What is Chrome secretly up to?

Marty_J

esbo wrote: »

I don't care what it was in response to, I report anything I consider abusive.
There is plenty of evidence that google is up to no good, including I believe a clause
in their contract which granted them copyright and sole rights to any you do with it?

"Did you know that when you download Google's new Chrome browser, you agree that any "content" you "submit, post or display" using the service — whether you own its copyright or not — gives Google a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" it?"

How trustworth is a company which sneaks something lilke that into their contract?

And that is just the stuff they have been caught doing.

Microsoft used to have even worse terms and conditions for their passport service:

"By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Passport Web Site ... you are granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission to:

1. Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such communication.

2. Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.

3. Publish your name in connection with any such communication.

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's use of the materials contained within such communication."

Anyhow, Google have relented, as did Microsoft, Myspace and Bebo before them. Yahoo and Facebook still claim rights to everything you upload using their services (including Flickr).

Anyway I have reported you too I will let them decide if you intend to be abusive or not.

You have reported me for what exactly?

Posting a picture making fun of Google's privacy record?

Do you work for them or something?

I'm starting to think you really do believe everyone is out to get you.

superscaper

esbo wrote: »

Yea I suppose you could get rid of all compting problems by throwing your computer
in the bin.

That's not how I like to deal with problems though.

Since when has uninstalling something been synonymous with throwing away your computer? If anything I uninstall stuff just for efficiency or change my mind or simply don't like something.

tr3mor

esbo wrote: »

I don't care what it was in response to, I report anything I consider abusive.

:rolleyes:

Browntoa

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/

Preventing paranoia: when does Google Chrome talk to Google.com?
September 2, 2008 @ 1:18 pm · Filed under Chrome, Google/SEO
For better or worse, my blog is popular with the Google conspiracy-theorist demographic. I knew that as soon as Google Chrome launched, some readers would ask tough questions about privacy and how/when Google Chrome communicates with google.com.
So I decided to tackle this issue head-on. I talked to the Chrome team to find out if there’s anything to worry about. The short answer is no. For the long answer, read on.
- If you’re just surfing around the web and clicking on links, that information does not go to google.com.
- If you are typing a search or url in the address bar, Google Chrome will talk to the current search service to try to offer useful query/url suggestions. I love this feature, but you can turn it off. Right-click in the Omnibox/address bar and choose “Edit search engines...”. Or click the Chrome menu (it looks like a wrench), then Options->Basics and then the “Manage” button. Either way, you’ll see this box:

Uncheck the checkbox at the bottom of the dialog box that says “Use a suggestion service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar.”
- By default, crash reports and other anonymous usage statistics (e.g. which features are used most often) are not sent to Google. The Chrome team would love if people opted-in to send crash report data though, because it would improve Chrome for everyone. To opt in, click on the Chrome menu (it looks like a wrench), then click “Options.” On the “Under the Hood” tab, check the box that says “Help make Google Chrome better by automatically sending usage statistics and crash reports to Google.” You can read more about this opt-in option on this support page.
- I believe if Google Chrome sees a very short, stock 404 page (less than 512 bytes), it talks to Google in order to try to suggest other possible pages and options. My understanding that this is the same underlying technology that I talked about earlier this year. I think if you have a helpful 404 page (> 512 bytes), Google Chrome doesn’t modify that (this 404 page isn’t changed for example), but Google Chrome does try to help with very short/unhelpful 404 pages. If you still don’t like this feature, you can turn it off. Go to Chrome/Wrench menu->Options->Under the Hood and uncheck the box that says “Show suggestions for navigation errors.”
By the way, just as a quick plug: if you as a site owner want to improve your 404 pages, Google offers a nice snippet of JavaScript (well under 20 lines) to offer this functionality to site owners. See this 404 page blog post for more info.
- Google Chrome checks for automatic updates every 25 hours. Other modern browsers check for updates as well, e.g. to plug security holes. Given today’s sometimes-hostile web, I think checking for updates like this is a very smart choice.
- Every 30 minutes, Google Chrome downloads a list of 32-bit url hashes of urls thought to be dangerous (malware or phishing). That is a download of data from google.com, not to google.com. As you surf around the web, if you happen to hit a url whose hash is in the dangerous list, the 32-bit hash is sent to Google and Google replies with a full 256-bit hash of the dangerous url in question. Not only does this happen very rarely, but Google Chrome doesn’t send a url to Google, it sends a url hash, so Google doesn’t learn the url from this exchange. By the way, this is essentially the same protocol that Firefox 3 uses to protect its users from malware/phishing urls as well.
- When you choose your language in the user interface, Google Chrome downloads a spellcheck dictionary. Again, that is a download of data from google.com, not to google.com.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the only communication that happens between Google Chrome and google.com. I thought it would be better to write down all the communication that happens so that people wouldn’t invent conspiracy theories. As Louis Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Luckily, you can double-check me because the browser is open-source. I hope this helps in case anyone has any privacy-related questions about Google Chrome.

dot111

This is so funny, you don't need to worry about Google ....

The Government can find out all they want, my next door neighbour could too, if they really wanted to, it's the age we live in.

I never worry if my car is locked, I think if someone wants to steal it that much they will if it's locked or not............

Marty_J

Locks only keep honest people out, as my grandmother is always telling me.

ormus

you obviously drive a french car.

TorrestheGreat

dot111 wrote: »

This is so funny, you don't need to worry about Google ....

The Government can find out all they want, my next door neighbour could too, if they really wanted to, it's the age we live in.

I never worry if my car is locked, I think if someone wants to steal it that much they will if it's locked or not............

Incidentally...
where do you park your car?

superscaper

TorrestheGreat wrote: »

Incidentally...
where do you park your car?

I'm guessing they've never heard of crimes of opportunity. Just by the mere existence of opportunistic thefts means that not locking your car DOES INCREASE the probability of it being stolen. So not exactly wise.

shadowdragon

superscaper wrote: »

I'm guessing they've never heard of crimes of opportunity. Just by the mere existence of opportunistic thefts means that not locking your car DOES INCREASE the probability of it being stolen. So not exactly wise.

and try claiming on your insurance when you aint locked your car up. Think you will find it in the T and Cs of insurance companies that leaving the vehicle unlocked or the keys in the ignition voids your policy.