[gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

Hi list,

I ran across this news item about Google:

http://alturl.com/s7xi5

The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
search engine that may work.  It is here:

www.ixquick.com

Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.

Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.

Thoughts?  Suggestions?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
tho.   Copy and paste alert.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[J. Roeleveld]

On Thu, January 26, 2012 8:16 am, Dale wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I ran across this news item about Google:
>
> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
>
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
> search engine that may work.  It is here:
>
> www.ixquick.com
>
> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
>
> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
> everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
> anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
> what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
> Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
> as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
> yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
> they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
> Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
> getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
> policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
>
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?


Dale,

I don't use them myself, but Fastmail might be an option for you.
http://www.fastmail.fm

They're also very good with giving back to the OS community.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mathurin]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi list,
>
> I ran across this news item about Google:
>
> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
>
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
> search engine that may work.  It is here:
>
> www.ixquick.com
>
> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
>
> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
> everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
> anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
> what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
> Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
> as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
> yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
> they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
> Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
> getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
> policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
>
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
> tho.   Copy and paste alert.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b

For an alternative search engine you should have a look at DuckDuckGo
I've used it in the past and it has a pretty impressive set of
features. As for e-mail I've heard good things about FastMail. Hushmail
used to be a good one but I'm not sure how they stand today.

-- 
t: https://www.twitter.com/mikankun
b: http://mikankun.wordpress.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3607 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 08:48:28 Michael Mathurin wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi list,
> > 
> > I ran across this news item about Google:
> > 
> > http://alturl.com/s7xi5
> > 
> > The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> > since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> > they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
> > search engine that may work.  It is here:
> > 
> > www.ixquick.com
> > 
> > Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
> > like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
> > 
> > Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
> > everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
> > anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
> > what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
> > Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
> > as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
> > yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
> > they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
> > Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
> > getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
> > policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
> > matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
> > 
> > Thoughts?  Suggestions?
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-)
> > 
> > Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
> > tho.   Copy and paste alert.
> > 
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers
> > -across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpis
> > rc=al_comboNE_b
> 
> For an alternative search engine you should have a look at DuckDuckGo
> I've used it in the past and it has a pretty impressive set of
> features. As for e-mail I've heard good things about FastMail. Hushmail
> used to be a good one but I'm not sure how they stand today.

I've used Fastmail for years and is a very reliable email provider.  It does 
not have the storage allowance of Gmail on its free account, so space will run 
out unless you start deleting messages.  Also, unless you pay you are only 
allowed to access messages via webmail and IMAP4, not POP3.  There are options 
for webmail scrapers or archiving of messages via mail clients, but Fastmail 
is not Google in terms of access options and features.

BTW, it seems to me that if you access youtube and at the same time search 
Google without being logged in to any of their portals, they will not be 
tracking your email for user profiling purposes.  They may be logging IP 
addresses but it could be different users on the same IP address, so 
advertising results would not be relevant.

Delete flash and normal cookies, do not log in to any Google sites and you 
should be as good with their tracking of your habits as you always were.

To search in relative anonymity you could of course use tor if you can put up 
with their slow connections, or perhaps visit Scroogle who also offer an SSL 
page in case you want to avoid anyone sniffing your packets.  Scroogle looks 
like ixquick except that they only serve Google search results.  At busy times 
Google blocks Scroogle access, so it may be getting too popular for its own 
good.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:07:51 +0000, Mick wrote:

> BTW, it seems to me that if you access youtube and at the same time
> search Google without being logged in to any of their portals, they
> will not be tracking your email for user profiling purposes.  They may
> be logging IP addresses but it could be different users on the same IP
> address, so advertising results would not be relevant.

They can track a lot more than IP addresses, your browser can provide a
lot of information, not just user-agent but installed fonts, plugin
information and much more. There is enough to do a damn good job of
identifying you even when your IP address changes. It is certainly simple
to see if you are one user or two.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Nymphomania-- an illness you hear about but never encounter.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 11:33:14 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:07:51 +0000, Mick wrote:
> > BTW, it seems to me that if you access youtube and at the same time
> > search Google without being logged in to any of their portals, they
> > will not be tracking your email for user profiling purposes.  They may
> > be logging IP addresses but it could be different users on the same IP
> > address, so advertising results would not be relevant.
> 
> They can track a lot more than IP addresses, your browser can provide a
> lot of information, not just user-agent but installed fonts, plugin
> information and much more. There is enough to do a damn good job of
> identifying you even when your IP address changes. It is certainly simple
> to see if you are one user or two.

Not necessarily without making some broad assumptions.  For example two 
different users could be using the same machine and OS and browser; or same 
user could be using same machine, but different browser; or different users 
using different machines with same OS & browser, etc.

So extrapolating the user profile from browser headers is unreliable.  Of 
course Google may only be interested in getting right most of the time in 
which case they may use such info - although I have not found any references 
that they actually do.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1785 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:56:49 +0000, Mick wrote:

> > They can track a lot more than IP addresses, your browser can provide
> > a lot of information, not just user-agent but installed fonts, plugin
> > information and much more. There is enough to do a damn good job of
> > identifying you even when your IP address changes. It is certainly
> > simple to see if you are one user or two.  
> 
> Not necessarily without making some broad assumptions.  For example two 
> different users could be using the same machine and OS and browser; or
> same user could be using same machine, but different browser; or
> different users using different machines with same OS & browser, etc.

There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.

Of course, two people using the same browser on the same computer as the
same user would be indistinguishable, which is as good a reason as any to
not let anyone else use your browser.

> So extrapolating the user profile from browser headers is unreliable.
> Of course Google may only be interested in getting right most of the
> time in which case they may use such info - although I have not found
> any references that they actually do.

Agreed on both, I was only saying that it can be done, not that it is.

Not that Google's profiling of individual's information is that hot
anyway. Last year they approached me about a job for which I am
completely unqualified - and not just because it meant getting out of bed
before 9am :-O


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Men who have playful kittens shouldn't sleep in the nude.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Hampicke]

> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.

I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.
>
> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>

My results from work:

Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.
>>
>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>
> 
> My results from work:
> 
> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
> 
> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
> 


Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
 I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
have sites work?

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
>>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
>>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
>>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.
>>>
>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>>
>>
>> My results from work:
>>
>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>>
>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>>
>
>
> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
> have sites work?

Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
and got this:

   Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

   Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.


It looks like the biggest culprits appear to be the available font
list and the browser plugin set. Stick to as close-to-core a set of
fonts as possible, and that'll likely help. Also disable any plugins
you don't need. (FWIW, using the incognito window reduced the number
of bits listed in both "Browser Plugin Details" and "system Fonts",
and reduced the visible volume of data for "Browser Plugin Details" by
about a third.)

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:

> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
> >>
> >> My results from work:
> >>
> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
> >>
> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
> >  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
> > have sites work?
> 
> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
> and got this:
> 
>    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
> 
>    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.

I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).

This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the
web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me
than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites
obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do,
albeit some gt a borked layout from it).
-- 
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services.

The power of water is so great, that even the strongest man cannot hold it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>> >>
>> >> My results from work:
>> >>
>> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>> >>
>> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>> >  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
>> > have sites work?
>>
>> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
>> and got this:
>>
>>    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
>> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
>>
>>    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
>
> I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
> the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).
>
> This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
> when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the
> web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me
> than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites
> obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do,
> albeit some gt a borked layout from it).

FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And
Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes.


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[William Kenworthy]

On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 11:14 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
> >
> >> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
> >> >>
> >> >> My results from work:
> >> >>
> >> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
> >> >>
> >> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> >> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
> >> >  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
> >> > have sites work?
> >>
> >> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
> >> and got this:
> >>
> >>    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
> >> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
> >>
> >>    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> >> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
> >
> > I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
> > the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).
> >
> > This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
> > when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the
> > web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me
> > than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites
> > obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do,
> > albeit some gt a borked layout from it).
> 
> FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And
> Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes.
> 
> 

To turn this on its head ... rather than hiding, is there a way to
create identical browsers that pollute their (google et al.) databases?

Perhaps a read only VM with a standard fit out? (noscript etc. -
basically a sandboxed browser for the paranoid!)

or does such a thing already exist?

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 11:14 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My results from work:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> >> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>> >> >  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
>> >> > have sites work?
>> >>
>> >> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
>> >> and got this:
>> >>
>> >>    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
>> >> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
>> >>
>> >>    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> >> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
>> >
>> > I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
>> > the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).
>> >
>> > This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
>> > when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the
>> > web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me
>> > than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites
>> > obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do,
>> > albeit some gt a borked layout from it).
>>
>> FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And
>> Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes.
>>
>>
>
> To turn this on its head ... rather than hiding, is there a way to
> create identical browsers that pollute their (google et al.) databases?
>
> Perhaps a read only VM with a standard fit out? (noscript etc. -
> basically a sandboxed browser for the paranoid!)
>
> or does such a thing already exist?

Sure. Boot an Ubuntu live CD and use the browser in there. And forget
all the fancy plugins. For how panopticlick works, their presence will
say more about you then their absence.

Your target needs to be having as simple, generic a setup as possible.
Disabling features which come enabled by default sets you apart.
Adding fonts to the system, or adding plugins to the browser, or
enabling extensions, or having an unusual operating platform show up
in your User-Agent--all of it. Every customization you make makes you
more unique.

It's much the same as dressing the same as everyone else outside; it's
called keeping a low profile.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:38:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:

> To turn this on its head ... rather than hiding, is there a way to
> create identical browsers that pollute their (google et al.) databases?

Considering the huge number a people using the likes of Google (and no
one has stated that they actually use something like this), such
pollution wouldn't even amount to one speck of dust.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What is a "free" gift ? Aren't all gifts free?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1900 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 16:04:45 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
> > >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
> > >> 
> > >> My results from work:
> > >> 
> > >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102
> > >> tested so far.
> > >> 
> > >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> > >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
> > > 
> > > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
> > >  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
> > > have sites work?
> > 
> > Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
> > 
> > and got this:
> >    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
> > browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
> >    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> > conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
> 
> I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And
> the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript).
> 
> This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself
> when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of
> the web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more
> important to me than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even
> though some sites obviously don't work without it, such as video portals,
> most of them still do, albeit some gt a borked layout from it).

I get better results with Opera (with everything other than Cookies enabled):

only one in 215,475 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 17.72 
bits of identifying information.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mike Edenfield]

> From: Frank Steinmetzger [mailto:Warp_7@gmx.de]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:05 AM

> This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt
myself
> when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of
> the web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more
important to
> me than having to allow JS on a site from time to time.

Of course, by using NoScript and FlashBlock when most people no longer do
so, you are making yourself *more* unique and *more* trackable by Google's
standards. 

:)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>> My results from work:
>>>
>>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>>>
>>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>>  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
>> have sites work?
>
> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
> and got this:
>
>   Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
>
>   Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.

    Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same
fingerprint as yours.

    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
conveys INF bits of identifying information.

I think I broke it. I win? :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Paul Hartman
<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My results from work:
>>>>
>>>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>>>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>>>  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
>>> have sites work?
>>
>> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser,
>> and got this:
>>
>>   Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560
>> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
>>
>>   Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information.
>
>    Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same
> fingerprint as yours.
>
>    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> conveys INF bits of identifying information.
>
> I think I broke it. I win? :)

Who knows? You may have only broken you way of seeing the results. ^^


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Hampicke]

>     Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same
> fingerprint as yours.
> 
>     Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
> conveys INF bits of identifying information.
> 
> I think I broke it. I win? :)
> 

Sweet, panopticlick.eff.org got gentoo'd :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[James Broadhead]

On 26 January 2012 16:18, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>>     Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same
>> fingerprint as yours.
>>
>>     Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> conveys INF bits of identifying information.
>>
>> I think I broke it. I win? :)
>>
>
> Sweet, panopticlick.eff.org got gentoo'd :)

I wouldn't find it at all surprising if gentoo systems came out pretty
unique; no standard set of fonts, for example.

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Graham Murray]

James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> writes:

> I wouldn't find it at all surprising if gentoo systems came out pretty
> unique; no standard set of fonts, for example.

So maybe if you change your fonts regularly it might not be able to
track you - thinking that you are actually multiple different people.

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Graham Murray <graham@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I wouldn't find it at all surprising if gentoo systems came out pretty
>> unique; no standard set of fonts, for example.
>
> So maybe if you change your fonts regularly it might not be able to
> track you - thinking that you are actually multiple different people.

Honestly, I think anyone who wants to go to that extent is living
their own personal fantasy. But, if you want to do something like
that, modify your browser to add random salts to your font list,
plugin list and User-Agent string, and access the Internet using a Tor
proxy. Be sure to disable any extensions, plugins or builtins that
allow the browser to access your wifi or gps data. Xulrunner, for
example, has wifi awareness specifically for geo-targeting purposes.

Google's interest is in tightly-defined demographics to aid in
advertising and low-level details like "is he more likely to click on
an acaiberry ad or an ad selling SATA port multipliers with
statistical monitoring?" The whole thing about having a 'real name' is
about forcing people to be up-front with their identities when
interacting with other people online, which they think makes people
more civil. (Which I don't believe it does, but I only note that so
people don't mistake me for a flat-out Google apologist.)

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Daniel da Veiga]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:16, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high
>>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how
>>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember
>>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.
>>>
>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>>
>>
>> My results from work:
>>
>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far.
>>
>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that
>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information.
>>
>
>
> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number.
>  I guess you tested before I did.  How does one avoid this but still
> have sites work?
>

Use Stallman's way [1]

Seriously, I am not concerned with Google's policy change, it affects
absolutely nothing on my online life. I keep using their services
cause I find them the best to use, I would change otherwise. Its the
same reason I run Windows on my HTPC, and Linux at work and my
netbook, efficiency.

If you worry too much, you end up insane.

[1] http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
-- 
Daniel da Veiga

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:05:25 +0100, Michael Hampicke wrote:

> > There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a
> > high level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you
> > how much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't
> > remember where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.  
> 
> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/

That's the one, I'll try to remember to make a note of the URL this time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "I can't configure
Slackware".

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:05:25 +0100, Michael Hampicke wrote:
>
>> > There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a
>> > high level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you
>> > how much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't
>> > remember where is was. Somewhere like the EFF.
>>
>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> That's the one, I'll try to remember to make a note of the URL this time.

Mnemonic: It's a reference to the Panopticon, which was a model of
prison designed to make inmates behave by being aware that they were
constantly being watched. Derives from 'pan' (all) 'opti'
(sight/seeing). So, pan-opti-click becomes "all seeing click".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 634 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 13:50:46 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Not that Google's profiling of individual's information is that hot
> anyway. Last year they approached me about a job for which I am
> completely unqualified - and not just because it meant getting out of bed
> before 9am :-O

Ha, ha!  A very nice lady approached me too (admitted to having harvested my 
address from the Gentoo M/L) but run away when I told her that the only way I 
would share my CV details with Google would be via a person to person meeting 
in their London offices and the amount of income I would expect for a job there.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1046 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:12:43 +0000, Mick wrote:

> > Not that Google's profiling of individual's information is that hot
> > anyway. Last year they approached me about a job for which I am
> > completely unqualified - and not just because it meant getting out of
> > bed before 9am :-O  
> 
> Ha, ha!  A very nice lady approached me too (admitted to having
> harvested my address from the Gentoo M/L) but run away when I told her
> that the only way I would share my CV details with Google would be via
> a person to person meeting in their London offices and the amount of
> income I would expect for a job there.

My first reaction was, why would Google need a CV from me, surely they
already know more about me than my mother does? Clearly they don't.

At first I thought it was some type of scam, but several checks confirmed
that it was a valid approach and I ended up speaking to them by phone, at
a time that put them in California.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Use Colgate toothpaste or end up with teeth like a Ferengi.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:12:39 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:12:43 +0000, Mick wrote:
> 
> > > Not that Google's profiling of individual's information is that
> > > hot anyway. Last year they approached me about a job for which I
> > > am completely unqualified - and not just because it meant getting
> > > out of bed before 9am :-O  
> > 
> > Ha, ha!  A very nice lady approached me too (admitted to having
> > harvested my address from the Gentoo M/L) but run away when I told
> > her that the only way I would share my CV details with Google would
> > be via a person to person meeting in their London offices and the
> > amount of income I would expect for a job there.
> 
> My first reaction was, why would Google need a CV from me, surely they
> already know more about me than my mother does? Clearly they don't.
> 
> At first I thought it was some type of scam, but several checks
> confirmed that it was a valid approach and I ended up speaking to
> them by phone, at a time that put them in California.
> 
> 

I've been contacted, and interviewed by phone, by Google TWICE. Both
times the person said straight up they read gentoo-users <shrug>

Turns out this list and local LUGs are by far the best way to find good
Linux talent. You can't hide where you are really at anymore after
posting here for a few months

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 372 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 January 2012 21:29:05 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I've been contacted, and interviewed by phone, by Google TWICE. Both
> times the person said straight up they read gentoo-users <shrug>

I was contacted too, but I think they were swayed by my sig. Anyway, no 
further contact once I told them a bit about myself.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2314 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On Friday 27 Jan 2012 00:48:14 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2012 21:29:05 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I've been contacted, and interviewed by phone, by Google TWICE. Both
> > times the person said straight up they read gentoo-users <shrug>
> 
> I was contacted too, but I think they were swayed by my sig. Anyway, no
> further contact once I told them a bit about myself.

Don't take it personally.  On counter-interviewing the interviewer I came to 
the conclusion that she was looking for young IT literate candidates with 
networking and security knowledge, who would be keen to work for Google at a 
(relatively) low salary.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:21:16 +0000, Mick wrote:

> Don't take it personally.  On counter-interviewing the interviewer I
> came to the conclusion that she was looking for young IT literate
> candidates with networking and security knowledge, who would be keen to
> work for Google at a (relatively) low salary.

I don't think anyone could think Alan or I was young. From Alan's posts
on here, I would employ him in anything but a department of one!

My contact was interested in someone with experience in high performance
clusters. Can anyone point to a post of mine, here or anywhere else, that
implies that my knowledge of clustering extends beyond being able to
spell it?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

On Friday 27 Jan 2012 12:31:50 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:21:16 +0000, Mick wrote:
> > Don't take it personally.  On counter-interviewing the interviewer I
> > came to the conclusion that she was looking for young IT literate
> > candidates with networking and security knowledge, who would be keen to
> > work for Google at a (relatively) low salary.
> 
> I don't think anyone could think Alan or I was young. From Alan's posts
> on here, I would employ him in anything but a department of one!
> 
> My contact was interested in someone with experience in high performance
> clusters. Can anyone point to a post of mine, here or anywhere else, that
> implies that my knowledge of clustering extends beyond being able to
> spell it?

You're attributing intelligence and thoroughness in researching for suitable 
candidates, which I have not as yet found in recruitment agents, or even many 
high level head hunters.  They just cast a wide net and see what sticks to it.  
Ask them an off script question and they are lost at sea.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:59:34 +0000, Mick wrote:

> > My contact was interested in someone with experience in high
> > performance clusters. Can anyone point to a post of mine, here or
> > anywhere else, that implies that my knowledge of clustering extends
> > beyond being able to spell it?  
> 
> You're attributing intelligence and thoroughness in researching for
> suitable candidates, which I have not as yet found in recruitment
> agents, or even many high level head hunters.

Oh yes, I used to work with recruitment agents and they did send me some
dross... but only once! However, this was a Google employee.

The irony of this is that a thread about how much Google want to know
about us has descended into a demonstration of how little they know, even
from publicly available information.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Alan McKinnon]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:31:50 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:21:16 +0000, Mick wrote:
> 
> > Don't take it personally.  On counter-interviewing the interviewer I
> > came to the conclusion that she was looking for young IT literate
> > candidates with networking and security knowledge, who would be
> > keen to work for Google at a (relatively) low salary.
> 
> I don't think anyone could think Alan or I was young. From Alan's
> posts on here, I would employ him in anything but a department of one!

I take Groucho Marx's lead in this and refuse to take a position with
any company that is prepared to have me on the premises!

Yup, that is a paradox.


> 
> My contact was interested in someone with experience in high
> performance clusters. Can anyone point to a post of mine, here or
> anywhere else, that implies that my knowledge of clustering extends
> beyond being able to spell it?
> 
> 



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Hampicke]

> My first reaction was, why would Google need a CV from me, surely they
> already know more about me than my mother does? Clearly they don't.

Of course they do! They just wanted you to confirm what they know about
you. Who knows, maybe you lied when you posted a story on facebook where
you told people that you once fought 15 terrorists from Mars - on a bus
that would explode when going slower than 50mph - while saving a little
girls life by performing open heart surgery with a steak knife and a
paper clip...

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:47:18 +0100, Michael Hampicke wrote:

> > My first reaction was, why would Google need a CV from me, surely they
> > already know more about me than my mother does? Clearly they don't.  
> 
> Of course they do! They just wanted you to confirm what they know about
> you. Who knows, maybe you lied when you posted a story on facebook where
> you told people that you once fought 15 terrorists from Mars - on a bus
> that would explode when going slower than 50mph - while saving a little
> girls life by performing open heart surgery with a steak knife and a
> paper clip...

Sorry, you lost me when you got to facebook...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a
whole box to start a campfire?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3800 bytes --]

Am 26.01.2012 11:07, schrieb Mick:
> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 08:48:28 Michael Mathurin wrote:
>> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I ran across this news item about Google:
>>>
>>> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
>>>
>>> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
>>> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
>>> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
>>> search engine that may work.  It is here:
>>>
>>> www.ixquick.com
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
>>> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
>>>
>>> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
>>> everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
>>> anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
>>> what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
>>> Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
>>> as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
>>> yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
>>> they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
>>> Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
>>> getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
>>> policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
>>> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>>> Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
>>> tho.   Copy and paste alert.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers
>>> -across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpis
>>> rc=al_comboNE_b
>>
>> For an alternative search engine you should have a look at DuckDuckGo
>> I've used it in the past and it has a pretty impressive set of
>> features. As for e-mail I've heard good things about FastMail. Hushmail
>> used to be a good one but I'm not sure how they stand today.
> 
> I've used Fastmail for years and is a very reliable email provider.  It does 
> not have the storage allowance of Gmail on its free account, so space will run 
> out unless you start deleting messages.  Also, unless you pay you are only 
> allowed to access messages via webmail and IMAP4, not POP3.  There are options 
> for webmail scrapers or archiving of messages via mail clients, but Fastmail 
> is not Google in terms of access options and features.

+1 for Fastmail. I guess the "add free" service for 5 bucks per year
would be sufficient for Dale as he doesn't need much online space when
he uses POP3, anyway.

> 
> BTW, it seems to me that if you access youtube and at the same time search 
> Google without being logged in to any of their portals, they will not be 
> tracking your email for user profiling purposes.  They may be logging IP 
> addresses but it could be different users on the same IP address, so 
> advertising results would not be relevant.
> 
> Delete flash and normal cookies, do not log in to any Google sites and you 
> should be as good with their tracking of your habits as you always were.
> 

This made me thinking: Does anyone out there use different browsers for
different services? Like using Chrome only for GMail, Youtube and G+,
Opera for Facebook and Firefox for normal browsing?

I guess you could achieve the same using different user profiles. For
example `firefox --no-remote -P google` and `firefox --no-remote -P
default`.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 18:09:16 Florian Philipp wrote:

> This made me thinking: Does anyone out there use different browsers for
> different services? Like using Chrome only for GMail, Youtube and G+,
> Opera for Facebook and Firefox for normal browsing?

Yes, I use Chromium --incognito to check some financial websites, Firefox with 
private browsing to do my banking and log in to work remotely (Citrix SSL VPN) 
and Opera for very much everything else because of its speed and 
configurability (although these days most browsers have caught up with Opera in 
most respects).


> I guess you could achieve the same using different user profiles. For
> example `firefox --no-remote -P google` and `firefox --no-remote -P
> default`.

Ha!  I didn't know that FF can handle different profiles!  I better read on this 
now.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 18:09:16 Florian Philipp wrote:
>
>> This made me thinking: Does anyone out there use different browsers for
>> different services? Like using Chrome only for GMail, Youtube and G+,
>> Opera for Facebook and Firefox for normal browsing?
>
> Yes, I use Chromium --incognito to check some financial websites, Firefox with
> private browsing to do my banking and log in to work remotely (Citrix SSL VPN)
> and Opera for very much everything else because of its speed and
> configurability (although these days most browsers have caught up with Opera in
> most respects).
>
>
>> I guess you could achieve the same using different user profiles. For
>> example `firefox --no-remote -P google` and `firefox --no-remote -P
>> default`.
>
> Ha!  I didn't know that FF can handle different profiles!  I better read on this
> now.

Pretty much all of the Xulrunner apps can do this. So Firefox,
sunbird, thunderbird, seamonkey...
-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 18:09:16 Florian Philipp wrote:
>>
>>> This made me thinking: Does anyone out there use different browsers for
>>> different services? Like using Chrome only for GMail, Youtube and G+,
>>> Opera for Facebook and Firefox for normal browsing?
>>
>> Yes, I use Chromium --incognito to check some financial websites, Firefox with
>> private browsing to do my banking and log in to work remotely (Citrix SSL VPN)
>> and Opera for very much everything else because of its speed and
>> configurability (although these days most browsers have caught up with Opera in
>> most respects).
>>
>>
>>> I guess you could achieve the same using different user profiles. For
>>> example `firefox --no-remote -P google` and `firefox --no-remote -P
>>> default`.
>>
>> Ha!  I didn't know that FF can handle different profiles!  I better read on this
>> now.
>
> Pretty much all of the Xulrunner apps can do this. So Firefox,
> sunbird, thunderbird, seamonkey...

And have been able to for at least a decade, back to the Netscape
Navigator days, I think... at least Netscape Communicator for sure had
it, since roaming profiles was its big feature.

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:52:47 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:

> >> I guess you could achieve the same using different user profiles. For
> >> example `firefox --no-remote -P google` and `firefox --no-remote -P
> >> default`.
> >
> > Ha!  I didn't know that FF can handle different profiles!  I better
> > read on this now.
> 
> Pretty much all of the Xulrunner apps can do this. So Firefox,
> sunbird, thunderbird, seamonkey...

Chromium can do it too, with --user-data-dir=DIR


-- 
Neil Bothwick

IBM: I Blame Microsoft

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:16:01AM -0600, Dale wrote

> I'm sort of getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs
> or there is a policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the
> first place.  No matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet,
> here I am again.

  Years ago, when facing yet another ISP move, I got my own personal
domain.  I have the option of pointing my MX record at various services.
I'm currently using Cotse for inbound email.  For outbound email I use
my broadband ISP.  If it's down, I use a dialup ISP, which I keep as an
emergency backup..

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Timo Briddigkeit]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/26/2012 08:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I ran across this news item about Google:
> 
> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
> 
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like
> Google since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy
> with.  Next they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me
> surf.  I found a search engine that may work.  It is here:
> 
> www.ixquick.com
> 
> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.
> I do like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping
> tool.
> 
> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.
> Yea, everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my
> posts anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it
> happens.  Anyway, what is a nice stable email account server that
> allows pop access, Seamonkey as the email program, that is not
> tracking everything or nosey as heck?  Free would be nice but I
> would pay something inexpensive on a yearly basis if it is really
> good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't they sort of like Google
> already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer Yahoo is going to last
> or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of getting tired of
> switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a policy
> change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No 
> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am
> again.
> 
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
> Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be
> broken tho.   Copy and paste alert.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b
>
> 
Hi Dale,

I used ixquick for a while, but then I switched to www.ecosia.org and
I think you could like it.

Timo

- -- 
PGP-Key:   	 0x1629EE0B (http://xenolabs.net/pubkey.asc)
Key fingerprint: AC8D 516C 3DF3 9978 4F5D  A3DE 5279 72DD 1629 EE0B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPIUjPAAoJELmObhH3xcWzNaUIAMgyxZ82+qsO/sK/oa/BTuzF
I1XHIV2BJLehlqcektzn0+6KmuD7kfuu9gRS+NwIjikH4LJnjaen0wKO+awZ+j5s
+4hXtcfr1pgiSGAHrrThEqBl/JQxsSpzXAS8kliM3eQDpqE3PbFz51YcaCzmWDR1
A7EVvFMNxoLBbGzpjJB+DjCer1Vh1MZ9aZ0fJXMw5QNGfdaFq1NjF1HmA/RM8XXM
o1MbFywqH99gxFWU3tLZfUOlAm6xtAyzN1CUMkhvkoc4IHH6rmK0dylVhCQe5nnM
NkFSNUH+awv2lQee44GRXMhF8chiDTiKMfRh0HeGJOYT1P33cMg/0xFVLhCwFOY=
=kZBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[John J. Foster]

Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
I do pay for the enhanced account.

Good luck
festus

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 01:16 AM, Dale wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I ran across this news item about Google:
> 
> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
> 
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
> search engine that may work.  It is here:
> 
> www.ixquick.com
> 
> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
> 
> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
> everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
> anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
> what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
> Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
> as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
> yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
> they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
> Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
> getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
> policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
> 
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
> Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
> tho.   Copy and paste alert.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b
> 
> -- 
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
> how you interpreted my words!
> 
> Miss the compile output?  Hint:
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

John J. Foster wrote:
> Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
> I do pay for the enhanced account.
> 
> Good luck
> festus
> 


Do they allow encrypted messages too?  I looked at the help pages and
I'm pretty sure it does.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[John J. Foster]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 07:59 AM, Dale wrote:
> John J. Foster wrote:
> > Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
> > I do pay for the enhanced account.
> > 
> > Good luck
> > festus
> > 
> 
> 
> Do they allow encrypted messages too?  I looked at the help pages and
> I'm pretty sure it does.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dale
> 
>
Have sent any for quite some time (2-3 years), but it should work just
fine.

http://www.fastmail.fm/help/overview_security.html

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[John J. Foster]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 08:22 AM, John J. Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 07:59 AM, Dale wrote:
> > John J. Foster wrote:
> > > Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
> > > I do pay for the enhanced account.
> > > 
> > > Good luck
> > > festus
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Do they allow encrypted messages too?  I looked at the help pages and
> > I'm pretty sure it does.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> >
> Have sent any for quite some time (2-3 years), but it should work just
> fine.
> 
> http://www.fastmail.fm/help/overview_security.html
> 
> 
uh, happy fingers - I meant "haven't" sent any

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:59:57AM -0600, Dale wrote:
> John J. Foster wrote:
> > Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
> > I do pay for the enhanced account.
> > 
> > Good luck
> > festus
> > 
> 
> 
> Do they allow encrypted messages too?  I looked at the help pages and
> I'm pretty sure it does.

What's encrypted mail to a service provider anyway? Just a bunch of text that
only humans can't decipher. If they would disallow it, they'd have to look at
the mails' content (like google does for ads) in order to recognise them. This
would disqualify them as a trustworthy provider in the first place.
-- 
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services.

Everything has its two sides. But a quadrangle has three.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:59:57AM -0600, Dale wrote:
>> John J. Foster wrote:
>>> Dale - I've been using Fastmail since 2005. Absolutely no issues at all.
>>> I do pay for the enhanced account.
>>>
>>> Good luck
>>> festus
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do they allow encrypted messages too?  I looked at the help pages and
>> I'm pretty sure it does.
> 
> What's encrypted mail to a service provider anyway? Just a bunch of text that
> only humans can't decipher. If they would disallow it, they'd have to look at
> the mails' content (like google does for ads) in order to recognise them. This
> would disqualify them as a trustworthy provider in the first place.


Well, I didn't think there was a difference but I wanted to make certain
since I just set up PGP and all that stuff.  I didn't want to have to
change again later on if it didn't either.  Now I know.

I'm reading all the other replies still.  Sort of tied up a bit.  Patience.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.

To be honest, I already assumed they were doing this tracking all
along... I think Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook etc. will track you
everywhere you go, too, if they can.

The credit card companies have been doing this for years. Buy a lot of
dog food at the grocery store with your Visa card? Get Alpo junk mail
in your mailbox...

Me, I use Chromium for using "social media" sites or Google services
that I want to log-in to. Google+, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. I
don't use it for anything else.

I use Firefox for everything else. I am not logged into any of those
services in Firefox. I use RequestPolicy to block all third-party
content unless I explicitly allow it. I also use noscript, adblock,
flashblock, cookie monster. Everything is blocked by default except
same-site images. My Firefox is like the armored tank of web browsing:
big and slow and sometimes it crashes, but I feel safe inside it. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Lorenzo Bandieri]

> Me, I use Chromium for using "social media" sites or Google services
> that I want to log-in to. Google+, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. I
> don't use it for anything else.
>
> I use Firefox for everything else. I am not logged into any of those
> services in Firefox. I use RequestPolicy to block all third-party
> content unless I explicitly allow it. I also use noscript, adblock,
> flashblock, cookie monster. Everything is blocked by default except
> same-site images. My Firefox is like the armored tank of web browsing:
> big and slow and sometimes it crashes, but I feel safe inside it. :)

I have a setup similar to this. I use chromium on my main user for
gmail and other services that I often use and I want to stay logged
in. Main difference is that I have another user just for browsing
everything else.

I used to have simply another firefox profile on my main user, but
recently I decided to set a completely different user for what *I'd
like to be* "safe browsing". On this user I use Firefox with NoScript,
Flashblock, AdBlocker, plus it is set up to be in "incognito mode" by
default. The Flash cache is disabled also. With this user I do not
login in any site. I'm sick of all these policies about tracking users
and this constant siege to privacy. For this very reason I don't have
a facebook profile. I used to trust Google, but in recent years has
become increasingly intrusive.

Maybe slightly OT, but what do gentoo-users think about Tor?

Lorenzo

-- 
Nothing is interesting if you're not interested.

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2115 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 17:11:39 Lorenzo Bandieri wrote:
> > Me, I use Chromium for using "social media" sites or Google services
> > that I want to log-in to. Google+, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. I
> > don't use it for anything else.
> > 
> > I use Firefox for everything else. I am not logged into any of those
> > services in Firefox. I use RequestPolicy to block all third-party
> > content unless I explicitly allow it. I also use noscript, adblock,
> > flashblock, cookie monster. Everything is blocked by default except
> > same-site images. My Firefox is like the armored tank of web browsing:
> > big and slow and sometimes it crashes, but I feel safe inside it. :)
> 
> I have a setup similar to this. I use chromium on my main user for
> gmail and other services that I often use and I want to stay logged
> in. Main difference is that I have another user just for browsing
> everything else.
> 
> I used to have simply another firefox profile on my main user, but
> recently I decided to set a completely different user for what *I'd
> like to be* "safe browsing". On this user I use Firefox with NoScript,
> Flashblock, AdBlocker, plus it is set up to be in "incognito mode" by
> default. The Flash cache is disabled also. With this user I do not
> login in any site. I'm sick of all these policies about tracking users
> and this constant siege to privacy. For this very reason I don't have
> a facebook profile. I used to trust Google, but in recent years has
> become increasingly intrusive.
> 
> Maybe slightly OT, but what do gentoo-users think about Tor?

It's alright for hiding your IP address, BUT anyone can set up a Tor server 
and harvest unencrypted info that flies across the wire.  It's OK if you are 
connecting to https websites though.  You'll also need some secure DNS server 
if you don't want the addresses you're visiting to show up (at least at your 
ISP's DNS repeater).

The other problem I found is that over the years it has become extremely slow.  
I don't know if it is being flooded by kiddies using bittorrents.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Lorenzo Bandieri
<lorenzo.bandieri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe slightly OT, but what do gentoo-users think about Tor?

As an anonymising proxy, in my opinion, I consider it to be the most
hostile network one could ever use. I would only use Tor from within a
virtual machine that contains no other data. Ensure you are not
passing logins, cookies, credit card numbers, anything useful to "bad
guys" is of utmost importance. I would encrypt everything prior to
sending, if possible. Validate SSL fingerprints first off-network to
avoid MITM attacks.

If you're looking at it from the standpoint of hidden services, with
good end-to-end security maybe it would be a little safer than using
it to browse the open internet... I think something like Freenet, in
concept, would be even more secure since it is decentralized, does not
touch the open WWW at all, and nobody has to host content on a server,
but in practice the bandwidth requirements are insane, and the moral
ambiguity of hosting content that is not yours and could be
objectionable. The terabytes of UDP traffic every month will probably
draw unwanted attention to you, too...

Of course, people where the government is more of a threat than Tor
hackers/poisonous nodes might be willing to live with those risks.

BTW, on my servers, I receive a lot of exploit attempts from Tor exit
nodes. This could also give plausible deniability to black hats: "Oh,
I didn't do this illegal stuff, I was running as a Tor exit node, it
could have been anyone!"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I ran across this news item about Google:
> 
> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
> 
> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
> search engine that may work.  It is here:
> 
> www.ixquick.com
> 
> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
> 
> Now to my next issue.  I'm thinking about switching emails too.  Yea,
> everyone on here knows my addy but I bet most can recognize my posts
> anyway. Plus, if the init thingy goes south, well, it happens.  Anyway,
> what is a nice stable email account server that allows pop access,
> Seamonkey as the email program, that is not tracking everything or nosey
> as heck?  Free would be nice but I would pay something inexpensive on a
> yearly basis if it is really good.  I think Yahoo has this but ain't
> they sort of like Google already?  Plus, I'm not sure how much longer
> Yahoo is going to last or make similar changes itself.  I'm sort of
> getting tired of switching emails every time I switch ISPs or there is a
> policy change.  That is why I switched to gmail in the first place.  No
> matter what ISP I use, I can still use Gmail.  Yet, here I am again.
> 
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
> Long URL just in case the shorty above doesn't work.  It may be broken
> tho.   Copy and paste alert.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b
> 


OK.  This has gotten a LOT of replies with lots of interesting info.  I
have another question along the same lines.  What about using a VPN?  I
been messing with tor and Firefox but if I try to watch a video or
something that has any length to it, it gets rather iffy.  I found this:

www.vpn4all.com

I don't think it works with Linux but it was interesting to read about
just for the information.  From my understanding, people can't read your
traffic and they can't tell anything about you as far as location.  I
know google can do this because when I type in certain things, it all
comes up for local stuff.  If I do the same in Firefox with tor turned
on, it gets rather weird.  Stuff from Africa was showing up one time and
later on it looked like German stuff.  When I checked my IP and did a
whois, it was in other countries.

What are thoughts on this sort of thing?  Anything better than tor out
there?  Am I getting paranoid or do people really watch us and collect
data on us?  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2310 bytes --]

Am 27.01.2012 07:57, schrieb Dale:
> Dale wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I ran across this news item about Google:
>>
>> http://alturl.com/s7xi5
>>
>> The long URL is below.  I'm sort of getting to where I don't like Google
>> since they seem to be doing things that I'm just not comfy with.  Next
>> they will want a camera on my rig so they can watch me surf.  I found a
>> search engine that may work.  It is here:
>>
>> www.ixquick.com
>>
>> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I do
>> like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
>>
[...]
> 
> OK.  This has gotten a LOT of replies with lots of interesting info.  I
> have another question along the same lines.  What about using a VPN?  I
> been messing with tor and Firefox but if I try to watch a video or
> something that has any length to it, it gets rather iffy.  I found this:
> 
> www.vpn4all.com
> 
> I don't think it works with Linux but it was interesting to read about
> just for the information.  From my understanding, people can't read your
> traffic and they can't tell anything about you as far as location.  I
> know google can do this because when I type in certain things, it all
> comes up for local stuff.  If I do the same in Firefox with tor turned
> on, it gets rather weird.  Stuff from Africa was showing up one time and
> later on it looked like German stuff.  When I checked my IP and did a
> whois, it was in other countries.
> 
> What are thoughts on this sort of thing?  Anything better than tor out
> there?  Am I getting paranoid or do people really watch us and collect
> data on us?  :/
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
> 

Well, to summarize it:

It solves the following problems:
- Your ISP cannot snoop or manipulate your traffic (useful for mobile
connections which normally compress images, for example)
- Your IP no longer maps directly to you
- IP geolocation no longer works reliably

It does not solve this problem:
- Your browser+cookies still identify you

It creates this new problem:
- The VPN provider sees all your traffic and your IP (in this regard it
is worse than Tor because with Tor, the endpoint sees your traffic and
the start point your IP but neither sees both)

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[v_2e]

  Hello!

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:16:01 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I
> do like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
> 
> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
> 
  What about Yandex? It provides a search tool and a mail box with POP3
and IMAP protocols support free of charge. And by the way, they say
that the mailbox size is also indefinite (well, at least
theoretically :) ). 

  Regards,
    Vladimir

----- 
 <v_2e@ukr.net>

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:48 AM,  <v_2e@ukr.net> wrote:
>  Hello!
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:16:01 -0600
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a better search tool?  I don't like Yahoo either.  I
>> do like froogle so that would be a bonus.  You know, shopping tool.
>>
>> Thoughts?  Suggestions?
>>
>  What about Yandex? It provides a search tool and a mail box with POP3
> and IMAP protocols support free of charge. And by the way, they say
> that the mailbox size is also indefinite (well, at least
> theoretically :) ).

I'll add a vote of support for Yandex. It usually has good results,
though it really depends on what you are searching for. I did some
test queries asking random linux questions and the link containing the
solution was usually higher in the list on Yandex when compared to
Google. Comparing local shopping prices in the US, use Google
instead...

Based on my web server logs, the bots which check the most often are:

1. Baidu
2. MJ12
3. Gootkit auto-rooter
4. Bing
5. Yandex
6. Yobao
7. Google
8. ZmEu

3 and 8 are bots trying exploits,  2 is not a search engine, 1 and 6
are not available in English, 4 is Microsoft, and 7 is excluded for
the present conversation. So, Yandex seems a good choice. In fact, the
only remaining choice. :)

BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others combined...

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

On Jan 27, 2012 11:18 PM, "Paul Hartman" <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

---- >8 snippage

>
> BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others combined...
>

Somewhat anecdotal, and definitely veering way off-topic, but Baidu was the
reason why my company decided to change our webhosting company: Its
spidering brought our previous webhosting to its knees...

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 530 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2012 11:18 PM, "Paul Hartman" <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>
> ---- >8 snippage
>
>>
>> BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others combined...
>>
>
> Somewhat anecdotal, and definitely veering way off-topic, but Baidu was the
> reason why my company decided to change our webhosting company: Its
> spidering brought our previous webhosting to its knees...
>
> Rgds,

I wonder if Baidu crawler honors the Crawl-delay directive in robots.txt?

Or I wonder if Baidu cralwer IPs need to be covered by firewall tarpit rules. ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Paul Hartman
<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2012 11:18 PM, "Paul Hartman" <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ---- >8 snippage
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others combined...
>>>
>>
>> Somewhat anecdotal, and definitely veering way off-topic, but Baidu was the
>> reason why my company decided to change our webhosting company: Its
>> spidering brought our previous webhosting to its knees...
>>
>> Rgds,
>
> I wonder if Baidu crawler honors the Crawl-delay directive in robots.txt?
>
> Or I wonder if Baidu cralwer IPs need to be covered by firewall tarpit rules. ;)

I don't remember if it respects Crawl-Delay, but it respects forbidden
paths, etc. I've never been DDOS'd by Baidu crawlers, but I did get
DDOS'd by Yahoo a number of times. Turned out the solution was to
disallow access to expensive-to-render pages. If you're using
MediaWiki with prettified URLs, this works great:

User-agent: *
Allow: /mw/images/
Allow: /mw/skins/
Allow: /mw/title.png
Disallow: /w/
Disallow: /mw/
Disallow: /wiki/Special:

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1434 bytes --]

On Feb 8, 2012 10:57 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Paul Hartman
> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 27, 2012 11:18 PM, "Paul Hartman" <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com
>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---- >8 snippage
> >>
> >>>
> >>> BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others
combined...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Somewhat anecdotal, and definitely veering way off-topic, but Baidu
was the
> >> reason why my company decided to change our webhosting company: Its
> >> spidering brought our previous webhosting to its knees...
> >>
> >> Rgds,
> >
> > I wonder if Baidu crawler honors the Crawl-delay directive in
robots.txt?
> >
> > Or I wonder if Baidu cralwer IPs need to be covered by firewall tarpit
rules. ;)
>
> I don't remember if it respects Crawl-Delay, but it respects forbidden
> paths, etc. I've never been DDOS'd by Baidu crawlers, but I did get
> DDOS'd by Yahoo a number of times. Turned out the solution was to
> disallow access to expensive-to-render pages. If you're using
> MediaWiki with prettified URLs, this works great:
>
> User-agent: *
> Allow: /mw/images/
> Allow: /mw/skins/
> Allow: /mw/title.png
> Disallow: /w/
> Disallow: /mw/
> Disallow: /wiki/Special:
>

*slaps forehead*

Now why didn't I think of that before?!

Thanks for reminding me!

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2126 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2012 10:57 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Paul Hartman
>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 27, 2012 11:18 PM, "Paul Hartman"
>> >> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> ---- >8 snippage
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW, the Baidu spider hits my site more than all of the others
>> >>> combined...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Somewhat anecdotal, and definitely veering way off-topic, but Baidu was
>> >> the
>> >> reason why my company decided to change our webhosting company: Its
>> >> spidering brought our previous webhosting to its knees...
>> >>
>> >> Rgds,
>> >
>> > I wonder if Baidu crawler honors the Crawl-delay directive in
>> > robots.txt?
>> >
>> > Or I wonder if Baidu cralwer IPs need to be covered by firewall tarpit
>> > rules. ;)
>>
>> I don't remember if it respects Crawl-Delay, but it respects forbidden
>> paths, etc. I've never been DDOS'd by Baidu crawlers, but I did get
>> DDOS'd by Yahoo a number of times. Turned out the solution was to
>> disallow access to expensive-to-render pages. If you're using
>> MediaWiki with prettified URLs, this works great:
>>
>> User-agent: *
>> Allow: /mw/images/
>> Allow: /mw/skins/
>> Allow: /mw/title.png
>> Disallow: /w/
>> Disallow: /mw/
>> Disallow: /wiki/Special:
>>
>
> *slaps forehead*
>
> Now why didn't I think of that before?!
>
> Thanks for reminding me!

I didn't think of it until I watched the logs live and saw it crawling
through page histories during one of the events. MediaWiki stores page
histories as a series of diffs from the current version, so it has to
assemble old versions by reverse-applying the diffs of all the made to
the page between the current version and the version you're asking
for. if you have a bot retrieve ten versions of a page that has ten
revisions, that's 210 reverse diff operations. Grabbing all versions
of a page with 20 revisions would result in over 1500 reverse diffs.
My 'hello world' page has over five hundred revisions.

So the page history crawling was pretty quickly obvious...

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Hi,

have you read googles privacy changes yourself?

I just did - and there is nothing new or unusual.

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> have you read googles privacy changes yourself?
> 
> I just did - and there is nothing new or unusual.
> 
> 


I read some more on it but I'm thinking about what will be coming next.
 It seems when a company goes public like Google did a while back,
facebook is about too, they go downhill a bit privacy wise and it is
like rolling down a hill.  It takes a while but it happens.

Thing about me having fastmail or something, it is me voting with my
money, not me leaving with no vote against someone else's money.  Right
now, google is only worried about the money from ads which is something
I can't control.  If fastmail tries this, when I leave it is my money
they lose.  Fastmail will think about me not some ad that may or may not
be coming.  Since I will be a paying customer, I won't have any ads
anyway.

I am looking into Yandex too.  Are they Russian or something?  I'm kind
of leaning towards them for a couple reasons but trying to figure them
out.  I'm trying to do this slow and with a deeper knowledge this time
so I don't have to go through this again later on.

Plus, I just don't like being tracked all over the place anyway.  We
have a big enough brother already.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2202 bytes --]

On Sunday 29 Jan 2012 19:12:17 Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > have you read googles privacy changes yourself?
> > 
> > I just did - and there is nothing new or unusual.
> 
> I read some more on it but I'm thinking about what will be coming next.
>  It seems when a company goes public like Google did a while back,
> facebook is about too, they go downhill a bit privacy wise and it is
> like rolling down a hill.  It takes a while but it happens.
> 
> Thing about me having fastmail or something, it is me voting with my
> money, not me leaving with no vote against someone else's money.  Right
> now, google is only worried about the money from ads which is something
> I can't control.  If fastmail tries this, when I leave it is my money
> they lose.  Fastmail will think about me not some ad that may or may not
> be coming.  Since I will be a paying customer, I won't have any ads
> anyway.
> 
> I am looking into Yandex too.  Are they Russian or something?  I'm kind
> of leaning towards them for a couple reasons but trying to figure them
> out.  I'm trying to do this slow and with a deeper knowledge this time
> so I don't have to go through this again later on.
> 
> Plus, I just don't like being tracked all over the place anyway.  We
> have a big enough brother already.

As far as I can tell all that is changing with Google is they are going to 
join up in terms of user authentication, hitherto separate portals or apps 
they had.  I do not see a material difference to what is there now.

Fastmail, Google, Yahoo!, Yandex, et al, are all public ISPs and are making 
their money one way or another.  It is in their benefit to respect users 
privacy, but don't for a minute think that your info while in their systems 
can be deemed as private.  Unless you use encryption they can probe it, 
analyse it, read it, categorise it, etc.  Whether it is Google ads bureau, or 
CIA, or FSB, there is not much of a difference between them as far as the 
privacy of your data is concerned.

I think that you are worrying yourself unnecessarily, although there is no 
harm in being cautious all the same.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Chris Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 1/29/2012 02:47 PM, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Jan 2012 19:12:17 Dale wrote:
> As far as I can tell all that is changing with Google is they are going to 
> join up in terms of user authentication, hitherto separate portals or apps 
> they had.  I do not see a material difference to what is there now.
> 
> Fastmail, Google, Yahoo!, Yandex, et al, are all public ISPs and are making 
> their money one way or another.  It is in their benefit to respect users 
> privacy, but don't for a minute think that your info while in their systems 
> can be deemed as private.  Unless you use encryption they can probe it, 
> analyse it, read it, categorise it, etc.  Whether it is Google ads bureau, or 
> CIA, or FSB, there is not much of a difference between them as far as the 
> privacy of your data is concerned.
> 
> I think that you are worrying yourself unnecessarily, although there is no 
> harm in being cautious all the same.

In the age of the corporate Internet, it is wise to understand that information
is a commodity that is bought and sold and that anything that goes through you
ISP and public providers (like Yahoo, Google, etc.) is available for sale, with
the exceptions of bank account numbers and the like.

In short, it is wise to assume that there is no reasonable assumption of
privacy for any of your activity on the Internet.

Using encryption is a good policy, especially if you use the Internet to buy
and sell things - otherwise your credit card numbers, bank accounts, and so on,
can be compromised.  However, one should also read the terms of use and terms
of service for all services they use.  For example, it violates the Yahoo terms
of use to use proxy servers or networks (e.g. Tor) to obscure one's location
and IP address.

Governments, as you bring up, also monitor Internet traffic, though they are
mainly looking for what they deem as threats to their security.

I agree that there is no harm in being cautious.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=qB49
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 120129-1, 01/29/2012
Tested on: 1/29/2012 6:57:54 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Google privacy changes

[Dale]

I know this thread is a few weeks old but it is still highly related.  I
found this:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google%27s-privacy-policy

Maybe it ain't so bad after all.  Someone posted it wasn't tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"