I don't care about Google at all as long as they don't become parasitical (they aren't yet)

starkers -

I get the feeling you may think I was somehow 'defending' Google.  Far from it.  The 'begged question' was "So Google considers that 'standard'?"

No, no such thing. Every so often I need to vent or my bipolar becomes tripolar and I run naked (orright, it's walk these days) through the neighbourhood putting anti-Google literature in everybody's letterboxes.... and I didn't want today being one of those days.

Besides, this way was more energy efficient for an old fart like me... and I don't get brought home wearing nothing but a police hat/cap.

Why Google???  Why Not!  Compared to Microsoft, which has copped buckets and buckets of criticism, Google is the new kid on the block and certainly warrants the attention.

In all honesty, though, I really don't like Google or its slimy practices to make a sleazy buck, so to the "begged Question....

... the answer is YES, Google does consider slimy, underhanded and invasive practices the standard.

Here's one for ya... I was listening to talkback radio a couple of days ago and a woman was complaining about the Google Maps thing that gets down to street level.  She said that she was looking up the street she lives in and saw quite a vivid image of a naked man standing near his window with an erection.  Apparently the camera paused on him for a while and she felt this was not appropriate material that children could easily access.  I agree, it should never have been posted on the net, period.

Which is what I was getting at in ironic question form.  But being a dyslexic quadripolar, I couldn't just come right out & say it.

Hey, here's one for ya:

Opened FF3 and Chrome and after that, FF3 wouldn't behave correctly: kept getting the message "Interrupted" and couldn't logon to my email or WC....so, guess where Chrome went? The rust heap! True, it's only a beta, but I need dependable performance.

So, since it caused Gecko to malfunction, and because I'm a Doc I'm terming this new disease:

Doc

I guessed as much.... but dyslexic quadripolar??   And here's me thinking ADD driven dementiative dyslexic tripolar was bad.

You poor bloke!  I once knew a little bloke who had that... had to take something like 40 pills a day to keep it under control, and his 10 month old baby - and what a monstrous child he was, too - used him as a rattle.  Subsequently, he suffered constant dizziness and motion sickness... which in turn gave him reptile dysfunction.

Instead of "terming" it, I would rather you used your medical prowess and knowledge to research a way to terminate it.

I mean, using tin foil hats is only a temporary measure... and then only partially effective, so surely you could come up with a pill to combat the sicknesses and ailment Chrome inevitably cause.

Here's an idea!  How about a Viagra-like pill to stiffen and strengthen the gecko, thus making FF so much more enjoyable to use that Chrome fades into the annuls of time as a limp browser that suffered from ED... EndUser Dissatisfaction.

i was searching something ... and found this ......

As most of you have heard and many of you must be using Google's new web browser, the "Google Chrome". Its totally great to use and majority of Windows users will feel it more faster and reliable. Very few people in our community will ask themselves before using it, "Is it secure enough?". Well for now, I would like to inform you all that Google Chrome is vulnerable at the moment, may be they'll fix these security holes later but let us concern about it now.

There are two major vulnerabilities (security weaknesses) in this web browser;

- Its' made up of Apple's WebKit code so its having few problems which can lead the malicious hackers to hack your system without your prior notice.

- Secondly, the directory in which usually users save the downloaded files can help the malicious hacker to execute his/her malicious code in the DLLs, because all Windows operating systems (before Vista) actually search the DLL and the one caught first gets executed. Where as in Windows Vista it is really specific. (so this vulnerability is not for Windows Vista users, but the first one may apply)

Summary: If you do not understand whatever I wrote above, please stop using Google Chrome (if you're using it already). Its not safe for normal computer user, advanced users may get route out of its vulnerabilities.


As a security professional its my right to aware all of my community people to be careful about such vulnerable applications or software(s).
There will be a topic in my group with all warnings and hack discussions, please feel free to ask questions related to information systems & communication systems' security.

What do u say ????? ....... he is thinking wrong or right ??

Well, if my mate Starkers wants it, I'm Dr. Chromevorkian!

I will never install their browser because I don't trust Google... Why ?

When I finish to set-up my new laptop two years ago, and start monitoring communications with the internet, I saw Google internet toolbar.exe phone home !!!!
I found that the Google internet toolbar was already installed and running on my laptop, I kick it out !
Then I had the Google desktop thing but it was not activate, so I take a look and find that if you activate it, it will collect informations such, how long I will consult the file found with it, yeah right like if they know that I consult one file for a few secondes and an other one for a few minutes that will help them to improve their software, they probably collect other kind of informations !! 
So I kick it out too along with their Picassa software, and it's a good thing that I block cookies since they implants their cookies with an industrial rate.
In Firefox I use the NoScript extension, so the script for googlesydication.com and google-analytics.com in the webpage are blocked.

and an another thing that I don't like of them, they don't ask permission to install update or new version on your computer, other browsers or programs like Paint.Net does.
And it seem that even if you uninstall Google Chrome you have left over, GoogleUpdate.exe...

C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Update

ProgID : GoogleUpdate.OnDemandCOMClass
ClassID : {2F0E2680-9FF5-43C0-B76E-114A56E93598}

you can also check in
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Low Rights\Elevation Policy

GoogleUpdate.exe have silent execution right with high privilege in IE, in simple words GoogleUpdate.exe have the right to silently execute himself on the medium protection mode (even if it set to the High mode)

And all their things new or update are and always stay in Beta version, a nice protection for them if someone complaint about something, the answer will be "you know it's a Beta version..."

I will never trust Google !

Great...NOW GET TO WORK!!   Oh, and you might wanna team up with a metallurgist... with your medical experience and his know-how, the pair of you should be able to come up better than 'rust' corrosive to put that sucker to sleep... permanently.

Me either, VeuveNoire... and for all those reasons you don't.  People for years have been slamming Microsoft, but Google is a far more insidious company with ill intent, yet people flock like sheep to use their dodgy and invasive software... and some will even go as far as to defend Google, like it's an internet/software God or something.  Talk about heads in the sand...

tell it Concepts  lol

Starkers you have rocked my faith in Google so much i have resorted to using yahoo as my search engine.
I do like the lil bits of news on there

Anyway.... Opera!! go download a copy and love it like i do!!

/sigh

I hate defending Google (working for a major competitor) but I think I have to here.  Google doesn't track your every move for marketing purposes at all.  In fact, Google is the only major player to not employ any type of behavioral/user tracking.  The GMail part is purely contextual based on what's in your inbox.  If you leave GMail, nothing you get served from Google ties into it.  Nor does any data related to Google Analytics tie into any marketing you receive. 

At most Google Analytics and Google Toolbar data *MAY* feed into their new AdPlanner tool, but this tool is purely aggregate data.  It doesn't reveal that you in particular went to some site, or even have any way to reach you.  It solely says that x number people roughly have gone to this site.  It also correlates demographic data from various explicit panels and such to give the idea of user composition on a site.

Google's acquisition of DoubleClick changed things a little, as DoubleClick does have some means to track people (usually retargeting - you go to some website, they cookie you, and you see ads trying to entice you to return to the website).  But Google itself has even just recently introduced frequency capping (where they watch how many times you saw a particular ad and stop showing it to you to rotate in new ads). 

In reality, most of the data google has about you, aside from being completely anonymous isn't even tied together.  That they record a user going to a site for reporting purposes with Web Analytics doesn't have anything to do with what they see you do on your searches. 

Now if you really have a problem with all this, I recommend you stop using the internet.  Without site visitation stats, webmasters can't monetize websites.  So no more free content.  And without rudimentatary targeting techniques at the minimum such as frequency capping, publishers can't drive enough value out of the ads they show to turn enough of a profit.  So maybe a few sites still exist but the quality of content is forced to be low due to minimal budgets.  Never mind the value that more advanced targeting techquies drive (while still respecting anonymity).

As for the browser:  I'm loving it.  Most of the complaints I've seen on here so far are pretty silly to complain about.  The browser is in beta folks.  Very early beta at that.  Things like plugins/extensions are coming in time.  This is only version 0.2.xx.xx.

By the way, I thought I'd throw in here that Yahoo! does use your search history to build a marketing profile of you, while Google does not.

Well yeah, it's actually pretty standard for most that want to legally display people's content for public consumption.  That's why it's in the terms for all of their products where you post things publicly and not anywhere else.

After reading their varient of a EULA (The thing most people blindly click "I Agree"). I've come the the conclusion that Google's chrome is not only similar to Facebook, but almost exactly the same in purpose. And once again anything that you use chrome for like uploading or sharing (Like Facebook) is tracked and tagged. And if I read it right, again just like Facebook anything you do upload (Pictures, video, written works) now become fair use for "them".

I'm sorry, but I still enjoy my independence and owenership. I'll stick with FireFox and IE. 

Luckily your reading isn't the actual legal reading.

well, starkers...

I too hate Google. I too know that all of their apps phone home.

But I know that that info doesn't have any reference to me, just that a computer accessed a site. Oh, and btw, I think its always wise to opt into the tracking and such, because it helps keep things free for everyone else who doesn't. And if not free, it will help me make a buck when I need to know exactly how popular a website is when I sell my advertising to them.

So... anyways, this post was made with Chrome.

And though its a beta, I have found one serious flaw with it. if you increase txt size ctrl +, then reload the page, you can not reduce the text size w/out reloading again. small, but inconvinient when I have to "zoom in" to prevent myself from ruining my eyes trying to see 12pnt font on a 22" monitor..

-Za Jesan Fafon

Sooo..humm i have been hide from the net for a while is Google Chrome safe to use or not or should i want to see what happens in the days to come?

Hehe, so glad my purpose on Earth has finally had some positive effect... for one person at least.  I was beginning to worry Google would win game, set and match... and I hate going down scoreless.  So, Doronila1, you've made my day.

OK, let's sift through some key points here....

I think the keys here are: "your inbox" and "you  get served from Google, etc, etc...."  Clearly, Google can identify and locate individuals for marketing or any other purpose it desires through their IP address/email box... and nobody is going to convince me that they can't... and don't.

Again, Google can, if it wants, identify and locate users via their IP address.  Therefore, when their 'phone home devices collect data for their AdPlanner tool, personal usage statistics and etc could be collected by Google, and thus, Google can determine particular sites an individual may visit... just as the security agencies and kiddie porn cops can... and do.

This whole paragraph contradicts the entire premise/claim that Google does not monitor individuals.  If not by name, it is identifying individuals via their IP address and net activities.

Again, nobody is anonymous or 'just' a statistic... because an IP address is an internet fingerprint and can be/is traceable back to you.

Why do I NOT believe Google does not gather and retain data on individuals??  Because knowledge is power, and advertising power = income = money = more power.... and Google is a ravenous glutton for all of them, which is why I will never be convinced by comments/statements to the contrary posted here... or anywhere else external to Google's inner sanctum, for that matter.  It not like anyone outside that circle really knows for 100% sure... and Google is highly unlikely to admit to practices that an overwhelming majority would frown upon with total disdain.

My distrust/dislike of Google, however, will not stop or frighten me from using the internet... nor will I cease or desist in saying exactly what I think of it.  I mean, what they gonna do, just go ahead and shoot me???

just uploaded the last of 4 new themes for chrome browser

please take a look at them at my chrome themes website

thanks

Eugene

Chrome projects

You could say that for just about any company under the sun. This is pretty much how every crazy conspiracy theory starts. "We can't know for sure, therefore the worst possible scenario must be true."

Sorry, I don't like chasing shadows of things that might be just because something is theoretically possible. I'm not inclined to follow conspiracy theories.

Finderz: Chrome is what, days old, and they already have themes and such for it? Very nice.

I suppose you could, and there'd probably be an element of truth attached to your/our suspicions, but when it comes to Google mining and retaining individuals data, it is not supposition, suspicion or theory.

It was not that long ago that the US Government took Google to Court to have the surfing habits of particular persons of interest released to assist in its inquiries into terrorism suspects and child pornography, etc. Those records were eventually released to the relevant gov't agencies, thus proving their existence... the fact that Google can/and does monitor individuals on the internet.

The idea of this discussion is NOT to have people "chasing shadows", but that they are aware of them.... invasive data mining shadows that do NOT respect their privacy.  OK, the internet is a public domain, but so is a public toilet... and public toilets provide doors on cubicles to afford people their privacy.  It's not whether or not someone has something to hide, but that people should have the right to keep their lives to themselves... not for it to become an open book that's stored on someone elses data-base, with no control over its validity, accuracy or even who accesses it....ultimately what it is used for.

In this case, it is more a case of fact than theory.  We know that Googe apps contain phone home devices that collect data from our PC's/IP addresses.... and we also know that Google turned the internet records of people of interest to the US Gov't, so it's not pie in the sky, but rather a reality... and in that there is a potential danger to anyone and everyone....

What may be quite legal today may become out-lawed tomorrow.  For example, you may visit a skinning site based in Iran - no harm in that, you might say - but if the US Gov't suddenly out-lawed any US Citizen from visiting Iranian sites of any description, and made it punishable by law (and Google turned over your internet history, you could find yourself facing a prison sentence for something quite innocuous.

OK, that example may be somewhat extreme, but it's the principle and something to think about.

After all this time of giving Chrome some benefit of a doubt, I am now recommending against it, and do not believe that anybody should use it without being fully aware of how insecure and invasive it really is.

For details, listen to episodes #161 and #162 of the Security Now! podcast.

http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

I may not completely agree with starkers' exact line of reasoning, but I now agree with his conclusion.

I am now looking to see if I can find some sort of complete uninstall tool, because the Chrome uninstaller will not uninstall everything. (next time I use a virtual machine, I keep forgetting I have Virtual PC on my system)

Ah ha!  I knew that if I was persistent you'd eventually come around.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with my line of reasoning or not, you've reached a similar conclusion, based on your own experience, and have decided that Google Chrome is not for you, nor would you recommend it to anyone else. I commend you for posting that, and the link to the Security Now podcast, as I believe people should be aware of the risks... thank you.