Reasons not to use Google > 자유게시판

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

To keep away from main other people astray, please do not consult with videos utilizing the host identify youtube.com or its aliases. Instead, make a hyperlink to invidio.us or one of many related proxy sites. Lead individuals to what is sweet, not to what's unhealthy! Just be sure that not to decide on a proxy that's "protected" by Cloudflare, since that sends its own nonfree software. This fashion of referring is probably fail-secure: it could stop to work, however it is going to probably not begin leading individuals 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 will not overcome the blockage of entry by way of Tor. If Google defeats the invidio.us proxies, I can ell you ways I can't reply. I can't surrender to youtube's nonfree software program and surveillance. I enjoy getting access to the music and video there, however I can't do foolish or desperate issues to keep that entry. You should not both! You do not need a particular "platform" to post an audio or video on the web. You can put up an audio or video file on any internet site. Just put the file on the location and hyperlink to it as if it were an unusual page. All graphical browsers can handle that.Google censored set up of Samsung's ad-blocker, saying that blocking advertisements is "interference" with the sites that publicize (and surveil customers via ads). The ad-blocker is proprietary software program, identical to this system (Google Play) that Google used to deny entry to put in it. I might refuse to have both of them on my pc. Using a nonfree program offers the owner power over you, and Google has exercised that power.

Surveillance

To determine your self to a Google service is a grave error. - Google stores a listing of all purchases a consumer has made that in any way mention the person's a gmail account. A consumer can delete purchases from this list, however just one purchase at a time. Then that buy disappears from the record that the consumer sees. Whether it remains in one other list, we do not know, however I'd expect Google to answer that question with doubletalk. The article talks about what Google cites as its motive for doing this, however the motive is irrelevant - because it isn't an excuse.- Google's alarm system, "Nest Secure", seems to have contained a microphone all along - but solely lately started listening.- Google "sanitizes" its total search logs, then publishes them; however it declines to explain the strategy of "sanitization", and there may be proof that users might be tracked by them.

The article also mentions two-issue authentication, which in and of itself could be a helpful technique (although I've read that crackers can now defeat it), but has the flaw of requiring a mobile phone. My rule #2 for digital safety is to not have a mobile phone.

- Gmail was planned from the start as an enormous surveillance system, to make psychological profiles not solely of Gmail customers but of everybody who sends mail to Gmail users.- Google quietly mixed its ad-monitoring profiles with its shopping profiles.- Google has found a approach to trace most credit card purchases in the US, even those not accomplished through a cellphone, and correlate that with individuals's on-line actions.

Google can't do both aspect to me, since I pay money and don't carry a cell phone, and it doesn't know what websites I take a look at.

- Google Play sends app builders the private details of customers that set up the app. Merely asking users' "consent" for this is not sufficient to legitimize that. We all know that almost all users have given up on reading simply what they're "consenting" to, and the reason is that they are accustomed to being instructed, "In order for you to use this service, you must consent to blah blah blah." To actually protect individuals's privacy, we must stop Google (and different corporations) from getting this private data in the first place!- Google stores a huge amount of information on each consumer. This can embrace, along with the user's search historical past and advertising profile: - A timeline of the user's location throughout every day- Data on the usage of non-Google telephone apps- 'Deleted' emails and files 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 government surveillance, abroad and within the US, quantities to fairly a bundle.

Google invitations folks to let Google monitor their phone use, and all web use of their houses, for an extravagant fee of $20.

This malicious functionality is just not a secondary side of a program with some other function; that is the software's sole purpose, and Google says so. But Google says it in a means that encourages most people to ignore the small print and remain unaware of the extent of the spying. Anyway, mere consent doesn't legitimize large surveillance.

Amazon and Google want "smart" gadgets to report all exercise to them.

In different phrases, when you've got a "sensible" (learn "spy") lightbulb with that proposed feature, and inform an Amazon or Google listening machine about it, thenceforth any time you switched it on or off irrespective of how, it will ship a report to Amazon or Google.

Even in the present day, the only method to make "smart" products protected is to ensure they can not hook up with anybody else's programs.

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

I feel that the shop itself should not get this data, which is why I always pay money and never give my title.

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

- Google cuts off accounts for customers that resell Pixel phones. They lose entry to all of their mail and documents saved in Google servers under that account. It ought to be unlawful to put any "phrases of service" on a physical product. It ought to also be illegal to shut an account on a service without letting the person obtain whatever was saved there. These events provide another reason why colleges must never ask a scholar to use a service account linked to the scholar's identify.

Censorship

- Amazon and Google have lower off domain-fronting, a function used to enable folks in tyrannical international locations to succeed in communication programs which are banned there.- French blogger Claims YouTube Tried to Censor Juncker Interview.- Google has agreed to perform special censorship of Youtube for the government of Pakistan, deleting views that the state opposes. This may assist the illiberal Pakistani state suppress dissent.

- Youtube's "content ID" robotically deletes posted movies in a means copyright law does not require.- YouTube has made non-public deals with the copyright business to censor works which can be honest use. More info.

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

Never trust a distant storage company to maintain something however a spare backup copy. Once you store that, put your files into an archive and encrypt it in order that the company can't inform what's in them - not even their file names.

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

The videos were almost absolutely fair use, but Youtube decided in opposition to the critics anyway. This shows how Youtube's basic submission to the copyright business constrict's people's rights.

Miscellaneous

- Google is a tax dodger. After all, it isn't the just one, but that is not any excuse.- Google supports the TPP due to three largely-evil provisions that may benefit Google.- Google has made it so that Chrome now mechanically installs the DRM module. This makes it dangerous for safety researchers in the US to research doable insecurity in Chrome. More information.- Support is growing for reverting US antitrust law to what it was before Reagan weakened it. That's the reason Google is using its influence to weaken those that campaign in opposition to this.

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

- Google instructed a reporter in 2011 that web pages 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.

If you loved this information and you wish to receive more information regarding shemaleup.net i implore you to visit our website.