I'm cancelling my Google mail account...

[Green_Lantern]

First they make a deal to let NSA and FBI snoop around without warrant and now they make a deal to try to monopolize the internet.

I'm going to use GMX for my email. It's a German company so that eliminates NSA deals.

Ask.com is good as a search engine and has the best rated record on privacy.

Call me paranoid I just don't trust Google and unlike ISPs changing email is easy enough.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Website for GMX?

gmx.de?

[Turbineguy]

4. Here:

http://gmx.com/

It works great. And it's free.

[Green_Lantern]

5. no....it's gmx.com...

But just to be safe let me say I'm not advertising for gmx or encouraging anyone to leave gmail and/or join gmx.

[Upton]

20. GMX blocked my account..

I'm not sure why, not particularly interested, as other webmail is lot less hassle. Screw 'em.

[SargeUNN]

2. I use this search

http://startpage.com/

[Greyhound]

21. Cool, thanks. n/t

[AndyA]

3. I don't use Google to search any longer. Here's why.

I got an E-mail (not a Google account) from a friend one day, who told me they'd run into another friend of ours that neither of us had heard from for some time. They said the friend had a new job, and had moved. I didn't recognize the name of the company, so I searched Bing for it, found the web site, and went to see what the company did.

The company site had no advertising on it, as it was a corporate site, not directed toward the public.

Later, as I was on the Internet I noticed I began to see ads for this company. I had never seen their ads before, and I thought it was strange that they would suddenly pop up everywhere I went. Then a friend who has webmaster connections told me to go back to that company's site and see if they used Google's logging services. They did.

What happened was that Google logged my visit to that site, then started showing me ads based on my visit. Apparently, Google isn't supposed to use the information in this manner, but they very obviously do. Google has way too much power, way too much of the search traffic.

I'm generally not a big corporate supporter, but I've been using Bing because it's the best opportunity to take some market share away from Google. Google seems to be getting dangerous, and I don't like their involvement in the Net Neutrality business. So much for "do not harm." :eyes:

[cbdo2007]

6. Google aren't the only ones targeting ads based on your searches/cache

All companies are doing that now, even if you go to say weather.com, they will target the ads to you and things you've searched.

[wtmusic]

18. If you disable cookies, you can pretty much eliminate this technique

although it's a pain for a lot of other reasons.

[AndyA]

39. No, Google isn't the only one, but they have a far wider range of tracking than anyone else.

Weather.com is miniscule compared to Google.

[Green_Lantern]

7. Yeah Bing is owned by he who shall not be named

nt

[tabatha]

8. Thanks for that explanation.

That has happened to me twice - I searched for something. Then ads for the "something" for which I searched suddenly started showing up. They must be raking in the dough that way.

[Selatius]

10. I fear we're all just pissing in the wind at this point.

Initially, if it's a matter of tracking cookies, you can simply tell your browser to delete all cookies at the end of a surfing session, but if they are logging IP#s and directing ads based upon the search activity of such an IP address, it will be much more difficult to evade cataloging by Google, but it is possible with the use of proxies, but the idea of the entire population using proxies to evade cataloging is unrealistic at the time. The invention of the internet really is a mirror upon ourselves. It gives light to our best hopes and attributes and also gives us the opportunity to abuse awesome power.

Soon, the only way to escape having a corporate or government dossier on your surfing habits will be to simply not use the internet at all.

[formercia]

12. This site uses google as well.

Set your browser to clean out the cache and cookies on closing. It won't stop it, but gives them the least amount of data to work with. Close and restart your browser when going to controversial sites. Do it again when you leave.

[dbonds]

16. There is a setting in your account page whether to keep and use your webhistory.

They use it in targeting searches more to you, although I never heard of them using it to target ads to you - that would be a big computational strain on their ad server. But if that is the case, then they can only serve ads to you when you are logged into their service - otherwise they don't know who you are. If this is the case you can go into your google webhistory and delete any entry you don't want there or turn the whole thing off. I like the webhistory because it tailors searches more to the things I usually look for.

On the other hand, a simple tracking cookie from any ad vendor in the world could have done the same thing, and these are used everywhere.

[rawtribe]

22. You can opt-out of google tracking

http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

[Better Today]

33. Firefox is your friend. I block google syndication with NoScript

and never see any ads after the first time I use AdBlock on the frames that ads show up in. For example, I never see ads here, and because google is blocked through it's syndication linkage, I am not tracked by google. Also as I had to have a google account to have a youtube account for my biz, I find that I do have to sign out of youtube everytime I'm done uploading a new vid or it does keep tracking me.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. You think German intelligence might be watching gmx

and reporting to the US?

[formercia]

14. Be creative.

Encrypt huge files of worthless crap, such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights and USC 18, and use it as spam and filler.

[Green_Lantern]

17. no..doubtfully...

I don't think German technology companies are as willing to give up the civil liberties of its users.

GMX is an open source company so it's philosophy is to make internet more democratic as opposed to corporate control.

[dbonds]

11. You REALLY misread the statement from google.

Here is a link to a detailed explanation from google.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/MKuf+(Official+Google+Blog)

Google is one of the few good guy companies. Although other competitor companies do try to use issues like this to stir up FUD (as in there historical nature).

[wtmusic]

15. "Good guys" don't secretly listen in on your wireless transmissions.

"Google targeted: 'Street View' cars capture wireless network data, Blumenthal says

Many marvel at how accurately Google Maps depict neighborhoods and cities, but state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is investigating whether the “Street View” cars the Internet giant uses to capture images for the maps are illegally collecting data from consumers’ and businesses’ computers via wireless networks.

Blumenthal said Monday he has written to Matt Sucherman, vice president and deputy general counsel at the California company, asking whether Google collected personal information transmitted over wireless networks without permission while it was photographing streets and homes in Connecticut.

He is concerned the company may be able to access private online information, such as general Web browsing, passwords, personal e-mails and other data.

Last month, the company acknowledged its Street View cars in some locations have intercepted information from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries. Company officials said they discovered the problem when regulators in Germany launched an inquiry."

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/06/08/news/aa1_tues_google0608060810.txt

[dbonds]

19. They admitted that, said it was a mistake, and have stopped all street cars till this is resolved.

They said the code used to map the wireless nodes was borrowed from another project which also saved the packets that they used to identify the node with. They weren't exactly snooping, but did save a few data packets from each wireless node they found.

[wtmusic]

26. They have no business listening in on other people's wireless nodes.

If you think this is legal, do a search on "reasonable expectation of privacy" - wireless communications are not available to a "casual observer".

[dbonds]

29. Anyone can listen in on wireless nodes, all I have to do is open my laptop.

I can see many wireless nodes. Most are WEP encrypted, a good thing. But the way you see the nodes is by listening for a packets from the node. Everyones laptop does this.

Google was driving around doing this. They were mapping the open wireless nodes for google maps, a good thing. But the mistake is in saving the data packets. Which is most cases are just fragments of any information from the nodes. They never used the packets for anything.

[wtmusic]

31. Ooh. A good thing!

What's good about mapping open wireless nodes?

If I can decrypt your cellphone conversations (not that difficult), do I have a right to capture them and publish them?

[dbonds]

36. Oh, I see the word wireless is being used too many ways here...

Wireless nodes in this case is Just WiFi nodes, not cell phones. I guess I should use the terms WiFi and mobile to be clear in my statements. Open WiFi nodes are meant for people to come and connect to. We have them all over this city at restaurants and parks and such. Google made no attempt to decrypt any WEP encrypted WiFi nodes, and mobile traffic was never in the picture in anyway. And they never did anything with the packets that they did store. Think about it a second, a car driving by your neighborhood listening for packets and mapping all the open nodes would only be able to capture a very small amount of data from any one node. Most of the packets they captured would have been worthlessly incomplete for any type of snooping.

[wtmusic]

43. 1. Open WiFi nodes are not all "meant" for people to come and connect to.

2. A car driving by your neighborhood that can listen for packets can also capture an unlimited amount of private communications.

3. How do you know that "most of the packets they captured would have been worthlessly incomplete for any type of snooping"?

4. How do you know that "they never did anything with the packets that they did store"?

5. Do you really believe that most people who use public WiFi would continue to do so if they knew Google was possibly intercepting their private communications including personal information, emails and websites they visit?

[dbonds]

46. Any open node is OPEN, anyone can access and connect to it.

Whether it was accidentally set up as open or purposely doesn't really matter when it is open and broadcasting.

As far as packets being worthless go, have you ever done any network analysis and used a sniffer program. You get little bits of data that are all mixed up and out of context. You would purposely have to listen in to a node for a while to get enough data to reassemble the packets to come up with any type of coherent information. And that is not what happened. Google can listen into my WiFi anytime, I have it WEP encrypted like everyone should for their private WiFi.

[wtmusic]

47. How do you know that's not what happened?

Here is a huge corporation that makes its bread and butter on information, the more the better. And routing hardware can reassemble those packets in a jiffy into very coherent, useful information.

Now back to the "reasonable expectation of privacy": Do you believe that most people who use public WiFi would continue to do so if they knew Google was possibly intercepting their private communications including personal information, emails and websites they visit?

[dbonds]

50. I know from the statements of both Google and the complaints.

And ANYONE that is in a public WiFi setting should never do anything sensitive. There are other people snooping all the time. Google just did a drive by. Some hackers do this to try to find open nodes to use when they do something they don't want traced back - the difference is google kept driving, hackers park and use the nodes. Some people snoop on open nodes for the fun of it - like voyarism - just like they used to snoop on cell phone calls.

[wtmusic]

53. Now we're getting somewhere.

You're trying to justify this activity on the basis of "people do it all the time so it's up to the public to protect themselves", a non-starter of a premise in nearly all circumstances.

"Penalties for the intentional interception of cordless and cellular telephone calls range from fines to imprisonment depending on the circumstances. (18 USC 2511, 2701)"

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm

Why shouldn't this apply to intercepted WiFi?

[dbonds]

56. No, I'm not trying to justify it. It is what it is.

That law does not apply to WiFi because open WiFi is most cases is meant to be used by the public. When you set up your WiFi hub it is clear in telling you the difference, and tries to make you choose an encryption password. On most WiFi hub units you have to purposely set it up to public access.

Cell phones is a different technology and different usage pattern, just as FM radio, satellite TV, broadcast TV and HAM radio. They all have different rules.

[wtmusic]

58. The law guarantees a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of technology.

Now back to my question which really addresses the crux of the matter, and around which you continue to tapdance:

Do you believe that most people who use public WiFi (wherever - at home, Starbucks, etc.) would continue to do so if they knew Google was possibly intercepting their private communications including personal information, emails and websites they visit?

[dbonds]

60. No tap dancing, I said most people use public WiFi knowing anyone can snoop on them.

Google isn't at your restaurant snooping on you, but I bet a couple teenaged hackers are. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using a public open network, just as your emails you send at work are not private. The US government snoops on internet traffic all the time, and that is over wired internet. There is no expectation of privacy unless you add encryption or you use a https connection (btw: google does offer and promote using the https version of gmail so no one can see your email going by on any network).

I have trouble seeing your view point that open/public WiFi networks are considered private. But if that is your view I am probably not going to change it. I don't see google mapping the open networks (so they can put a dot on their map to help others find them) as anything bad - I see it as good because when I'm traveling I sometimes need to find them. As far as them storing the packets they used to find the networks, I see how that can appear to be something bad till you think about it a bit. A few packets of data from many, many different nodes is not going to be usable. But consider for a second, if they were able to get a complete conversation from your use of an open WiFi node, how is that going to help them or be useful in any way. They have no way to even tie it back to you since you were on an open node that any user in the world could use.

[wtmusic]

62. I'll disagree with that.

If most people are in Starbucks using the WiFi, IMO they would assume they have the same privacy they would if talking on their cellphone - and wouldn't think of sending emails if they knew a multinational corporation could be scoping every word they say, and doing it legally.

Re: government snooping, most of that is illegal as well. A whole 'nother issue.

Re: Google not being able to tie a conversation back to you, come off it: they have your IP, they most likely have your name and God knows what else from your private communications, they have transmitted cookies, on and on...and it's nice that Google offers an https: connection, but once those emails are stored on their server they're in plaintext again, where Google can mine them to their hearts' content. I wouldn't go near a gmail account, and I usually don't bother responding to people who send me email from one.

You seem to have the attitude of "Well, there's not much we can do about it" when there's actually a lot we can do about it, and we had better do it now. Because once privacy is gone it's gone forever.

[dbonds]

63. For the most part maybe we can agree to disagree on how to interpret that...

But a couple minor points: When you use an open WiFi you get an IP address associated with that WiFi node. When you move on to another node or go back to your house your IP changes to those services. IPs are dynamic based on what DHCP is handling you at the moment.

Google drive by would not be the one setting around a starbucks sniffing the packets. They drive by. Who is doing that is that person in the corner with a laptop and 3 empty cups setting on the table beside him. Also, the network guys at starbucks might be monitoring traffic for any number of reasons.

My attitude isn't that we can't do much about it, it is I don't see this as a problem as it happened. Now if cars were parking outside my house at night sniffing my connection and decrypting it, that would be a problem - although all the data they would get is my packets being sent to whatever MMO I was playing that night.

I don't trust big companies any more than you do, but look into Google a bit - they are not your typical company. I bet you will be surprised at how open/progressive/and not greedy they are.

[Green_Lantern]

23. no, Google has agreed to voluntarily abide by net neutrality but only

On current wired technology.

This doesn't include wireless or any other future services.

[dbonds]

28. Yes and no...

Google proposed full net neutrality for wired internet. This is a proposal to the government. This would implement rules for net neutrality where we do not have any now. They wanted net neutrality for wireless, but compromised verizon's point that wireless is a growing market and too young to be regulated yet. Plus it was a different animal than wired because of limited bandwidth. And some wireless providers provide services for just their subscribers such as emergency medical location (which couldn't be done under net full wireless net neutrality). Read the statement from Google.

[wtmusic]

30. "Too young to be regulated yet."

:rofl:

I think this may be the most absurd logic in recent memory.

As in: "Let's regulate later, when it will be twice as hard to regulate?"

[dbonds]

42. Kick on Verizon for that statement.

I don't find it as funny as you do. Although I do see that we waited 20+ years to start proposing ANY regulations for the wired internet. And Mobile internet is an addon on top of cell service, which is still changing technologies every year.

[wtmusic]

45. How does restricting access to certain websites

have anything to do with changing technology? A red herring.

[dbonds]

51. I don't see ANYTHING in the proposal that lets them restrict websites.

I do see in mobile internet that they may let carriers have special websites for special carrier only services.

[wtmusic]

54. Here you go:

"In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."

In other words, they have the right to slow to a crawl certain websites for whatever reason they choose. If that's not restriction, I don't know what is.

[dbonds]

57. Your 'in other words' is not what that says...

It is saying for bandwidth reasons providers can route users to their services. Think of a DNS server. You probably want to use the mobile providers DNS server rather than have it route to an internet one which will take up unnecessary bandwidth. As for content prioritizing the example was giving of a mobile provider medical service which needed priority over normal internet traffic. Read the statement there too that says "Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.", This is just a first step to get wired net neutrality, not to try offer mobile freedom from regulation forever.

[wtmusic]

59. Very generous of Google to allow Congress to step in.

Their arrogance is...breathtaking.

And no, it's not saying what you're saying. That's your interpretation, and a very generous one which affords no protection to the consumer.

"Network traffic is...prioritized for certain applications and content."

This is Verizon/Google's foot in the door to start charging for using their search engine; for levying fees for visits to popular websites. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.

[dbonds]

61. Sorry I don't see it that way...

This is a proposal to congress to get some rules for wired net neutrality now, putting off mobile net neutrality for later. I see it as a first step, which is the best they could do at the moment. I would have loved to see more regulation, but that wasn't what they could get Verizon to agree to. As far as congress goes, this is just a proposal they will consider and may or may not take elements of it.

[Green_Lantern]

35. you need to read/watch this interview

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/6/verizon_google_enter_reported_deal_for

[dbonds]

40. That was 3 days before the real proposal was released.

I read about that, and it was eventually debunked as a false report of what was coming in the proposal. Read the real proposal.

[Green_Lantern]

44. read this story then...

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/10/headlines#2

[dbonds]

48. That story basically says all the same things we have been talking about.

It doesn't include the other speculation from the previous link. Read the Google statement for clarification on any points. It isn't exactly proposing that mobile internet should be a different tier as getting the wired internet (which does include WiFi) some net neutrality regulations now. Google wanted to include mobile but they could not reach a deal on that now.

[Green_Lantern]

52. the Google statement doesn't mean anything..

I doubt they're going to say "this deal is horrible for consumers."

Like most people I'm not a computer expert so Google can easily use technical spin to make it sound good.

I don't trust big companies to self regulate.

[dbonds]

55. I am with you on not trusting big companies to self regulate.

But I do a lot of work with google technologies, and they always surprise me of going the extra step to be open, give away stuff, and be on the liberal side of issues. They have a huge solar energy farm at their head quarters, they treat their employees the best of any company I have ever seen - look up that video on google employee perks, they open source most everything they do and provide new open ways for developers to make better products that do not tie you into any google service (which is just the opposite of microsoft). Google is one of the good guy companies out there. I do keep an eye out for anything that may indicate all the above was just a big ruse but this net neutrality thing is not it. Their statement is entirely consistent with everything they have espoused and promoted for the last few years (the time frame which I have been following them). I don't trust big companies, but for this time I do think they are on the level. But you can be companies like Microsoft and Apple will be trying to fan the flames of any controversy like this.

[ThomCat]

64. They agreed to net neutrality only on a public wired internet.

Meaning that they want to split the internet into a public wired internet and a corporate wired internet. Only one will have net neutrality. Do you really think they will be treated equally? Really?

As for the wireless internet, no net neutrality at all.

So the best case scenario they are offering is that only people wired into the internet using the parts of the internet they choose to cast off as merely the public internet will have net neutrality. That's hardly "do no evil."

[dccrossman]

25. The Wireless piece is the issue

Follow your Google Blog link and read this part:

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

That "myth" is true. So, in their scenario, while wired providers providers are heavily regulated, wireless providers would have an opportunity to control traffic, as long as they tell you, in some Legalese document, that they are doing it. Given that wireless is where most of the new activity will be taking place, and Verizon is about the largest player (also building out their LTE network in the coming few years), it's a huge competitive advantage for them to keep wireless unregulated. The arguments they make about limited bandwidth and wireless providers needing to "manage their networks more actively" is irrelevant to the net neutrality conversation.

[dbonds]

32. My post #28 address that issue.

We all eventually want net neutrality for mobile providers too, even Google wants that (they state that clearly). This proposal from them was a proposal to go ahead and get net neutrality for wired internet. And they compromised with Verizon for what they could get with wireless right now with hopes of more in the future.

[BadgerKid]

13. I dislike being snooped on -- I use Ghostery plugin with firefox.

Ghostery is your window into the invisible web – tags, web bugs, pixels and beacons that are included on web pages in order to get an idea of your online behavior.

Ghostery tracks the trackers and gives you a roll-call of the ad networks, behavioral data providers, web publishers, and other companies interested in your activity.

http://www.ghostery.com/about

[Greyhound]

24. I've been using No-Script for years and it works well, too. I haven't seen an ad all that time,

and always know who I'm not letting in.

[AngryAmish]

27. My life is boring. I don't think I am even on their radarscreen.

I loves me my gmail.

[uncommon]

49. Likewise. If I had anything at all to hide I might be more concerned.

[LLStarks]

34. You guys are just paranoid. Even if it was true, it's easier to simply not care and enjoy Gmail. nt

[Green_Lantern]

38. how is it paranoid when what we're scared of is actually happening...

Why remain with a company behaving this way...

[LLStarks]

41. Because Google is worth trusting and I run Linux.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. I'm sure they'll miss the income it gave them.