Google: What did I say all along?

[nslay]

I came across this on freebsd-chat mailing list:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126333757451026659.html

Google said it suffered a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China" in mid-December, which it said resulted in "the theft of intellectual property." The company said it found evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists.

Gosh! I remember suggesting that one of the consequences of the Chinese hacking Google was that it could identify it's own citizens abroad viewing or propagating otherwise censored material!  Who knows what else the hackers had access to ...

It's not Google ... it's the fact that it collects and stores so much information about EVERYTHING. 

What's next? Facebook supplanting government issued ID (:D)?  These technological trends are shortchanging everyone ... but nobody can see that over all the free cool toys ... with the concealed price tag of your soul.

[iago]

The hackers' target was dissidents' gmail accounts - it doesn't matter what Google collects, since people treat Gmail like a normal, private email service, despite the fact that they have no control (or knowledge) of how the servers work.

You also forgot to mention, Google got owned because of previously undisclosed Internet Explorer 6 vulnerabilities. IE6 is a gongshow, and it's still used by a good part of the corporate world (my previous employers only recently moved to IE8).

And finally, welcome to 2009's news. ;)

[nslay]

That article is less than a year old.  It also mentioned that other types of intellectual property were stolen.  However, that's not the point.  The point is that Google collects and centralizes vast amounts of information.  It probably houses more information than governments worldwide!  And it's not just limited to Internet anymore! Now it collects images and videos from vans with cameras for Street View (raised privacy concerns).  It also collected 600GB of fragmentary data from open Wi-Fi networks recently ... I don't understand this one at all.

The Google that makes cool toys is great.  Their software is well designed (i.e. Chrome tabs are individual processes = STABILITY).

The Google that holds vast amounts of information about people, companies, users, etc... that is a target of countries like China ... that's not cool.

Companies that know too much about everything is not a good thing (not limited to companies).

[iago]

Now it collects images and videos from vans with cameras for Street View (raised privacy concerns).

A lot of people get upset about Streetview, and I can understand why. But in my mind, and I'm a pretty paranoid/privacy-conscious person, I don't think Streetview is a big deal. As long as they're collecting data that's freely available already, I don't see how it's any different than spidering the Web.

It also collected 600GB of fragmentary data from open Wi-Fi networks recently ... I don't understand this one at all.

I don't know the details, but I have a suspicion of what happened. They were trying to collect MAC addresses, which has been done by other companies before. To do that, one of their engineers wrote a script that would take the first x bytes, say 64, from every packet. Or maybe they used tcpdump, which takes the first 68 bytes of each packet by default. They stored that without really thinking. But, it turns out, the tcp and ip headers are something like 20 bytes each, meaning 40 bytes of headers and approximately 20 bytes of payload. Oops?

The reason I'm not worried about this goof up is that it's Google themselves who admitted it was happening and announced that they'd be removing all the data they accidentally collected. If Google was collecting it for any reason other than an accident, why would they admit it and say they're getting rid of it?

As I said, I don't like Google or a lot of what they do, but these examples aren't something I'm worried about. :)

[nslay]

Now it collects images and videos from vans with cameras for Street View (raised privacy concerns).

A lot of people get upset about Streetview, and I can understand why. But in my mind, and I'm a pretty paranoid/privacy-conscious person, I don't think Streetview is a big deal. As long as they're collecting data that's freely available already, I don't see how it's any different than spidering the Web.

It also collected 600GB of fragmentary data from open Wi-Fi networks recently ... I don't understand this one at all.

I don't know the details, but I have a suspicion of what happened. They were trying to collect MAC addresses, which has been done by other companies before. To do that, one of their engineers wrote a script that would take the first x bytes, say 64, from every packet. Or maybe they used tcpdump, which takes the first 68 bytes of each packet by default. They stored that without really thinking. But, it turns out, the tcp and ip headers are something like 20 bytes each, meaning 40 bytes of headers and approximately 20 bytes of payload. Oops?

The reason I'm not worried about this goof up is that it's Google themselves who admitted it was happening and announced that they'd be removing all the data they accidentally collected. If Google was collecting it for any reason other than an accident, why would they admit it and say they're getting rid of it?

As I said, I don't like Google or a lot of what they do, but these examples aren't something I'm worried about. :)

Great. As I've said, I'm not necessarily so worried about Google's actions as I am those who target them.

[iago]

Great. As I've said, I'm not necessarily so worried about Google's actions as I am those who target them.

I think I'd trust my data just as much with those who target them as with Google themselves. I mean, they're both trying to make profit by selling your information to people who you don't necessarily want to have it. :)

[Rule]

I think I'd trust my data just as much with those who target them as with Google themselves. I mean, they're both trying to make profit by selling your information to people who you don't necessarily want to have it. :)

Ridiculous... Google isn't saintly, but your private information is much safer in their hands than in the possession of hackers and governments who are basically accountable to no-one and who have criminal or sordid motives.

[deadly7]

This thread makes me lol at the fact that people think Google has information on them that the government doesn't, and the overarching opinion that Google cares about "John Doe at 123 Fake Street" as an individual.

[Sidoh]

This thread makes me lol at the fact that people think Google has information on them that the government doesn't

This probably isn't true.  The government probably has access to things that Google doesn't, but they're probably much less useful.  Sure, government can peer into my bank accounts, know who I am, where I have worked, etc. but Google can do much nastier things that the government can't -- reset my bank account passwords, send out nasty e-mails from me without my knowledge, etc.

Anyway -- by law, you know all of the things that the US government knows about you.  They're not allowed to collect on "US persons" (this includes citizens):
http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm

and the overarching opinion that Google cares about "John Doe at 123 Fake Street" as an individual.

I agree, though.  I've heard this argument dozens of times, and I tend to agree with the claim "privacy is an intrinsically good property, and there's something wrong when it's taken away from you.", and I recognize that I'm surrendering a great deal of privacy by using Google's products.

I guess I just don't think there's much risk involved.  I recognize that situations like the one mentioned in this article bring up a new kind of concern, but it still doesn't worry me enough to move to an alternative.

[nslay]

Gah! Why do I need to repeat myself

It's not necessarily Google! It's those who target them.

I never once stated that I think Google is malicious (aside of it's marketing ethics).  I am defending my claim that I am concerned that one business centralizes a vast wealth of information about people, companies, governments, organizations (yes, companies, government agencies, organizations, etc... are using Google's products for project organization and management).  We're entrusting ONE company with a wealth of information all conveniently centralized for some malicious entity (sometimes we do not consent to the information we provide, like visiting a website with Google Ads).  Google has a bad track record since they've been compromised by the Chinese government!

It's not just Google ... look at Facebook and Paypal.  What kind of catastrophe would it be if Facebook was hacked?  The consequences are not even foreseeable ... even if you didn't provide your personal details on Facebook, you form a graph with friends which could be potentially useful for some malicious purpose.  What about those Facebook apps that collect other kinds of personal information?

[Sidoh]

Gah! Why do I need to repeat myself

It's not necessarily Google! It's those who target them.

I never once stated that I think Google is malicious (aside of it's marketing ethics).  I am defending my claim that I am concerned that one business centralizes a vast wealth of information about people, companies, governments, organizations (yes, companies, government agencies, organizations, etc... are using Google's products for project organization and management).  We're entrusting ONE company with a wealth of information all conveniently centralized for some malicious entity (sometimes we do not consent to the information we provide, like visiting a website with Google Ads).  Google has a bad track record since they've been compromised by the Chinese government!

It's not just Google ... look at Facebook and Paypal.  What kind of catastrophe would it be if Facebook was hacked?  The consequences are not even foreseeable ... even if you didn't provide your personal details on Facebook, you form a graph with friends which could be potentially useful for some malicious purpose.  What about those Facebook apps that collect other kinds of personal information?

Gah!  Why do I need to tell you to read my post

I didn't say it's necessarily Google, and neither did anyone else

except maybe deadly, but i think he was talking rule?

[deadly7]

except maybe deadly, but i think he was talking rule?

I was generalizing but because the topic's title involved Google, I said Google. s/Google/"any advertising agency or company that sells your info to be aggregated"

[Sidoh]

except maybe deadly, but i think he was talking rule?

I was generalizing but because the topic's title involved Google, I said Google. s/Google/"any advertising agency or company that sells your info to be aggregated"

did you read ussid 18 mister?