Reasons not to use Google > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

To avoid leading different folks astray, fetishbreak.com please don't confer with movies using the host title youtube.com or its aliases. Instead, make a link to invidio.us or one of the related proxy websites. Lead people to what is sweet, not to what is unhealthy! Just make sure not to decide on a proxy that's "protected" by Cloudflare, since that sends its own nonfree software program. This way of referring might be fail-safe: it may stop to work, however it'll probably not start leading people to run nonfree software program. There can also be a Firefox add-on to bypass that Javascript code. IceCat comes with that add-on by default. But that won't overcome the blockage of entry through Tor. If Google defeats the invidio.us proxies, I can ell you the way I cannot respond. I cannot surrender to youtube's nonfree software program and surveillance. I get pleasure from getting access to the music and video there, however I will not do foolish or determined issues to maintain that entry. You shouldn't either! You do not want a particular "platform" to publish an audio or video on the web. You may post an audio or video file on any web site. Just put the file on the positioning and link to it as if it have been an odd web page. All graphical browsers can handle that.Google censored set up of Samsung's ad-blocker, saying that blocking ads is "interference" with the sites that advertise (and surveil customers by way of ads). The ad-blocker is proprietary software program, just like the program (Google Play) that Google used to deny entry to install it. I would refuse to have both of them on my pc. Using a nonfree program gives the owner power over you, and Google has exercised that power.

Surveillance

To establish your self to a Google service is a grave error. - Google shops an inventory of all purchases a user has made that in any method mention the consumer's a gmail account. A person can delete purchases from this list, but only one purchase at a time. Then that purchase disappears from the listing that the person sees. Whether it stays in another list, we do not know, but I'd count on Google to answer that query with doubletalk. The article talks about what Google cites as its motive for doing this, but the motive is irrelevant - as a result of it's not an excuse.- Google's alarm system, "Nest Secure", turns out to have contained a microphone all along - however only recently began listening.- Google "sanitizes" its complete search logs, then publishes them; but it surely declines to describe the strategy of "sanitization", and there is proof that users can be tracked through them.

The article also mentions two-issue authentication, which in and of itself might be a useful technique (though I've learn that crackers can now defeat it), however has the flaw of requiring a cell phone. My rule #2 for digital safety is to not have a cell phone.

- Gmail was planned from the start as a massive surveillance system, to make psychological profiles not only of Gmail users but of everybody who sends mail to Gmail users.- Google quietly combined its advert-monitoring profiles with its looking profiles.- Google has discovered a way to track most bank card purchases within the US, even these not completed via a phone, and correlate that with people's on-line actions.

Google can't do either facet to me, since I pay money and don't carry a cell phone, and it would not know what internet sites I look at.

- Google Play sends app builders the non-public particulars of customers that set up the app. Merely asking customers' "consent" for this isn't enough to legitimize that. We all know that most users have given up on reading just what they're "consenting" to, and the reason is that they are accustomed to being advised, "If you need to use this service, you must consent to blah blah blah." To really protect individuals's privateness, we should cease Google (and other firms) from getting this private info in the primary place!- Google shops a huge quantity of data on each consumer. This may include, in addition to the person's search history and promoting profile: - A timeline of the consumer's location throughout each day- Data on the utilization of non-Google telephone apps- 'Deleted' emails and recordsdata uploaded to Google Drive

Facebook and Google joined with ISPs to defeat a privacy initiative in California. Collecting the many ways Google is concerned with US authorities surveillance, abroad and within the US, amounts to fairly a package.

Google invitations folks to let Google monitor their cellphone use, and all internet use in their houses, for an extravagant payment of $20.

This malicious performance is not a secondary side of a program with some other purpose; this is the software program's sole purpose, and Google says so. But Google says it in a approach that encourages most people to disregard the main points and stay unaware of the extent of the spying. Anyway, mere consent doesn't legitimize massive surveillance.

Amazon and Google want "sensible" devices to report all activity to them.

In other words, if you have a "smart" (learn "spy") lightbulb with that proposed function, and tell an Amazon or Google listening machine about it, thenceforth any time you switched it on or off regardless of how, it will ship a report to Amazon or Google.

Even in the present day, the one approach to make "good" products secure is to ensure they can't connect with anybody else's systems.

Another piece of Google's surveillance capitalism: when stores mail receipts to a gmail.com account, Google figures out and data who bought what.

I feel that the store itself should not get this info, which is why I all the time pay money and never give my identify.

*Google faces lawsuit over monitoring in apps even when users opted out.*

- Google cuts off accounts for customers that resell Pixel telephones. They lose access to all of their mail and paperwork saved in Google servers under that account. It needs to be illegal to put any "terms of service" on a physical product. It should also be unlawful to close an account on a service without letting the person obtain no matter was stored there. These occasions provide one other purpose why faculties must by no means ask a scholar to use a service account linked to the pupil's identify.

Censorship

- Amazon and Google have minimize off area-fronting, a function used to allow people in tyrannical nations to succeed in communication methods that are banned there.- French blogger Claims YouTube Tried to Censor Juncker Interview.- Google has agreed to perform special censorship of Youtube for the federal government of Pakistan, deleting views that the state opposes. This will help the illiberal Pakistani state suppress dissent.

- Youtube's "content material ID" automatically deletes posted videos in a manner copyright regulation does not require.- YouTube has made non-public deals with the copyright business to censor works that are truthful use. More data.

- Google shut off Alexa O'Brien's Google Drive account, denying her entry to it, as a result of her reporting on Chelsea Manning's trial included copies of al-Qa'ida propaganda that was presented as evidence.- Google is deleting porn artists' porn videos from their own non-public accounts, quietly and mysteriously.

Never trust a distant storage firm to maintain anything but a spare backup copy. If you store that, put your recordsdata into an archive and encrypt it in order that the corporate can't tell what's in them - not even their file names.

- Vox attorneys bought Youtube to take down criticisms of a video published by Vox, and threaten the critics with punishment, too.

The movies were virtually certainly honest use, however Youtube determined in opposition to the critics anyway. This reveals how Youtube's general submission to the copyright industry constrict's folks's rights.

Miscellaneous

- Google is a tax dodger. After all, it's not the just one, however that is no excuse.- Google supports the TPP because of three largely-evil provisions that may profit Google.- Google has made it in order that Chrome now robotically installs the DRM module. This makes it dangerous for safety researchers in the US to research doable insecurity in Chrome. More info.- Support is rising for reverting US antitrust law to what it was earlier than Reagan weakened it. That is why Google is using its influence to weaken those that marketing campaign towards this.

How I Got Fired From a D.C. Think Tank for Fighting Against the ability of Google.

- Google advised a reporter in 2011 that web sites without "+1" buttons would be punished with lower search rankings. When she revealed a story in Forbes about that, Google pressured Forbes to take it down.