7 ms·

Chrome Privacy

200 points by czottmann 15y ago

Mithrandir 15y ago
Why not just use Chromium?
dchest 15y ago
According to Chrome help (http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=165139&from=165138&rd=1 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...), only passwords are encrypted, not bookmarks, autofill data, apps, extensions, history, preferences, and themes. Is this still true? Edit: in Chrome 15 (beta) just found an option "Encrypt all synced data". Yay!
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Confused at why no-encryption would even be an option for this data.
  - fjarlq 15y ago
    Hmm, this feature seems buggy. I just tried enabling the option and it never finished. Had to kill it. Filed a bug report: http://crbug.com/97939 http://crbug.com/97939
    - mikewest 15y ago
      Thanks. It's now sitting in the Sync team's queue.
- codecaine 15y ago
  wow, I was assuming that everything is stored encrypted on Googles servers. Would be cool if someone could clarify this, as the explanation in the Google help is a bit vague IMHO.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    To my understanding they started providing the option to encrypt only very recently. My take is obviously that it's bad for the company policy to have this stuff encrypted (any regular guy would have had built-in encryption when making such a sync service). But on the other hand it would be pretty bad advertising when Firefox always had full encryption. Providing the option (but not making it mandatory) gives the proper advertising/evangelizing arguments.
Slimy 15y ago
I thought it was general knowledge that the closed-source Chrome sends (some) data back to Google while the open-source Chromium does not. Disclosure: I use Chrome (default) and IE9 (whenever Chrome fails).
- justinschuh 15y ago
  Usage statistics and crash reporting are strictly opt-in (and the default at install is opted out). There's also sync, but you must explicitly enable the feature and log in. That leaves five other places where data is sent back to Google for things like search suggestions and malware detection. You can find an explanation of those features and instructions on disabling them here: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=114836 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=11...
- fhewifewfjewao 15y ago
  chromium contains RLZ identifier
  - justinschuh 15y ago
    The RLZ identifier is present only if Chrome is installed through some sort of third-party deal like a system or software bundle. If you install the stock Chrome from Google it's not present. You can find a good overview of RLZ here: http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html
y0ghur7_xxx 15y ago
I tried to look at what chrome sends to google with wireshark, and there are quite a lot of connections made to google servers, but it's all encrypted (ssl). So I actually have no way to know what is sent to google. Did someone make a detailed analysis of what info gets sent to google on a default install of chrome?
- buddydvd 15y ago
  I noticed awhile back that even if you disable Chrome's safe browsing feature, Google still sends data to their server. I'm not sure if this is still the case today. http://superuser.com/questions/236637/how-to-disable-google-chrome-from-sending-data-to-safebrowsing-cache-google-com-a http://superuser.com/questions/236637/how-to-disable-google-...
  - huhtenberg 15y ago
    Yep, this still appears to be the case. It establishes a long-lived SSL connection to one Google's servers few seconds after the start. If the connection is forcefully killed (e.g. with SysInternal's TcpView), it won't be re-established, but needing to kill it every time I need to use Chrome is really annoying. It is also the reason why I have Chrome updates permanently disabled - I don't trust Chrome enough to let it run anything in a background.
    - mikewest 15y ago
      Can you file a bug at http://new.crbug.com/ http://new.crbug.com/ please? That doesn't sound like the behavior I'd expect.
      - huhtenberg 15y ago
        Sorry, I can't. It wants me to log in with Google ID which I don't and won't have.
        huhtenberg 15y ago
kierank 15y ago
The same thing also applies to Android.
- kierank 15y ago
  Not entirely sure why I'm being downvoted but the same privacy concerns should apply to Android as well as Chrome.
philfreo 15y ago
I'm pretty sure Chrome send URLs to Google at least for indexing purposes. I've put up random pages on my websites, not linked to them anywhere at all but visited them in Chrome and then BAM - indexed soon after in search.
- beaumartinez 15y ago
  IIRC, it has components of Google Toolbar built in. If you accessed those pages with a browser with the Google Toolbar you'd have experienced the same.
  - philfreo 15y ago
    I'm hoping you're offering that as an FYI, rather than as a justification... because it's not a very good justification
  - aboodman 15y ago
    You recall incorrectly. Chrome does not send the URLs of pages you visit to Google for indexing, or for any other reason. Please see the privacy policy. It answers these questions quite clearly: http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/
    - WalterGR 15y ago
      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html ... > When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to your default search engine so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for. If you choose Google as your search engine, Google Chrome will contact Google when it starts so as to determine the best local address to send search queries. If you choose to share usage statistics with Google and you accept a suggested query or URL, Google Chrome will send that information to Google as well. You can disable this feature as explained here. ... > If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google so we can help you find the URL you were looking for. You can disable this feature as explained here. ... > If you enable the optional AutoFill feature, which automatically completes web forms for you, Google Chrome will send Google limited information about the structure of pages that have web forms and information such as the arrangement of the form so that we can improve our AutoFill service for that page. (end excerpts) Could you give us more information about the AutoFill feature? Does it send the URL along with the listed information? Does it do this for every URL that contains a web form?
csoghoian 15y ago
2 responses: 1. Chrome is the only major browser not to support the Do Not Track header. Google is also the browser vendor whose bottom line would be most impacted if users could easily opt out of tracking. Coincidence? While I welcome folks from the Chrome team to weigh in on the reasons for this, my own understanding is that adoption of this feature is being blocked by Google's Mountain View based policy team, and is not a decision that is in the hands of engineers. Compare this to Chrome's absolutely spectacular record in the area of security, where folks like Adam Langley and Chris Evans have been able to ship innovative features that haven't worked their way through the standards process. Examples include HTTPS certificate pinning (that recently led to the discovery of MiTM attacks against Iranian users using the DigiNotar certs). In the area of security, Chrome's engineers deploy whatever they think will help users. In the area of privacy, Google's lawyers and lobbyists are calling the shots. (Also, there still isn't a working API to let others support DNT in Chrome. An API exists, I think, but it is quite buggy, AFAIK) 2. Blocking 3rd party cookies by default. Apple defaults to blocking 3rd party cookies, Chrome does not. Both are derived the same webkit core (yes, I know there is different code now), but when Google decided to create Chrome, they went with a different default than the one that Apple had already used -- one that hasn't led to websites breaking for Apple users. Again, which browser vendors' bottom line would suffer if Chrome users could not easily be tracked? Google. Let me be clear - I don't think that Chrome is engaging in any sneaky shenanigans to directly track users. No, that would be too obvious. Instead, Chrome just makes it easy for Google's other services to track users, when they stick with the deaults.
- Wilya 15y ago
  The DNT header is to be implemented by website developers (and they have nothing to gain by doing it). I understand that Google is better off without implementing this header, but I don't really think it would change anything if Chrome had it. I agree on the cookies issue, though. Things like "Allow local data to be set (recommended)" make me kind of sad.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    as someone working on sites that use the recent browser storage APIs, I very much prefer that to be the recommended setting. Much saner than cookies, and for some type of apps makes for a much better user experience as well Notice that "allow local data to be set" and "block third party cookies" are not mutually exclusive settings in preferences...which is good, because they can be and tend to be used for very different purposes. If you want to block all data from being stored, that's fine (and web APIs are great in that they are designed to be individually denied and let a page detect that they have been), but I definitely disagree that first party storage enabled by default (and even "recommended") is lamentable.
notbitter 15y ago
For whatever reason, Chrome does seem to make life hard for privacy extensions like Ghostery: "As Chrome's resource blocking API is not yet comprehensive, some elements may execute." - http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download
- mikewest 15y ago
  The main dev on the WebRequest API sits right behind me, and is making steady progress. It's the first synchronous extension API that interacts with the network stack, and it's a nontrivial effort to get it running. I can assure you, however, that making life hard for privacy extensions is the exact opposite of what we're being paid to do. Look at the progress on privacy-related APIs over the last year: WebRequest is coming along nicely, WebNavigation and ContentSettings are feature complete and in the final stages of polish, and Proxy went out to stable in Chrome 13. Privacy and Clear just landed in experimental, and we're iterating on them rapidly. (Details on the state of each are available at http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental....)
  - qjz 15y ago
    Is it possible to restrict requests to the host in the URL I'm visiting? XSS, DNT, etc. become much less of an issue when you can block all external resources requested by a page.
    - mikewest 15y ago
      That will be possible with the WebRequest API, yes: http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.webRequest.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.... For example, you'd be able to intercept and block network requests from a particular tab that didn't hit the same domain. The API in experimental now, so download a dev release of Chrome/Chromium, enable experimental APIs via `about:flags`, and start filing bug reports. :)
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
natch 15y ago
Wow, that was an amazingly skillful non-denial denial. Notice how he never said Chrome does not collect user information. Because, as we all know, it does. I've often wondered how much it collects, by what mechanisms (including via third parties or analytics added by third parties) and to whom the information is available and under what circumstances. The statement from Mike West does not appear to shed any additional light on this; maybe it's answered elsewhere -- does anybody know? I've seen the Google Chrome TOS and wasn't able to get a clear picture from that. BTW anyone in Mike's position still may not be privy to everything that is done with the data, as some data collection and sharing may be subject to national security orders that that most employees are not allowed to know about. So any statement his team makes about this should be couched with "to the best of our knowledge."
- mikewest 15y ago
  Chrome does not collect user information, unless you explicitly opt-in to sharing aggregated usage information and crash reports with Google. If you do opt-in to these metrics (and you have to opt-in, it's disabled by default), you can opt-out at any time via chrome://settings/advanced#metricsReportingEnabled The data collected is available for you to peruse at chrome://histograms/ All the data that Google collects is subject to the privacy policies at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/, and Google of course complies with SafeHarbor regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priva...)
  - asadotzler 15y ago
    "Chrome does not collect user information, unless you explicitly opt-in to sharing aggregated usage information and crash reports with Google" OR if you don't opt in to anything and you simply type some things into your Chrome Omnibox which get sent to Google for suggestions, or if you don't opt in to anything and you simply mistype a URL and that send data to Google for more helpful error pages, or if you don't opt in to anything and Google's phishing and malware service collects sites you're visiting. Oh, and where you don't opt in to RLZ, but you get it anyway. As I said on Twitter, I'm not really bothered by these things, but it's disingenuous to pretend they don't exist or to respond to peoples' privacy concerns by insisting that aggregate usage stats is the only information Google collects.
fjarlq 15y ago
Question for mikewest: Can Google do anything to help make browsers appear to be less unique, and thus less trackable? I'm talking about http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/ I'd much rather find a technical solution to that than a political non-solution.
- jannes 15y ago
  Enabling click to play for plugins in Chrome is already possible and makes you much less trackable. You will get much less bits of identifying information in panopticlick because your fonts and some other things can't be read out without Flash or Java.
  - fjarlq 15y ago
    You sure about that? I already do click-to-play for plugins in Chrome, and it doesn't seem to help much. According to Panopticlick, there are 19.75 bits of data in my Browser Plugin Details, and for the "value" it describes all the plugins I have enabled. Also with click-to-play enabled, Panopticlick can see my system fonts (20.75+ bits of data, one in 1,769,122 browsers has this value). Apparently Panopticlick is not using one of my plugins to get that data... I haven't whitelisted eff.org or otherwise enabled plugins there. Looks like Panopticlick is using JavaScript/CSS font detection methods: http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect/ http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect/ Hmm... Panopticlick reports "No Flash or Java fonts detected" when I try it with IE9 on the same system. Is IE9 doing something to block Javascript/CSS detection of those fonts, or does Panopticlick have a bug with IE9 or what? Looks like that method worked for IE6/7...
    - fjarlq 15y ago
      Whoops, I have to take back what I wrote above. Somehow my Chrome had lost its click-to-play setting. I don't remember unsetting that... hrm. Anyway, with click-to-play enabled you are correct: Panopticlick cannot see my fonts. Sorry about the confusion. However, with click-to-play definitely enabled, Panopticlick can still see my Browser Plugin Details.
  - 15y ago
budman 15y ago
Just use Iron. http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron...
- aboodman 15y ago
  http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
  - budman 15y ago
    Interesting. Thanks
freshhawk 15y ago
Ah, the old "no no, just trust us" defense. This is just a thing Chrome has to live with, it's a browser developed by a company that makes money selling user behavior to advertisers. You'd have to be stupid not to think this is a possibility. Must be frustrating to the developers who know what it does and doesn't do though.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  The trouble with privacy comments like this blog post is always the same: no matter what the current situation is or how good the intentions of the person making the comment may be, unless they are an executive with the authority to legally bind the company in question to a privacy policy that has real repercussions if subsequently violated, in the end anyone can still be screwed over on the whim of whoever has the data. In this case, that "whoever has the data" has been publicly dismissive of fundamental privacy concerns up to and including CEO level, and has a business model built around extracting as much value as possible from that private data without regard for the privacy concerns of any individual.
- justinschuh 15y ago
  We put the source out there and try to be as transparent as we reasonably can. In the end though, people make their own decisions.
  - azakai 15y ago
    One problem is that Chrome is not open source - Chromium is. But 99% of people use Chrome, and there is no way to build Chrome from source to be sure what code is running. We have to take Google's word for it that Chrome is identical to Chromium as regards privacy, and as others stated, Google's business interest is clearly to track user information, not to respect their privacy.
    - justinschuh 15y ago
      I've already explained why this framing is incorrect: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3034628 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3034628 So, go ahead and check out a release branch, set the "Official" build flag yourself, wait anywhere from 2-8 hours for the binaries to get built, and verify it against the bits we ship.
methodin 15y ago
At the end of the day Google is really not the company you have to be worried about - it's the ad networks. They are the ones implementing zombie cookies using the 10 or so methods of storage and the ones that directly sell your information to even seedier companies. I used to work for one so I know what goes on. This will always be a dance between smart developers usurping tracking efforts and smart developers coming up with new tracking methods. I really don't understand the extreme sentiment that your info via cookies is the worst form of privacy breach there is. Why would you not be more concerned with the companies that charge $.50 per call to access an API that can fetch information on anyone that fills out a form ("Oh I never knew my neighbor only makes $48k a year")? I guarantee you these companies know more about you than Google, Twitter and Facebook (unless you post every thought ever, of course). Case in point, they knew my coworker's wife at the time was 4 months pregnant. Unless you can derive such information from searches (doubtful and completely not worth the effort) then this information obviously came from elsewhere. Perhaps, for instance, like the doctor's office.
- chico_dusty 15y ago
  Except that Google is an ad network, deriving 99% of its profits from ads.
- asadotzler 15y ago
  "At the end of the day Google is really not the company you have to be worried about - it's the ad networks." Google is the largest ad network on the Web.
poona 15y ago
If you don't like third party cookies then I encourage you to go to chrome://flags/ and Enable the 'Block all third-party cookies' experimental feature. Simple as that.

200 points by czottmann 15y ago

Why not just use Chromium?

According to Chrome help (http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=165139&from=165138&rd=1 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...), only passwords are encrypted, not bookmarks, autofill data, apps, extensions, history, preferences, and themes. Is this still true? Edit: in Chrome 15 (beta) just found an option "Encrypt all synced data". Yay!

mike-cardwell 15y ago
Confused at why no-encryption would even be an option for this data.
- fjarlq 15y ago
  Hmm, this feature seems buggy. I just tried enabling the option and it never finished. Had to kill it. Filed a bug report: http://crbug.com/97939 http://crbug.com/97939
  - mikewest 15y ago
    Thanks. It's now sitting in the Sync team's queue.
codecaine 15y ago
wow, I was assuming that everything is stored encrypted on Googles servers. Would be cool if someone could clarify this, as the explanation in the Google help is a bit vague IMHO.
- zobzu 15y ago
  To my understanding they started providing the option to encrypt only very recently. My take is obviously that it's bad for the company policy to have this stuff encrypted (any regular guy would have had built-in encryption when making such a sync service). But on the other hand it would be pretty bad advertising when Firefox always had full encryption. Providing the option (but not making it mandatory) gives the proper advertising/evangelizing arguments.

Slimy 15y ago

I thought it was general knowledge that the closed-source Chrome sends (some) data back to Google while the open-source Chromium does not. Disclosure: I use Chrome (default) and IE9 (whenever Chrome fails).

justinschuh 15y ago
Usage statistics and crash reporting are strictly opt-in (and the default at install is opted out). There's also sync, but you must explicitly enable the feature and log in. That leaves five other places where data is sent back to Google for things like search suggestions and malware detection. You can find an explanation of those features and instructions on disabling them here: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=114836 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=11...
fhewifewfjewao 15y ago
chromium contains RLZ identifier
- justinschuh 15y ago
  The RLZ identifier is present only if Chrome is installed through some sort of third-party deal like a system or software bundle. If you install the stock Chrome from Google it's not present. You can find a good overview of RLZ here: http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html

y0ghur7_xxx 15y ago

I tried to look at what chrome sends to google with wireshark, and there are quite a lot of connections made to google servers, but it's all encrypted (ssl). So I actually have no way to know what is sent to google. Did someone make a detailed analysis of what info gets sent to google on a default install of chrome?

buddydvd 15y ago
I noticed awhile back that even if you disable Chrome's safe browsing feature, Google still sends data to their server. I'm not sure if this is still the case today. http://superuser.com/questions/236637/how-to-disable-google-chrome-from-sending-data-to-safebrowsing-cache-google-com-a http://superuser.com/questions/236637/how-to-disable-google-...
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  Yep, this still appears to be the case. It establishes a long-lived SSL connection to one Google's servers few seconds after the start. If the connection is forcefully killed (e.g. with SysInternal's TcpView), it won't be re-established, but needing to kill it every time I need to use Chrome is really annoying. It is also the reason why I have Chrome updates permanently disabled - I don't trust Chrome enough to let it run anything in a background.
  - mikewest 15y ago
    Can you file a bug at http://new.crbug.com/ http://new.crbug.com/ please? That doesn't sound like the behavior I'd expect.
    - huhtenberg 15y ago
      Sorry, I can't. It wants me to log in with Google ID which I don't and won't have.
      - huhtenberg 15y ago

kierank 15y ago

The same thing also applies to Android.

kierank 15y ago
Not entirely sure why I'm being downvoted but the same privacy concerns should apply to Android as well as Chrome.

philfreo 15y ago

I'm pretty sure Chrome send URLs to Google at least for indexing purposes. I've put up random pages on my websites, not linked to them anywhere at all but visited them in Chrome and then BAM - indexed soon after in search.

beaumartinez 15y ago
IIRC, it has components of Google Toolbar built in. If you accessed those pages with a browser with the Google Toolbar you'd have experienced the same.
- philfreo 15y ago
  I'm hoping you're offering that as an FYI, rather than as a justification... because it's not a very good justification
- aboodman 15y ago
  You recall incorrectly. Chrome does not send the URLs of pages you visit to Google for indexing, or for any other reason. Please see the privacy policy. It answers these questions quite clearly: http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/
  - WalterGR 15y ago
    http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html ... > When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to your default search engine so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for. If you choose Google as your search engine, Google Chrome will contact Google when it starts so as to determine the best local address to send search queries. If you choose to share usage statistics with Google and you accept a suggested query or URL, Google Chrome will send that information to Google as well. You can disable this feature as explained here. ... > If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google so we can help you find the URL you were looking for. You can disable this feature as explained here. ... > If you enable the optional AutoFill feature, which automatically completes web forms for you, Google Chrome will send Google limited information about the structure of pages that have web forms and information such as the arrangement of the form so that we can improve our AutoFill service for that page. (end excerpts) Could you give us more information about the AutoFill feature? Does it send the URL along with the listed information? Does it do this for every URL that contains a web form?

csoghoian 15y ago

2 responses: 1. Chrome is the only major browser not to support the Do Not Track header. Google is also the browser vendor whose bottom line would be most impacted if users could easily opt out of tracking. Coincidence? While I welcome folks from the Chrome team to weigh in on the reasons for this, my own understanding is that adoption of this feature is being blocked by Google's Mountain View based policy team, and is not a decision that is in the hands of engineers. Compare this to Chrome's absolutely spectacular record in the area of security, where folks like Adam Langley and Chris Evans have been able to ship innovative features that haven't worked their way through the standards process. Examples include HTTPS certificate pinning (that recently led to the discovery of MiTM attacks against Iranian users using the DigiNotar certs). In the area of security, Chrome's engineers deploy whatever they think will help users. In the area of privacy, Google's lawyers and lobbyists are calling the shots. (Also, there still isn't a working API to let others support DNT in Chrome. An API exists, I think, but it is quite buggy, AFAIK) 2. Blocking 3rd party cookies by default. Apple defaults to blocking 3rd party cookies, Chrome does not. Both are derived the same webkit core (yes, I know there is different code now), but when Google decided to create Chrome, they went with a different default than the one that Apple had already used -- one that hasn't led to websites breaking for Apple users. Again, which browser vendors' bottom line would suffer if Chrome users could not easily be tracked? Google. Let me be clear - I don't think that Chrome is engaging in any sneaky shenanigans to directly track users. No, that would be too obvious. Instead, Chrome just makes it easy for Google's other services to track users, when they stick with the deaults.

Wilya 15y ago
The DNT header is to be implemented by website developers (and they have nothing to gain by doing it). I understand that Google is better off without implementing this header, but I don't really think it would change anything if Chrome had it. I agree on the cookies issue, though. Things like "Allow local data to be set (recommended)" make me kind of sad.
- magicalist 15y ago
  as someone working on sites that use the recent browser storage APIs, I very much prefer that to be the recommended setting. Much saner than cookies, and for some type of apps makes for a much better user experience as well Notice that "allow local data to be set" and "block third party cookies" are not mutually exclusive settings in preferences...which is good, because they can be and tend to be used for very different purposes. If you want to block all data from being stored, that's fine (and web APIs are great in that they are designed to be individually denied and let a page detect that they have been), but I definitely disagree that first party storage enabled by default (and even "recommended") is lamentable.

notbitter 15y ago

For whatever reason, Chrome does seem to make life hard for privacy extensions like Ghostery: "As Chrome's resource blocking API is not yet comprehensive, some elements may execute." - http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download

mikewest 15y ago
The main dev on the WebRequest API sits right behind me, and is making steady progress. It's the first synchronous extension API that interacts with the network stack, and it's a nontrivial effort to get it running. I can assure you, however, that making life hard for privacy extensions is the exact opposite of what we're being paid to do. Look at the progress on privacy-related APIs over the last year: WebRequest is coming along nicely, WebNavigation and ContentSettings are feature complete and in the final stages of polish, and Proxy went out to stable in Chrome 13. Privacy and Clear just landed in experimental, and we're iterating on them rapidly. (Details on the state of each are available at http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental....)
- qjz 15y ago
  Is it possible to restrict requests to the host in the URL I'm visiting? XSS, DNT, etc. become much less of an issue when you can block all external resources requested by a page.
  - mikewest 15y ago
    That will be possible with the WebRequest API, yes: http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.webRequest.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/trunk/experimental.... For example, you'd be able to intercept and block network requests from a particular tab that didn't hit the same domain. The API in experimental now, so download a dev release of Chrome/Chromium, enable experimental APIs via `about:flags`, and start filing bug reports. :)
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago

natch 15y ago

Wow, that was an amazingly skillful non-denial denial. Notice how he never said Chrome does not collect user information. Because, as we all know, it does. I've often wondered how much it collects, by what mechanisms (including via third parties or analytics added by third parties) and to whom the information is available and under what circumstances. The statement from Mike West does not appear to shed any additional light on this; maybe it's answered elsewhere -- does anybody know? I've seen the Google Chrome TOS and wasn't able to get a clear picture from that. BTW anyone in Mike's position still may not be privy to everything that is done with the data, as some data collection and sharing may be subject to national security orders that that most employees are not allowed to know about. So any statement his team makes about this should be couched with "to the best of our knowledge."

mikewest 15y ago
Chrome does not collect user information, unless you explicitly opt-in to sharing aggregated usage information and crash reports with Google. If you do opt-in to these metrics (and you have to opt-in, it's disabled by default), you can opt-out at any time via chrome://settings/advanced#metricsReportingEnabled The data collected is available for you to peruse at chrome://histograms/ All the data that Google collects is subject to the privacy policies at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/, and Google of course complies with SafeHarbor regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priva...)
- asadotzler 15y ago
  "Chrome does not collect user information, unless you explicitly opt-in to sharing aggregated usage information and crash reports with Google" OR if you don't opt in to anything and you simply type some things into your Chrome Omnibox which get sent to Google for suggestions, or if you don't opt in to anything and you simply mistype a URL and that send data to Google for more helpful error pages, or if you don't opt in to anything and Google's phishing and malware service collects sites you're visiting. Oh, and where you don't opt in to RLZ, but you get it anyway. As I said on Twitter, I'm not really bothered by these things, but it's disingenuous to pretend they don't exist or to respond to peoples' privacy concerns by insisting that aggregate usage stats is the only information Google collects.

fjarlq 15y ago

Question for mikewest: Can Google do anything to help make browsers appear to be less unique, and thus less trackable? I'm talking about http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/ I'd much rather find a technical solution to that than a political non-solution.

jannes 15y ago
Enabling click to play for plugins in Chrome is already possible and makes you much less trackable. You will get much less bits of identifying information in panopticlick because your fonts and some other things can't be read out without Flash or Java.
- fjarlq 15y ago
  You sure about that? I already do click-to-play for plugins in Chrome, and it doesn't seem to help much. According to Panopticlick, there are 19.75 bits of data in my Browser Plugin Details, and for the "value" it describes all the plugins I have enabled. Also with click-to-play enabled, Panopticlick can see my system fonts (20.75+ bits of data, one in 1,769,122 browsers has this value). Apparently Panopticlick is not using one of my plugins to get that data... I haven't whitelisted eff.org or otherwise enabled plugins there. Looks like Panopticlick is using JavaScript/CSS font detection methods: http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect/ http://www.lalit.org/lab/javascript-css-font-detect/ Hmm... Panopticlick reports "No Flash or Java fonts detected" when I try it with IE9 on the same system. Is IE9 doing something to block Javascript/CSS detection of those fonts, or does Panopticlick have a bug with IE9 or what? Looks like that method worked for IE6/7...
  - fjarlq 15y ago
    Whoops, I have to take back what I wrote above. Somehow my Chrome had lost its click-to-play setting. I don't remember unsetting that... hrm. Anyway, with click-to-play enabled you are correct: Panopticlick cannot see my fonts. Sorry about the confusion. However, with click-to-play definitely enabled, Panopticlick can still see my Browser Plugin Details.
- 15y ago

budman 15y ago

Just use Iron. http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron...

aboodman 15y ago
http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
- budman 15y ago
  Interesting. Thanks

freshhawk 15y ago

Ah, the old "no no, just trust us" defense. This is just a thing Chrome has to live with, it's a browser developed by a company that makes money selling user behavior to advertisers. You'd have to be stupid not to think this is a possibility. Must be frustrating to the developers who know what it does and doesn't do though.

Silhouette 15y ago
The trouble with privacy comments like this blog post is always the same: no matter what the current situation is or how good the intentions of the person making the comment may be, unless they are an executive with the authority to legally bind the company in question to a privacy policy that has real repercussions if subsequently violated, in the end anyone can still be screwed over on the whim of whoever has the data. In this case, that "whoever has the data" has been publicly dismissive of fundamental privacy concerns up to and including CEO level, and has a business model built around extracting as much value as possible from that private data without regard for the privacy concerns of any individual.
justinschuh 15y ago
We put the source out there and try to be as transparent as we reasonably can. In the end though, people make their own decisions.
- azakai 15y ago
  One problem is that Chrome is not open source - Chromium is. But 99% of people use Chrome, and there is no way to build Chrome from source to be sure what code is running. We have to take Google's word for it that Chrome is identical to Chromium as regards privacy, and as others stated, Google's business interest is clearly to track user information, not to respect their privacy.
  - justinschuh 15y ago
    I've already explained why this framing is incorrect: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3034628 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3034628 So, go ahead and check out a release branch, set the "Official" build flag yourself, wait anywhere from 2-8 hours for the binaries to get built, and verify it against the bits we ship.

methodin 15y ago

At the end of the day Google is really not the company you have to be worried about - it's the ad networks. They are the ones implementing zombie cookies using the 10 or so methods of storage and the ones that directly sell your information to even seedier companies. I used to work for one so I know what goes on. This will always be a dance between smart developers usurping tracking efforts and smart developers coming up with new tracking methods. I really don't understand the extreme sentiment that your info via cookies is the worst form of privacy breach there is. Why would you not be more concerned with the companies that charge $.50 per call to access an API that can fetch information on anyone that fills out a form ("Oh I never knew my neighbor only makes $48k a year")? I guarantee you these companies know more about you than Google, Twitter and Facebook (unless you post every thought ever, of course). Case in point, they knew my coworker's wife at the time was 4 months pregnant. Unless you can derive such information from searches (doubtful and completely not worth the effort) then this information obviously came from elsewhere. Perhaps, for instance, like the doctor's office.

chico_dusty 15y ago
Except that Google is an ad network, deriving 99% of its profits from ads.
asadotzler 15y ago
"At the end of the day Google is really not the company you have to be worried about - it's the ad networks." Google is the largest ad network on the Web.

poona 15y ago

If you don't like third party cookies then I encourage you to go to chrome://flags/ and Enable the 'Block all third-party cookies' experimental feature. Simple as that.