4 ms·

When it comes to Google and Data Collection just always assume the worst. Not to bash on Google, I am no hater, but it's what they make money with. Browser for

by myztic 11y ago

When it comes to Google and Data Collection just always assume the worst. Not to bash on Google, I am no hater, but it's what they make money with. Browser for free? Google Mail with 15 GB of storage? We all know their business model. Either you pay with money or with information. I have been non-trusting of many Scripts for years now, call me paranoid, but if Facebook actually has the capability to just track you via Facebook Scripts that are executed on every site you have the option to Log in with Facebook or share via Facebook directly from the site, why would they not do it? Google also tries to keep you logged by all means possible. I block their Scripts, only temporarily allow if I need them, I don't keep cookies for longer than my current session except for Fastmail, I use VPN, have no DNS-Leak and WebRTC Detection turned off (last I checked you could not turn WebRTC Detection off in Chrome and the Extensions promising to do that were not working). And that's also why I use Mozilla Firefox. Not because it's the technically better browser, but I have trust in Mozilla and their API just allows capabilities Chrome isn't capable of (that's why there is no NoScript in Chrome and no, there is no NoScript-Alternative in Chrome with the same features and capabilities, look it up). Back when I used both Chrome and Firefox side by side, Firefox for example would turn off some Add-Ons/Extensions in Private Browsing Mode, while Chrome would not. I guess we all can grasp what most likely was the reason for it (Add-Ons/Extensions should not be able to obtain information from the user if in private browsing). I am not saying that everyone should do it this way, I even recognize I am not the normal user and this is not for everyone, but complaining about Google because of Data Collection is like complaining about Facebook and the information they have about people while using it heavily and putting sensitive information up on it willingly. Get over it ;)

kevindeasis 11y ago
Well, the topic of the article is not Google collecting data. It is about Chrome extensions. I can agree to some parts of what you said.
- myztic 11y ago
  Yep, but since Google's whole business model revolves around monetizing user information, I am not surprised about this article. Google's Motto is "Data Collection for monetary purposes is not evil". Think about Android Application Permissions for example, I am not sure whether or not you now can revoke permissions one by one on your own (think I read something about this), but for how long was this not possible?
  - stingraycharles 11y ago
    This has nothing to do with Google's business model. This is about the business model of extension developers.
    - myztic 11y ago
      It's also what the Platform allows the Extension Developers to do and the users not to do. One Example? I have been disabling what Apps get access to on my Blackberry for I don't know how long. Forbid Whatsapp to have Access to the Camera? No Problem, if I want to make a photo from within Whatsapp it then says something that it isn't capable of doing so, just how it should be. How a Browser behaves in private Browsing also is a browser-side issue. Whether or not the API allows Extension developers to give users the functionality NoScript for example provides to its users it also a browser-side issue. See for example here (you won't see Google spearheading this cause) http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/mozilla-makes-private-browsing-more-private-in-firefox-adds-tracking-protection/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/mozilla-makes-private-brows... The distinction between "This concerns only the Extensions" and "this concerns only the browser itself" is not as clear and easy as you say it is, especially in this case. Since Google is all about obtaining information and using it, I don't think they are to be trusted in developing a browser that is highly concerned with user's privacy. Everybody has to make their own decision.
      - kevindeasis 11y ago
        So do you feel like Google Chrome as a platform is not giving you enough information about what the Google Chrome extensions are doing and not giving users enough power to act on such information? Also about firefox from the comments in this discussion by zetafunction: zetafunction 5 hours ago: From the article: Are Firefox extensions any better? To be honest, no.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    This isn't about Google's business model - which by the way isnt as terrible as you make it seem. Unless you'd like to start paying them for all their services, how exactly do you think they should make money?
tim333 11y ago
>We all know their business model. Either you pay with money or with information. That isn't actually their business model. They make money from people paying for ads not information. I've got friends in marketing and they'd love Google to sell them say a list of email address of high net worth investors which Google probably knows but they won't do that. They will let you pay to run ads aimed at certain groups but that's a different thing.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  they'd love Google to sell them say a list of email address of high net worth investors which Google probably knows but they won't do that There are at least two possible reasons why Google won't do that: a) they're doing the right thing or b) they're not stupid enough to dis-intermediate themselves that way I think it's mostly "b". Selling the addresses is one-time revenue, selling ads targeted at high net worth investors is an ongoing annuity stream.
  - myztic 11y ago
    Agreed, but additionally to "one-time revenue" versus "ongoing annuity stream": a) Acceptance, Image The fact that they don't sell is the reason why many don't mind it as much. "So their automatic algorithms look for some key words in my mail and searches to target ads, I get better ads, they get money for clicks, what's the problem?" Selling it would be a whole different story b) Once you sold out, what then? I guess that selling to thousands of companies you loose control over your information. x-many Companies have lists of high net worth investors for product category y from us, how to guarantee this information does not get out? Will be given to other companies/people? Will it be correctly used? How can we guarantee those x-many companies are storing that information securely? I can think of all kinds of issues with that business model.
timrichard 11y ago
All my Chrome extensions listed on the Settings page have an 'allow in Incognito?' checkbox, which is unselected by default.
cdnsteve 11y ago
Agree completely with this. The tracking capability today is, scary. Between Google and Facebook I've noticed some gorilla type ad behaviour. I'm basically done with both services now.
ryuuchin 11y ago
> I block their Scripts, only temporarily allow if I need them, I don't keep cookies for longer than my current session except for Fastmail, I use VPN, have no DNS-Leak and WebRTC Detection turned off (last I checked you could not turn WebRTC Detection off in Chrome and the Extensions promising to do that were not working). It's been possible to disable multiple webrtc routes since M42[1]. uBlock exposes this option as a checkbox in its main settings. > And that's also why I use Mozilla Firefox. Not because it's the technically better browser, but I have trust in Mozilla and their API just allows capabilities Chrome isn't capable of (that's why there is no NoScript in Chrome and no, there is no NoScript-Alternative in Chrome with the same features and capabilities, look it up). The only thing Chrome/Chromium cannot block are inline script tags[2]. Inline script tags should apparently be considered cosmetic filtering according to [2]. Other than the above exception you can pretty close to blocking everything you could in Firefox with uBlock[3]/uMatrix[4]. Unless you're referring to something else? With uMatrix you can get basically the same granularity that you can with NoScript just in a much nicer looking interface (which is available for Firefox now as well). > Back when I used both Chrome and Firefox side by side, Firefox for example would turn off some Add-Ons/Extensions in Private Browsing Mode, while Chrome would not. I guess we all can grasp what most likely was the reason for it (Add-Ons/Extensions should not be able to obtain information from the user if in private browsing). Chrome extensions will by default NOT be allowed in incognito mode. I don't know what you observed but you must have explicitly allowed this behavior. [1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=457629 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=457629 [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-filtering#caveats https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-fil... [3] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [4] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

by myztic 11y ago

kevindeasis 11y ago

Well, the topic of the article is not Google collecting data. It is about Chrome extensions. I can agree to some parts of what you said.

myztic 11y ago
Yep, but since Google's whole business model revolves around monetizing user information, I am not surprised about this article. Google's Motto is "Data Collection for monetary purposes is not evil". Think about Android Application Permissions for example, I am not sure whether or not you now can revoke permissions one by one on your own (think I read something about this), but for how long was this not possible?
- stingraycharles 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with Google's business model. This is about the business model of extension developers.
  - myztic 11y ago
    It's also what the Platform allows the Extension Developers to do and the users not to do. One Example? I have been disabling what Apps get access to on my Blackberry for I don't know how long. Forbid Whatsapp to have Access to the Camera? No Problem, if I want to make a photo from within Whatsapp it then says something that it isn't capable of doing so, just how it should be. How a Browser behaves in private Browsing also is a browser-side issue. Whether or not the API allows Extension developers to give users the functionality NoScript for example provides to its users it also a browser-side issue. See for example here (you won't see Google spearheading this cause) http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/mozilla-makes-private-browsing-more-private-in-firefox-adds-tracking-protection/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/mozilla-makes-private-brows... The distinction between "This concerns only the Extensions" and "this concerns only the browser itself" is not as clear and easy as you say it is, especially in this case. Since Google is all about obtaining information and using it, I don't think they are to be trusted in developing a browser that is highly concerned with user's privacy. Everybody has to make their own decision.
    - kevindeasis 11y ago
      So do you feel like Google Chrome as a platform is not giving you enough information about what the Google Chrome extensions are doing and not giving users enough power to act on such information? Also about firefox from the comments in this discussion by zetafunction: zetafunction 5 hours ago: From the article: Are Firefox extensions any better? To be honest, no.
- manigandham 11y ago
  This isn't about Google's business model - which by the way isnt as terrible as you make it seem. Unless you'd like to start paying them for all their services, how exactly do you think they should make money?

tim333 11y ago

>We all know their business model. Either you pay with money or with information. That isn't actually their business model. They make money from people paying for ads not information. I've got friends in marketing and they'd love Google to sell them say a list of email address of high net worth investors which Google probably knows but they won't do that. They will let you pay to run ads aimed at certain groups but that's a different thing.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
they'd love Google to sell them say a list of email address of high net worth investors which Google probably knows but they won't do that There are at least two possible reasons why Google won't do that: a) they're doing the right thing or b) they're not stupid enough to dis-intermediate themselves that way I think it's mostly "b". Selling the addresses is one-time revenue, selling ads targeted at high net worth investors is an ongoing annuity stream.
- myztic 11y ago
  Agreed, but additionally to "one-time revenue" versus "ongoing annuity stream": a) Acceptance, Image The fact that they don't sell is the reason why many don't mind it as much. "So their automatic algorithms look for some key words in my mail and searches to target ads, I get better ads, they get money for clicks, what's the problem?" Selling it would be a whole different story b) Once you sold out, what then? I guess that selling to thousands of companies you loose control over your information. x-many Companies have lists of high net worth investors for product category y from us, how to guarantee this information does not get out? Will be given to other companies/people? Will it be correctly used? How can we guarantee those x-many companies are storing that information securely? I can think of all kinds of issues with that business model.

timrichard 11y ago

All my Chrome extensions listed on the Settings page have an 'allow in Incognito?' checkbox, which is unselected by default.

cdnsteve 11y ago

Agree completely with this. The tracking capability today is, scary. Between Google and Facebook I've noticed some gorilla type ad behaviour. I'm basically done with both services now.

ryuuchin 11y ago

> I block their Scripts, only temporarily allow if I need them, I don't keep cookies for longer than my current session except for Fastmail, I use VPN, have no DNS-Leak and WebRTC Detection turned off (last I checked you could not turn WebRTC Detection off in Chrome and the Extensions promising to do that were not working). It's been possible to disable multiple webrtc routes since M42[1]. uBlock exposes this option as a checkbox in its main settings. > And that's also why I use Mozilla Firefox. Not because it's the technically better browser, but I have trust in Mozilla and their API just allows capabilities Chrome isn't capable of (that's why there is no NoScript in Chrome and no, there is no NoScript-Alternative in Chrome with the same features and capabilities, look it up). The only thing Chrome/Chromium cannot block are inline script tags[2]. Inline script tags should apparently be considered cosmetic filtering according to [2]. Other than the above exception you can pretty close to blocking everything you could in Firefox with uBlock[3]/uMatrix[4]. Unless you're referring to something else? With uMatrix you can get basically the same granularity that you can with NoScript just in a much nicer looking interface (which is available for Firefox now as well). > Back when I used both Chrome and Firefox side by side, Firefox for example would turn off some Add-Ons/Extensions in Private Browsing Mode, while Chrome would not. I guess we all can grasp what most likely was the reason for it (Add-Ons/Extensions should not be able to obtain information from the user if in private browsing). Chrome extensions will by default NOT be allowed in incognito mode. I don't know what you observed but you must have explicitly allowed this behavior. [1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=457629 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=457629 [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-filtering#caveats https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-fil... [3] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock [4] https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix