Google censorship tools

[TrainableMan]

The US government asked Google for user information 4,287 times during the first six months of 2010.


During the same timeframe the UK government put in over 1,000 such requests.


This is just two snippets from Google's new Transparency Report, a set of tools designed to show censorship levels around the globe.
...

Data on information requests from China is absent from the current map. "Chinese officials consider censorship demands to be state secrets so we cannot disclose that information at this time," said Google.


Full Article


& the actual Transparency Report Tool

 

[etalmar]

Interesting post about Google's quiet but persistent assault on user privacy: How Google Is Spying On You With Firefox 3 Safe Browsing.

If you haven't done so already, I would recommend disabling Google's Geolocation "feature" in Firefox. The Geolocation feature in Firefox 3.6 is enabled by default and only functions if you give explicit permission to a web site to use it on a case by case basis. If you wish to permanently disable Geolocation in Firefox, set this option to False.

about:config
type 'geo' in filter bar

geo.enabled - false
[Default is true]

This article addresses privacy concerns pertaining to Google: Firefox 3.5 Geo-not-locatable.

 

[Thrax]

The amount of anti-Google tinfoil hat-wearing in this thread is about to reach a fever pitch. The Firefox safe browsing mechanism sends the URL 100% anonymously to Google. All they have is the URL and your IP address, neither of which can be used to identify you without a subpoena from a federal court.

//EDIT:

On the subject of Geolocation, I hope people understand that IP geolocation can't get any more specific than the city or county you live in. Again, this is done by IP address, and can be done by anyone that has your IP address. Did I mention that no personally-identifiable information can be had without a federal subpoena?

I could go through everyone's forum posts and get just as much information on people as IP geolocation could: nothing worthwhile.

 

[etalmar]

The amount of anti-Google tinfoil hat-wearing in this thread is about to reach a fever pitch. The Firefox safe browsing mechanism sends the URL 100% anonymously to Google. All they have is the URL and your IP address, neither of which can be used to identify you without a subpoena from a federal court.

Believe what you will about Google's "integrity" to preserve privacy and anonymity. This "tinfoil wearing" member doesn't buy their hype, regardless of whatever they allege.

Just as I cannot prove that Google is intentionally assaulting user privacy, you cannot prove that they are not.

 

[TorrentG]

Google really is terrible imho.

Not so long ago, they had special software that would install with something else a user wanted like a toolbar or whatnot, and it would also install quietly a "feature" that would automatically enable the users' microphones to listen in on them.

Google's official explanation was that it is being used so now they "know which products to advertise to users since they can match to what is playing on the tv."

And if you believe that it wasn't designed to use for other alterior motives, or that the official explanation itself isn't a notorious invasion of privacy, along with their mapping off all unhidden SSIDs for wireless networks everywhere....I have a bridge...

They really, really are terrible.

 

[Thrax]

I'm not going by hype, etalmar. You can inspect the packets sent by Firefox and see for yourself. Nothing personal is being divulged.

I never, ever, argue from ignorance. If I say something, it's because I checked it myself and know it to be true.

 

[Thrax]

Never happened. It was a Google Labs concept that never got out of beta.

Google really is terrible imho.

Not so long ago, they had special software that would install with something else a user wanted like a toolbar or whatnot, and it would also install quietly a "feature" that would automatically enable the users' microphones to listen in on them.

Google's official explanation was that it is being used so now they "know which products to advertise to users since they can match to what is playing on the tv."

And if you believe that it wasn't designed to use for other alterior motives, or that the official explanation itself isn't a notorious invasion of privacy, along with their mapping off all unhidden SSIDs for wireless networks everywhere....I have a bridge...

They really, really are terrible.

 

[etalmar]

I'm not going by hype, etalmar. You can inspect the packets sent by Firefox and see for yourself. Nothing personal is being divulged.

I never, ever, argue from ignorance. If I say something, it's because I checked it myself and know it to be true.

I am not "arguing from ignorance". In fact, I wasn't arguing at all. Simply stating an opinion.

 

[Thrax]

"Argue from ignorance" is merely a figure of speech, not an accusation.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I quit wearing tinfoil hats a long time ago... prefer the perforated stainless steel colander as it gives my few hair follicles that are left some precious ventilation.

 

[TorrentG]

Never happened. It was a Google Labs concept that never got out of beta.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I'm not so sure that's true. (It very well could be though.)

Judging by this article, it seems it may have seen the light of day:

"It’s strange, but it sounds like it works and people might really like it."

http://techcrunch.com/2006/06/08/google-research-prototypes-ambient-audio-contextual-content/

I can't say if that is based on actual people that have used it or pure speculation.

People here thought it was so foul that it was an April Fools' joke:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/03/2148216

I dunno, to me, just the thought of them thinking of ever doing this is enough to say they're foul.

 

[catilley1092]

If Google doesn't censor, which I don't have any proof of, either for or against, then why do we have the option to download opt-out software to protect ourselves from them? There has to be something to it, I seriously doubt that Google is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

While it's indeed voluntary to install the opt-out software, I sure that Google was pushed into offering it to us by some authority. And while Google may not be 100% guilty of the accusations made against them, they're not 100% innocent, either. They have done everything in their power to monopolize the search engine industry, going as far as sticking their noses in MS's affairs, when they were attempting to acquire Yahoo.

But they failed, and in the end, MS got what they wanted for free, their search engine into Yahoo. And Google made themselves another enemy by sticking their noses where it didn't belong.

And then there's the issue of Google leaving China, the growth capital of the world. Why would any corporation simply walk away from there? Truth probably was, Google didn't want to follow the law of the land that they do business in. While I don't like the fact that many of our jobs went there, if I were an investor, I'd follow the growth, wherever it took me.

Google has made their own bed, now they must lay in it, for better or worse.

Cat

 

[Nibiru2012]

Since the NSA helped fund some of Google's early days I stay away from it.

 

[Thrax]

While it's indeed voluntary to install the opt-out software, I sure that Google was pushed into offering it to us by some authority. And while Google may not be 100% guilty of the accusations made against them, they're not 100% innocent, either. They have done everything in their power to monopolize the search engine industry, going as far as sticking their noses in MS's affairs, when they were attempting to acquire Yahoo.

I think you're confusing Google for the DOJ, who hammered the Yahoo/MS detail on anti-trust issues. Furthermore, what strong-arming Google did attempt with the deal was little more than a life raft for Jerry Yang, founder and ex-CEO of Yahoo!, who was desperate to fend off Microsoft. So desperate, actually, that Yang turned down an offer that was 25% higher than the company was worth.

But they failed, and in the end, MS got what they wanted for free, their search engine into Yahoo. And Google made themselves another enemy by sticking their noses where it didn't belong.

Microsoft did not get that for free. It was a very, very expensive deal.

And then there's the issue of Google leaving China, the growth capital of the world. Why would any corporation simply walk away from there? Truth probably was, Google didn't want to follow the law of the land that they do business in. While I don't like the fact that many of our jobs went there, if I were an investor, I'd follow the growth, wherever it took me.

You're arguing in favor of privacy out of one hand, then lambasting Google for pulling out of China in another. Do you know why Google left the PRC? Because China requested Google keep tabs on and supply data for every Chinese user that accessed the search engine. Data that can be used to arrest Chinese citizens as enemies of the state, dissidents and other baseless accusations.

You can't have it both ways. You're either in favor of privacy, or you're in favor of Google providing every little detail about its users to the Chinese just so they can stay in China and make money.

 

[TrainableMan]

If you read my source Google has not left China, they just renewed, but they are worried about the censorship issue.

"Google is keen to reassert its freedom of expression credentials after a very public spat with the Chinese government over censorship. It threatened to pull the plug on services when it emerged that the authorities had been spying on some Gmail accounts.
It began re-routing traffic via Hong Kong but in June agreed to tweak the system to placate the Chinese government.
In July its license to do business in China was renewed."