell you that one of the most frustrating things about office computers is the people who install software. It pretty much always is the source of problems down the line. - The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There's no WAY I'd want that uploaded to ANYONE'S server"
Then disable the option, not that hard.
Some people just must see the need to whine about this. - pt4117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, the MSN one works great. I like it better than Google's because it offered a preview side pane (googles didn't the last time I checked), and it had much better sort options.
- ericab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow you reimage for a single app, rather than maybe, having a script that runs to remove the app? Why cause yourself the extra work?
- deleteYourslf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hereby proclaim that Google Desktop is officially banned from the Universe!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 davidvine said:
>>comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 0 diggs bury this digg this
>>the company you work for OWNs the computers and systems, so it is their inherent right to ask that you
>>manage the network in the way they want, whatever that is, (aside from illegal matters)
My company pays ME to secure the network. My company pays me to make sure things run smoothly, the people are able to do their jobs and that their data is secure. I get paid to provide stability, security, and privacy to my company by managing systems.
I make the call, no one else. And yes, while i'm alot more ..diplomatic with the owner of the company that i am a typical end user, i have told him No to a few things too.
When i came on board, the internet would go down for weeks at a time, a guy was ordering prostitutes via a website to have sex with on his lunch break, porn and raunchy jokes swamped the e-mail system. The e-mail was blacklisted all over the place b/c the place had been turned into a spam relay and almost all the machines in the building were part of a botnet.
So when i came on board, yeah..i'm given ultimate authority on what goes on the computers.
And no *****, un-neccessary, security risk google product will go on them. - gfroese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No it should not.
This is a feature that can be disabled (I believe it is disabled by default?). And there is the enterprise version available that gives your IT staff control over that option and others. - m1abrams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3IBM actually has Google Desktop Enterprise as part of their ISSI (IBMs internal software management system). It is what IBM considered unsupportted but does allow users to install it. They have it config. properly to prevent it from talking back to google and they also have the client software firewall config to prevent it from talking back.
Google Desktop is extremely handy at finding data. Particularly when searching Lotus Notes email, Notes builtin search tool is not so good, and add into that archived email it becomes very problematic. GDS solves those issues. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm both but I am not afraid of it. It just slows down my computer. By the way, it appears you have not read the article.
Eric Wilson - ecow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For the people saying there is no "need" for Google Desktop...
Let's day you have 600 pdfs full of engineering information about several products that you need on daily basis and surely cant memorize them all, and your the only employee in the company that needs this information. This is why Google desktop is a massive time saver for me because I can search these documents for specific information relevant to what I am doing at that moment.
There is no way my company would create it's own search engine for them because it is not widely needed. In this case, and outright ban of Google Desktop actually hurts productivity. I also keep "Search Across Computers" disabled. - Grossinm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I work on a USAF Base, and a few weeks ago we were told all instances of Google Desktop would be removed automatically via Tivoli software, and that no one was allowed to use that software...
perhaps google should develop a means for Administrator restrictions on the types of info that could be indexed by the system... - lanfear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hm, but instead of banning it, you could use the enterp....
Oh, sorry, 13 people already said that. - krahzee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To me, it just seems pointless to argue a company should not ban it if they so choose.
You do not want to set a precedent among your employees that they can install whatever they like on their workstations for two reasons.
1) The tech savvy may know the difference between spy-ware, malware, etc..., but the novice often doesn't have clue or know which programs contain which.
2) Potential to affect system performance. Let's face it, alot of companies don't always run the most cutting edge computers for the employees that basically need to use MS office and appz like Quick Books or Outlook for corporate email.
The more of this "optional" stuff they install on their computer on their own the more performance is jeopardized not just by ram consumption, but software conflicts, etc......
Even a lot of programs that are totally safe and spy-ware/Malware free, want install a start up icon running in the background. Not a problem with a newer PC, but if you are still running a box with a lower ram level (256 to 512MB) and an older processor (PIII) those can add up.
Why should an employer be forced to advance his planned replacement of these machines, simply because someone wants weatherbug, google desktop or any other app running on their machine, when they would still work fine for what the company needs them to do without all of that other crap installed? - jesusfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://desktop.google.com/enterprise/
as mentioned above. - JPhilipson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2HECK NO!
It's the only thing that helps me find anything on me computer. Is Windows Search wrong? If Windows search indexed your files is it wrong? - drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh geebus the "you must have soemthing to hide" argument. How about business plans, ideas, writing that will be copyright by you. I am a programmer and have many things in the work that is both protected by clients I am workign for and personal content that I dont' want to share and ideas I dont' want stolen. If its indexing everything on your computer, well as a programmer I know what type of access I have to my apps.. that is all I will say.
@beta7 why dont' you share your drive to a p2p network if you "have nothing to hide". Why not? - MrStylz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No way at all? Come on, I don't care if you're an IT person or not, this is a useful piece of software...not some stupid weather bug program. I use it on a daily basis because it provides a tool to quickly find a file or something lost in the emails. It is configurable and even has an enterprise edition to allow the IT department to control it.
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Companies should have policies in place against it, this should be a non-issue, But they need to drive visitors for ad revenue somehow.
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ericab
Because it makes the user look bad in the eyes of the supervisor, and it takes them longer so they get paid more. -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is