5 ms·

I opened chrome to check this out, but it wants me to "sign in" to install the extension. For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about ev

by sequoia 14y ago

I opened chrome to check this out, but it wants me to "sign in" to install the extension. For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I correspond with with mutt or whom I chat with on other services with finch etc.. Why expand google's data-gathering "attack surface"? And all this for... (?) what does this offer that sets it above my current terminal client? Someone please tell me if there is any technical reason I should need to sign in to add an extension (in particular this, or some game).

Karunamon 14y ago
>For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Oh for pete's sake... Is there anything to this " I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I correspond with with mutt or whom I chat with on other services with finch etc.. Why expand google's data-gathering "attack surface"? Or is it further chicken-little, slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality? Keep in mind that you're connecting to their web store to download this, even sans login. That means they have your IP, and a metric ton of identifying information about you via your browser fingerprint (ala Panopticlick). Complaining about signing in just seems rather silly. Oh noes! They know that you downloaded an extension! You'll have to forgive me for being blunt. This particular absurd line of thought is starting to seriously become an annoyance - even the chans have latched onto it. Correcting people who have the wrong idea is getting old.
- mverwijs 14y ago
  > You'll have to forgive me for being blunt. "You'll have to forgive me for being rude, obnoxious, conclusion-jumping." Fixed that for ya. You're welcome.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Rude? I wasn't aware that pointing out something has no basis in reality is rude. Obnoxious? Don't post misinformation and you won't be challenged. Conclusion jumping? What conclusion did I jump to? And as far as making "Fixed" posts go.. doctor, heal thyself ;)
    - Dunkirk 14y ago
      It got Slashdot-y real quick up in here.
      - Produce 14y ago
        Have you noticed that this keeps happening on different forums? It seems to be an effect of a population threshold being reached and (possibly) the time the forum has existed (separate from the population size - how comfortable the members are and, therefore, how loose they are with their words).
- dhimes 14y ago
  That means they have your IP, and a metric ton of identifying information about you via your browser fingerprint (ala Panopticlick) Maybe they do, maybe they don't. ;-)
- sequoia 14y ago
  Well frankly I think my "they might read my chat in finch" is a stretch, but no, I don't think that assuming google's goal is to stretch their tentacular roots as deeply as possible into the fertile, loamy soil of my private information is "slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality." To the contrary, as you probably know, gathering personal information on users is the primary purpose of all of google's unpaid products and the heart of their business model. Would you dispute this fact? So they are a targeted-ad company whose value is to a great extent commensurate with the amount of information they have on users (another uncontroversial statement, I hope). More info = more value, and you think it's "conjecture" to speculate that they might push further and further into your experience on their platform? This is the crux of it for me: I've been installing desktop applications and browser extensions for years, and I've never needed to tell an advertiser and the biggest tracker / data snooper on the 'net what my email address. Now all the sudden I do, and there's no (clear) method to opt out, and I'm OK with this because why? I'm willing to trade my data for services when the services are valuable (I use gmail & facebook), but this looks like "give us more info, just cuz" with no value prop. Sure you can sync but I don't want to and there's no reason you should be forced to sign in; that is 100% about data gathering (otherwise there'd be a "forgo sync" option). IP address and browser fingerprint is not the same as "link everything explicitly to my google account," by the way.
el_presidente 14y ago
> Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. Google seems to be working on this. If you've ever seen someone without a Google account try to use Android for the first time you can see how much effort they are putting into stopping people from using their products.
- tomrod 14y ago
  I've never used android--is it difficult then?
  - biafra 14y ago
    Not at all if your Android device does not support the Google Accounts in the first place. It was really difficult with the ADP1/G1 back in 2008. But meanwhile it is not that difficult if you don't want to use the Google services.
- chrisrhoden 14y ago
  Yeah. It's super easy to activate your iPhone without an iTunes account with a credit card on file. ...wait.
  - el_presidente 14y ago
    I've never used an iPhone. At the time, I was comparing the experience with setting up my DSi. It lets you download things without making an account or having a credit card.* In fact, before downloading Angry Birds for Chrome I had never needed to sign up to download anything. (You also need to be online and signed in to play the game.) *The DSi Shop is a big pile of fail, but that is unrelated.
    - chrisrhoden 14y ago
      Cool, and I see what you're saying, but there's a specific reason that these things are set up the way that they are. It's about ensuring that the same experience exists whether you're spending money or not. The reasoning goes, if it's painful to spend money the first time, many people will never set things up if they can get away with free stuff. But if you're required to have an account with a credit card already set up to even get a free thing, then you're more likely to spend money when the time comes. This is also why installing a free app on your iPhone requires you to enter your password and confirm your purchase. Google's implementation of this is worse than Apple's, because they don't demand your credit card information until the first time you try to purchase something. But ultimately, they're both driving at the same thing, and it's hard to argue with the fact that they're pretty successful at it. As for your DSi, I hope you never lose or damage it. The lack of accounts for the store means that your purchases are bound to the device and are non-transferrable.
magicalist 14y ago
this doesn't answer your question, but you can always download the crx file and sideload it without signing in (you can also clone it from the chromium repo, but then you'd also have to build the nacl part). Kind of a pain, but if someone does want to try it out badly enough...
baddox 14y ago
If your bank account recovery link gets emailed to your Gmail account, you have more to worry about if Google decides to abuse your information.
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  I often fail at being polite to people online, and people like you are the reason. Trust me when I tell you this: Google will never steal money from your bank account, by using a password recovery link that you had emailed to your GMail account. Does that really need to be said? Do you really need CONVINCING of this?
  - baddox 14y ago
    You misunderstand. I am pointing out that if you are consciously giving Google potential access to your bank account, it's odd to be concerned about Google having other information that is far less sensitive. It's like worrying about your white carpet because the robber holding a gun to your head has muddy boots.
    - plorkyeran 14y ago
      Using recovery links emailed to users to access their bank accounts and gather information would open up Google to all sorts of legal trouble even if they do nothing but look. As class-action lawsuits are generally not very good for business, I consider this much less of a concern than legal methods of gathering information, even when the potential information gained from the legal methods is less sensitive.
    - dedward 14y ago
      true, but by that logic, once we give them one thing, we should just openthem up to everything? no. my bankaccounts are important, but they also come with fraudprotections. the complete picture of my life, all data mined, possibly misinterpreted, and then availableto my enemies is farmore scary.
  - whatusername 14y ago
jsnell 14y ago
You need to be signed in so that the extensions/apps/games can be properly synced to your other Chrome installations. The philosophy of ChromeOS seems to be for absolutely everything to get synced from the cloud. The login can't be optional since it'd be an incredibly shitty UX to have apps installed from the store sometimes sync to your new machine and sometimes not.
- kijin 14y ago
  > The login can't be optional since it'd be an incredibly shitty UX The login can be optional if Google chooses to make it so. If I don't want to log in and therefore endure a shitty UX, let me have that shitty UX, thank you very much! It's not like I need all the same apps in all my devices anyway. For example, I might not need this SSH app in a device that can run a proper OpenSSH client. And that's exactly the problem that some of us have with the /Chrome(OS)?/ philosophy. It's either their way or highway, with no options in between. (That's not necessarily bad for everyone, though. There are alternatives like Firefox for those who don't like Chrome.)
- sequoia 14y ago
  Thank you, this makes sense, tho I'd still prefer to have a different download option that doesn't require logging in.
sordina 14y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. To those saying "who cares" consider that you may wish to use this extension on a computer where you don't feel comfortable issuing your Google login credentials.
- rnicholson 14y ago
  I don't think you need to issue your Google login credentials to _use_ the extension, only to install it. Further, if you're on a computer where you don't feel comfortable using your Google login, why would you feel comfortable using ssh (via this extension) on the same said computer?

by sequoia 14y ago

Karunamon 14y ago

>For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Oh for pete's sake... Is there anything to this " I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I correspond with with mutt or whom I chat with on other services with finch etc.. Why expand google's data-gathering "attack surface"? Or is it further chicken-little, slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality? Keep in mind that you're connecting to their web store to download this, even sans login. That means they have your IP, and a metric ton of identifying information about you via your browser fingerprint (ala Panopticlick). Complaining about signing in just seems rather silly. Oh noes! They know that you downloaded an extension! You'll have to forgive me for being blunt. This particular absurd line of thought is starting to seriously become an annoyance - even the chans have latched onto it. Correcting people who have the wrong idea is getting old.

mverwijs 14y ago
> You'll have to forgive me for being blunt. "You'll have to forgive me for being rude, obnoxious, conclusion-jumping." Fixed that for ya. You're welcome.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Rude? I wasn't aware that pointing out something has no basis in reality is rude. Obnoxious? Don't post misinformation and you won't be challenged. Conclusion jumping? What conclusion did I jump to? And as far as making "Fixed" posts go.. doctor, heal thyself ;)
  - Dunkirk 14y ago
    It got Slashdot-y real quick up in here.
    - Produce 14y ago
      Have you noticed that this keeps happening on different forums? It seems to be an effect of a population threshold being reached and (possibly) the time the forum has existed (separate from the population size - how comfortable the members are and, therefore, how loose they are with their words).
dhimes 14y ago
That means they have your IP, and a metric ton of identifying information about you via your browser fingerprint (ala Panopticlick) Maybe they do, maybe they don't. ;-)
sequoia 14y ago
Well frankly I think my "they might read my chat in finch" is a stretch, but no, I don't think that assuming google's goal is to stretch their tentacular roots as deeply as possible into the fertile, loamy soil of my private information is "slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality." To the contrary, as you probably know, gathering personal information on users is the primary purpose of all of google's unpaid products and the heart of their business model. Would you dispute this fact? So they are a targeted-ad company whose value is to a great extent commensurate with the amount of information they have on users (another uncontroversial statement, I hope). More info = more value, and you think it's "conjecture" to speculate that they might push further and further into your experience on their platform? This is the crux of it for me: I've been installing desktop applications and browser extensions for years, and I've never needed to tell an advertiser and the biggest tracker / data snooper on the 'net what my email address. Now all the sudden I do, and there's no (clear) method to opt out, and I'm OK with this because why? I'm willing to trade my data for services when the services are valuable (I use gmail & facebook), but this looks like "give us more info, just cuz" with no value prop. Sure you can sync but I don't want to and there's no reason you should be forced to sign in; that is 100% about data gathering (otherwise there'd be a "forgo sync" option). IP address and browser fingerprint is not the same as "link everything explicitly to my google account," by the way.

el_presidente 14y ago

> Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. Google seems to be working on this. If you've ever seen someone without a Google account try to use Android for the first time you can see how much effort they are putting into stopping people from using their products.

tomrod 14y ago
I've never used android--is it difficult then?
- biafra 14y ago
  Not at all if your Android device does not support the Google Accounts in the first place. It was really difficult with the ADP1/G1 back in 2008. But meanwhile it is not that difficult if you don't want to use the Google services.
chrisrhoden 14y ago
Yeah. It's super easy to activate your iPhone without an iTunes account with a credit card on file. ...wait.
- el_presidente 14y ago
  I've never used an iPhone. At the time, I was comparing the experience with setting up my DSi. It lets you download things without making an account or having a credit card.* In fact, before downloading Angry Birds for Chrome I had never needed to sign up to download anything. (You also need to be online and signed in to play the game.) *The DSi Shop is a big pile of fail, but that is unrelated.
  - chrisrhoden 14y ago
    Cool, and I see what you're saying, but there's a specific reason that these things are set up the way that they are. It's about ensuring that the same experience exists whether you're spending money or not. The reasoning goes, if it's painful to spend money the first time, many people will never set things up if they can get away with free stuff. But if you're required to have an account with a credit card already set up to even get a free thing, then you're more likely to spend money when the time comes. This is also why installing a free app on your iPhone requires you to enter your password and confirm your purchase. Google's implementation of this is worse than Apple's, because they don't demand your credit card information until the first time you try to purchase something. But ultimately, they're both driving at the same thing, and it's hard to argue with the fact that they're pretty successful at it. As for your DSi, I hope you never lose or damage it. The lack of accounts for the store means that your purchases are bound to the device and are non-transferrable.

magicalist 14y ago

this doesn't answer your question, but you can always download the crx file and sideload it without signing in (you can also clone it from the chromium repo, but then you'd also have to build the nacl part). Kind of a pain, but if someone does want to try it out badly enough...

baddox 14y ago

If your bank account recovery link gets emailed to your Gmail account, you have more to worry about if Google decides to abuse your information.

VikingCoder 14y ago
I often fail at being polite to people online, and people like you are the reason. Trust me when I tell you this: Google will never steal money from your bank account, by using a password recovery link that you had emailed to your GMail account. Does that really need to be said? Do you really need CONVINCING of this?
- baddox 14y ago
  You misunderstand. I am pointing out that if you are consciously giving Google potential access to your bank account, it's odd to be concerned about Google having other information that is far less sensitive. It's like worrying about your white carpet because the robber holding a gun to your head has muddy boots.
  - plorkyeran 14y ago
    Using recovery links emailed to users to access their bank accounts and gather information would open up Google to all sorts of legal trouble even if they do nothing but look. As class-action lawsuits are generally not very good for business, I consider this much less of a concern than legal methods of gathering information, even when the potential information gained from the legal methods is less sensitive.
  - dedward 14y ago
    true, but by that logic, once we give them one thing, we should just openthem up to everything? no. my bankaccounts are important, but they also come with fraudprotections. the complete picture of my life, all data mined, possibly misinterpreted, and then availableto my enemies is farmore scary.
- whatusername 14y ago

jsnell 14y ago

You need to be signed in so that the extensions/apps/games can be properly synced to your other Chrome installations. The philosophy of ChromeOS seems to be for absolutely everything to get synced from the cloud. The login can't be optional since it'd be an incredibly shitty UX to have apps installed from the store sometimes sync to your new machine and sometimes not.

kijin 14y ago
> The login can't be optional since it'd be an incredibly shitty UX The login can be optional if Google chooses to make it so. If I don't want to log in and therefore endure a shitty UX, let me have that shitty UX, thank you very much! It's not like I need all the same apps in all my devices anyway. For example, I might not need this SSH app in a device that can run a proper OpenSSH client. And that's exactly the problem that some of us have with the /Chrome(OS)?/ philosophy. It's either their way or highway, with no options in between. (That's not necessarily bad for everyone, though. There are alternatives like Firefox for those who don't like Chrome.)
sequoia 14y ago
Thank you, this makes sense, tho I'd still prefer to have a different download option that doesn't require logging in.

sordina 14y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. To those saying "who cares" consider that you may wish to use this extension on a computer where you don't feel comfortable issuing your Google login credentials.

rnicholson 14y ago
I don't think you need to issue your Google login credentials to _use_ the extension, only to install it. Further, if you're on a computer where you don't feel comfortable using your Google login, why would you feel comfortable using ssh (via this extension) on the same said computer?