Forum Moderators: open
Seems with the new toolbar going from beta to final they decided to push it onto all desktops.
Don't do this Google! Huge no-no! Can't you see all the flak Microsoft is taking for their automatic system update proposal? Don't touch my system without a warning and the ability to opt-out!
I was so surprised a company like Google would do an action like that. Very un-Google like.
I liked the old toolbar and I don't need any features in the new one. The old toolbar had a more compact layout since the search web button was integrated.
Now I have to rip out the v2 and reinstall the old one while blocking the auto-update.
chewy, I don't know what else to say other than referring back to what I said in message #89.
Net_Wizard, if you go to [toolbar.google.com...] then the very first link is to the toolbar help page. The first link on that page is to our Frequently Asked Questions page. I'm not sure why you think someone has to install the toolbar before reading the Frequently Asked Questions page?
Google keeps pushing the envelope. While other companies were pushing their own ill-advised envelopes, such as the rush to portals during the dot-com era on the part of several search engines, Google appeared out of obscurity with their own agenda.
Google was using maximum cookies from the beginning, which was a time when cookies were much more controversial than they are now. Google didn't care; they did it anyway. Federal sites have been prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether since the final years of the Clinton administration, and DoubleClick was under fire for cookies and web bugs. Most search engines used five or ten-year cookies. Google comes along and uses a cookie that 1) expires in 2038, 2) is served just by merely landing on a page at google.com, and 3) issues a unique ID even though they don't need a unique ID for the official reason for the cookie, which is to set preferences. (They wouldn't even need a cookie to set preferences, and if they wanted to use a cookie anyway, they sure wouldn't have to issue one to everyone who lands on any of their pages -- even before they do a search!)
In December 2000, Google introduced the toolbar that updates without asking. Sure, they tell you in the privacy policy that using the advanced features causes it to phone home. That's because Alexa was already on the receiving end of a class-action suit for not telling their toolbar users what sort of information they collected. Alexa lost that suit.
In December 2001, someone cracked the URL checksum in the toolbar and came out with a program called PRMaster. It had a Windows desktop interface and could not be used for anything other than manual inquiries. But Google tracked down the programmer and got the program stopped. Several months later they changed the checksum algo. The old PRMaster checksum algo started reporting bogus results, instead of just not responding, and this continued for months. This incident showed Google's attitude toward anyone who trespasses on their turf.
Google used the cache copy from the beginning. No other engine, except for a couple of very obscure ones, has had the arrogance to flaunt U.S. copyright laws this way. Even though the cache copy should be opt-in, it's not even a very convenient opt-out. Sticking a META in every page is not something that's easily done. And what about text files, and other pages that don't have headers?
Google never comments on public policy issues that matter to Internet users all over the world. They have no comment on their dealings with U.S. officials, and no comment on other privacy issues. They have never felt the need to justify why they need their cookie (except to "improve our search results"). At the same time, GG has the gall to say on WebmasterWorld, more than once, that he thinks Google has the best privacy policy in the business.
Google grabbed all of your images during the first half of 2001, and it wasn't until June or so that we found out that they were starting an image search. So now we all had to scramble to protect our images, and wait another six months until our new robots.txt purged the images they already had.
Over the last year, Google has demonstrated that selling ads and making money is more important to them than the integrity of their search results.
I don't see all of the above as a series of accidents, and I don't see any evidence that Google learns from feedback. Instead, I see a pattern of behavior. It might be a strategy, or it might not. But it's definitely a pattern.
MS has done auto updating for months/years, if you trust them, let them......it is probably for your own good. If you suffer from paranoia then get rid of them and go back to the cave. This is the future....welcome to the new world :)
SN
I never meant to cause this much drama! I just wanted to get the attention of Google to make sure they understood automatic updates are a terrible idea and to show that there are other well educated people out there which agree.
My best hopes were to cause a quicker improvement to the toolbar, not to fuel an anti-Google rebellion :(
I consider myself rather technically knowledgable with PCs, having over 15 years experience and code daily in several languages. My educated opinion is that I don't feel as threatened by the actions of Google as several other folks have claimed they do here.
By the way, I leave pagerank reporting turned on at all times - it's not that I have nothing to hide, I just doubt Google will ever single me out and my browing history - they have MUCH better things to do. Think of what I save annually in not needing tinfoil hats! :)
Actually its another about people not taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Similar to the kooks that complain about nudity or cursing on TV; turn it off or change the channel if you don't like it! Block the updates, dump the toolbar, or install the Alexa or new Altavista toolbar instead--personal responsibility.
Which by the way, my cell phone, satellite TV, & Internet provider update my phones, receivers, and modems without notification and I pay for their services.
That said, auto-updates are great for people who aren't technically adept (interesting antecdotes in this article from Wired [wired.com]). Giving them an option is more likely to confuse than enlighten them, and depending on them to seek out updates on their own is hopeless. But that has to be squared with the feelings of professional computer guys and girls, for whom things like Gator and MS service pack 6 have created a deep-set fear of installing anything without carefully researching the consequences.
Part of the reason I trust Google is that it makes the effort to differentiate between the Terms of Service and "not the usual yada yada". That the toolbar automatically updates should be stated clearly in the not-yada-yada section. If Google is willing to support use of the toolbar without auto-updates, there should be directions linked right there describing how to disable the feature.
I don't think there's anything malicious going on here, but Google should keep in mind that technical people were its first adopters, and technical people were the source of many recommendations to non-technical people. As said before, CYA isn't enough, and isn't going to endear Google to those who were its first and biggest fans.
/my two cents
g.
Actually its another about people not taking personal responsibility for their actions.
So, I suppose that it's my personal responsibility and not my trusted friends responsibility to respect my privacy and my property? It's okay then to go to my friends house, invade their privacy and destroy their property because they trusted me?
Which by the way, my cell phone, satellite TV, & Internet provider update my phones, receivers, and modems without notification and I pay for their services.
Nobody update hardwares automatically :). If your hardware cease to function properly then you might have to upgrade or buy a newer model.
In the case of drivers or internet connection softwares...I don't know about your ISP...but mine, including AOL, MSN always gives the option to update or download features but not automatically...probably scared of any liabilities incurred by just auto updating customer computers.
Net_Wizard, if you go to [toolbar.google.com...] then the very first link is to the toolbar help page. The first link on that page is to our Frequently Asked Questions page. I'm not sure why you think someone has to install the toolbar before reading the Frequently Asked Questions page?
I see, you choose to ignore the other points that I posted.
Okay, so you want to discuss possibilities and probabilities. Fine.
-------------------------
[toolbar.google.com...]
- there are 3 options for the users on what to do at that page
-1. hyperlink - help page
-2. drop down - select your language
-3. button - Get the Google Toolbar
Question: What are the probabilities of somebody who would actually click on the help page link(option1) and not 'Get the Google Toolbar'(option3) button? Please be honest.
-------------------------
Just to humor you and would be Google_drones. Let say I clicked on the 'help page' first before I download the Toolbar.
-------------------------
[toolbar.google.com...]
-There are 8 options for the users on what to do at that page
-1. FAQ
-2. Google menu
-3. Autofill
-4. Version Information - bold mine
-5. Toolbar Buttons
-6. Toolbar Options
-7. Pop-up Blocker
-8. Contact us
Question: What are the probabilities of somebody actually clicking on FAQ link and not say to 'Version Information' or 'Toolbar Buttons' or 'Toolbar Options' before downloading the toolbar? Please be honest.
-------------------------
Just to humor you and would be Google_drones. Let say I clicked on the 'FAQ' link first 'before' I download the Toolbar and bear in mind that this 2nd click I made away from downloading the toolbar, not to mention that I have to back click later to actually click the button 'Get the Google Toolbar'.
-------------------------
[toolbar.google.com...]
Wow! I counted more or less 60 links to follow.
Question: What are the probabilities of somebody actually clicking 'directly' on the link for 'How can I learn when a new version is available'? Please be honest.
-------------------------
In summary of the above process. A user in order to see this...
The Google Toolbar automatically updates itself when a new version is available. This may not happen immediately, but it will eventually. If you learn that there's a new version out and you've just got to have it, you can reinstall the toolbar to make sure you're driving the latest model. (You may need to uninstall first, though this shouldn't normally be necessary.)
At the barest minimum, the user have to click 3 times 'away' from downloading the toolbar just in order for the user to read the above paragraph. What are the chances of that happening? I think I have better luck with the lottery.
At the maximum, the user have to click more or less 100 and 'by chance' would be able to read the above paragraph. What are the statistical probabilities that the user have to go through all that to download the toolbar?
In Google Terms of Use
The most important document when you download the toolbar. Here, I, as a user, have the option to 'Agree or Disagree' with the terms.
Within the terms, Google is very explicit in what the user can and can't do with the toolbar BUT why is it not spelled out in this important document that 'I either agree or disagree for Google to auto-update the toolbar without any further notice'.
That's very conveniently left out and the fact of its auto-update is buried 3 clicks away from the toolbar home page.
I say the intent is malicious
I say the intent is malicious.
Could there be any truth to this rumor? Please confirm or deny, GG.
