I'm always leery of any "news" article, review, or anything analytical
that does not provide a datestamp. Notice that nowhere on this page is
a datestamp so the reader won't know if this is old or new news. There
is mention of July 2003 so the article had to written after that, and
based only on that tells you how recent is the information on this page.
I've seen online news or information web sites that don't put datestamps
in their articles so you do not know how relevant is the article. Old
news isn't necessarily bad unless it has become supplanted by more
recent events that makes that old news obsolete or inaccurate.

Regarding the points made on this page
(http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html):

1. Google's immortal cookie.

That's why it is important to use an *active* cookie manager. Not one
that you have to periodically run manually to do cleanup, but one that
runs all the time or whenever appropriate. Since the only appropriate
time is when you have your web browser open, it makes sense to use a
cookie manager that loads when you start your web browser. I use PopUp
Cop not only to eliminate popups but also because it has a cookie
manager that loads with IE (only works for IE, however). All cookies
will be deleted when you exit the last instance of IE unless you put
them in a whitelist to keep them. You also have the option to keep
non-whitelisted cookies from sites listed in the Trusted Zone, along
with the option to keep cookies that are not whitelisted in PopUp Cop
but are whitelisted in IE's cookie list with "Always Allow" status
(i.e., not whitelisted in PopUp Cop but whitelisted in IE).
[Per-]session cookies are supposed to expire and get deleted when you
exit IE but sometimes IE screws up (and sometimes you have to kill IE so
obviously it can't do the cleanup). Other cookies are supposed to have
an expiration but can put it so far into the future that they are
considered permanent. PopUp Cop's cookie management will eliminate any
cookies you haven't whitelisted when you exit IE. Poof, gone! All
non-whitelisted cookies are forced to be per-session cookies.

If you opt to not keep Google's cookie, you lose your Preferences
settings (configured at http://www.google.com/preferences), which means:

- You hope the correct language gets used to display the results page.
If Google has any intelligence in their web page design, they detect
your language and default to that one to show the results page, or maybe
you have to use a www.google.com.xx domain where xx is the TLD for your
country.

- SafeSearch defaults to moderate level. I prefer no filtering simply
because you don't know the mindset of whomever is judging what text and
images are "explicit". So some of my preference is lost without the
persistence of their cookie.

- The number of results shown per page is a measly 10. I would prefer
it at the max of 100. Google probably realizes that most users would
feel 10 is way too undersized and this would lure them to keep Google's
cookie. I do miss this preference.

- Opening search results in a new window. This is actually inaccurate.
It really means to open a link on which you click in the results page in
another window. But Google keeps reusing the same "other" window.
Usually I want them in separate windows for each result link that I
click, so I end up using the right-click and Open in New Window context
menu, anyway. No loss for me here by deleting their cookie.

2. Google records everything they can.

How does the author of this article know that Google collects the IP
address of the user connecting to their site? This would violate
Google's privacy policy which says that for the advanced options the
user would be sending *anonymous* data to Google, like to where they
navigated, when, search string, an possibly use Referrer to know from
whence you came to get to Google (if you don't block Referrer in your
firewall). Your IP address is clearly not considered truly anonymous
information regarding yourself (on the Internet) albeit it is not a
permanent identity. Since there have been other class action lawsuits
(which this article mentions) regarding the collection of uniquely
identifying information about users (remember RealPlayer which was
forced to make it optional?), this would open up Google to the same
penalization. The fact that Google has your IP address is not itself
newsworthy. Every site you ever visit will get your IP address. It's
part of IP so that to whom you connect knows where to talk back to so
that other host can send you status and their web page and image files.
If they didn't know your IP address, they wouldn't know to where to send
this stuff, and to you it would appear that site was dead.

3. Google retains all data indefinitely.

So do most companies. It's called backups. While a business may only
be liable for records dating back, say, 7 years, most will keep data
indefinitely (until they need to purge the really old stuff due to space
constraints).

4. Google won't say why they need this data.

Well, actually they do in their policies but as always these policies
are not detailed nor would the users care to read a 20-page document
delineating what all processes are implemented in handling, storing,
analyzing, or otherwise manipulating that data.

5. Google hires more spooks.

The real reason is probably to have an inside edge in developing their
technology. What company wouldn't take advantage of a legal avenue to
improve their product and/or bottom line?

6. Google's toolbar is spyware.

Yes (actually maybe), and for awhile I did get alarmed. I did not have
Page Ranking, Categories, or Page Info enabled but still saw my browser
getting directed to Google hosts and then redirected to the intended
URL. However, after some fix up, the problem went away and I figure
something screwed up Google, IE, Windows, or whatever or possibly the
software has a bug (perhaps fixed by uninstalling and resinstalling the
toolbar). Google tells you that some advanced options will divulge
anonymous information. If you want the advanced features, you also have
to help them in establishing and updating the information used in
providing those advanced features. So don't use the advanced features.
Personally I think it is stupid that Google routes you *through* their
hosts to reach your intended destination rather than send the anonymous
information via a separate connection. This seems to reduce reliability
that you reach the intended destination if their server has problems.

7. Google's cache copy is illegal.

I do agree that Google should NOT crawl across any web site unless the
robots.txt file permits it and/or the web site owner opts in to a Google
crawl.

8. Google is not your friend.

This section rambles a lot and I don't know the real intent of it. It
describes problems that are incurred with all search engines. Even
blacklists used by anti-spam products or the anti-spam filtering
products behave the same way. As far as trying to circumvent Google's
algorithms (which means you are trying to play unfair) and as far as
Google's non-disclosure of their proprietary property, well, gee, what
company does divulge this stuff and still survives?

9. Google is a privacy time bomb.

Since the only "personal" information Google ever gets from me is my IP
address, Google is hardly a time bomb waiting to divulge information
regarding every person that ever used them. Your IP address is not
permanent (unless you run a web site but that's not what this point
discusses). If you use dial-up, your IP address changes on every
connection. If you use DSL or cable, your IP address is leased for
something like 3 to 10 days (i.e., it is not permanent); you probably
will retain that IP address for a lot longer than the lease but once it
is past its expiration then your IP address can be changed (it changes
on your next connection, so if you power down and power back up then you
might get a different IP address). If you have a router that is always
on despite whether or not powering down and up your host then you
probably will retain the same IP address long after its expiration.
However, if you start getting abused on that IP address then you can
request your ISP to remove it from their pool for a period of time and
renegotiate with their DHCP server for a new IP address. If you're
inside a corporate network or other intranet then the only hazard
incurred by someone knowing your IP address is from someone within the
same intranet. This author hawks on a piddly "potential" abuse when
there are far larger and existing problems, like spam, viruses, zombies
and denial of service attacks, identity theft, and more. Rather than
worry about problems that *might* happen, focus on those that *are*
happening. My ISP also gets my IP connection on EVERY connect to them,
plus they have the "potential" to record everywhere that I navigate. Do
I consider them an even greater time bomb (for me) than Google? Of
course not.

The fix is easy: don't save their cookie and don't use the advanced
featues in their toolbar. As often remarked, "if it don't do what you
want, don't use it." Their toolbar is handy but it is non-essential
even for using their service. I'll have to see over time if their
toolbar screws up again and starts redirecting my URLs through their
hosts; if so then their toolbar cannot be trusted and will get
uninstalled, but I will continue to use the Google site for searches
(and continue to automatically delete their cookie). I don't see Google
being nearly as terrible a "potential" abuser as this author exhorts. I
*preferred* that my web navigation not be monitored, especially when not
even using their toolbar. Whether or not the "hiccup" that I
encountered was deliberate or not can only be discovered if it happens
again. My problem and complaint (at the time) was with Google's
toolbar, not with their service.


--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Share with others. Post replies in the newsgroup.
** If present, remove all "-nix" from my email address.
__________________________________________________ __________