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.
I know everyone will scream that this is totally different, but if you think about it the line isn't quite that clear. In both cases you are changing the code running on the user's computer. The user used to have the old version of foo.js in their browser cache, and without even asking you have replaced it with something else. The new version may behave different, look different, have new bugs, or even crash the browser!
The big difference to me is that the toolbar has "super-powers"; it can do things like fetch the PR of every page you visit. For this reason, I would say that they must ask permission before enabling any new "super powers" (pop-up blocker is a super-power because it alters other sites, the blogger button is not because it's just a button on the toolbar). It sounds as though the new "super-powers" are not on by default in the auto-update, though I don't have the the toolbar so I'm unsure.
What bothers me more is the privacy issue which 99% of amateur web surfers don't even understand. If Google want to put it in plain English for all there should be warnings like:
"We can read whatever we want of your hard disk. Hell, we could even tell what taxes you should be paying if we felt like it."
Doesn't it worry anyone that Google's funders are directly connected to Washington?
Stealth Updates?
I thought we were talking about a reptilian :o)
I have used the toolbar since it first become available, but I like to decide when and if I update any piece of software, my computer is NOT a toy, it is a tool and needs to be treated as such.
Sorry Google but your toolbar is out of here.
Dazz
And if people agree blindly to TOC when downloading programs then why complain when it does something which is in the TOC that you agreed to. >>
err...ok. Then you have no problem with any scumware at all, because in the fine print they all say what they are trying to do.
Of course the toolbar is spyware. The TOC has little to do with it. Google won't even say WHAT they do with the data they collect. We all know they follow your activites on the web and use the info for their commercial benefit.
<<Google isn't making a dime off their toolbar>>
the moon is made of cheese too :)
I don't really object to what Google is doing, however, simply saying that what they are doing is in the FAQ/TOS doesn't make it right.
I can publish an app in which the tos says "downloading this toolbar will destroy your computer". I guess it's just the fault of the user who blindly installs the app...
I couldnt believe it was updated like that!
I understand it is my choice to have the toolbar, and could uninstall it.
They at least should ask if you would like to update like AOL does for IM!
Very bad.
Anyone remember MOTD?(message of the day)
If Google has the programming resources to create autoupdate functionality, then it's plausible that they could just as easily create a startup check for new messages pending from "homebase". If a "critical" update is needed, then a great sales pitch *fully explaining* the need for it could be put up with a link to the update.
Any serious enterprise network admin who ran into this type of autoupdate on his network would put a LOT of effort into ensuring that the autoupdate never made it into the network.
Just watch.
One argument that has been made is the correction of security holes. Well, what if in the process of autoflushing millions of systems, it was discovered that the new version was even more broken, AND, one of the things that was broken was autoupdate? What do you do then?
Finally, any justification that depends on reference to the TOS and FAQ is not worth listening to. TOS are written by lawyers for lawyers. They are from the same school of thought as shrink wrap licenses. They exist as barriers to litigation. It's the old dot.com/mba mentality.
Remember, "the law is the refuge of rogues and thieves".
+++
And a BOFH(*** operator from hell) would have banned
it from the get go. *AND* had it approved as policy.
[edited by: eelixduppy at 10:04 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2009]
I did an informal poll of 12 programmer friends and asked them this question above.
All 12 said no freakin way.
They all said just give me a pop up to click to update my self.
The main reason they said they dont want an autoupdate is because of all the different programs people run, their could be conflicts with an update and you would not even know what happened.
The statement from Googleguy was used not to indicate an interest or dis-interest in mind control. Whether Google as a company, or Googleguy as an individual, has an interst in the topic was not the point and purpose of the post. The purpose of the post was the same as most other GG posts. To promote Google.
The point was to discredit the author of the article as a whacko, (it obviously worked), so that someone else would come in and call him that. Whether he is a whacko or not does not alter what Google or Googleguy is really doing.
For anyone interested in mind control, that Googleguy post could be the basis for a case study. At the very least, it does a better job of forming a perception that discredits a detractor and promotes the idea that Google is somehow above all other billion dollar American corporations much better than anything the Google-watch guy ever did.
This entire affair is just one more step toward the whole world waking up and realizing Google is not just a bunch of good natured, geeky kids trying to build a bettter world. While I highly doubt it, maybe that was the intention of a few college kids back in 1997, but today it is big business and if any of you think a billion dollar a year corp. is somehow above installing scumware on our box if that puts them in a position of power over their competitors, you are not a victim, you are an accomplice. Google is here and they are here to stay, just like any other American corporate intstitution. How do you think they get to be institutions? Ya think maybe good public relations and marketing hype come into play?
Furthermore, for those few ridiculous posts inferring that Google just made a mistake or that they are more incompetent than devious, you are naive in the extreme. Google has the revenue, the education, the experience and the talent that few other corporations have had in American history. NOTHING is happening by accident. There is no incompetence. There may be some "experiments" such as installing a search for related terms on Adsense without allowing any silly opt-out stuff, basically screwing over every content provider they had signed up, just to see how bad the PR backlash might be, but that is not the same thing as incompetence. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
The point was to discredit the author of the article as a whacko, (it obviously worked), so that someone else would come in and call him that. Whether he is a whacko or not does not alter what Google or Googleguy is really doing.
The mind-controlling aspects of this whole thread are interesting in another light. I agree with shurlee that GoogleGuy didn't casually drop that reference just to be chatty. He chose it because the title "Mind Control and the Secret State" acts as a trigger in any thread on WebmasterWorld that mentions Google Watch. There are so many Google cultists on WebmasterWorld (fewer now than a year ago, but still too many), that a trigger phrase from GG is sure to bring out some automatic denunciations of that "whacko" at Google Watch.
This is not the first time, but I hope it's the last time, that GoogleGuy uses WebmasterWorld to promote Google, Inc. this way. He should respond to Google Watch by explaining exactly how extensive Google's access to your hard disk is at the time of the update. Now that would be useful to know. And apparently, it's also useful to Google, Inc. that we don't know.
