Google's browser - Chrome beta release

[Remus]

Even though last year Google repeatedly denied that they were working on a new browser, but now they finally let the cat out of the bag!

Link (http://www.google.com/chrome/index.html?hl=en&brand=CHMB&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-apac-ww-sk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=chrome). Don't have time to check it out yet. What you think of the new browser?. Good? a marketing trick to make you to use other Google services?

[Dhruin]

Posting from Chrome at the moment. It's an impressive start - fast, with great tab facilities.

But it will take me a bit to switch from Firefox. I have some good Addons and it has looked after me from a security/safety perspective.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I'm content with Opera now, I don't see a reason why I should switch.

[Bartacus]

FF all the way -> Chrome doesn't seem to work on ubuntu :p

[Prime Junta]

The question that springs to mind is... why?

The browser market is kinda crowded, and nobody's paying a cent for any of them. What does Google think it's going to gain by storming that hill?

[Remus]

That's because you haven't been indoctrinated by Google yet. Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=titlepage#PPA1,M1)

And there must be something greatly benefit them to create their own browser. I believe there were couple articles on why Google entering browser market one or two years back.

[MasterLich]

What does Google think it's going to gain by storming that hill?

If you have a Google account (gmail), Google tracks already your searches and web history unless you yourself turn these features off. Imagine all the information gathering possibilities with a piece of software that is actually a frequently used executable, and to which the average user always actually grants the permission to pass data through his/her firewall?

[Dhruin]

Mindshare, I'm guessing. The possibility of better controlling the delivery of ads?

[Remus]

Google's intentions also could be gleaned from Chrome's terms of service as cnet already did some sniffing around ...

2. Although you retain any copyrights to content you own and use in the browser, Google says it has a right to display some of your content, in conjunction with promoting its services. Here's their exact wording.

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."

3. Don't be surprised to see more ads.

Traditionally, it is Web pages and not the browser itself that serves ads. Google isn't saying it will change this paradigm, but it's terms of service don't rule that out either.

"Some of the services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the services, queries made through the services or other information.

The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the services are subject to change without specific notice to you."

Link (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.html)

[Prime Junta]

If you have a Google account (gmail), Google tracks already your searches and web history unless you yourself turn these features off. Imagine all the information gathering possibilities with a piece of software that is actually a frequently used executable, and to which the average user always actually grants the permission to pass data through his/her firewall?

It's also open-source, so they can't hide bombs like that in it. I'm sure plenty of people will be looking for them. It's a nicely nefarious explanation, though, but I don't think it washes. Quite.

[Prime Junta]

That's because you haven't been indoctrinated by Google yet. Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=titlepage#PPA1,M1)

That was incredibly annoying. I would much rather have just read it as text, instead of having to peer at artifacty pseudo-cute comix.

And anyway it doesn't really answer that question. Sure, it's possible to design a better browser, but where's the money in it?

And there must be something greatly benefit them to create their own browser. I believe there were couple articles on why Google entering browser market one or two years back.

That's it exactly. *What* is that great benefit?

[MasterLich]

It's also open-source, so they can't hide bombs like that in it.

This remains to be seen...

And no, I don't think they are necessarily breaking any laws. I'm just a bit sceptic after it is known that they are benefitting from advertising and that they do gather and store surfing data.

[Toaster]

I liked the indoctrination, they do have some good ideas and I hope many get adopted into Firefox in the future. In the meantime I think I'll wait for the real release and see what people say, because I don't only like Fx because it's good (very now with v3) but also because it's a real, free project behind it.

That's it exactly. *What* is that great benefit?
What about an even greater market share and positive publicity? Seems like they're really trying to live up to "don't be evil" with this. And of course it's going to make it easier for people to use Google's services, but still avoiding lock-in. I kinda like it.

[Prime Junta]

This remains to be seen...

No, it doesn't. That's the nature of open-source -- anyone can read the code. Google is an extremely high-profile company, and they're banging their chest big-time about this product, which means that an army of nerds will be crawling all over the code as we type.

That means that anything evil, sloppy, or just plain stupid that's in the code will be all over Slashdot within days. And Google isn't stupid enough to knowingly risk something like this.

And no, I don't think they are necessarily breaking any laws. I'm just a bit sceptic after it is known that they are benefitting from advertising and that they do gather and store surfing data.

Skepticism is commendable, but if they're up to something, this approach won't work.

[KazikluBey]

All their services are browser based, and their repeatedly stated goal with Chrome is to improve browsers, so that use of their services is improved. They also seem to regard it as a step towards the idea of the "next-generation" web, cloud computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing), where Google is already at the forefront.

[Prime Junta]

What about an even greater market share and positive publicity? Seems like they're really trying to live up to "don't be evil" with this. And of course it's going to make it easier for people to use Google's services, but still avoiding lock-in. I kinda like it.

Positive publicity, for sure, but a greater market share of what? They can't force Chrome users to use Google Search, GMail, or the rest. And the value of the *browser* market as of this writing is, in round numbers, zero dollars. Nobody's paying for those damn things.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love a better browser (God knows I spend much of my time working around browser bugs); I'm just wondering what the business case is behind this. I like Google (mostly); it's just that they haven't really managed to break out of their search-and-advertise business yet. They provide all kinds of more or less nifty little products, services, and tools, but the only one that generates serious revenue is their ad business, and that's driven by their search service.

At first blush, this looks like more of the same -- exciting new tech that doesn't (a) mesh with what the company is already successfully doing, or (b) create innovative, new market opportunities.

[Prime Junta]

All their services are browser based, and their repeatedly stated goal with Chrome is to improve browsers, so that use of their services is improved. They also seem to regard it as a step towards the idea of the "next-generation" web, cloud computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing), where Google is already at the forefront.

Now, this makes more sense. The Web is developing into a serious application development platform and framework; having a platform that's actually built for the stuff could be a huge advantage. It's one thing to knowingly introduce standard-breaking "innovations" (i.e., bad), but it's another entirely to make an implementation of the standards that's so much faster, more stable, and more scalable that it makes it possible to create a whole new category of applications.

[Bartacus]

I heard from a colleague a bit of what this new browser does: "Due to the incorrect (use of) code of javascript, jre and flash, sites can be given incorrectly. What this new browser does (or is supposed to be doing), is to correct those errors."
In his opinion this is taking a wrong turn -> Sites should be constructed correctly with more stable versions of javascript, jre and flash.

[Prime Junta]

I don't quite understand what he's saying there. Some of it doesn't even seem to be making much sense. Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "sites can be given incorrectly" or "correcting those errors?"

[blatantninja]

I heard that it doesn't have a pop-up blocker. That right there would kill it for me.

[KazikluBey]

I heard that it doesn't have a pop-up blocker. That right there would kill it for me.
Pop-up blocking works much like in Firefox. You get a small notice about it in the corner of your window, with the option to open it.

[Prime Junta]

I got curious and installed it. Initial impression is very positive -- the UI is minimalistic, immediately understandable, and very, very clean, it renders pages faster than Firefox 3, which means it's the fastest I've seen so far, and it even imported all of my past history from Firefox. It also renders RPGWatch without a hitch, and has some very nice little features like "stretchable" textareas (like the one I'm typing into). Nice!

[KazikluBey]

Yup, it seems like a win, as soon as we get some plug-ins for it.

[blatantninja]

Hmm, guess I got some bad info! Might have to give it a shot. Like the privacy mode of it for browsing at work.

[Pladio]

So until now there isn't any bad thing about it except that if you have a gmail account it can look at whatever you're doing and they have the right to use stuff you put online ?

[Prime Junta]

I don't think having a GMail account makes any difference. The EULA does have some... oddities, but for a number of reasons I don't really worry about EULA's much, especially absurd ones.

By the way, at least Flash works fine, and that's a plugin. I think they've implemented the Mozilla plugin interface, which means well-behaved Mozilla plugins ought to work out of the box, more or less.

Yep-o, looks like Chrome FTW.

[Bartacus]

I don't quite understand what he's saying there. Some of it doesn't even seem to be making much sense. Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "sites can be given incorrectly" or "correcting those errors?"

He said that the flash player software is unstable and that they are the ones that should fix it. Instead google now made a browser that corrects the faulty code.

For me it doesn't make much sense too, PJ. I will try to get a more elaborate answer from him tomorrow.

[Prime Junta]

OK, I see. Yeah, definitely Adobe should fix its Flash player, but a more robust browser certainly won't do any harm. What's more, there's no way to force people to update their Flash players.

I don't think Chrome can fix problems *inside* the Flash player, though; what it can do is prevent the entire browser from crashing if the plugin crashes. Which is not a bad thing IMO -- Flash has become pretty much ubiquitous, and we get lots of sometimes badly-made Flash advertising content on our browsers whether we want it or not.

[Prime Junta]

As an aside: I've decided to make Chrome my default browser on my home box, which runs Vista. The reason? Firefox 3 munges up one site I regularly visit, namely the Freakonomics blog on NY Times. Chrome renders it perfectly. That's one concrete benefit I'm getting from it, and thus far nothing seems broken.

Whatever the rationale, Google seems to have done its job well.

[txa1265]

The EULA does have some... oddities,

Which can be summarized as "All your soul are belong to us!"

[Prime Junta]

I'd like to see that one enforced in court. Or, rather, I wouldn't, but you get my drift.

[Remus]

Reviews and comments start coming out about the new browser. From InformationWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/browsers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210300348&subSection=News):

When Google (NSDQ: GOOG) announced its own open-source Chrome browser Monday, it made no sense. Why build an open source Web browser when Firefox is open source, an excellent browser, and available today? Google's behavior seemed the very definition of reinventing the wheel.

But Google answers the question in its comic-book-formatted explanation of its new browser technology: Google wanted to build a new browser from scratch, designed specifically to be used with the new generation of Web applications. Many of those applications are, of course, Google's own: Gmail, Google Docs, Google Reader, and more.

Google designed the browser to be lightweight, fast, have a minimalist user interface, and to resist crashing under the heavy JavaScript demands of Web applications.

Google succeeded in its goals. The browser performs well, it's easy to use, it has some really nice user interface features that demonstrate a fresh approach to the old problem of viewing and navigating Web pages.

Many people are going to want to use Chrome as their primary browser. But others, I think, will want to wait, because Chrome has some rough edges, missing features, and stability problems. Chrome is an early beta, and it shows.

I will stick to Firefox 3 for now, and see how the next version of Chrome does before deciding to move over or not. Hopefully the other browser vendors would put more efforts into the new competition.

[Prime Junta]

I suggest you take it for a spin. It's working better than FF3 for me.

[Arhu]

My Internet has been virtually ad-free for a long time, I'm not going to give that up for any sort of other advantages Chome might have. That said, I'm still going to try it out eventually, if only to see if there are any issues with this site.

[KazikluBey]

Found a ridiculous bug on Slashdot: Type:
:%
... in the address bar and the whole browser will crash, no elegant tab crash here.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Just found this via another web site:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

This is kind of astonishing.

[Prime Junta]

Found a ridiculous bug on Slashdot: Type:

... in the address bar and the whole browser will crash, no elegant tab crash here.

Yup, it does. I would suspect an encoding oops; the % character is used to escape stuff in URL's. Someone was careless with the parser in the address bar.

Then again, this *is* an early beta.

[Prime Junta]

Just found this via another web site:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/google_chrome_eula_sucks/

This is kind of astonishing.

Yeah, I wondered about that too -- the "all ur soul r belong 2 us" EULA was so clearly absurd (not to mention un-enforceable) that it seemed that someone there dropped the ball. Perhaps they just copy-pasted a EULA from some service or other there. Good that they fixed it so quickly, though.

[Dhruin]

They've done a mea culpa on the EULA, although I'd point out those terms aren't very friendly regardless of the product they were meant for.

As I said, way too many important addons in FF for me to consider switching at this point.

[Ubbax]

More info on the EULA controversy (check the further reading links at the article end) :
Google on Chrome EULA controversy: our bad, we'll change it (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html)

On Omnibox recording keystrokes:
EFF: We're concerned about Google's Omnibox (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10032047-56.html)

Google Responds to keystroke issue:
Google's Omnibox could be Pandora's box (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0)

Like Remus I think I'll hold off and see how Chrome turns out for now.

Ubbax
"Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows." - David T. Wolf

[Pladio]

And who said Google WAS NOT Evil ?

[Prime Junta]

They did.

[ http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil ]

[Bartacus]

OK, I see. Yeah, definitely Adobe should fix its Flash player, but a more robust browser certainly won't do any harm. What's more, there's no way to force people to update their Flash players.

I don't think Chrome can fix problems *inside* the Flash player, though; what it can do is prevent the entire browser from crashing if the plugin crashes. Which is not a bad thing IMO -- Flash has become pretty much ubiquitous, and we get lots of sometimes badly-made Flash advertising content on our browsers whether we want it or not.

PJ, I didn't post the answer from my colleague because it is exactly the same thing you wrote here.

[GothicGothicness]

There is many reason for google to start its own browser. Especially because what MS put in IE8 namley privacy options. Turn on the privacy function and google cannot collect info to supply you with custom ads anymore. This function is also called the "porn" function. Not only this but having your own browser gives a lot of both economical and competetive advantages. MS can make sure their .NET , silverlight or whatever else works the greatest and availiable immidietely on IE and still many people use IE so it promotes their other technology. Google can do the same for all of their technology, not to mention mobile.

[Prime Junta]

There is many reason for google to start its own browser. Especially because what MS put in IE8 namley privacy options. Turn on the privacy function and google cannot collect info to supply you with custom ads anymore. This function is also called the "porn" function. Not only this but having your own browser gives a lot of both economical and competetive advantages. MS can make sure their .NET , silverlight or whatever else works the greatest and availiable immidietely on IE and still many people use IE so it promotes their other technology. Google can do the same for all of their technology, not to mention mobile.

Chrome has the privacy function as well. And since Google's business model is browser-agnostic by definition, I can't see how they could use Microsoft-style tech piggybacking for an advantage.

I think KazikluBey's explanation is the best so far -- Google wants to see richer, better, more complex web applications, so providing a platform suited for running them will encourage people to write them. Themselves, too.

[KazikluBey]

There is many reason for google to start its own browser. Especially because what MS put in IE8 namley privacy options. Turn on the privacy function and google cannot collect info to supply you with custom ads anymore. This function is also called the "porn" function.
The privacy function does nothing new. It just means that what you do isn't saved in your browsing history. It has no impact on Google's ability to serve ads, other than blocking cookies, which you have been able to do anyway for a long time.

[GothicGothicness]

The privacy function does nothing new. It just means that what you do isn't saved in your browsing history. It has no impact on Google's ability to serve ads, other than blocking cookies, which you have been able to do anyway for a long time.

hmmmmm, so the internet is full of articles like these:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412161,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article4623178.ece

http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReader.aspx?Item=5_896267534

With people saying how MS's "porn" mode threatens google's business model??

talk about making a hen out of a feather in that case, I read a bunch of these.

[Prime Junta]

Yeah, they're making a hen out of a feather. Google decides which ads to serve primarily if not exclusively based on automatic analysis of the content of the page on which the ad is embedded. So, my photography-related website shows ads related to camera supplies, printing supplies, photofinishing services, photography courses, and so on. Google doesn't need to know a damn thing about the people making their way to the site.

[GothicGothicness]

They have another part in the alghoritm which also takes into account what kind of links you clicked on before, previous searches, stats from mail etc etc. The google show ads algoritmh is quite complex. Not only have I been at google, but someone I know very well is working there now.

I was quite surprised when google came up with links to learn chinese! all of a sudden, even if I was not at any page related to chinese or learning. I found they had searched my gmail account and found a large portion of the mails there was in chinese, quite scary stuff.

[Prime Junta]

That's still fine-tuning, and I'm sure it gives them a competitive advantage. But: most people won't be using privacy mode, and it won't stop Google serving pretty well targeted ads even to people who won't. The ad selection is still primarily based on context rather than history.

[xSamhainx]

Screamin fast and very small and out of the way, that's my first impression. So far I like what I see, im all about the most screen real estate possible - this interface is barely there! I also like the right click "inspect element" window, where you can examine a page's code. You can even hold your pointer over sections of code, and it will highlight where they are on the page. Neato!

If you want, you can take bookmarks and put them along the top as icons on the "bookmark bar", and i did use that for like 5 mins. Sorry, im diggin the minimalism here too much to go messin w/ icons.

I dont like the constant attempts to update tho. That's just me, im a manual updater. I hate my firewall popping up every 5 mins telling me something's trying to phone home. I'll update when i feel like it, leave me alone. And as far as I see there's no option to shut it up. The "incognito mode" is a joke of course, the only thing youre incognito from is the person who sits down at your computer after you get up.

Overall, my impressions of it so far after using it about an hour or so are fairly good . It's fast as hell and has some neato little bells and whistles, while dropping the profile of a browser to where i like it - practiallly non-existent.

edit - i just keep finding cool stuff - you can right-click on selected text and launch a search. Cool ='.'=

[GothicGothicness]

That's still fine-tuning, and I'm sure it gives them a competitive advantage. But: most people won't be using privacy mode, and it won't stop Google serving pretty well targeted ads even to people who won't. The ad selection is still primarily based on context rather than history.

Well Chrome is logging every website you visit and sending the info to google, so they can tailor even better advertisement for you. I think you vastly understate their alghoritms by what you wrote there. If I visit a website about airplanes does it mean I want to buy airplanes? probably not. However if I also visited amazon and bought a flight simulation game, can google now make the connection, I like flight simulation games? probably. If they offer me links to buy a great flight simulator would I click it? chances are much higher.

The advertisements and the algoritmhs connected to them are much more sophisticated than most people on the internet thinks.

D.S. Thank you RPGWatch for sparing us from ads :)

[Prime Junta]

Well Chrome is logging every website you visit and sending the info to google, so they can tailor even better advertisement for you.

Is it? That's a very serious allegation. Where did you learn it?

[GothicGothicness]

Well this is from google: ( A brilliant move of them to make a web browser by the way if it becomes popular the benefits for google will be nearly unlimited )

In addition, some Google Chrome features send limited additional information to Google:

When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for. If you choose to share usage statistics with Google and you accept a suggested query or URL, Google Chrome will send that information to Google as well. You can disable this feature as explained here.
If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google so we can help you find the URL you were looking for. You can disable this feature as explained here.
Google Chrome's SafeBrowsing feature periodically contacts Google's servers to download the most recent list of known phishing and malware sites. In addition, when you visit a site that we think could be a phishing or malware site, your browser will send Google a hashed, partial copy of the site's URL so that we can send more information about the risky URL. Google cannot determine the real URL you are visiting from this information. More information about how this works is here.
Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google when you first install and use it and when Google Chrome automatically checks for updates. If you choose to send usage statistics and crash reports to Google, the browser will send us this information along with a unique application number as well. Crash reports can contain information from files, applications and services that were running at the time of a malfunction. We use crash reports to diagnose and try to fix any problems with the browser.
You may choose Google as your search engine using Google Chrome, and you may also use Google Chrome to access other Google services such as Gmail. The Privacy Policies of Gmail or other services apply when you access them, no matter which browser you use. Using Google Chrome to connect to Google services will not cause Google to receive any special or additional personally identifying information about you.


I bet the google didn't want to include the disable feature. But of course they had to, to avoid the storm. It is MS tactics, look this is availiable by default but you can disable it, so we are not breaking any consumer or privacy laws.

I also love this line from google:

Information that Google receives when you use Google Chrome is processed in order to operate and improve Google Chrome and other Google services.

[Prime Junta]

Read that again, carefully. You'll find that it doesn't do what you say it does -- i.e. "log every website you visit and send the info to Google so they can target ads at you better."

Hint: to do that, they would need to get identifying information of you along with the data about what websites you're visiting. According to this, they only get the info of what you're typing into the address bar, *without* identifying information. This is an absolutely crucial distinction -- I have no problem about the former, but would be rather upset at the latter.

[GothicGothicness]

ehhh

When you download Google Chrome or use it to contact Google’s servers, Google receives only standard log information including your machine’s IP address and one or more cookies. You can configure Google Chrome to not send cookies to Google or other sites as explained here.

*without* identifying information

You think your IP and "one or more" cookies is not enough? to identify you?

That is what they do connect the ad info to your Machine, not you as a person, that would violate all privacy policy acts.

Google are smart enough not to write your informaton is sent to google so we can provide better ads for you.

But as you notice the IP is sent, cookies are sent ( unless you disable it ) and google is allowed to store the info.

Meaning they have all the rights to and do use it to serve you ads.

[Prime Junta]

You think your IP and "one or more" cookies is not enough? to identify you?

The IP alone certainly isn't. A cookie is only if it's explicitly designed for the purpose. I re-re-read the text you posted, and I do not see any indication that Chrome is sending identifying information about me to Google when I'm using the address bar, in a cookie or otherwise.

That is what they do connect the ad info to your Machine, not you as a person, that would violate all privacy policy acts.

That is the conclusion to which you are leaping. It is not a fact.

Google are smart enough not to write your informaton is sent to google so we can provide better ads for you.

Yet you're 100% certain that this is what they're doing.

But as you notice the IP is sent, cookies are sent ( unless you disable it ) and google is allowed to store the info.

Meaning they have all the rights to and do use it to serve you ads.

Look, GG -- I would have no problem with you if you made a clearer distinction between what you suspect to be true, and what are actually known facts. Here you're conflating the two big-time.

It's perfectly reasonable to *suspect* that Google may want to build features into Chrome that they can use in their advertising targeting algorithms. However, you're claiming that it is a *known fact* that this is what they are actually doing -- when it is nothing of the sort.

[GothicGothicness]

Well, I sometimes have to step a thin line PJ, I keep providing you guys with public information from the internet as I am allowed to do, from this you have to make your own conclusions. On the other hand I also know much information which I am not allowed to reveal, as you know companies has contracts that you sign where you promise to keep certain things secret. But I think it is obvious enough for everyone to pay some attention to see what is going on. I'll give you another one:

Some of the services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the services, queries made through the services or other information.

The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the services are subject to change without specific notice to you."

[Prime Junta]

Well, I sometimes have to step a thin line PJ, I keep providing you guys with public information from the internet as I am allowed to do, from this you have to make your own conclusions. On the other hand I also know much information which I am not allowed to reveal, as you know companies has contracts that you sign where you promise to keep certain things secret.

If you're under NDA from Google, or a Google partner, I'm fairly certain you're already in violation of it. In fact, every NDA I've seen even expressly forbids the signatories from disclosing that there *is* an NDA. And if you know someone who foolishly violated their NDA by disclosing such information to you, you absolutely should not be repeating it any further. So yeah, I'd say that you're treading a thin line indeed.

But I think it is obvious enough for everyone to pay some attention to see what is going on. I'll give you another one:

Come on, GG -- this has doodle-squat to do with Chrome, and I'm sure you know it. We all know that Google's business is delivering targeted advertising at users. What you're claiming is that Chrome secretly sends your every key-click to Google in order for them to store and use that information about you in this business model. As evidence you produce well-known facts about their *other* businesses and some vaguely worded phrases in their EULA and product descriptions.

In other words, you're conflating opinions with facts -- otherwise known as spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.) You don't work for Microsoft, by any chance?

[GothicGothicness]

hehehehehe, I like your sense of humor PJ, it is good fun to argue with you. Would that I were working for MS, unfortunately MS has more or less the same methods as google, and they are adopting more of them in their IE8 ( it also sends info about what sites you visit etc to MS ) and they are already collecting much info about us. MS once charged a CC that was not given to pay for a service, but the CC given was another one. They had the CC info of other CC from a different service, I am quite sure that would be illegal.

Come on, GG -- this has doodle-squat to do with Chrome, and I'm sure you know it. We all know that Google's business is delivering targeted advertising at users.

This quotes are all from Chrome, not other parts of google business. Here is a guy with simular concerns from CNET http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html


If you're under NDA from Google, or a Google partner, I'm fairly certain you're already in violation of it. In fact, every NDA I've seen even expressly forbids the signatories from disclosing that there *is* an NDA.

Did I say anything about any NDA? :D

[Prime Junta]

Yes, you did say something about an NDA:

On the other hand I also know much information which I am not allowed to reveal, as you know companies has contracts that you sign where you promise to keep certain things secret.

As to the guy from CNet, you are aware that Google already said that that part of the EULA was a mistake, and changed it retroactively?

[Remus]

I think any companies that heavily involved in online business or services, the direct or indirectly ways of getting useful data from users is pretty much a norm, no?
Google's IP anonymization fails to anonymize (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/12/google_ip_anonymization/)

[GothicGothicness]

There are other forms of such a contracts aside from NDA's PJ.

As to the guy from CNet, you are aware that Google already said that that part of the EULA was a mistake, and changed it retroactively?

"mistake" = The protests were too massive so they removed it?

Either way I think we cannot go futher unless I produce proof which I obviously could not do. However I can tell you this, try to visit a number of sites, and keep looking at the advertisements that google provides after your visits to them. Try to look for a pattern, and see if you can find an advertisement that has a relation to the earlier sites you visited, instead of directly only to the site you are currently visiting.

I think any companies that heavily involved in online business or services, the direct or indirectly ways of getting useful data from users is pretty much a norm, no?
Google's IP anonymization fails to anonymize

It is basically right. I just wouldn't use the register as a source for anything :( they have had many less than truthfull rumors published before.

[Prime Junta]

There are other forms of such a contracts aside from NDA's PJ.

No, there aren't. An NDA means "non-disclosure agreement" -- "contracts that you sign where you promise to keep certain things secret," as you phrased it. You didn't actually use the word, but what you did say is the exact definition of NDA.

Either way I think we cannot go futher unless I produce proof which I obviously could not do.

Well, there we are. Thank you -- that wasn't so hard, was it now?

[GothicGothicness]

No, there aren't. An NDA means "non-disclosure agreement" -- something you sign to agree not to disclose something. You didn't actually use the word, but what you did say is the exact definition of NDA.


There are variations. Anyway I can safely say I did not sign any NDA with google if such a thing exists ;)

I have not recieved the information I know from my friend who is working at google.

However believe it or not I have ways to get information from some of the big tech companies. I do want to warn people, just so they know, what happens when they write a gmail or use other google and many none google products.

What surprises me the most is acctually that it works so well on so many people, I did buy a thing ones through a google ad though, but now a days I effectively ignore them.