Hiding From Google 228
penguinrecorder writes "Google offers Web users a simple trade-off: Let the search giant track a substantial portion of your comings and goings around the Web, and it will offer you a free, superior online experience. Now independent security researcher Moxie Marlinspike is making Web users a counter-offer: take Google's giveaways and keep your privacy too. On Tuesday, Marlinspike launched a service he calls GoogleSharing, a plug-in for Firefox designed to give users access to Google's online offerings while cloaking their identity from the company's data collection tools. By hosting a proxy server with a collection of Google 'identities,' the privacy software will allow users temporarily to route their traffic through another computer that masks their identity by mixing their online actions with those of other users. The system is totally transparent, with no special 'alternative' websites to visit. Your normal work flow should be exactly the same." GoogleSharing only works for those services not requiring a Google login; for the latter, no proxying is done.
Obligatory Onion (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
it's all a MS thing. You don't hear this level of frezy about bing or yahoo, do ya? You don't even have an opt out from bing, as far as I can see.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Last I checked Bing didn't have a cookie-enabled advertisement widget that doubled as a user tracking point on every second web site on the internet. Neither does Yahoo.
Google is the only company that has such a pervasive ability to watch you. Google Ads means they can track you even if you never, ever visit google.com. Once you visit a page with Google Ads, you get a google-sourced cookie and they can track your movement through every other Google Ad toting page until you clear your cookies again.
Oh, and G
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are others besides searching on Google, and Google Ads. You forgot about Google Analytics, and embedded "site" Google Searches. They show up in most pages these days. How about when someone embeds a YouTube video? They bought Doubleclick a few years ago, so there's another datamining source.
Google is embedded in enough places to make themselves rather difficult to avoid.
You are quite likely right, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than just a fe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people will find an arbitrary reason to mod things particular ways. Someone obviously didn't like what I wrote.
I know people complain about the "moderators", but they usually haven't been here long enough to know, we're all the moderators. You can't please everyone all the time, so I don't worry about getting modded down occasionally. It's just someone who's being pissy. Since they aren't here to smack on the back of the head and say "what were you thinking", I don'
Fixes (Score:2)
1) Browse through your ISP proxy (you often get faster access as a benefit)
2) Adblock plus google-analytics (not just google ads)
And we're trusting you because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we're trusting you because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. It's free, so he's gotta be paying for it somehow, right? Or is he a known philanthropist who has a long track record of protecting privacy? Nope, didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... when Steve Gibson says "I'm going to port scan you... if your alarms go off that means they're working!" he also says "Would you like to buy a copy of SpinRite?"
"No visible means of support" is a reason to keep an investigation going. Nobody can fund something without a source of income from somewhere.... so what is this guy selling?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's always the chance that this service doesn't take any significant centralized resources to keep running, as in the users are made to contribute the bandwidth and CPU resources needed to keep it running.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A distributed service like has existed for years now, so there's not really a need for a replacement. It's called http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's called http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
Talk about an unwieldy name
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't see your IP address anymore.
The problem is it does. It's just that your IP address is claiming responsibility for someone else's clandestine actions.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always the chance that this service doesn't take any significant centralized resources to keep running, as in the users are made to contribute the bandwidth and CPU resources needed to keep it running.
All systems take some resource to operate, even if it just the human resource to manage everything. Human resource is often the most expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all just wild speculation, as I haven't used the software personally, but the P2P software could be built into the FireFox add-on. There are Bittorrent FF Add-ons; I can't see why a P2P implementation of this service would be impossible.
Try Scroogle.org. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Microsoft will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't want to g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google desktop search indexes your documents in order to provide a quick search service. There's no way users can be sure the indices aren't shared with Google, despite no technical need to do so in order to provide that desktop user with a quick search of their own data. If Google gets any sensitive data, who's to know how many people get a copy of that data from Google? I imagine this is why institutions with sensitive data tell their workers they are not allowed to install Google Desktop, despite any
Re: (Score:2)
Some educational institutions can't reveal the existence of students at their school (in the US there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [wikipedia.org] which protects student privacy including divulging whether the person is a student at a particular school).
If that's the case, they wouldn't be able to offer a e-mail service for their students at all, even if hosted on their own server.
Want to test the existence of a given user (student) at the school? Just send him a mail: bounce => student does not exist. No bounce => student does exist.
Or they could, but it would be a hassle for everyone involved (obscure user names. policy to never send out a bounce)
Re:And we're trusting you because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"How is Google invasive?"
Have you ever used the NoScript extension for Firefox? Have you ever paid attention to what NoScript is blocking?
I'd say that 80-90% of the websites I end up at have at least www.google-analytics.com or www.google.com trying to run script. I'd call the unauthorized running of script on my computer invasive. Regardless of what they say to the contrary, I have not given them permission to run script on my computer, and have had to resort to actions to prevent it.
Learned use of NoScript is probably THE best way (even better with ABP and a harsh cookie policy) of making sure that Google does not have you in their evil clutches.
And, it is free. As in beer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Unauthorized running of scripts on my computer"?
By visiting the site, you authorised it. If you don't want those scripts run, don't visit the site.
It's a bit like saying "unauthorised filming of me by CCTV when I walk into a branch of Sainsburys". If you don't like it, you can do the other thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what a site wants to run inside your browser unless you access the site so using a plugin like NoScript is the only thing to do if you want to have a chance to authorize some scripts and reject others.
Re: (Score:2)
Just add google-analytics.com and others to your host file, pointing to localhost
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"What real benefit would they get from treating each user individually vs analyzing everyone's collective habits?"
Because they CAN use the information in a non-statistical fashion?
It is not so much the motives of Google that I question, but rather those that would have more sinister motivations and are in a position to force the hand of Google, or simply steal the data.
Data from one source can be cross-referenced with data from another source to great effect. The sum of such data is greater then it's parts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And we're trusting you because.... (Score:5, Informative)
Google is a proven risk, this guy's just a potential one.
This is misleading statement. Simple risk analysis: Google is a KNOWN risk with very substantial assets to lose if they screw up. This guy is an UNKNOWN risk with (presumably) a lot less to lose.
I Call Trojan (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm supposed to install this Proxy add on, then put my google account details, that has my google docs and google checkout account?
Ummm .... no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that Google probably doesn't care all that much about a specific user, or users as an individual. They're looking for types of users and their associated buying habits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. And you've been warned about that kind of thinking. It's off to the Chemical sheds for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just get the Ghostery extension for Firefox. It blocks all the things like google analytics, doubleclick, etc.
I also use TrackMeNot - another free firefox extension
And for FF there's also OptimizeGoogle (which can anonymize your google cookie and block GoogleAnalytics, in addition to a lot of other customizations not related to privacy) and SquiggleSR (another random searcher similar to TrackMeNot).
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, sounds about right!
"Don't trust Google, trust me!" (Score:4, Insightful)
"Instead of sending your private information to Google directly, use my awesome proxy server to send your private information to Google anonymously. I promise I will not snoop any more than Google does!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While you can use the server he provides, you can download the proxy software and run it on a machine you control. Of course, this really reduces the pool of identities you will be mixed with -- to 1 unless you organize some other folks to use your proxy as well.
Re:"Don't trust Google, trust me!" (Score:5, Funny)
2. Data mine the search habits of paranoids
3. ????
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Jones makes a great living off the paranoid.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a good point- posting anonymously because I work in the media research industry... When I go to trade shows, I have guys coming up to me trying to sell me panelist data like it's drugs... I'm serious. It is people like this guy that are just trying to collect a buttload of data and then try and find someone to buy it. You have your big players like comScore and Nielsen that rely primarily on their large panels for data, and then you have smaller players like compete or alexa that need as much da
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already have fraud laws for identity theft. We already have the free market to regulate the likes of Google or other companies.
But you're not Google's customer. How does the "free" market help you?
We have the 4th Amendment.
For certain values of "we" that apparently don't include the Chinese. And "unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, what makes you think it protects you, anyhow? It's Google's data we're talking about, it doesn't belong to you (in the USA, anyhow).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, that's the first time I've seen that used where ???? has about eighty possible inputs, all of which make sense.
And yet none of them...
*puts on sunglasses*
makes cents.
YEEAAAAAAAHHHHH!!
Proxy is overkill (Score:5, Informative)
www.optimizegoogle.com Tick most stuff, especially remove click tracking.
There, now Google knows what I search for, but never which link I clicked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for that. I'd been using CustomizeGoogle since forever, and had missed the fact that it had been superceded by a newer extension (one that actually works). I have now updated.
On another note, I tried clicking on TFA (yes, I know) and got an interesting response that I hadn't seen before:
Page unavailable
Access Denied
Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Proxy Avoidance"
Well, it's my workplace's internet connection, so I guess they can do what they like. No indication of which service they're using to identify "evil" sites like this, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It is.
And it means that the website in question may or may not (50/50 shot) actually have anything to do with "Proxy Avoidance"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what a surprise. http://www.torfox.org/ [torfox.org] is blocked; category "Proxy Avoidance".
Who has to use Google? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, what Google (usually) offers is a superior experience, and that experience comes at a cost. And by maintaining your privacy, you are indirectly limiting your own experience in the process. The more people try to influence Google, the less effective it would be.
Re:Who has to use Google? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What about an alternative to http://www.google.com/images [google.com]?
Because let's be honest, a lot of searches that people want to keep private are taking place there.
Re: (Score:2)
http://images.search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
I often get better results from this that G.I.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Bing has better Travel and Maps search.
I didn't realise there was a Bing Maps. I just had a look at it. I typed my street name and town (in the UK) into bing and it could't find it, even when it was already looking at the right town. I did the same in google maps (whilst looking at the default view of america) and it found it straight away. However...
Flickr is far better than Picasa, and has a better community
True.
Wordpress is more advanced, feature-rich, and easier to use than Blogger
True.
Couldn't say about the rest of them.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, possibly.
Not really. Google lets me use my own domain with gmail.
What? Are you talking about Yahoo Answers, that game where somebody posts a fake question and people compete to see who can come up with the funniest fake answer? Could be useful if you want to find out "how is babby formed," I guess.
OK, now I know you're just fucking with
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every Google product competes with at least two other brands for the same thing. If you don't like Google, you can use something else.
If a site integrates a google search, I cannot easily search the site without using google.
If a site integrates a youtube video, I cannot easily watch that video withou using google.
If a site uses google analytics, I would have to actively block it to avoid being tracked by google.
If a site displays google ads, I would have to actively block it to avoid being tracked b
Now HE can track you on his proxy (Score:2)
Nice tradeoff. Now HE can track you on his proxy. He can sell the information too (in aggregated form if he's scrupulous).
Re: (Score:2)
Why (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle, most want their usage statistics retained for a short-while, if at all. Most prefer their statistics only confided with first channel of contact as well. Are people considering that these mass usage statistics may comprise some of the magic that makes their platform so successful and useful? Continual refinement due to constant sources of usage information, IMO, seems to be working great for them. The naysayers neigh, but until I see a genuine effort by other companies to be as philanthropic, open-source friendly, charitable, and hospitable, I will shelve my skepticism and contempt for their nosiness in hopes of a continually great service.
How much would people complain if search became a pay-per-search model? If all those in favor of eliminating usage-statistics completely had their way, Ad-Words and dynamic advertising content would be out, and these search giants would be looking for another form of revenue. Something to think about...
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're deluding yourself if you think "Don't Be Evil" is more than just a throwaway phrase. While it can be argued that Google started out altruistic, it's a corporation, and by nature all corporations are there for one thing - to make money. Don't Be Evil is just some vague guide they put out there that basically means "we'll try to not do things that would piss off the consumer but it's in no way a priority."
That said, I use google all the time. I just understand how much to trust them (read: not very
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, nice job moderating me as 'flamebait' for distrusting a corporation.
That's proof right there that google has somehow gotten people to follow it with some kind of reverent attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ad-words have nothing to do with data retention. They show you ads based on the current keywords you enter. While there is some targeting, Adwords and similar services would work just fine without it.
So there is no need to keep any information about anyone's online habits, searches etc. in order to present relevant ads and make money. This is purely a strawman argument.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ad-words has everything to do with data retention. There is probably a limit past which more data will just give them too much of a needle in a haystack to sort through (I'd peg it at about 2 years.) However, if you think knowing search history doesn't help them improve results, you're not understanding what Google does properly.
It's not just a question of targeting. A straightforward example (though it only needs continuity over a half hour or so) is following you as you refine your search. If Google sees
Would you pay for Google ad-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would anybody pay Google to not show ads to them?
Perhaps, yes. I would, though I don't know if the amount I'd be wiling to pay woudl be enough to make it worth anyones while running such a scheme - Google's ads are not at all irritating compared to other options so I really don't mind them enough to be bothered enough to pay more than, say, a few per year. Some might pay for "not being tracked", but that isn't going to work because if you are not tracked how will they track whether or not they should track you...
Even if there are a minority wiling to pay
Re: (Score:2)
> ...you are Google's product which they sell to their customers.
And said customers are getting swindled when they buy me.
Re: (Score:2)
> > ...you are Google's product which they sell to their customers.
> And said customers are getting swindled when they buy me.
No, they are aware that they are buying the potential for XYZ,000 people to see their ad with an expected A% blocking it and B% just not noticing and C% ignoring it. You are not swindling them, you are part of the expected response pattern.
But advertisers would consider Google to be swindling them (or, at least they would expect to pay less) if they added a further D% (those
Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? (Score:5, Informative)
You dont have to pay, just have good enough Karma =)
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed when I was first presented the option to turn off ads on Slashdot. I have been using AdBlock+ the whole time I've been a reader here, so I never knew there were any ads.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? When I was prompted with that option, I thought to myself "Well, I read Slashdot at least a few days a week, it's a pretty good site with an above-average crowd of commenters.. I'll just leave the ads there so Slashdot can make at least a little money off me for the service they are providing."
To be honest, I really hadn't noticed any ads before I was given the option to disable them. Not because I use adblocker, but because they are fairly non-invasive and I'm not the malcontent type to looks for t
Re:Would you pay for Google ad-free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would pay for a Google subscription service with no ads and no user activity tracking.
How would they know it was you they would not show ads to unless they tracked you?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you would, and you'd pay for all your software if it was reasonably priced as well I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not paranoid, it's a little more involved than that. Forgive me for being too lazy to provide links, but Google will get all this information for you (natch!). Researchers have shown that anonymous data is not really all that anonymous. In a good amount of cases they can narrow down anonymous searches down to a single person by only seeing the searches they are performing. Know that there's a good chance that what you search for can be tied to you brings up my second point. Data that's collec
Woody Woodpecker says, Use Tor + SSL! (Score:4, Informative)
Download, install, properly configure Tor:
https://www.torproject.org/ [torproject.org]
Certainly you should choose an open source and free operating system to
increase your security/privacy: http://www.distrowatch.com/ [distrowatch.com]
Use one of the many tools available to build your own Linux liveCD/DVD/USB
with Tor installed/configured and yank out all of your HDDs or unplug them
while using Tor via Linux liveCD/DVD/USB, then while running Tor:
Scroogle SSL:
https://ssl.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org]
and for mail:
Safe-Mail:
No cookies, no script, no java, no flash required!
https://www.safe-mail.net/ [safe-mail.net]
In the words of Woody Woodpecker:
Hah ha ha HAH ha, Hah ha ha HAH ha, HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAH!
Fuck you corporations, fuck you snoopers, I do it MY WAY.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or, you could save yourself a shitload of time and just realize that ...
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR SEARCHES OR WHAT YOU DO ONLINE.
Seriously, give it a try, trust me, no one gives a shit about you so all the crap you suggest someone setup is just a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It's about the fact that (as the parent wrote) Google doesn't give a shit about your individual data.
What google are looking for are trends. Not individual behaviour. If I go and visit www.corpse-pictures.com that doesn't help google unless others do. Individuals are outliers on the graph unless there's a lot of people behaving in similar correlated patterns, at which point the data becomes interesting.
People in this world are far too paranoid about the
Re: (Score:2)
and for mail:
Safe-Mail:
No cookies, no script, no java, no flash required!
https://www.safe-mail.net/ [safe-mail.net]
Thanks for the link... but you do need JavaScript enabled to use Safe-Mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more simply, use OperaTor (Opera+Tor):
http://archetwist.com/en/opera/operator [archetwist.com]
What does this do that... (Score:2)
...not having a Google account, disabling scripts, and blocking all Google cookies including Analytics doesn't do except give Mr. Moxie a chance to track me? Why should I trust him more than Google? I know what Google is after. What does he want?
Re: (Score:2)
They can (and do) track you by IP address and User-Agent.
You have to understand that Google doesn't just track you when you're searching on www.google.com. Google provides javascript links to web page authors so that google can place ads on their page, and they produce analytic information regarding surfing habits of everyone who visits the site.
This way they can pay the web page author for the ads. In return, they track visitors from unrelated site #1 to unrelated site #2. They might notice that people who start the day surfing on Slashdot commonly follow it
now how do you hide from the hiding tool? (Score:2)
Stealing by any other name still stinks as much (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And going to the bathroom during commercials is stealing too, right? You may have a promising legal career at Time Warner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> So in other words you have no idea what this discussion is about, how Google
> works, or what the word contract means.
Yes, I do. Unlike you.
Re: (Score:2)
> I hate to be the one to break it to you but downloading is stealing.
I will assume that by "downloading" you mean "downloading unauthorized copies".
The US Federal courts do not agree with you. Making unauthorized copies of works protected by copyright is (usually) copyright infringement and illegal but it is not theft.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about morals, which has absolutely nothing to do with the law. (you'll note that I didn't say: OMFPonies! Don't get caught!)
Re: (Score:2)
You're still wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we can agree that it is some kind of disorder, and something is wrong with you if you do it ;-)
He stole my idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MITTM? (Score:2)
If you've got nothing to hide ... (Score:2)
Great idea: Give your data to those people instead (Score:2)
Alternatively you could, like, turn off cookies? At least if you are not on a static IP and/or share said IP with several others.