Google Desktop

[JPC-Larry]

Anyone else use the sidebar part of it? If so, which gadgets do you use?

[Vin DSL]

I generally stay away from the (true) great satan as much as possible!

Yes, I know you must deal with the devil to survive on the web, but that doesn't extend to my desktop...

[Frank Broughton]

I generally stay away from the (true) great satan as much as possible!

Yes, I know you must deal with the devil to survive on the web, but that doesn't extend to my desktop...

agree & amen! Enough tools built into Firefox as to not needing any desktop web tools.

[JPC-Greg]

Ever wonder just how much ff3 is now recording for google? I bet your every visit and web browser action is reported.

[Connie]

No doubt Google know to much about everyone. Unfortunates Yahoo and MSN have the same information. Know one seems to be concerned about Yahoo or MSN.

I won't download any software from from any SE that will give them anymore information about me. They have enough already.

I certainly would not install Google Desktop.

[JPC-Larry]

Google will run the world soon enough.

[Pawel Kowalski]

The information google collects here is really not that bad, I don't know why anyone would be bothered by it. You can turn off any information being sent to google from your computer.

I had google desktop installed a few months ago before I reformatted the drive. This just reminded me of it so I think I'm going to get it loaded back on.

[JPC-Larry]

I've got the Clock, Weather, Calendar, Web Clips, and Note Pad gadgets on the sidebar. I only use the Google made ones.

[Spathiphyllum]

Anyone else use the sidebar part of it? If so, which gadgets do you use?

Not a chance I'll invite more than just the absolute minimum of history's greatest information vacuum into my life. I'll use the engine via URL as necessary and use some remote web tools to keep up with and aware of the industry archiving leader, but integrate it into routine activities? Never.

In fact it's getting more invasive as other software applications incorporate the desktop into their install routines. Google's the new Borg, trumping even MS because it can be distributed on so many platforms.

[the_ancient]

You guys talk as if Google is in direct control of the net


Google is they way they are because they came out with a better product that appealed to more people they the rest of its competitors,

Google stays on top by release even more products that appeal to even more people and that are even better than their competitors...

Google however is not unbeatable. Say for example they got soo arrogant and shut down all of their free services, they would be out of business in about a nanosecond...

Hell before google everyone said "Mircosoft will rule the world" now it is google

[Spathiphyllum]

You guys talk as if Google is in direct control of the net

Direct control? No. Not yet anyway, unless they get a deal with ICANN for DNS and Cisco, for example, to handle routing. We don't know how tech will evolve and we don't know how deep Google's pockets would be for such an endeavor. But I digress.

Indirect control? That's a different story. Google and its peers in search engine technology are huge data sinks. What they don't archive in caches and, in effect, serve as proxies for original content, they parse to the nth degree to a) study and research for who knows what, and b) manipulate to provide services to individuals as consumers and businesses... content which may or may not contain personally identifiable information to be culled for marketing or customer dossiers. That content is made available to some extent to the search engine company itself and to any affiliates with which they do business and which you may or may not be aware. In the fine print, you'll see to what extent, at least superficially, you give up privacy rights both to Google, for example, or to any partnering affiliates. Those rights may change at any time at the companies' discretion.

What this means is that, indirectly, Google (and others) can easily track your consumer habits, can analyze them to target your demographic, and can dole out info to others so that they may either track your tendencies or coordinate that info with other fiduciary entities (with some limits).

What it also means is that these engines can manipulate web content by nudging webmasters/content creators to produce material amenable to particular search criteria. While admittedly slow, there's an undoubted inertia that is produced as webmasters try to "optimize" their site to get a high listing on a search engine - a search engine that can arbitrarily change the rules by which it lists the "best" matches. How many people here have altered their site specifically for Google optimization? That's an indirect control. Likewise, a search engine company (and Google specifically) can "control the internet" by buying up content stores. See YouTube and Wikipedia. Google is controlling content, limiting what will or will not be seen and rating what will or will not be first choice. Their ownership and vertical business model strengthens their brand and their power since they dictate what will or will not be seen to a great degree based on rules they set for content sites. They can also censor/propagandize as they see fit and to a much greater degree than our democratic governments. That's a lot of power, and it's subtle, which kinda makes it potentially and especially insidious.

This is just of the head thoughts on control. I'm sure the enterprising of the Jaguar clientele can spot some more modes of control and the risks of reflexive adoption of the latest and greatest tools from Google or whoever. Google has surely been amazingly successful in their evolution, but naivete on the part of us browsers is foolish. Free country and all, but I might trust the government more than I'd trust a private, transnational corporation to protect my interests. As soon as my interests fail to enhance the interests of the business concern, you can bet that business will consider first its own condition and needs over mine. I trust Google as far as I can throw it which is as much trust as I have for Microsoft. I'm not biased, just critical.

Enjoy your Desktop.

[the_ancient]

And People tell me to take off my tin Foil Hat........

Direct control? No. Not yet anyway, unless they get a deal with ICANN for DNS and Cisco, for example, to handle routing. We don't know how tech will evolve and we don't know how deep Google's pockets would be for such an endeavor. But I digress.

ICANN only has authority because the DoC gives them that, if they abuse it, the DoC, and.or the DoD can and will smack ICANN down.

Remember almost all root servers are DoD or public (read government funded) universities here in the US

this is why I do not agree with giving that power to the Worthless organization known as the "UN" aka the Unitied Nothing

Indirect control? That's a different story. Google and its peers in search engine technology are huge data sinks. What they don't archive in caches and, in effect, serve as proxies for original content, they parse to the nth degree to a) study and research for who knows what, and b) manipulate to provide services to individuals as consumers and businesses... content which may or may not contain personally identifiable information to be culled for marketing or customer dossiers. That content is made available to some extent to the search engine company itself and to any affiliates with which they do business and which you may or may not be aware. In the fine print, you'll see to what extent, at least superficially, you give up privacy rights both to Google, for example, or to any partnering affiliates. Those rights may change at any time at the companies' discretion.

Google only has access to information YOU give them, don't want personal info in Google or any other public entity, DO NOT PUBLISH THAT DATA ONLINE... pretty simple

What this means is that, indirectly, Google (and others) can easily track your consumer habits, can analyze them to target your demographic, and can dole out info to others so that they may either track your tendencies or coordinate that info with other fiduciary entities (with some limits).

What it also means is that these engines can manipulate web content by nudging webmasters/content creators to produce material amenable to particular search criteria. While admittedly slow, there's an undoubted inertia that is produced as webmasters try to "optimize" their site to get a high listing on a search engine - a search engine that can arbitrarily change the rules by which it lists the "best" matches. How many people here have altered their site specifically for Google optimization? That's an indirect control. Likewise, a search engine company (and Google specifically) can "control the internet" by buying up content stores. See YouTube and Wikipedia. Google is controlling content, limiting what will or will not be seen and rating what will or will not be first choice. Their ownership and vertical business model strengthens their brand and their power since they dictate what will or will not be seen to a great degree based on rules they set for content sites. They can also censor/propagandize as they see fit and to a much greater degree than our democratic governments. That's a lot of power, and it's subtle, which kinda makes it potentially and especially insidious.

I never user YouTube, and that has been a VERY VERY bad business move by Google, the Share Holders of Google are hitting them over the head for that. YouTUBE is a Money losing site, losing by a LARGE margin...

If Google did not step in, it would be offline or payonly right now...

Their impact on content is NILL there are 10000000000000's of youtube clones out there, I can name a few but they are all of the porn nature

I cant believe your honestly suggesting the google has someone controlled content on the net because they bought out youtube :rolleyes" that is the most ridiculous statement ever

if anything you should be MORE scared of ComCrap, and other ISP that want to CONTROL your BROWSING with packet shaping, type of traffic throtteling and other under handed policies...

but hey Google is EVIIIIILLLLLLLL

This is just of the head thoughts on control. I'm sure the enterprising of the Jaguar clientele can spot some more modes of control and the risks of reflexive adoption of the latest and greatest tools from Google or whoever. Google has surely been amazingly successful in their evolution, but naivete on the part of us browsers is foolish. Free country and all, but I might trust the government more than I'd trust a private, transnational corporation to protect my interests. As soon as my interests fail to enhance the interests of the business concern, you can bet that business will consider first its own condition and needs over mine. I trust Google as far as I can throw it which is as much trust as I have for Microsoft. I'm not biased, just critical.

I am not scared of google, I am more scared of what ComCast is doing with my data than I am with of google....

Enjoy your Desktop.

Enjoy your Tinfoil hat

[Spathiphyllum]

And People tell me to take off my tin Foil Hat........

I would never suggest such a thing. Switching to non-caffeinated drinks, however, is a different story.

ICANN only has authority because the DoC gives them that, if they abuse it, the DoC, and.or the DoD can and will smack ICANN down...

Define "abuse." If a corporation has legal standing to conduct business, standing acquired by agreement with the government, then it can "abuse" technology to a considerable degree within the confines of its contract. The business can and will lobby for its interests and there won't be a whole lot anyone an do about it because it will have been sanctioned by the government and those who represent them via their lobby. Also, my evolution comment that you glossed over was, while somewhat tongue in cheek, indicative of the nature of technology. We have no idea how the internet and its form will evolve. It isn't static and can change on a relative dime. A deep-pocketed enterprise whose business model changes can easily opt in and tweak that evolution.

Google only has access to information YOU give them, don't want personal info in Google or any other public entity, DO NOT PUBLISH THAT DATA ONLINE... pretty simple

I'm not sure you get my point here so I'll expand. To the more ancillary caching/parsing component, search engines will try to access any and every node connected to the internet. That means practically every publicly accessible IP address will be probed for data. If you serve it, the engines will find it. That is, of course, the risk of interconnectivity. The default is that search engines operate under the premise that they may access all data it can touch without explicit permission. Does a business have all of its intranet secure, every router optimized to control traffic? If it doesn't, then Google or another search engine can probe and cache however they see fit despite any trivially ignored headers one might provide instructing them not to. Any network-accessible files will be scanned and may be stored outside presumably controlled space and into search engine ether. Of course, all business and systems administrators know these risks and always have their systems secured optimally to restrict accidental exposure of data, so no one should worry about such trivialities. Why be concerned?

But that really isn't the main point. What we were originally concerned with was the voluntary providing of personally identifiable account data to use Google tools and all of the tracking that is done to record your browsing habits and to accumulate those habits to a) build a real-time dossier and to b) link that dossier to other enterprises that might complement that dossier in order to either simply market products to you specifically or to profile your habits/accounts for some undisclosed use. The generic legal agreements pretty much let Google, for example, do whatever they want with the data. That means an entity of which you have little or no knowledge (a Google partner) can coordinate that which they get from Google (the dossier) to other information the third-party entity acquires/purchases from someone else. All it needs is a key ID. If you use Google services, you provide name, address, email, etc. If you use any of their commercial tools, Google then has banking data. To handle your account, Google then stores business transactions, transactions that may be outsourced to another entity. You will have provided Google, via cookies or possibly via desktop tools, an ability to track what you read and when you read it. You will have provided banking data. You will have provided a mechanism for other entities to look at that personal data which may or may not be innocuous. And you will have given Google permission to do what it wants with that data at their discretion until you terminate your contract (abandon any Google services). If you like their services and accept the risk, then fine. For someone as security conscious as you claim to be, I find your blind trust surprising.

I never user YouTube, and that has been a VERY VERY bad business move by Google, the Share Holders of Google are hitting them over the head for that. YouTUBE is a Money losing site, losing by a LARGE margin...

You may not use YouTube. Many millions do. It is the premiere media delivery site on the planet now. I figure Google has a long-term business model that recognizes those short-term economic losses. Their deep pockets allow them to outlast the trivial start-up competition, and when the market settles in a few years, Google will retain its niche dominance. Then it will incorporate more profitable schemes through advertising or something else.

Their impact on content is NILL there are 10000000000000's of youtube clones out there...

Hyperbole. Ask a generic web user to name one. Everyone else is just noise right now to YouTube signal. Google knows this and can survive the relatively unprofitable period of media storage/delivery now. When the fly-by-nights collapse, Google will still be there holding all the cards. At a minimum and for the forseeable future, barring loss through litigation, Google will hold a very strong hand.

I cant believe your honestly suggesting the google has someone controlled content on the net because they bought out youtube :rolleyes" that is the most ridiculous statement ever

Again you miss my point. And "most ridiculous statement ever"? Wow. That's pretty ridiculous.

Google has a dominant market position now. It sets guidelines on what is or what is not acceptable. It instructs the technologists to implement tools to "enhance" user experience. A tool to flag something as inappropriate? It's there. Who decides "inappropriate"? Customized for regional sensibilities? Sure, why not. If China, for example, doesn't want Tibetian protests to be available, then Google will succumb to pressure from "concerned citizens" and restrict content for billions of people. Political commentary that is deemed too edgy? Well, it can be yanked by a concerted effort by a 527 group or by the political leanings of management itself. That's the subtle, yet powerful, control of messages I'm talking about.

but hey Google is EVIIIIILLLLLLLL

I see you've taken their motto to heart. One man's distrust is another man's evil, I guess.

Enjoy your Tinfoil hat

That's kinda funny considering your position on Comcast. Does yours come with a reinforced brim?

[the_ancient]

I would never suggest such a thing. Switching to non-caffeinated drinks, however, is a different story.

I drink water 99% of the time, other than that I drink tea, limited caffine.....

ofcourse I could lay off the ephedrine......

Define "abuse." If a corporation has legal standing to conduct business, standing acquired by agreement with the government, then it can "abuse" technology to a considerable degree within the confines of its contract. The business can and will lobby for its interests and there won't be a whole lot anyone an do about it because it will have been sanctioned by the government and those who represent them via their lobby. Also, my evolution comment that you glossed over was, while somewhat tongue in cheek, indicative of the nature of technology. We have no idea how the internet and its form will evolve. It isn't static and can change on a relative dime. A deep-pocketed enterprise whose business model changes can easily opt in and tweak that evolution.

"Abuse" would be violations of the JPA, NTIA is continully reminding ICANN, that they really CANT......

I'm not sure you get my point here so I'll expand. To the more ancillary caching/parsing component, search engines will try to access any and every node connected to the internet. That means practically every publicly accessible IP address will be probed for data. If you serve it, the engines will find it. That is, of course, the risk of interconnectivity. The default is that search engines operate under the premise that they may access all data it can touch without explicit permission. Does a business have all of its intranet secure, every router optimized to control traffic? If it doesn't, then Google or another search engine can probe and cache however they see fit despite any trivially ignored headers one might provide instructing them not to. Any network-accessible files will be scanned and may be stored outside presumably controlled space and into search engine ether. Of course, all business and systems administrators know these risks and always have their systems secured optimally to restrict accidental exposure of data, so no one should worry about such trivialities. Why be concerned?

If you have unsecured networks, Google is the least of your problems, but what do i know...

But that really isn't the main point. What we were originally concerned with was the voluntary providing of personally identifiable account data to use Google tools and all of the tracking that is done to record your browsing habits and to accumulate those habits to a) build a real-time dossier and to b) link that dossier to other enterprises that might complement that dossier in order to either simply market products to you specifically or to profile your habits/accounts for some undisclosed use. The generic legal agreements pretty much let Google, for example, do whatever they want with the data. That means an entity of which you have little or no knowledge (a Google partner) can coordinate that which they get from Google (the dossier) to other information the third-party entity acquires/purchases from someone else. All it needs is a key ID. If you use Google services, you provide name, address, email, etc. If you use any of their commercial tools, Google then has banking data. To handle your account, Google then stores business transactions, transactions that may be outsourced to another entity. You will have provided Google, via cookies or possibly via desktop tools, an ability to track what you read and when you read it. You will have provided banking data. You will have provided a mechanism for other entities to look at that personal data which may or may not be innocuous. And you will have given Google permission to do what it wants with that data at their discretion until you terminate your contract (abandon any Google services). If you like their services and accept the risk, then fine. For someone as security conscious as you claim to be, I find your blind trust surprising.

I dont trust them blindly, but I think some of this is unfounded non-sense as well...

Google is no differant that any other Web Site that offers advanced services, How pry tell do you expect them to offer email services with out storing any of your data

Dont like, dont use it, plain and simple

Name one time Google intentionally used someone personal information is a adverse way?

You may not use YouTube. Many millions do.

And there are millions of morons out there as well, MySpace Users, YouTube Users, etc etc etc, DESERVE to have there personal info out their....

It is the premiere media delivery site on the planet now. I figure Google has a long-term business model that recognizes those short-term economic losses. Their deep pockets allow them to outlast the trivial start-up competition, and when the market settles in a few years, Google will retain its niche dominance. Then it will incorporate more profitable schemes through advertising or something else.

Look up ROI, YouTube will never ever pay for itself..... it started out almost 2 billion in the hole, and costs google who knows how much every day in bandwidth, energy, hardware maintenance , etc etc etc.....

It was a Bad business investment in 2006, it is bad investment today, and it will continue to be a bad investment in the future.

Hyperbole. Ask a generic web user to name one. Everyone else is just noise right now to YouTube signal. Google knows this and can survive the relatively unprofitable period of media storage/delivery now. When the fly-by-nights collapse, Google will still be there holding all the cards. At a minimum and for the forseeable future, barring loss through litigation, Google will hold a very strong hand.

Ofcourse they can survive, the IPO was the most successful Tech IPO Ever, the cost of youtube even compared to their balance sheet is nothing, not even a blimp, that is NOT the point, you dont spend money on bad investment, no matter how minor it is to the grand scheme of things...

Google needs to remember, they are not a Private Company any more, they need to start acting like a Public Entity. And Public Entities do not spend 2 billion dollars on business's with ZERO revenue streams just because they are "cool" or "may prove useful someday"

Again you miss my point. And "most ridiculous statement ever"? Wow. That's pretty ridiculous.

Google has a dominant market position now. It sets guidelines on what is or what is not acceptable. It instructs the technologists to implement tools to "enhance" user experience. A tool to flag something as inappropriate? It's there. Who decides "inappropriate"? Customized for regional sensibilities? Sure, why not. If China, for example, doesn't want Tibetian protests to be available, then Google will succumb to pressure from "concerned citizens" and restrict content for billions of people. Political commentary that is deemed too edgy? Well, it can be yanked by a concerted effort by a 527 group or by the political leanings of management itself. That's the subtle, yet powerful, control of messages I'm talking about.

How is this any Different than any other Media? I bet you think the NY Times is non-political.

Public Pressure will keep Google from going too far. YouTube would not survive extreme censorship, or would any site. As Some will create another YouTube that would be uncensored and everyone to go their... Do you honestly think the google cant be beaten?

History Always Repeats itself, and Empires always fall..

Yahoo was king, now theirs Google
Sears was king, now theres Walmart
Before youTube there was iFilm, iFlim was around for 8 years before YouTube was Launched

If google screws up and youtube becomes anti-user, youtube will be replaced... Plain and simple, Competition is King.

I see you've taken their motto to heart. One man's distrust is another man's evil, I guess.


That's kinda funny considering your position on Comcast. Does yours come with a reinforced brim?

My position with Comcast is rooted in FACT, your scared of what google "could do" or "might do" I am scared of what Comcast HAS DONE and CONTINUES TO DO

yours is based in Speculation, Mine is based in FACT

see the differance

[the_ancient]

If you want PROOF, Read the FCC investigation/ruling on ComCast's interface of web traffic on its network
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-08-183A1.pdf