11 replies to this topic

[Chugworth]

Now this is pretty slick. Google is working on a Chrome plug-in for IE that will allow web pages to call on Chrome to render them. This way web developers won't be held back by the poor web standards support of older IE versions, and the slow JavaScript support of ALL current IE versions.

http://blog.chromium.org/2009/09/introduci...rome-frame.html
http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/
http://www.google.com/chromeframe/

[Chugworth]

Apparently the upcoming Google Wave is going to require this if it detects you're running IE. Here is an interesting post about it:

http://googlewavedev.blogspot.com/2009/09/...t-explorer.html

[Phonics Monkey]

...Which handily allows any Chrome based exploits to be successfully leveraged against IE too. All in one tidy and assuredly never updated (plugin...) package ... Yeah that sounds like a stupendous idea.

[Illrigger]

There's an add-in for Firefox that lets FF open IE in a tab. I'd much rather do it that way than use IE for the most part and chrome inside it.

BTW, in case there was any doubt how much time Chrome spends on sending your browser info back to Google, Benchmark the latest versions of SRWare Iron vs. the same build on Chrome. Chrome may be the "fastest browser out there", but Iron kicks its ass with the exact same code, minus Google's spyware.

Google scares me. If people had any sense, it would scare them, too.

[Phonics Monkey]

There's an add-in for Firefox that lets FF open IE in a tab. I'd much rather do it that way than use IE for the most part and chrome inside it.

Firefox is just hooking a preexisting (common) control for that. That's fine.

BTW, in case there was any doubt how much time Chrome spends on sending your browser info back to Google, Benchmark the latest versions of SRWare Iron vs. the same build on Chrome. Chrome may be the "fastest browser out there", but Iron kicks its ass with the exact same code, minus Google's spyware.

Damn! I keep forgetting to play with that.

Google scares me. If people had any sense, it would scare them, too.

Me no trust Google either.

I've actually got a short list of thing I religiously Avoid like a plague:

Google Chrome
Cloud Computing - All aspects of
Any other Google software designed to seize control of Local Machine
iPhones (iPods, iMac, iTunes, iLife, iWare, iEtc ... Aw Hell I'm just pissed off at the letter i at this point)

[Chugworth]

There's an add-in for Firefox that lets FF open IE in a tab. I'd much rather do it that way than use IE for the most part and chrome inside it.

Chrome Frame is not something that I would run myself. I have absolutely no use for it considering that Chrome is my primary browser. The benefit this brings is that web developers will be able to move forward with advanced, standards-based web-designs despite the fact that the majority of users still run IE.

BTW, in case there was any doubt how much time Chrome spends on sending your browser info back to Google, Benchmark the latest versions of SRWare Iron vs. the same build on Chrome. Chrome may be the "fastest browser out there", but Iron kicks its ass with the exact same code, minus Google's spyware.

Google scares me. If people had any sense, it would scare them, too.

I tried SRWare Iron and I really didn't notice any speed differences, both in page load time and in benchmark performance. And no, Google is not trying to spy on your browsing habits through Chrome any more than they can spy on you through IE. They spell out exactly what information is collected and in the past I have even ran WireShark to verify it. Personally I would trust "Google Chrome" over "SRWare Iron."

...Which handily allows any Chrome based exploits to be successfully leveraged against IE too. All in one tidy and assuredly never updated (plugin...) package ... Yeah that sounds like a stupendous idea.

Remember now, the hackers took one look at Google Chrome and said it was way too challenging.

[Phonics Monkey]

...Which handily allows any Chrome based exploits to be successfully leveraged against IE too. All in one tidy and assuredly never updated (plugin...) package ... Yeah that sounds like a stupendous idea.

Remember now, the hackers took one look at Google Chrome and said it was way too challenging.

You do realize you're reading way too much into an off-handed comment, right? Nothing is truly secure until its been tested in battle; Chrome's field time just ain't there for me. They're also just a bit too cocky (ala-Mac) about it for me ... that sort of behavior tends to put a bullseye on things.

The point of the Google trust issue isn't so much what (exactly) they're doing now it's where is it going? No information is bad, it's just information, how it's used is what ends up being bad. Google has far too much information on everyone & everything (think FBI conspiracy theory from the 70s). Marketing companies started with simple poles ... and now bombard us with tons of (spam...) advertizing on all sorts of crap we don't want to hear about. Thats a poorly done missuse of information. Now enter Google mainlineing every bite of information moving across the interweb into a massive server farm to be sorted into detailed trends of exactly who is into exactly what...and in there most private of moments too... The potential for missuse is just too high for my likeing.

[Illrigger]

Thing is, even if they don't tie your information to you (as per the privacy policy), they are still gathering that information. Sure, i could care less that they know that I spend all day connected to the Engadget feed, but what about other, more private things? SSL encryption only works to get you into a site; once you're in, that browser session is the same as any other one, and Google can pull whatever they want as you're navigating. Chrome was blocked from use here at work for exactly that reason.

My big problem ties into the fact that people implicitly trust search engines to give them relevant, unbiased results. As a person who works for a company that makes one, I can assure you that while relevant is true, unbiased may not be so. Ever wonder why searching for something in Google gives you different results than Bing or Yahoo? It's due to the fact that they algorithms are different and the core data samples are different, yes. But the algorithm can be (and almost definitely is) weighted by intentional bias as well as just different methods of looking at the data like everyone assumes. It's subtle, of course - if search engines were blatantly not returning relevant results about competitors, they'd be called out for it. But it's there, I assure you.

Google controls a vast majority of the market share for search. That means they control the vast majority of opinions and data people are exposed to at any given moment. This is very similar to how major news networks "spin" the news to alter opinions in one way or another. The difference is that most people are smart enough to realize it when Fox News and CNN spin a story and don't trust them blindly. How many people second guess their search engine results? Or go to a second engine to get another viewpoint?

When I say Google scares me, this is what I mean.

[Chugworth]

Thing is, even if they don't tie your information to you (as per the privacy policy), they are still gathering that information. Sure, i could care less that they know that I spend all day connected to the Engadget feed, but what about other, more private things? SSL encryption only works to get you into a site; once you're in, that browser session is the same as any other one, and Google can pull whatever they want as you're navigating. Chrome was blocked from use here at work for exactly that reason.

Google is not going to know that you're viewing Engadget unless Google has advertising on Engadget. And in that case they will know no matter what browser you are using. You think Google is going to pull personal information from pages your viewing without even telling you? The moment someone catches them at that, then the game is over. And how can you be so sure that Microsoft wouldn't engage in that sort of thing also? They are desperately trying to become an advertising company like Google.

So that's quite an asinine reason to block Chrome. I hope the same policy applies to other browsers such as Firefox and Opera. Firefox plugins are where I would be concerned about information theft. Google has a reputation to maintain, but the anonymous hobbyist programmer does not.

But you know what really has be concerned about privacy? Proxy-based browsing services such as Opera Turbo and Skyfire. To have all your browsing traffic routed through a company's proxy server seems insane to me. They could spy on your data and no one would ever know it.

My big problem ties into the fact that people implicitly trust search engines to give them relevant, unbiased results. As a person who works for a company that makes one, I can assure you that while relevant is true, unbiased may not be so. Ever wonder why searching for something in Google gives you different results than Bing or Yahoo? It's due to the fact that they algorithms are different and the core data samples are different, yes. But the algorithm can be (and almost definitely is) weighted by intentional bias as well as just different methods of looking at the data like everyone assumes. It's subtle, of course - if search engines were blatantly not returning relevant results about competitors, they'd be called out for it. But it's there, I assure you.

Google controls a vast majority of the market share for search. That means they control the vast majority of opinions and data people are exposed to at any given moment. This is very similar to how major news networks "spin" the news to alter opinions in one way or another. The difference is that most people are smart enough to realize it when Fox News and CNN spin a story and don't trust them blindly. How many people second guess their search engine results? Or go to a second engine to get another viewpoint?

When I say Google scares me, this is what I mean.

Oh, come on! What would ever make you think that their search results could be biased?

Next time I do a Google search I'll try and remember to second-guess the results.

Really though, you can count on bias from any company or person that gives you information.

[Phonics Monkey]

FWIW I agree with you on the proxys, which is why I never use them.

Really though, you can count on bias from any company or person that gives you information.

Can you count on bias, sure ... but the question is Do you.

When talking to the average man-on-the-street I generally assume some bias as they have no reason to filter their opinion.

When talking to a sales drone I always assume I being completely jerked-off because they're trained to close the deal no matter what. Trying to get a sales type to say no is actually a bit of a hobby - Oh Absolutely.

When one is talking to the nice lady at the public library...about a book...is bias assumed?


Websites we visit are cat 1 items.

The news Media is (/has become) a cat 2 item.

Search Engines (perceptually) are Cat 3 items.

[Illrigger]

FWIW I agree with you on the proxys, which is why I never use them.

Really though, you can count on bias from any company or person that gives you information.

Can you count on bias, sure ... but the question is Do you.

When talking to the average man-on-the-street I generally assume some bias as they have no reason to filter their opinion.

When talking to a sales drone I always assume I being completely jerked-off because they're trained to close the deal no matter what. Trying to get a sales type to say no is actually a bit of a hobby - Oh Absolutely.

When one is talking to the nice lady at the public library...about a book...is bias assumed?


Websites we visit are cat 1 items.

The news Media is (/has become) a cat 2 item.

Search Engines (perceptually) are Cat 3 items.

My point exactly. The difference here is that Google' bias is not quite the same as the librarians. Google might steer you towards a product that is inferior to others because that company has paid them to do so. Google may omit results that paint information in a light they don't want you to think about. You would never know, and it's not even illegal or even unethical - private corporations aren't required to disclose any of it. In today's world, where corporations will do literally ANYTHING to make money (in case the current state of the economy escaped you), it pays to be a bit paranoid.

[Chugworth]

Well I guess when I go to www.microsoft.com and Chrome redirects me to www.google.com, I'll say: "I should have listened to Illrigger and Phonics Monkey."