EFF Warns Not to Use Google Desktop

neelm writes "The EFF is asking users not to use the new version of Google Desktop that has a 'search across computers' option. The option will store copies of documents on your hard drive on Google servers, where the government or anyone who wants to may subpoena (i.e. no search warrants) the information. Google says it is not yet scanning the files for advertising, but it hasn't ruled out the possibility."

EFF, Shmeff

[powerpuffgirls]

If I had to count on one company to stand up and fight for personal privacy [slashdot.org], human rights and not bow down to political pressures, it would have to be teh Google.

Meanwhile, Chinese users please click here [imoou.com].

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Mrs. Grundy]

I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data, but as their decision in China demonstrates, there is not always an evil and not-evil choice. For a publicly-held company there are always conflicting interests. If it comes to a choice between giving up your information and breaking the law google doesn't have much choice.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Anonymous Coward]

" I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data"

Red herring.

This issue is a completely nonsense issue. Even if Google "wins" it's a mock trial. The government can already get whatever data it wants from Google using the Patriot Act and force them to keep completely mum about it. Who knows where that data goes aftwerwards. Everyone keeps saying "trust me" then you find out you were lied to afterwards... over and over again.

I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the US government doesn't already have complete access. This is just an attempt at post-NSA leak damage control. The "brilliant" idea is to lure terrrorist email bombers everywhere to annouce their plans using gmail.

      - the work of a pure rocket scientist who's quick thinking saved "liberty" tower

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[occidentaltourist]

"I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the US government doesn't already have complete access."

I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that the Illuminati don't really control the whole shebang, including our very thoughts.

My point: It's pretty much impossible to prove some negatives.

Nevertheless, I agree somewhat with the thrust of your (over)statement, "Everyone keeps saying "trust me" then you find out you were lied to afterwards... over and over again."

There's a balance point to be found somewhere between naïve and paranoid.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Itchy Rich]

There's a balance point to be found somewhere between naïve and paranoid.

And we shall call it "naïvanoid".

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Decker-Mage]

Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination, the final ISP. Those packets have to know where they've been or where they are going. As for encrypted e-mail, that only works if both parties are using similar encryption schemes and have exchanged public keys via one mechanism or another which is far from the truth looking a

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[h4rm0ny]

Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination

Do you want to go into more detail on this? The EFF certainly seem quite confidant in TOR's security and as I understand the technology, the concept is sound. Encrypted connection to a TOR peer, onion routing to your destination through an unknown number of intermediate peers (

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[TheNetAvenger]

If I had to count on one company to stand up and fight for personal privacy, human rights and not bow down to political pressures, it would have to be teh Google.

But what happens when they lose their fight? All that data they are collecting for their 'marketing' gets turned over without any personal subpoena, giving any government agency the ability to subpoena one company and collect the personal data of almost everyone in the country.

Sad day when MS looks like the good guys, they don't store information from their desktop search, or use it for marketing, so even if they get a subpoena, all they can provide is generalized search data from MSN Search.

BTW did you ever stop to think the reason Google didn't want to turn over the information to the Government regarding searches was maybe not to protect their users, but to protect themselves? Could it be so far fetched that they don't want to disclose the information they are collecting from users.

Don't put faith in any company to champion your rights, and don't let them have access to your information even if you do trust them. I have people I work with I don't let know what documents are on my desktop and I like and trust these people, why on earth would I let Google collect this information?

Can you really trust a company, made up on individuals, that all it would take is one person getting $20 bucks and hour to take the information the company has collected and dump it into public domain?

Let me state this a little more clearly...

GOOGLE SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTING DETAILED DATA FROM YOUR COMPUTER, NOR DETAILED DATA FROM YOUR SEARCHES THAT LINK BACK TO WHO YOU ARE. With the government inquires on this aside, collecting this information for any reason is wrong, and especially when they are admitting that it is for future marketing.

People are scared about Bill Gates running the world, yet Google has more specific data on every individual that uses their Desktop and Online Search engines.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[SimGuy]

The thing about Google is they make no attempt to hide the fact they are collecting a tremendous amount of data about people and people let them. If you don't want your information stored by Google, you don't opt into any of Google's services. There is nothing compelling you to use a Gmail account, the Google search history is opt-in, the Google Talk logging is opt-in, and the Google Desktop features don't work unless you install them on your computer. If you're worried about what Google will do with your data, it ought to be your responsbility not to hand it over to them.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[TheNetAvenger]

If you're worried about what Google will do with your data, it ought to be your responsbility not to hand it over to them.

I agree, however the average joe blow that is buying a new dell that has Google desktop installed when it arrives, don't get the option to choose, nor are very many people informed about the data collection they perform.

This is kind of like the tiny fine print on a contract. Also there isn't an 'I Agree' button on the Google Search website, people think they are just looking up information.

We definately have the right and responsibility to not use a service if we don't agree with it, but we also owe it to others to alert them to facts about the service when the company offering the service fails to MAKE IT CLEAR.

Google is legally borderlining on misuse, non-disclosure and many other avenues that could eventually put them in the hot seat with a lot of people. It could also be the basis that the government uses to rip Google apart and get the information they requested.

Everyone on /. is so busy watching companies like Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, and yet 'information' is the gold of the 21st century and we don't seem to have the same eye to the companies mining it right out from underneath us.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[teslar]

Everyone on /. is so busy watching companies like Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, and yet 'information' is the gold of the 21st century and we don't seem to have the same eye to the companies mining it right out from underneath us.

I [slashdot.org] can [slashdot.org] assure [slashdot.org] you, everyone [slashdot.org] on [slashdot.org] /. [slashdot.org] is [slashdot.org] also [slashdot.org] watching [slashdot.org] google [slashdot.org].

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[TheNetAvenger]

Just because the software is installed doesn't mean it automatically runs. I believe you have to "opt-in".

Actually it is pretty much hidden from the user, I know people that didn't even know the Google crap was on their system. In theory, I'm sure they did 'opt-in' by placing the Dell order or some other item, but that is different than them know it is there and also knowing what is is doing with the information.

So google is different from every? other search engine how?
If you can't answer this yourself, ma

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Tim C]

the Google search history is opt-in

Assuming you mean the fact that they keep a history of what terms you search for on google.com, then can you please point out where I go to opt out? I've had a look in the preferences, and there's nothing there for it.

Also, defaulting to on but allowing you to opt out is not the same as opt-in.

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[mu22le]

If you do not wish google to track you just install the Customizegoogle extension in firefox and selet anonimyze me in the privacy tab.

It's not that hard!

Re:Default option?

[GungaDan]

I'm strongly tempted to say that if you are putting new Dell systems (with the default Dell disk image and all its assorted cruft) into production, you deserve to be surveilled, and should probably also be forced to wear a padded helmet for your own protection. But maybe I only mean the protective helmet part. In a production environment, it is incumbent upon those responsible for the machines to know what is on them. The drill is as follows: receive the box, wipe the fucker clean, reinstall the OS without

"Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

[Futurepower(R)]

If you have a gmail account, Google already knows who your friends and family are. That's okay if you can trust the company, and the political system.

Now Google seems to be becoming one of those amoral companies. The new Google Desktop takes advantage of people who don't understand what is happening. Is Google going from "Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

Unfortunately, the U.S. government believes that it can perform surveillance anywhere and can keep the reasons secret. The U.S. government often forces companies not to disclose that they have given information to the government. So, maybe no company can be trusted.

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & you pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

Re:"Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking advantage of people? How? The feature is off by default, and next to the checkbox to turn it on, it explains that if you turn the feature on, the data is stored on Google's servers. There is also some sort of Learn More link. If they are trying to take advantage of people, they aren't doing a very good job...

Re:"Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

[Futurepower(R)]

Most people, I think, won't have a clear understanding. They don't know what a server does. They won't understand that the U.S. government can secretly demand the information. They won't realize the importance of the lost of privacy, or the reason why Google is offering to do something for them.

When you work with computers every day, it is extremely easy to overestimate the level of comprehension of the average person.

Re:"Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

[paeanblack]

Now Google seems to be becoming one of those amoral companies. The new Google Desktop takes advantage of people who don't understand what is happening. Is Google going from "Do no harm" to "Anything if it makes money"?

A corporation with morals is like a coathanger with a conscience.

Corporations have one purpose: making money for the people in charge.

However, they are also useful contraptions that, overall, tend to increase everbody's standard of living. As long as we construct secure legal cages to limit

Re:EFF, Shmeff

[Zaloc]

I agree with what you are saying. It also seems that most people foolishly think that they can surf the net from home and type in anything that they want, or email anything they want and because they are in their "safe" home; inside an enclosed room. Psychologically it feels okay to share your thoughts through the computer and no one will know it's you! If that were only the case. Of course you also have the same thing happen to employees at many companies when they are hooked to company networks. Sendin

Re:How do you protect your intellectual property?

[zcat_NZ]

and you'd be keeping those details where?

If you hadn't thought about it I assume you'd be keeping those records on your computer, where Google gets access to them almost as fast as you write them.

If you had thought about it and decided it was a serious risk you'd probably go for the simpler and more sensible option; remove google desktop search completely.

Another misleading Slashdot headline

[TheSpoom]

San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. 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. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.

The EFF isn't advising people to avoid Google Desktop, just not to enable the feature, which IMHO makes complete sense. Google can't prevent the files from being taken if they're subpoenaed and a court orders them to make them available, now can they? It's not up to Google and the EFF knows this. They're not saying anything against Google here, just that people should be careful who they let have access to their files.

Re:Another misleading Slashdot headline

[csteinle]

How can we trust that Microsoft isn't doing the same as part of Windows?
How can we trust that the Mozilla foundation isn't doing the same during it's update checks - especially if you downloaded the binary version and didn't download the source, personally audit it and then compile it using a compiler and tool chain you've similarly audited?
How can we trust that ANY piece of software isn't spyware?

You can check these things be monitoring the traffic going out. It's not that hard if you're that paranoid, and even if you're not, it's pretty likely someone else has. Google's reputation would be slaughtered if they sent this kind of information from a PC that's specifically had this turned off.

Come on, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, people, don't you know Google is GOOD, not EVIL?

store copies?

[pintomp3]

I thought it stored an index. I know this is bad enough, but if it was actual copies would be at least get a free back up out of it.

Re:store copies?

[skoaldipper]

From EFF (and the article): 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..."

From Google site [google.com]: In order to share your indexed files between your computers, we first copy this content to Google Desktop servers located at Google. This is necessary, for example, if one of your computers is turned off or otherwise offline when new or updated items are indexed o

Re:store copies?

[NewKimAll]

The actual facts are the following:

Search Across Computers also has the following preferences, found on the Desktop Preferences page:

* Name this computer: This name will be displayed on remote computers that are part of the same Google account group.
* My other computers can search this computer's:
o Documents and web history
o Documents only
o Web history only
* Clear my files from Google: In order to share your indexed files between your computers, we first copy this content to Google Desktop servers located at Google. This is necessary, for example, if one of your computers is turned off or otherwise offline when new or updated items are indexed on another of your machines. We store this data temporarily on Google Desktop servers and automatically delete older flies, and your data is never accessible by anyone doing a Google search. You can learn more by reading the Google Desktop privacy policy.

While your data is automatically deleted from our servers, you can use the Clear my Files from Google button to manually remove all your files from Google Desktop servers. Note that if these files haven't yet been copied to your other computers, clicking this button will prevent you from finding them when you search from your other computers. The files will, of course, still be searchable from their computer of origin.


So it appears that your data will be on a Google Server temporarily. Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing? Why would they want to waste their money collecting everybody's garbage?
--
Want to share a file across the network between your computers? Just use FTP or PCAnywhere. I wish that VNC software would allow file transfers (hint, hint)

Re:store copies?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing?

If they could "monitize" your ass for 50 cents worth of disk space, why not? It would only take one AdSense clickthrough to make a profit of the endeavor.

Re:store copies?

[MKalus]

Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing?

One Sentence:

Largest Pr0n collection EVAR!!!!11111

file names

[yincrash]

are said 'files' able to be traced to certain people?

Re:file names

[aussie_a]

Well duh. Otherwise how would you search them on a different computer?

Re:file names

[LnxAddct]

Perhaps this would be a good time to start introducing people to GPG.
Regards,
Steve

Re:file names

[NutscrapeSucks]

Meet Clipper, the friendly Google Keychain assistant! He's open source (in the intelligence way).

In Soviet Russia, Documents Find You.

[Smarty2120]

I guess if google already stored and indexed all your files then "Comrade! Where are your papers?" won't be necessary.
Double-plus good!

Copernic

[CMiYC]

I use Copernic [copernic.com] instead of Google Desktop. I used GDS until I got a new laptop for work. Then I tried Copernic. I'm not sure if it is any better than GDS. The one aspect of Copernic I really appreciate is that it isn't integrated into my web browser. It has its own search application that looks like what I expect an indexing application to look like.

Re:Copernic

[Devistater]

Does it search files? I really want something that searches file/folder names, I dont care a whole lot about the contents.

Re:Copernic

[aussie_a]

What OS are you using? Because there's this wonderful OS, you may have heard of it, it's called Windows 3.0, is able to search for file names. Now it may not search for a file folder, but it could. I haven't used it in some time.

Re:Copernic

[zerocool^]

Have you tried the windows search? OMG its so slow. You are talking 10+ mins to search all my hard drives/folders.

You know why?

It's actually "searching". It's not a background process or daemon or whatever sitting in your memory, taking note of everything you're editing, changing, adding to or deleting from your file system. It doesn't take 6 hours to find the time to create its searchable database like Google desktop does. It just searches. It's find / -name 'filename'. That's all it does.

When I heard how fast google search was, I thought "how perfect". At the time, I worked at a local computer shop who did lots of backups. We'd pull a hard drive out of a client's computer and search for the requested data (i.e. jpegs, doc files, address book, etc). Google Desktop search was going to revolutionize our task. Damn kludgey MS Search.

When you install GDS, it informs you that it may take a few hours to fully index the HDD. That's *slower* than MS search. Not to mention, utterly useless when you're attaching 50GB of data to the host computer 3 times a day, digging through it, and removing it.

Know why MS's search is slow? Because that's actually how long it takes.

~W

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Copernic

[killjoe]

Do a google for "agent ransack". There is a free version. It's pretty awesome and usually the second thing I install on a windows PC (first being firefox of course).

It does name searches, it does text searches, it does regular expressions etc.

As for windows search I agree it's a piece of shit. Why they couldn't just put something like locate into place I'll never know.

Of course unless you are forced to use windows I would reccomend a switch to mac. The amazing spotlight search is worth the extra money by itself.

Re:Copernic

[bradleyland]

I've removed Copernic from several of my customer's PCs after complaints of slowdowns and crashes on startup. It might just be a side effect of these types of products (Desktop Search), but based on my experience, you may encounter performance issues.

EFF It

[Anonymous Coward]

By user demand, Google introduces Google Anal Probe Beta (hereafter GAP). GAP searches that last gap of yours that we haven't been able to reach. We will be able to recommend foods you might like, various restaurants and whether you've ever been abducted by aliens.

"Google, is this painful?" you might ask. Not anymore! Thanks to GooLube Beta you won't feel a thing.

Folks, I'm not overly inclined to paranoia, but be careful. Unique application identifiers? Uploading information for across-machine search? Google never deletes anything. Ever. They might not be doing anything insidious with it now. But in five years, ten years? Who can say.

Warrants? Damn.

[Pavan_Gupta]

Seriously, I've been using slashdot for ages, and this kind of problem -- in this case more obvious than most -- is just retarded.

Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[d_jedi]

The new Google Desktop sends "copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents [to] Google's own servers"?

That's scary. What happened to "do no evil"?

Either Google is dropping that premise, or the EFF is overreacting. I wouldn't rule out the latter, in the least..

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[QuantumG]

They make it perfectly clear what they are doing and ask you before doing it.. how is that evil?

By that logic fdisk and format are evil programs because they delete stuff.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[QuantumG]

fdisk = fdisk and format = mke2fs and a fax machine is just a phone with a waffle iron on the side.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[thinkliberty]

Google's "do no evil" claim is a jedi mind trick. they say they do no evil, so they can do evil.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[aussie_a]

The new Google Desktop sends "copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents [to] Google's own servers"?

That's scary. What happened to "do no evil"?

It's necessary for a feature they're offering (searching your files across multiple computers). If you disable the feature, no harm done. If you want the future, then you kinda have to give them the ability to store the stuff on their computer.

I'd say that Google has meet their "do no evil" requirement in this (I do believe they have broken it though by deciding to go against their morals to enter the Chinese market. They've gone from "do no evil" to "do nothing unlawful"). They haven't placed files on their servers for no reason at all. Instead they have done it and offered additional functionality as a result. Are they doing it to gain a profile on their users? Of course (even if they are waiting at the moment). But everything Google does is aimed at creating a profile on their customers in order to send them ads. You have to decide for yourself whether or not you consider that evil. I personally don't. Now if they decide to sell that profile to another company, THEN I would consider them even more evil, and will boycott all google products.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[Bob9113]

It's necessary for a feature they're offering (searching your files across multiple computers).

No it isn't. They could store the data encrypted (index data and documents), using a private key known only to the user. Not only would it work, it would be easy to implement. And you could toss in a compression algorithm to reduce bandwidth and storage overhead. And Google has far more than enough sharp minds to have thought of this. Assuming the EFF's report is accurate, Google chose to keep the data in accessib

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[NetRAVEN5000]

This is something the user has to enable on his/her own. It's not like they're going to post all your important docs online without your consent. If you're worried about it, just make sure the damn checkbox isn't checked.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[Adult film producer]

It's not google's fault that the current regime that resides in washington has an appetite for illegally invading the privacy of american citizens.

Re:Wow, wow, wow.. let me get this straight..

[mporcheron]

this distinct lack of information is funny:
a) the data is only sent if the user says so,
b) the data is apparently encrypted,
c) it is deleted after 30 days.

there need be no privacy concern, if you don't like the idea of handy convenient storage, don't enable it.

Storage -- A Fleeting Concern?

[Shky]

It kind of makes one wonder how long it will be until we simply stop thinking about where our documents are stored. I've kind of assumed that, soon enough, we'll simply have our key that we'll use to access our information anywhere, anytime. Seeing the things coming out of 37Signals [37signals.com] and other likeminded businesses that allow you to store and edit information online from anywhere, it really seems like this is the way we're headed. The only thing is, will we find some way to keep our information more secure, or will the average joe just stop caring?

Re:Storage -- A Fleeting Concern?

[Shky]

And, just as an addition, this is my explanation why I think we will simply stop worrying about this, for the most part.

Most of us have simply accepted that websites will leave cookies on our computer. But we, of course, have learned to manage these; we only keep the ones we want, and probably not for very long.

We don't seem to mind that every website gets our IP address, but the very private can uses proxies (plenty of FF extensions) if they wish.

There are countless examples like this, where we have these privacy invasions, but we've simply accepted them, and learned to manage them. Now, whether this is a good thing or bad thing might be an entirely separate discussion. So I think that we will accept our documents being stored anywhere, but we'll learn to be careful, still. You might use an online text editor to make your resume, but maybe you'll leave your contact information off it, and only when you're ready to print will you temp-save it locally, add that info, and then print it.

I just really think we'll all get used to not knowing exactly where our stuff is, but we'll know what to do if we really need to be careful about it. For a little while, at least.

Re:Storage -- A Fleeting Concern?

[Vellmont]

Well, what I think is going to happen is we'll all be fine with storing documents off site, but only when they're encrypted and the storage entity doesn't have the key. Key management will be an issue, but it wouldn't be too hard to have your keys stored by a third party that's not owned by the party who's storing the information. Hell, the key storage entity could be offshore in another country like Switzerland who won't just bend over when the US government wants to data mine everyones documents.

Double standards?

[sinij]

Double standards boggle my mind. Microsoft would be lynched for half the things Google gets away from. Can someone please tell me why having your all private correspondence (gmail) or your file system (desktop) searchable by someone OTHER THAN ORIGINAL OWNER is a good idea? I know Google not suppose to extract any information, but if they CAN at some point they WILL.

Re:Double standards?

[aussie_a]

Actually I would trust Microsoft to not search through my stuff. Which is why I had a hotmail address for years. I'll trust the companies, up until I learn that they HAVE broken that trust (by searching through my stuff). As for the government searching through my stuff, I expect companies to comply with local laws. Although if it is an international company deciding to break into a new market and they claim to be guided by something other then profits, I'll hold them to that.

Re:Double standards?

[NetRAVEN5000]

Can someone please explain why information sharing (the Internet) is a good idea? Can someone please explain why making your files available to others (the Internet, file-sharing programs like BitTorrent) is a good idea?

And can someone please explain to parent why it's a good idea to RTFA? It specifically says, "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".

If you don't want Google searching your files, quit your bitching and select "No, thanks, don't upload my files" or whatever.

Re:Double standards?

[teslatug]

And Microsoft doesn't have private correspondence (hotmail, msn)? How about your ISP, does it have any? You can encrypt all way around, but then you'll have to make the recipients of your mail decrypt it. It's just easier to trust someone. Who you trust is up to you. I'd go with google seeing as they didn't bend over for the government like Yahoo and Microsoft did (and probably your ISP would).

Re:Double standards?

[_Sprocket_]

Isn't it cute how Microsoft fanboys get all twisted when you just mention Google? :P

Please feel free to explain to me how gmail is bad and hotmail is not. And while you're at it, does your "other than original owner" comment mean to imply random people? If so, I'd like to know how you think this happens. If instead you are noting that moving personal data to servers owned and controlled by others might be a bad idea... wasn't that the point of this article? And with that criticism in mind, where is this

Re:Double standards?

[Kihaji]

That's where you are wrong, Google is not a search engine company. Google is an advertising company who targets their markets through search history and context. Google does not create these cool things like Gmail, Desktop, Chat, etc to create software. They create them so they can put AdSense on everything electronic.

It knows too much.

[Overneath42]

I briefly used Google Desktop because everyone raved about its amazing versatility. I also wanted a desktop search similar to Spotlight. When Google Desktop started bookmarking sites for me and linking to things I didn't ask for, I stopped using it almost immediately. I'm not interested in having a computer moderate my life for me. I wouldn't trust any company with personal data, even if it is Google. Hell, I don't really even trust Google that much. It seems like they're growing too big too fast, built on too many creative yet economically-tenuous technologies. When will the house of cards collapse?

Re:It knows too much.

[nate nice]

"When will the house of cards collapse?"

When little Billy comes over and sneezes on them, like he always does.

And then procedes to cut you, rape your mother and steal your cards. This is also why I think MS is a good investment, especially right now (buy low, sell high!). I guess when they steal Googles capitol their stock should rise about 200% or so...sad story but hey, it works for me!

(yes, yes, I know Google has all the "talent" and "new ideas" and technologically "cool" things. I know another compan

Ironic thing about this

[ZachPruckowski]

I'm actually using Google to back up a lot of my word (well, OOo now) files, MP3s, and PDFs. At least most of the ones under 10 MB.

Or as an alternative

[dtfinch]

Don't enable the "search across computers" option. I doubt Google would enable it by default, as that would suck up a terrible amount of bandwidth and server storage, unless they're confident that they have the resources to burn on a feature that nobody will use (to search computers they own [bad pun]).

Re:Or as an alternative

[rm69990]

I just installed the new version. It is NOT enabled by default. This is the text displayed right next to where you click to enable the feature:

Index and search my documents and viewed web pages from across all my computers.

(This feature stores your indexed files on Google Desktop servers for copying to your other computers. Learn more about this feature or our Privacy Policy.)

They provide links to both. Much more upfront than say, Bonzai Buddy.

Nani?

[autopr0n]

Well, if everyone has two GB of space, it makes sense to use it somehow. These guys sure do want to get their hands on a lot of data.

Re:Nani?

[Leroy_Brown242]

So, what you're saying is, google is just a huge pr0n gathering opperation? :)

offline hacking

[pintomp3]

so i don't even have to be online for hackers to get into my files? sweet!

Can do!

[jZnat]

*is a Debian user*

FTFY Google

[daemonenwind]

Do Know Evil

There, fixed that for ya.

Feature must be enabled first

[mineavatar]

The "search across computers" options is DISABLED by default. The user has to turn it on, and only then is any data stored on Google servers (and then it is only stored on the servers for no more than a month). CNN was repeating the same inaccurate statement this morning.

What about copyright?

[Pranjal]

I guess anyone can easily upload copyrighted MP3's? Does that mean Google is a RIAA target now?

Alternative filename search suggestions anyone?

[Devistater]

I'm using google desktop right now and for a while I've been wondering if there's anything better. What I really want is something that searches file/folder names for strings or words. I dont care a whole lot about the contents.
For instance if I had a file names "my family pics from vacation to hawaii in 2006 2314.jpg"
I'd like to be able to find that with a search of keywords like:
family pics
hawaii vacation
2006 pics
etc. Currently google desktop turns up way too many hits, when all I want are files with those words in the filename.

So I want more of a filename (and foldername!) searcher than anything else. Bonus if it can only search .jpg files for the above example. And something thats faster than that awefully slow windows search. Windows search usually does more of what I want than google desktop does, but dang is it slow, and not very flexible. Heck, I'd keep google if it had something to limit its searching to filenames instead of the insides of files.

Oh shut up

[77Punker]

It's disabled by default. It's no threat unless you choose to use it, in which case it's still mostly benign. BTW, OF COURSE everything Google does is used for advertising data gathering. That's how their business works. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's been that way from day one.

Who are they blameing?

[Kickboy12]

The article seems to be blaming Google for doing this. What the government takes from Google is not Google's fault, people should be gleaming their eye at the government for trying to delve into people's personal lives. Google is trying to create a service, and a very good service at that. Google is a privacy advocate, they are not destroying your privacy. All data they collect is very secure, and Google has shown they are willing to fight in court for users' privacy.

People should be looking at the government. In my opinion, if US Government uses Google to watch what people do on the internet, they aren't much better than China.

This is not Google's fault. Stop blaming them.

As for this statement:
"...while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password."
Google is pretty good about passwords. If someone gets your password, it's your fault. Second, I'm not convinced you can search your records remotely. The Google Desktop search runs directly from your computer, you can't access or search your files remotely using this feature. Proof: If you have it installed, what IP does it go to when you search your files? 127.0.0.1:4664 Oh snap, what a concept!

It's all bullshit. People need to start giving people the facts and stop praying on their ignorance.

The end.

The Business Environment

[TubeSteak]

I read about this earlier and my first thought was: This is going to be a nightmare for businesses.

Can you imagine the kind of trouble employees and companies could get in if confidential data is being stored on Google's servers?

God help the company that accidentally gets medical or financial data stored on Google's servers.

This is a huge gaping security hole for companies. Google's Desktop Search is going to end up on the list of unnaceptable software... even if the feature is disabled by default.

Campaign:Break up with Google this Valentine's Day

[Anonymous Bullard]

For many people Google's increasingly shameless behavior only means that they're now aware that their privacy is being compromised by this profit-oriented entity which was formerly known for its "Do No Evil" marketing slogan.

It is easy to forget that by agreeing to censor its search engine in cahoots with the Chinese dictatorship, Google is now also helping repress millions of Tibetans who have suffered under harsh military occupation by the Chinese since 1950.

Since people tend to be more familiar with the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust or Stalin's invasions and gulags, what if Google had made a business pact with the Nazis or Stalin providing their ignorant populations with entertainment and "harmless legitimate-looking facts" while suppressing all knowledge of the horrors those regimes caused to the people they oppressed?

This is what Google (and Microsoft and Yahoo) are doing in China today. All knowledge of the Chinese crimes against the Tibetan nation or the Tibetan people's struggle to regain their independence are systematically wiped out from their search results as if none of it ever happened, at the behest of the ruling Chinese Communist Party dictatorship.

What is the point of having an "information service" which covers up the most crucial information relating to massive human rights violations? A glorified pacifier to placate the ignorant masses while their ruling regime is busy carrying out genocide to its horrible conclusion?

An estimated 1,500,000 Tibetans (!!) have already perished under the Chinese occupation (nearly a fifth of total population), Tibetan language, buddhist religion, identity and history are systematically suppressed while the CCP is promoting Chinese settlers to overrun Tibet demographically. Not to mention Tibetan natural resources being stolen, nuclear waste dumped there and more nuclear missile sites being built to threaten all democracies south of the Himalayas. Or the brutality of the CCP's paramilitary police against the large number of Tibetan political prisoners being held in secret camps across Tibet. The Chinese population should be allowed to compare these facts to the current feed of Communist Party-driven anti-Japanese propaganda over that brutal, if partial invasion that ceased to take place over sixty years ago. Which invasion is supposed to be less evil and why?

Google's [phayul.com] Chinese (dis)service will compliantly keep any of this information from reaching the Chinese or the Tibetans under Chinese occupation because an unelected and expansionist regime wanted them to collaborate.

This shouldn't be only about self-centered westerners worrying about their god-given personal privacy, although privacy is of course extremely important even in democracies with other safety mechanisms against abuse. No, it is far more sinister when corporations from the "democratic world" are helping cover up a holocaust or genocide being committed by their business partners!

What we need is search, webmail etc. services which are guaranteed to remain neutral and safe without turning evil at the first profit-motive. Or which are not subject to American "shareholders uber alles" mentality which corrupted Google. Could/should such services be based in Switzerland or Sweden, both historically neutral territories without track record of collaborating with dictatorial regimes? Would they need massive financing, thereby potentially subjecting them to the whims of the moral-free financial markets, or could enough of their functions (CPU load, distributed and encrypted storage) be offloaded, a la bittorrent, to contributing users and neutral, respectable institutions?

How could the OSS communities help build safe alternatives to Google's morality and privacy-compromised offerings?

In the meanwhile some Tibetan support groups [studentsfo...etibet.org] are promoting

Re:Campaign:Break up with Google this Valentine's

[TLLOTS]

*sigh* I'm getting really tired of seeing this kind of bullcrap spouted all over slashdot whenever Google gets mentioned. Believing point blank that google is evil because they now have a china specific version of their search engine is ludicrous.

Firstly the chinese specific portal was created because the experience delivered by their worldwide portal was less than adequate (whether this is the result of filtering thanks to the great firewall of china I don't know). As a result people in china now have a se

Re:Campaign:Break up with Google this Valentine's

[forgotten_my_nick]

>Google is now also helping repress millions of
>Tibetans who have suffered under harsh military
>occupation by the Chinese since 1950.

man I'm giving up my moderator points but what the heck.

http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=free+tibet& btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta= [google.cn]

Re:Campaign:Break up with Google this Valentine's

[Anonymous Bullard]

How many times can you give up your mod points under one subject? :-)

Anyway, if your point was to show how "google.cn" will proudly display honest search results for queries forbidden by the Chinese regime, you'd be better off (well actually worse off but hey...) trying that search from the other side of the Chinese Communist Party's fancy censorship filters, built with the courteous help by certain Cisco Corp.

Not only would do you fail to get uncensored results but the Party's own "Public Security" parami

What about China?

[OrangeTide]

When China demands Google censor searches, they agree. So if China asks Google to search user's desktops for keywords (Democracy, Revolution, Freedom, etc), will Google agree there?

Why is desktop search necessary?

[VGPowerlord]

I'm beginning to think that I'm the only person who creates directory hierarchies for my documents, and names them with meaningful names.

A Google love affair

[jmorkel]

I can't understand why people spring to Google's defence as if they are employees or shareholders whenever issues regarding the search giant pop up here. There are two issues here that people seem to be upset about:

1. Google is taking mining of personal information a step further by storing individuals' information that was not intentionally put there on their servers.
2. The legal implications of having information stored by Google rather than only on your computer mean that only a lightweight subpoena is required rather than a hefty court-issued search warrant. The result of this is that the legal requirements for getting hold of one's personal documents are less.

As has been mentioned here, Google, while a large influential company that makes our lives simpler, is still bound by the laws of the countries in which they operate. The company is run by individuals who are open to corruption (since nobody's perfect). Most people would think twice before leaving their PCs unlocked if they walk away from their desks (rather than trusting their colleagues), but a disturbing majority of people here seem to have blind faith in a company simply because they have a "Don't be evil" motto.

And how big is *your* cpu?

[mattr]

Granted Google Desktop is free (as is enterprise edition for now too, except support is $10K/yr), there is a very funny side to this too. Most people these days have *way* too much memory and CPU, considering the tasks for which they are using their machines. I mean computing, not realtime 3D rendering, sound synthesis or maneuvering bloated app bits around. The computing side of machines. Personal computers these days have enough power these days to run powerful search engines of their own without farming it across the net. I myself am very happy Google is doing this since last year I designed a simple program that has some of the same functionality and now I can point to Google and say "but my system is safer". How long until those neat ethernet equipped hard disks come with similar searching/rsyncing features? Anyway I keep rating everything I see against the BeOS (now Zeta) live search query folders. So far that is the best darned thing I've seen.

Troll-o-riffic!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Troll-o-riffic!

Re:Convenience vs. "privacy"

[aussie_a]

Well it depends. Do you care if the police can go through your stuff without a warrant? If not, then no problem. But many people do believe in privacy from the government (the founding fathers believed in it enough to include it in the constitution) and wish to keep their privacy. For them, this article would certainly be an eye-opener.

Re:Convenience vs. "privacy"

[kfg]

Why should I avoid using software that makes my life easier just because of the threat of my privacy being "violated" . . .

Because you have never been refered to as "The Defendant."

Oh, but you will be. You will be!

KFG

Jesus, come on!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Like a search warrant, a subpoena requires a judge's signature. So there's not much to worry about in terms of no oversight.

Are you serious? The only reason Bush is in hot water is because he didn't get a warrant, but had he asked, some judge would have given it to him anyway... Judges almost always rubber stamp warrants, after all, if "Law Enforcement" asks, they must need it, right?

Re: Jesus, come on!

[Black Parrot]

> The only reason Bush is in hot water is because he didn't get a warrant, but had he asked, some judge would have given it to him anyway... Judges almost always rubber stamp warrants, after all, if "Law Enforcement" asks, they must need it, right?

I don't know if that's true in general, but it is the track record of the FISA court Bush is skipping around.

The law also allows that court to give post hoc warrants, up to 72 hours after the unwarranted spying took place. The bit about needing to work without warrants in order to track immediate threats is pure bunkum.

Re: Don't Jump the Gun

[Black Parrot]

> Just because this can be used this way doesn't mean it will.

Yeah, that's what they said about street-light cams and automobile black boxes.

Re:You can always not check it..

[rm69990]

Had you RTFA, you would notice the EFF did exactly that. Blame your misunderstanding on Slashdot's editors not knowing how to check links before posting stories, not on the EFF. From TFA:

San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. 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. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.

EFF *is* doing something about it

[mouthbeef]

"Rather than telling people not to use any of these products and convincing a few people with privacy paranoia they should be concentrating on improving the protections that information will have."

EFF is concentrating on this: they've announced a major lawsuit [eff.org] against AT&T for participating in the government's illegal wiretapping program.

But the surveillance powers of the state have expanded many times through the Bush Administration (and Clinton was hardly a friend of privacy, for that matter). So while it's important to put corporations on notice that their participation in surveillance might land them in hot water, it's likewise important to let the public know that corporations are often left with no choice, and required to surveil them secretly (e.g., because of FISA warrants, or through CALEA wiretapping).

EFF isn't pursuing a monotonic "stop sharing your information" strategy. It's approaching this on many prongs: lobbying the government to sunset the PATRIOT Act, asking the Supreme Court to strike it down, suing companies that participate in surveillance, publishing best-practices documents for privacy-friendly server-logging, and warning the public about the potential for privacy ruptures arising from law and practice.

It's unfair to characterize EFF as merely wagging its fingers at the public. The organization is pursuing this on every possible front.

(Disclosure: I am a former EFF employee)

Just need to be better than the next guy

[logicnazi]

It doesn't matter if google will give their all. All that matters is that they are going to do more than the next guy. If people's stuff is going to end up on servers anyway we want to pick the company who will do the most *even if it isn't that much* to go first.

The idea that you can defend your privacy on your own just doesn't work. If everyone you correspond with puts stuff on servers you lose privacy anyway. Even if my suggestion is a slim chance it is the only chance we have.

Also hiring a lobbyist,

Re:Just need a desktop search that . . .

[rm69990]

GDS actually doesn't call home unless you tell it to.

GDS doesn't display ads ever. Not once have I ever seen an ad using GDS.

Simply don't enable the feature (which is disabled by default, but try telling that to the tards running this site) and don't enable Advanced Features. Done, no problems.

Re:holy bandwidth batman!

[rm69990]

Most people won't go out of their way to enable this feature, considering it is disabled by default, so I doubt it will be much of an issue.

Re:Sigh. Another EFF overreaction...

[tftp]

What I find distressing about all the anti-Google stuff going on is that people seem to have so little faith in Google.

As Google's power grows, that power starts corrupting Google. It's inevitable. Those idealistic founders may still hug trees and wear heart-warming slogans on their shirts, but seasoned business executives know better how to milk the cash cow. And they are in charge now.

Yet, have they really ever betrayed us?

You are assuming a dichotomy [wikipedia.org] where none exists. Hardly ever betrayals are so clear-cut. Your local politician may promise $foo, but after one month on the job he says $bar is better - did he betray you, or he simply knows better now? If in a war a soldier tells his girlfriend that his unit is short on ammo, and the GF is with resistance, is it a betrayal? I would expect a smooth, gentle slide from "do no evil" to "do no evil unless you don't mind, and we give you a candy for that" to then "do no evil unless you fail to enter a 26-digit prime number here and now to opt out" to ... you see my point. And that's what is happening.

I, for one, believe that Google is on the side of the users.

You are personifying a company - a collective organism who does not think as humans do, and does not behave as humans do. It is genetically hardwired to get as much money out of you, me and everyone as it legally can. I would be wary of such an animal.

By going from nothing to superstar based almost entirely on word-of-mouth, Google demonstrated how powerful cultivating user trust can be

Mixing the "Google as a startup in a garage" with the "Google as a billion dollar publicly owned business" here. They are not the same, and different people are at the helm now. They don't care what the founders thought back then. They are not the founders.

Re:Sigh. Another EFF overreaction...

[lxs]

What I find distressing about all the anti-Google stuff going on is that people seem to have so little faith in Google.

Newsflash: Google != God ; faith is highly inappropriate here.

Why should anyone have faith in a company that has as its sole purpose to make money for its shareholders? (They may have had high ideals in the past, but those went out the window with the IPO, such is the nature of publicly owned companies. Any loyalty toward their users, which by the way are NOT their customers just "eyeballs" to sell to the advertisers, has gotten transferred to the shareholders.)

The correct attitude towards big companies, even the cool ones, is a healthy skepicism, not blind faith, for they will screw you over the moment you turn your back.

Re:These privacy concerns are getting stupid

[CB-in-Tokyo]

I totally understand your points, and they are valid, but I think that the difference is that you have to put thought into getting a safety deposit box, renting an apartment, etc. In the environment I manage, I can totaly see an executive thinking, "Hey, this is great. I can search from various computers!" and just clicking through the "standard" agreements without really thinking about what is going on.

Well what this does, is bypasses both our security measures, and our legal measures that our company has

Re:Your Searches Are Logged

[Cheeze]

Good luck finding one. There's a reason why searches are free, and search companies are most often tied with advertising. If you don't want to be logged, use Tor [eff.org]