• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Google Knows All

the link in the first post works, but doesnt take you to anytihng about google :(
 
morningstar667 said:
ghostdog19 said:
morningstar667 said:
IMO if anyone was collecting data from here all they's see is "Oh boy we got us a skeptic!"
Click to expand...
or better yet a stack of condescending emoticons.
Click to expand...
Is this meant as an insult?
Click to expand...
don't be silly
morningstar667 said:
:rofl:
Click to expand...
That's better.

Okay, so picture this. Government trawling the fortean Times message board for enemies of the crown when they find an emoticon anti-war rally on the "Iraq war" that looks a lot like this. :stfu: :wtf: :_old: :imo: :_omg:
 
ghostdog19 said:
Okay, so picture this. Government trawling the fortean Times message board for enemies of the crown when they find an emoticon anti-war rally on the "Iraq war" that looks a lot like this. :stfu: :wtf: :_old: :imo: :_omg:
Click to expand...
Ta for clarifying: here's one for the nsa
Idiot-George-Bush.jpg
 
Either that or something seriously tedious that everyone else will just stop reading.

Back on topic, please.
 
Right, here we go, today I feel like finding a "Large black leather pouff"

Do I feel lucky?

Yo! :err:
 
JamesWhitehead said:
Right, here we go, today I feel like finding a "Large black leather pouff"

Do I feel lucky?

Yo! :err:
Click to expand...

From that site:

Sm. Burnt Yellow Pouff
$55.00
Click to expand...

Just tempting them to send you a $55 bag of ashes.
 
Knowledge can sometimes be power.

Like, if you knew how to create your own search engine and a webcrawler to index sites you would never have to accept a Google cookie again.

But then, if you had that sort of skill and the knowledge to back it up you might want to look into creating your own Software Agent to go off and look for things for you.
 
Burnt yellow pouffs used to be billed as henna pouffs, I kid you not!

Anyway, to take the bitter taste out of my mouth, I went hunting for some Etruscan Slags:

Wow!

They sure know how to talk dirty! :gaga:
 
Internet Former Agent Says Google and CIA in Partnership
Marcus Yam (Blog) - October 31, 2006 5:00 PM

Could Google be a spook?
Is Google's quest to manage the world's information leading straight to the CIA?

Former CIA clandestine case officer Robert David Steele made some very hot comments on his appearance on the Alex Jones radio show. Steele cites his contacts within the agency with the information that Google and the CIA are involved with one another.

Steele said, "I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off."

In reference to Google's fight against the U.S. Department of Justice for the privacy of its users, Steele claims that it was an elaborate charade intended for the public eye.

"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," concluded Steele.

From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims, and neither Google nor the CIA are yet commenting on the matter.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4774
 
High Court: 'Google privacy case can be heard in UK'
Google has vowed to fight the High Court's decision today that it can be sued for an alleged breach of privacy in the UK despite being based in the US, a decision which potentially sets a precedent for other internet companies based outside our borders
By Matthew Sparkes
11:07AM GMT 16 Jan 2014

The High Court has thrown out Google’s claim that it is immune from a legal challenge made by Britons over an alleged breach of privacy.

Google faced a group action by users of Apple's Safari browser who were angered by the way their online habits were apparently tracked against their wishes in order to provide targeted advertising. But the search giant claimed that it was not ruled by British law as it was based in the US.

It said there was “no jurisdiction” for the case to be heard here because its services were provided by Google Inc, based in the US, rather than Google UK.

That claim has now been thrown out, as Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try the claims.
"I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said this morning.
"The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims."

Google has vowed to fight the decision. A spokesperson said: “A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.”

If it stands, the ruling could set a precedent for other US internet firms with UK customers. Some firms, such as Facebook, provide services to UK users through European subisdiaries, so are already governed by UK laws.

The group of complainants in the case, called Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, claimed that Google tracked their browsing habits during the latter part of 2011 and early 2012, using the data to serve them targeted advertising. They claim that the company acted contrary to a 2009 amendment to an EU directive which requires consent before cookies are placed on a user's device for advertising purposes.
They allege that the information was collected and sold to advertisers who used its DoubleClick advertising service.

The test claim was brought by Judith Vidal-Hall, former editor of Index On Censorship magazine, Robert Hann, director of an IT security company, and Marc Bradshaw, director of an IT services company.

Their spokesman Jonathan Hawker said as the case began: "People use the Safari browser for private browsing believing nobody else knew what they were doing. But Google tracked them and has caused embarrassment and distress.

"Google should not override their wishes for privacy. We want the case heard in the UK because this is where the damage was done. They have offices here, employ staff here and make money here. Why should these people have to go to California to make a claim?"

Antony White QC, speaking for Google, told the judge: "The conduct complained of came to an end in February 2012 and cannot now re-start. There is no risk of repetition or continuation." He also denied that any user suffered any economic loss.

In August last year Google was fined £13.8m in the US after being found guilty of circumventing security settings on the iPad, iPhone, Mac and Safari browser in order to collect user data for advertising. They later paid out a further £10.5m to settle another claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... in-UK.html
 
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the reception of Google HQ there's a scrolling projection on the wall of what people are searching for at that second.

I imagine that would be fascinating, depressing and downright hilarious all at the same time.
 
Urvogel said:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the reception of Google HQ there's a scrolling projection on the wall of what people are searching for at that second.
Click to expand...
Well, they won't have much from me - I mostly use Duck Duck Go nowadays! 8)
 
Why we should worry about Google's new policies:
Google has a new policy that discriminates against conspiracy theory sites.
 
Ghostdog wrote,

..there are parties that already know what car you buy what food you eat what general preferences you have...

Not quite correct.

I was in a well known supermarket one evening. the only person there. I was in my old work clothes and needed a shave and a haircut.

The girl at the check out, looking at me and the bottle of vodka in my hand as I approached the till said 'tell me your not going to run with that'.

I could understand her concern, and displayed my credit card as I got to her. Saying 'you'd probably catch me before I got out of the door'.

Now, the point being that I bought it via a debit card as I have bought many bottles from the same place. Thus somewhere a server has all these transaction recorded.

But I don't drink. The bottles are for a relation who can't get there to do his own shopping.

So the database is holding all these bottles against my name, Any one checking would think I was an alcoholic.

The servers hold data on the cards used but don't know who is using the items bought.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
Ghostdog wrote,

..there are parties that already know what car you buy what food you eat what general preferences you have...

Not quite correct.

I was in a well known supermarket one evening. the only person there. I was in my old work clothes and needed a shave and a haircut.

The girl at the check out, looking at me and the bottle of vodka in my hand as I approached the till said 'tell me your not going to run with that'.

I could understand her concern, and displayed my credit card as I got to her. Saying 'you'd probably catch me before I got out of the door'.

Now, the point being that I bought it via a debit card as I have bought many bottles from the same place. Thus somewhere a server has all these transaction recorded.

But I don't drink. The bottles are for a relation who can't get there to do his own shopping.

So the database is holding all these bottles against my name, Any one checking would think I was an alcoholic.

The servers hold data on the cards used but don't know who is using the items bought.

INT21
Click to expand...

Very true though most people most of the time are buying things for themselves.

I had a similar incident - was living in Paris very briefly and got collared by a security guard in a supermarket, literally he grabbed me by the scruff of the neck, big bugger too, he talked too fast for my basic French to understand but I could tell he wanted me gone. I muttered my crap French and eventually just said "Anglais", he let go and walked off. A kindly old lady (French-Canadian I think) saw me looking baffled and explained "he thought you were a tramp".

I didn't look great but I quickly deduced it was as much do to the fact I was clutching a bottle of wine - a lovely but cheap brand that came in a plastic bottle (superior to most wine I'd drunk in England anyway) and I discovered in Paris was the equivalent of White Lightning and simply holding it threw up certain unkind connotations
 
That brings back memories...vin de table in a plastic bottle from a Parisian minimart.

Screw-top wine was hardly heard of in the UK when I first sampled this, courtesy of my parents, and a plastic container was the fever-dream of a madman.

You can get something similar in Sainsbury's now. I think it's made in Redditch.
 
French brandy in plastic bottles at Aldi.

Sacre bleu !

INT21
 
One can amuse one's self creating profiles of the posters on this (or any other) site from the content of their posts.

Passes a quite hour or two.

INT21
 
This thread has reminded me of an article I read once where the author visited one of Google's offices and described a huge video wall which showed in real time all the various terms the internet population were searching for. I remember being quite perturbed the next time I was online looking for new grist for my particular sexual peccadillo mill.
 
INT21 said:
One can amuse one's self creating profiles of the posters on this (or any other) site from the content of their posts.

Passes a quite hour or two.

INT21
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even take that long, probably. I read once that a person can get a decent idea of a stranger's personality and character by studying the stranger's bedroom for 10 minutes. The theory being that the bedroom is a private space filled with items and décor of the person's own choosing. Google drawing a profile from our searches isn't much different in essence.

I had the same idea while glancing over our downloaded files on the computer. Each family member's files were consistent with their personality. I also noticed my files were consistent with my posts on this forum, other forums, my twitter feed, my blog, etc. By which I mean, it was shockingly easy to build a profile just from these files alone.

That said, I rarely receive any targeted advertising. Perhaps my profile suggests (correctly) that trying to sell to me is a waste of time and money.:D
 
Reminds of the (apparently documented) story from the US, where a 15-yr-old girl was getting sent vouchers for baby products from Target. Her father went into the store to complain vociferously, but returned a week later to apologise meekly, having only just found out his daughter was up the duff. Apparently the store-card database program picked up the change in foods, toiletries and vitamins that she was buying, and matched it with other women who went on to buy nappies and baby food. That's actually a really simple process on a technical level, but it still sends a slight chill down my spine. I mean, I get sent vouchers for quite specific things that I'm already buying, and I'm fine with that, but the whole prediction thing is a bit much.
 
Whoa. That is pretty creepy, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top