I found this post by Jeremiah Owyang, and it raises some very interesting points.
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/09/02/thinking-long-term-googles-new-browser-chrome/
In particular this one:
"Peer into closed networks. This browser is a direct threat to closed social networks that do not allow Google to search or scrape like on the openweb. Social Networks that require a login to see data like Facebook potentially can be flanked if Google is the browser rendering the pages. Of course, this brings all kinds of privacy issues into play, but attention trackers with opt-in agreements could help Google to map these out."
Is this going to impact an LMS like moodle, BB, Angel, Dokeos, etc. with respect to privacy issues? Many of us run a "walled garden" to protect data. While I expect the main target is Facebook, it seems to me that there are a lot of other applications that might be affected--any LMS, portfolio system, email web client, etc. Even on-line banking! I don't understand enough about how it works to even know if I should be concerned. Naturally, you would hope that people would not agree to opt-in on these kinds of systems, but I am still burned by the Beacon rollout on Facebook! That certainly wasn't opt-in, and it was darned hard to opt-out!
Anyone have any ideas about how this might work in the real world? Hopefully, I am playing "chicken little". This one bothered me (along with the original EULA. . .)
atw
This is actually a really good observation. I'm not sure what your actual question
is, but if google is using the browser to follow their users more closely, then
I think there should be a big concern. I say this although I continue to use
their tools for convenience.
I always compare goggle with Internet Archive/Alexa. (There is a lot of history
there, from google's cache, to the publishing of books, to these issues around
privacy)
Alexa was the first tool (toolbar) that was designed to track users on the
Internet. They did get into trouble early because of the amount of privacy
data that they were maintaining. So much so, that they were sued, and Alexa
was forced to pay some nominal damages.
See http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2001/05/44173
I would probably watch sites like the eff.org site to see what privacy
activists are saying about this issue.
is, but if google is using the browser to follow their users more closely, then
I think there should be a big concern. I say this although I continue to use
their tools for convenience.
I always compare goggle with Internet Archive/Alexa. (There is a lot of history
there, from google's cache, to the publishing of books, to these issues around
privacy)
Alexa was the first tool (toolbar) that was designed to track users on the
Internet. They did get into trouble early because of the amount of privacy
data that they were maintaining. So much so, that they were sued, and Alexa
was forced to pay some nominal damages.
See http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2001/05/44173
I would probably watch sites like the eff.org site to see what privacy
activists are saying about this issue.
My question (which nobody can probably answer right now!) is just how much "protected data" can google acquire from a closed network if chrome is used? I am reluctant to wait for a class action lawsuit to force google to comply with FERPA guidelines (if you are in the US)!
The second question is whether or not anyone can do anything to prevent chrome from picking up this information from the closed network end. The problem is not whether or not the individual user discloses his/her own information to google (I suppose if you accept the chrome agreement, you have accepted that risk). But in a closed network, you are often in the position to expose OTHER users' information without their permission. They might be okay with other users of the closed network seeing this information (because it is restricted by privacy settings within that network), but they certainly didn't expect a browser to come along and add a whole new level of intrusion.
I am probably not saying this very well, but it has me thinking. And not very pretty thoughts.
atw
The second question is whether or not anyone can do anything to prevent chrome from picking up this information from the closed network end. The problem is not whether or not the individual user discloses his/her own information to google (I suppose if you accept the chrome agreement, you have accepted that risk). But in a closed network, you are often in the position to expose OTHER users' information without their permission. They might be okay with other users of the closed network seeing this information (because it is restricted by privacy settings within that network), but they certainly didn't expect a browser to come along and add a whole new level of intrusion.
I am probably not saying this very well, but it has me thinking. And not very pretty thoughts.
atw
The same issue applies to Internet Explorer.
Could you please elaborate on that?
atw
atw
It's used to browse closed networks and has a possibility to send information about user activities to Microsoft services. If not now, maybe after the next "security patch". Microsoft has a search also, plus all kinds of other "googly" services at live.com.
According to http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/, Chrome doesn't currently do this kind of spying.
Good, although I see nothing in the Chrome Terms of Agreement or Windows security that would prevent spying.
The keepers of the Walled Gardens will want to analyse firewall reports and proxy logs, I guess.
The keepers of the Walled Gardens will want to analyse firewall reports and proxy logs, I guess.
According to Google watch, they don't really need to - plenty of creepiness already.
Very interesting, albeit a bit dated... What caught my eye in terms of Google
and their new browser was the note on the site about the Mozilla foundation
evading paying taxes on google's financial support. That's very interesting.
and their new browser was the note on the site about the Mozilla foundation
evading paying taxes on google's financial support. That's very interesting.