Comments on: Google as Big Brother

Google as Big Brother

boost ventilator — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:47:22 -0800

A Google boondoggle? Does Google deserve your nomination for Big Brother of the Year? Nine points from the previously mentioned folks at Google Watch. (via the Disinformation Newsletter)

By: Ogre Lawless

Ogre Lawless — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:02:08 -0800

Guess I'd better get a new tinfoil hat! More clearly (and in order): 1. delete the file/do not accept permanent cookies. 2. Gee, doesn't your server log? 3. citations? 4. misdirection 5. unsubstantiated 6. Shouldn'ta installed the damned thing 7. two words: "robots.txt" 8. repeat "it's a business". 9. Where's my tinfoil hat?

By: boost ventilator

boost ventilator — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:02:30 -0800

Er, also would have been via /. if I had of checked there earlier.

By: pmurray63

pmurray63 — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:05:22 -0800

The folks at Slashdot have pretty much bah-humbugged the Google-as-Big Brother argument. The previous discussion here that you linked to was generally pretty skeptical of this Google Watch guy. As the Salon article that provoked the original discussion points out:

Brandt is not a disinterested party; the dispute between Daniel Brandt and Google is personal. He has spent thousands of hours building a Web site that he believes is both useful and important, and Google, in its algorithmic blindness, has given Brandt a lower page rank than he thinks he's entitled to. Brandt finds it genuinely hard to believe -- and even personally insulting -- that Google won't give him more credit.

By: gramcracker

gramcracker — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:12:36 -0800

He's bitter. Salon article. That's all.

By: shepd

shepd — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:27:12 -0800

That site is full as full of crap as those "your computer is broadcasting an IP address" ads. How, exactly, are you supposed to form a connection to the webserver without giving it your IP number? So, let's see, they get it once because the have to, and twice because google gives it to them. Whoopity-do. Second, if you have a problem with the referrer's line, then it's _your_ job to use a web browser that suits your needs. The fact that your browser is standards compliant and therefore sends a true referrer string is _not_ google's fault. Next thing you know I'll be blaming my local shop for knowing what brand of credit card I have after I've swiped it at their terminal. Even without using the top level country domain, it's even simpler than trivial to find out someone's geographical location on the internet. Just use traceroute (or "tracert" on micros~1 window~1). No wonder their site's ugly... No self respecting web designer would help out a bunch of crazy fear-mongers! Yeesh! And they want me to trust their anonymous proxy with my info. No way in hell I'd do that. I'd rather install Xupiter first.

By: machaus

machaus — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:30:50 -0800

I'm thinking of starting a paypal fund so that the site in question can afford a tenth item for their list. That damn David Letterman has created such unreachable expectations.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:53:44 -0800

That site is full as full of crap as those "your computer is broadcasting an IP address" ads.

By: soundofsuburbia

soundofsuburbia — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:55:38 -0800

Where's my tinfoil hat? Here!

By: whatzit

whatzit — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:57:10 -0800

If you're still skeptical about Google as big brother, feel free to use other "quality" search engines like namebase.org (sorry, I won't even post a link to them).

By: shepd

shepd — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:09:06 -0800

Young, stupid script kiddies and many bloggers still think Google is "way kool," so by now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Ergo, 75% of everyone that uses the internet is a script kiddy or blogger. Well, that is assuming that everyone that uses the internet has used a search engine and doesn't get that "internet handbook" that was in vogue during 1996-1997. Do I have that right? That 100 million Americans are either bad-ass hax0rz or mathowie? And that worldwide there's about 1 billion people in this group? Is that what you meant, because if it is, wow, check yourself in for some paranoia treatment.

By: ed\26h

ed\26h — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:35 -0800

That list is full of shite.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:36 -0800

No webmaster can avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming he wants to increase traffic to his site. If he tries to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, he may find himself penalized by Google, and his traffic disappears. This is my favorite complaint. He's saying that if you try to cheat the system so that Google sends more traffic to you than you deserve, and they catch you doing it, you get in trouble. Well damn!

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:30:29 -0800

The guy is a link farmer, a search engine scammer. Case closed.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:37:45 -0800

yah. he could just be a jerk on mefi and get plenty of hits!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:38:29 -0800

works for me!

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:43:03 -0800

Do I have that right? That 100 million Americans are either bad-ass hax0rz or mathowie? And that worldwide there's about 1 billion people in this group? They're also people who use the phrase "way kool". So that limits them to marketing executives and anthropomorphic drink containers.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:48:55 -0800

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen this show up in email and on livejournal. Sheesh, I swear, some people. Is it too much to ask that they understand a computer and how a network operates before they start frothing off at the mouth? Good lord.

By: aaronshaf

aaronshaf — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:22:04 -0800

Mmm, GoogleOS.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:40:12 -0800

I love Google. If they want my IP address, they can have it.

By: namespan

namespan — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:50:42 -0800

The mentioned information collection seems relatively tame. If it's really a problem, you can use a proxy or Orangatango or what have you. Deny cookies. Perfect online privacy is nigh impossible, but pretty good isn't that hard. Google: the thing with them is they very nearly own search. That's somewhat frightening, and means they should expect scrutiny. From my point of view, they've always acted in a very principled manner, from the way they've constructed their pages and kept them uncluttered, to the up front manner in which they label sponsored links, to their refusal of advertising for products they don't like. But you never know... power at companies changes hands, principles shift, etc. It's worth keeping an eye on and asking questions once in a while.

By: tiamat

tiamat — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:51:33 -0800

This guy is crazy. That list doesn't scare me in the least!

By: Samsonov14

Samsonov14 — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:52:17 -0800

I love google too. I wish google was my dad.

By: shepd

shepd — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:09:39 -0800

namespan, that's what happened to altavista. Remember how that was the most kickass search tool ever, especially when altavista.digital.com was it's primary address? Boolean search technology, quick, lots of pages, really good in general. Then they added all sorts of crap, tried to become a portal, and ruined themselves as all their . If google does that, I'm sure the same thing will happen to them (that is, their users will desert them).

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:55:01 -0800

at meepzorp.com, we not only collect IP addy's, but we resolve hostnames in real time using PHP [Privacy Heisting Program©], the pages you view, your browser and the referer[sic]. we time stamp your every click. and through the power of relational database technology® we can literally watch in real time (not affiliated with RealTime™, a registered trademark of Real Inc.) as you leap from page to page. we're sure this information has commercial value to some schmuck. but at meepzorp.com, we just don't give a fuck. we guarantee it.

By: dg

dg — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:08:43 -0800

Anyone who doesn't love Google should try a search at Yahoo and remember what things were like in the "old days" when 50% of any search result was complete and utter crap that had been jammed full of meta tags and weird text designed to force higher search engine results. Google is our friend.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:23:39 -0800

Google is our friend. I wish google was my dad. Oh, jesus h. christ. What a disgusting display. The Cult of Google strikes again. I've never seen as odious an assault of content-less dismissals dominate a thread as the crap above. Does anyone have an actual, you know, *argument* here? At least one or two of the points in the main link are at least worth a closer look. In the Salon article folks cite approvingly, for instance, the reporter completely failed to follow up on important questions Google *still* has yet to answer. Does Google link information on searches to individual IP addresses? If so, why? If not, why won't it tell us? When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment. If Doubleclick tried that same move, I think a lot of MeFi'ers would be suspicious. But because it's Google, they get a pass? Yeah, whatever.

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:38:13 -0800

Not to mention the legality of the google cache. If a webmaster removes something from her site, why does she have to contact google to remove it from its cache also? I think the "opt-in argument" holds much water and its only a matter of time until the courts take it down. Of course this means less accountability and "gotchas" regarding sites which change their content and deny doing it, but there are better tools for detecting this. Its a moot point anyway, when DRM hits, very few websites will allow themselves to be cached anyway.