KillingtonZone.com

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... servatives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highway Star wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... servatives

That's cute ... they create little lists of the people they can't play well with in the sandbox. Don't we have posters on here that do the same?

It's time for Google to Die.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googl ... ive-sites/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Enjoy bing or whatever second rate product you plan on using.

Nikoli wrote:Enjoy bing or whatever second rate product you plan on using.

I've had Bing as my default search engine for well over a year now, and never use gmail. Google can suck it.

Highway Star wrote:

Nikoli wrote:Enjoy bing or whatever second rate product you plan on using.

I've had Bing as my default search engine for well over a year now, and never use gmail. Google can suck it.

You should try https://duckduckgo.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highway Star wrote:

Sure, because there are no laws prohibiting it.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Sure, because there are no laws prohibiting it.

That's the basic problem.

Google is still the best at search, but they are indeed "evil" and not because some former white dude employee got his feelings hurt.

Google vigorously collects all sorts of private information on their customers under the guise of providing better content ("personalization"). They then sell that info to third parties. It is very difficult for the non-tech savvy user to prevent this. They regularly serve search results based significantly on how much an entity advertises with them but give the impression the results are purely a matter of internet visibility. Gmail and other services are more ways for them to snoop on the unsuspecting.

To me, Google has essentially become the exact opposite of what they once were. It’s only appropriate they’ve dropped their motto of "Don't be evil". I continue use their stuff today, but with decreasing frequency and increasing caution.

Coydog wrote:Google vigorously collects all sorts of private information on their customers under the guise of providing better content ("personalization"). They then sell that info to third parties. It is very difficult for the non-tech savvy user to prevent this. They regularly serve search results based significantly on how much an entity advertises with them but give the impression the results are purely a matter of internet visibility. Gmail and other services are more ways for them to snoop on the unsuspecting.

To me, Google has essentially become the exact opposite of what they once were. It’s only appropriate they’ve dropped their motto of "Don't be evil". I continue use their stuff today, but with decreasing frequency and increasing caution.

This collection of information is also what makes them better ... I don't think it's a guise, but rather drives/supplements their innovation and I would argue part of why so many of their services are complimentary. As for Google selling their customers data to third-parties, I'm not aware of this ... link? Similarly, I'm unaware of cases where Google has been caught 'snooping' on customer's e-mail ... link?

Google faces UK class action over iPhone data snooping

Google Concedes That Drive-By Prying Violated Privacy

F.T.C. Fines Google $22.5 Million for Safari Privacy Violations

Coydog wrote:Google faces UK class action over iPhone data snooping

Google Concedes That Drive-By Prying Violated Privacy

F.T.C. Fines Google $22.5 Million for Safari Privacy Violations

Personally, I don't view evidence of Google placing a cookie on an iPhone / Safari Browser to be 'snooping' (e.g., 'investigate or look around furtively in an attempt to find out something, especially information about someone's private affairs'). Sure, it likely broke the UK's strong (as compared to the US) privacy laws, but it's hardly snooping. Same with the Google Street-view ... I don't believe incidental privacy violations were a result of Google's attempt to 'snoop'. UBER has some good 'snooping' examples (as does the NSA and your local police department via stingray), but the ones you cited are hardly 'snooping' in the proper use of the word.

Are there cases where Google has sold customer data to 3rd parties?

Interesting case. I've never heard of discrimination based on political ideology being a cause of action for a lawsuit. Distasteful, bad business, bad citizenship, sure. But I don't think it's unlawful. Unless he's claiming that he is being discriminated against based on his gender and ethnicity? That would be a real switch - being discriminated against for being male and white. Wonder what the judges will do with that.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Coydog wrote:Google faces UK class action over iPhone data snooping

Google Concedes That Drive-By Prying Violated Privacy

F.T.C. Fines Google $22.5 Million for Safari Privacy Violations

Personally, I don't view evidence of Google placing a cookie on an iPhone / Safari Browser to be 'snooping' (e.g., 'investigate or look around furtively in an attempt to find out something, especially information about someone's private affairs'). Sure, it likely broke the UK's strong (as compared to the US) privacy laws, but it's hardly snooping. Same with the Google Street-view ... I don't believe incidental privacy violations were a result of Google's attempt to 'snoop'. UBER has some good 'snooping' examples (as does the NSA and your local police department via stingray), but the ones you cited are hardly 'snooping' in the proper use of the word.

You don't think Google was snooping, the courts obviously disagree.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Are there cases where Google has sold customer data to 3rd parties?

Google Reaches $8.5M Settlement In Search-Data Suit

Law360, New York (July 22, 2013, 1:23 PM EDT) -- Google Inc. will shut down a pair of putative California class actions accusing it of illegally divulging search query information to third parties via the URL from its search engine results page after reaching an $8.5 million settlement disclosed Friday.

Coydog wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Coydog wrote:Google faces UK class action over iPhone data snooping

Google Concedes That Drive-By Prying Violated Privacy

F.T.C. Fines Google $22.5 Million for Safari Privacy Violations

Personally, I don't view evidence of Google placing a cookie on an iPhone / Safari Browser to be 'snooping' (e.g., 'investigate or look around furtively in an attempt to find out something, especially information about someone's private affairs'). Sure, it likely broke the UK's strong (as compared to the US) privacy laws, but it's hardly snooping. Same with the Google Street-view ... I don't believe incidental privacy violations were a result of Google's attempt to 'snoop'. UBER has some good 'snooping' examples (as does the NSA and your local police department via stingray), but the ones you cited are hardly 'snooping' in the proper use of the word.

You don't think Google was snooping, the courts obviously disagree.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Are there cases where Google has sold customer data to 3rd parties?

Google Reaches $8.5M Settlement In Search-Data Suit

Law360, New York (July 22, 2013, 1:23 PM EDT) -- Google Inc. will shut down a pair of putative California class actions accusing it of illegally divulging search query information to third parties via the URL from its search engine results page after reaching an $8.5 million settlement disclosed Friday.

So in conclusion, it seems Google doesn't vigorously collect 'all sorts of private information on their customers' and then sells the info to third parties. Unless you feel search terms and an IP address falls under 'vigorous collection of private information'. Further, it seems like Google is not snooping on unsuspecting Gmail users, as you previously alluded.