What is Digg?94 Comments
- solidcube, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Google may not have given us reason not to trust them, but the Bush administration and their pro-torture Attorney General sure as ***** have when they tried to violate all of our rights by taking Google's database for warrantless data mining.
I'm a Google fanboy too, but use your brain. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36That guy makes some great points. Numerous other companies have tried to do what Google is doing, or parts of it and failed miserably. Why do we trust these guys?
- BESsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34What in the HELL did you just try and say?
- EnderW, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41Because Google has never given us a reason not to trust them.
And Google makes awesome products. - EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Jarcoal's a Google fanboy, I see.
Google is based in America, and has to run under American laws. If, for instance, those laws changed and Google was forced to give all the contents of your Gmail messages over to the US government, maybe they'd fight it, but there'd be little they can do - and that's if they do oppose those laws.
I don't know about you, but I have 270mb of text and some attachments in my gmail account. That's entirely normal - but since I don't have that many attachments, imagine how much information could be gathered about me. Imagine how much information the U.S. government or Google itself can harvest for their own attentions.
No-one knows what Google's intentions are, in any case. Right now, it seems that they want to make money from ads. That's fine. But is that the only thing that they're doing with the wealth of information that they have? How do we know that Google has already caved into the NSA, and that their fight with the DOJ was a lie? It's stuff like this that could happen in the future, even if it isn't right now. - Meow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I don't trust Google. The amount of tracking they do on everyone is worrying. It's not Google per se that worries me, as they have a pretty decent track record, but it's who will get access to this information in the end. What if Google is bought by another company some time in the future? Or if laws are passed that allow various governments access to our data?
Google knows pretty much everything about us, from our search queries, our surfing habits tracked by Google ads, they know where we live and where we go by our Google Maps queries and if you have a GMail account, they know a lot more about you personally. It's a gold mine. - Jakub81, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22We do? I don't trust Google.
- pornel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Well, I don't. I don't use GMail. I block cookies from Google. Maybe it sounds paranoid, but I just don't need webmail or personalized features. Search still works.
- solidcube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Concerned about Your Privacy?
Concerned about the constitution?
Here's what you need to do about it. You need to join the chorus of voices shouting for the IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE BUSH. We need to impeach his entire administration and do it NOW before they start locking down the net.
The Net makes getting a voice real easy.
Without the Net it's going to be real damn hard.
This latest NSA revelation may have marked the turn of the tide. In addition, it's reported that Rove was indicted on Friday. Public opinion is turning downright ugly. But I think the Decider is going to pull something, perhaps as early as next week, to distract the public from all their constant LIES AND POLICE STATE *****.
Don't sit here and bitch about it on Digg. Well, bitch on Digg if you want, but go out and do something about it. We geeks have more information power than private citizens ever before in history. We'd better use it before it's gone. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13He's been possessed by the ghost of Victor, the talking budgie who predicts doom and makes deep social commentary with really bad grammar!
http://www.victorsarchives.homestead.com/files/mustappearverysmall.wmv - r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Maybe we admire them for their honesty. They come right out and let us know that they plan to use our data for targeted advertising, but at the same point, they also provide benefits (such as an unbelievable amount of email storage space) which overshadow any privacy issues. Additionally, they provide products like picasa and generally contribute to the open source community and that doesn't hurt their image in the slightest. Perhaps most people have no problem with their data being used, if they have a choice in the matter (use us and we keep your data and use it for targeted ads, or use the inferior product of our competitors the choice is yours), and are informed before hand ... *shrugs
- mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I could just as easily ask why we trust companies that don't say they read your mail and track your surfing, but do it anyway. Google isn't doing anything that Yahoo or MSN aren't also doing. Personally, I don't trust Google any more or less than any other online service. If I have things I want private, I have to take steps to keep them private. Nothing Google has done changes that reality.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"Unless your doing something wrong, I don't see the point in worrying."....right. You weren't using your privacy anyway, right? So you don't want any?
"It's only really a worry if your running a kiddy fiddling ring, or planning to blow something up - in which case give that info to the govenment, I don't want to protect you." You trust your "govenment"?
Oh, and diggers, don't digg him down. He isn't spamming, he's just wrong. - solidcube, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Paranoidal? Governement? Law of the USA?
The "Law of the USA" has been DEFECATED UPON for the last five years by a President who has labeled himself the Decider and shows absolutely NO respect for the law, for personal privacy, or for any of the other freedom we as Americans hold dear.
What planet are you from? - Yogurth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Only a fool would trust Google or any other big company that has a chance to make money on Your behalf. Remember that slogan by Google: "Don't be evil" . Thier goodness can only be measured by Microsoft and Apple.
Proble with Google is that people have a picture or rather percive Google as the good boys and therein lies the trap. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8google are a trustworthy company. That's why millions of people trusted google desktop search, even tho it may well encrypt your personal documents on your personal computer, and upload it to their servers. but that's okay, because only they have the key to decrypt it.
google are a timebomb waiting to go off. everything thing they do smacks of illegality and pivacy law bending. If it's not click fraud, it's watching everything you do, whether that's through email, searching, persistent cookies that can trace where and when you're using the interenet. they want as much information about you as they can possibly get, no matter how irrelevant it is. information is power, and power + clickfraud = very rich google founders.
try ( h t t p : / / w w w . f u c k e d g o o g l e . c o m ) - sorry for the bad language, but it's a must read for all those that think google are googly-two-shoes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There are three aspects to this problem, (a) trusting google to be good with your data, and trusting them not to use scumbag tactics like some unnamed spyware companies that gather data and sell it to spam and marketing companies, (b) trusting the governments in those countries where google operates not to crush google and grab all your data, and (c) trusting google not to fold and sell all your data to scum marketing companies or hand it all over to the feds.
(a) is a matter of track record, and so far, google seems to have done so-so, ok so far. It is reassuring that they haven't resorted to underhand tactics, but it is extremely worrying that they have admitted publicly that all data including gmail is stored in perpetuity.
(b) is a matter of risk, and most people take that risk. If you live in China you probably will view this differently. Coming to think of it, even in the US, this is fast changing.
(c) is a gamble. No one knows. Google seems nice today, but they could get sold, taken over, have its CEO and management replaced, you never know.
In all, these points not just apply to google, but to any company with which you don't have a legal and binding service level agreement and non disclosure policy. Even this doesn't really cover all bases.
The bottom line is that I trust google just as much or as little as I would any other online mail or web service such as yahoo or mircoshaft. Nothing personal or mission critical ever goes to their servers - I wouldn't want our company's business plans or R&D documents or my ex-girlfriend's love notes floating around the net. - WeThePeople, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It’s funny, everyone has been carefully watching Microsoft thinking Gates had his eye set on market domination by having everyone locked into using and then "needing" his products. Meanwhile nobody was watching the back door as a small company called Google becomes huge in a very short time frame with it's eyes also set on owning everything you need. They may become the very thing they stood against they may be the giant.
It was just Google and the toolbar, now they have Mail, Maps, Talk, Calendar, Desktop, Picasa, Writely, Print, Sketchup, Video, Notebook, the list grows on and on, many are very popular and free
Google Earth, simply the most exciting tool in while, free
Google Wallet, soon to be Payapl crusher?
Google Base, A marketplace to rule all others?
Google Gdrive to save files and photos, probably a Flikr like service as well.
And least we forget free wifi as well.
Seems they have their eyes set on doing everything at some point and doing it in slow friendly way. You can only hope they stay friendly but size, power and money changes everything, as do stock prices, shareholders etc. They are still growing and becoming something to keep your eyes on, because they will be a one-stop place to get all your information, save all your information and maybe do all your work. They will have the largest amount of information on individuals ever collected, very valuable and very dangerous.
Don’t get me wrong I LOVE Google, but frankly they somewhat worry me now:D
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." - James Madison - tactless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Excellent point. Who says I trust google? If I have anything that I _really_ want to keep private, I encrypt it using GPG or whatnot.
It's just the paranoia speaking. So google can maintain a record of all of your searches, has access to your E-mail, and any calendar events you choose to place on-line, as well as your IM chats and voice chats. Guess what? So does your ISP. So does anyone on the wire between you and the information's destination. So does anyone sitting outside your house who's just finished cracking your weak-arse WEP key, and is now using ARP spoofing to get all of your info.
Google is often portrayed as some kind of evil gatekeeper of all of our personal information. Fact is, any information that goes on-line is available, with some effort, to whoever wants it. Too concerned about your privacy to use Gmail? Then you should be too concerned about your privacy to use E-Mail at all.
Keep your private info private. If it has to go on-line, and it's private, encrypt it. - MartinB3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Their privacy policy was also very vague until the last few years when people started calling them on it. What happens to the data collected before that? What if it changes again?
Anyone with all that data shouldn't be trusted simply because they have all that data. - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The problem stems from the fact that no one can point to a actual law that was violated, or make a truly logical arguement that cannot be refuted."
I'd say you could make a pretty strong argument based on failure to execute the responsibilities of his office (i.e. violation of his presidential oath), violation of the first and fourth amendments (to name but two). Start there and I bet you could get the ball rolling pretty quickly. You could even start moving into treason with 9/11, but you have to be careful to avoid pulling in the really crazy conspiracy theorists and just stick to the core facts, witness statements, and expert analysis (before pressure from the administration). Lying to the nation about WMDs in Iraq you could support with the Downing Street memo that was unearthed on this side of the pond (dunno if you heard about it in America, but it was a conversation between the President and the Prime Minister about finding a reason to invade Iraq).
There are mountains of reasons to impeach, but most are afraid of the repercussions. It's not as though it's hard for your government to get to you anywhere, anytime. - mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I trust Google, because I think that once they've collected everyone's data, they will have world domination. It really isn't that hard. And who doesn't want a world owned entirely be Google?
- dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are all forgetting one very important thing. The current people running google will retire. Earnings will slow down and governments will want this data. If you are really looking at this with an open eye the amount of data google has is not good and will eventually be put to bad use. You know what they say about those who don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it. No one ever has had massive amounts of personal data that did not end up in the hands of governments. It will happen its only a matter of when.
In the next 5 years, yes Google will protect your data. No one can honestly say there is any evidence to prove that will be the case past then. No one knows what the company will be or who is running it. - wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's not that we completely trust Google. It's that we trust them more than most other tech companies out there. Like a couple people have said, Google has earned at least a certain level of our trust. Anybody who has used the internet more than a couple years knows that email is not 100% secure. Most people know that anything they do on the internet carries with it the possibility that it is being spied on.
If we truly believed in security, we probably wouldn't be using the internet at all. Trouble is, it's too inconvenient to ignore it. And since we're already hooked on the internet, why not go with the company who has the best products? - PaulOwen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is a slippery slope too. "Everyone else is doing it" or "everyone else would do it" are not justifications - they are both excuses for bad behaviour.
- gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4don't know why this was buried; it's true.
do you think your banking and other financial data is sitting in your bank's data centers somewhere in the US? It went to Bangalore and Mumbai last year, along with the requisite technical support jobs. - Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have concerns about the way the government is handling certain things as well. Your post is almost purely emotional though.
For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Passing legislation that you find "offensive" (Patriot Act is a good example) is a matter to take up with your congressmen and senators. Upholding that legislation is an issue with the court systems. If that legislation is overruled and the executive branch then acts on it anyway, then you have grounds for impeachment.
It's amazing in the United States the powers that voters attribute to the President. In most cases, it's a majority of the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators that have a far greater impact on the laws that affect your life than the president. Yet, no one seems to hold them accountable. If I don't agree with what my representatives are doing, I don't vote for them and encourage others to do the same. You have to understand the system in order to work within it. - noclip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Somebody finally posed the question that needed to be posed for a long time. I don't trust them any more than the guy on the street selling "real" Rolexes.
- betasp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"You need to join the chorus of voices shouting for the IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE BUSH. We need to impeach his entire administration and do it NOW before they start locking down the net."
The problem stems from the fact that no one can point to a actual law that was violated, or make a truly logical arguement that cannot be refuted. - InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Er, there are more than two ways to use email, you know.
- w8less, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That is a good point, Apple which has that "underdog" mystique is more evil then any other computer related company. How many times has Apple abandoned its base for the release of a new OS? Too many to count, how many times has MS done so? NONE. Bottom line is if you have something you want private... keep it private yourself!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42038 is IIRC the last possible date to be storable with a 32bit value on some older systems, kind of like the millenium bug.
After which point the e-commerce will collapse as people realise that they don't know what their amazon.com passwords etc are - cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html
- Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2shakeyshakey: Then it sounds to me like the equivalent of a security through obscurity argument: that you're safer if you just spread the personal information you give out among different, less popular companies rather than dumping it all in one bucket. The fact is that information is still out there, and likely with companies that would comply with any U.S. government requests through the Patriot Act.
- rakaur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The problem stems from the fact that no one can point to a actual law that was violated, or make a truly logical arguement that cannot be refuted."
And just which part of the law did Clinton violate when he got a blowjob? Bush can blow up entire countries with little to no valid reasoning, and slowly drain away our civil liberties right in front of our faces, but he's okay to keep around. He just better hope he never gets a hummer in the White House, or he's done for! - SilentPurity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The real question should be: Should we trust Microsoft.
Wait I already know the answer to that: No. - kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ sunny
warning: drunk digging can lead to major -diggs. yikes. and i thought drunk dialing was embarrassing ... at least there's only one victim there! - cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What actually happens after 2038? They'll erase all the data and start over? And perhaps set another date 200 years down? Or what?
Anyone knows the exact date on 2038? I'll celebrate that holy day, and will never ever use Google anymore from then on... - gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Since when has GeoW complied with a law that didn't support the actions he intended to perform, anyway? If necessary, Geo will just rule the actions as necessary for national security under the Patriot Act, or some other loophole law his party rammed thru Congress.
- shakeyshakey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article has a point. I mean Google takes too much information from it's usersm trough email (Gmail), search habits(Google Search) and social life (Orkut - well at least for us Brazilians).
Of course that if google provides that information to government - and i don't mean just the US Gov. - that's just plain wrong, even if you're not a terrorist.
The ends (discovery of a terrorist) don't justify the means (invasion of privacy).
I think that's too much information to be trusted to ANY company. - cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@smashedhat
cool thanks.. - solidcube, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Action based on pure emotion is not always bad. At least it accomplishes _something_.
After all, women seem to manage, kind of.
Seriously though, what law was violated? Well, knowingly outing a CIA agent is treason. Clinton got a blowjob and was impeached, surely we can impeach Bush for being a TRAITOR. - opinionist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hmm. Confused. Surely - if you don't 'trust' Google - just don't 'use' Google!?
Plenty of search engines out there /w email etc etc. Erm, Yahoo!?
Sorry to be pedantic - perhaps I'm just too black'n'white of a person. - glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3idiots, out of all the popular search engines google is the only one who actually publicly admits that it fights a lot of the US court orders to divulge search information yet msn, yahoo, astavista and other popular search engines give it out without issue and all I F*ing hear is how google is evil. I am sorry but your logic is flawed.
And it will be all too soon before I read another article about how "evil" google is. Your blog won't get a hit from me nor do I waste my time with blogs, I'm sorry but your opinion is not that important to me nor is anyones daily dairy interesting enough to waste time reading but keep your blog going so that others can realize how stupid you are. - jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not about "trust", it's about allowing others to have full control over your data, which is scary.
- zerodamage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to trust them but after my gmail account got hijacked in March, my trust of Google no longer exists. Could not get a timely response from google at all, then a month later they said in an email that they could find no proof that my email account had been stolen. No way to call them or anything and my adsense account was linked to them and everything. The services they provide are great. Do they care about their customers after they are using the service? Hell no. What is one person's complaint.
- CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Slippery slope = logical fallacy
- Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The expiration date is just the date at which your browser will automatically stop using the cookie, as if you've cleared it. If you want your cookie to expire right now, just clear your cookie manually. When Google sets another cookie, you'll have a different ID and everything. Of course, any search engine (or website in general) can more or less track your habits without the use of a cookie.
- shakeyshakey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True, webmails as a whole are not to be trusted, but in this case Google has the capacity to collect more information.
- Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Again... Google does not read your emails.
Other than that, he made some good points. But doesn't change the fact that Google has not given me a clear reason to no trust them. Yes, they have bucket loads of personal information about me, but it's not WHAT they have, its what they DO with it. Google has proven time and time again they are willing to fight for our privacy in court battle. This proves to me they care about privacy, and that I could trust them more than I would trust most other organizations. However, that's not to say I will believe and trust whatever they do. I keep an eye on Google, and watch to make sure they don't slip in the privacy sector. They have come close a few times, but they caught themselves. Lets hope they don't give us a reason to completely distrust them with our information, such as we do with Microsoft. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is