• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

New Google Privacy Policy

Snedd said:
Pixel tags are 1 pixel by 1 pixel transparent GIF images hidden in web pages, mobile ads, and emails that are used to track where you've been on the web and whether you're opening emails.

For example if a company sends you a marketing email it will have a 1x1 transparent GIF in it whose image URL is uniquely tagged to your email address. If you open the email (assuming your email client is set to automatically download images) your email client requests that unique image from their web server and then they know that your address is valid and you opened the email. Thats why they are small - low bandwidth.

Similarly with an ad server, the ad image will be generic, but you'll also be served a pixel tag which is unique. When your browser requests the pixel tag URL they know the ad was served successfully. If you then click on the ad and go to another site which also has pixel tags they know that you arrived at the site via the ad, and so on.
Click to expand...

wow I didn't know that. Learnt something new today. Merci Snedd :)


IOWA said:
This is why I use Thunderbird which doesn't load those requests unless I allow it to =)
Click to expand...
So...this TBird thing....can I use it on my Android phone?
 
Only opt out I've seen was from ads. I can't delete or opt out of Blogger or Picasa - I can just delete the pics and blogs. Not use it again. Believe me, I've crawled through that whole page.

They might be planning on adding opt-outs, but opt-outs ain't there yet.
 
zuben el genub said:
Only opt out I've seen was from ads. I can't delete or opt out of Blogger or Picasa - I can just delete the pics and blogs. Not use it again. Believe me, I've crawled through that whole page.

They might be planning on adding opt-outs, but opt-outs ain't there yet.
Click to expand...

They've never had opt-out. Ever. That hasn't changed.
 
I have lots of stuff and more every day on Google services. I used to be a privacy nut but kind of got sick of hiding from ads and advertisers for no real good reason. I can count on one hand the times I've bought a product by clicking an online ad in the last 10 years. As long as Google employees aren't stalking me in the alley at night I couldn't care less what info they have.

If you need real privacy use The Onion Router.
 
I still haven't seen anyone other than zuben el genub say exactly what it was they objected to about the new policy. Zuben's objection was that Google is opting him into all of their services whether he uses them or not and is padding their numbers this way. I haven't seen anyone else here or elsewhere say anything they find objectionable. Everyone seems to hate this, but no one knows why. (Except for zuben el genub. I disagree with him, but at least he knows why he doesn't like the policy.)
 
Anyone remember portals? What happened to AOL, Yahoo and a few others?

The troubling thing about this locking in now, is that Google, Apple, and MS also distribute an OS. I'm not saying these companies would, but there could be all kinds of unwanted goodies in the OS.

One unwanted goody could be auto-registration of your product. Once registered, very difficult to change registration - phone totally locked to your account (by IMEI) making it difficult to give phone to family member or sell it even if you delete account. Phone has been registered once - can't reregister even with a factory reset.

Love/hate relationship with marketing for anyone with a brand - they love to see new users, but would also love to see new users NOT have any way to leave or change the brand - no matter how shoddy the brand gets.
 
zuben el genub said:
Anyone remember portals? What happened to AOL, Yahoo and a few others?

The troubling thing about this locking in now, is that Google, Apple, and MS also distribute an OS. I'm not saying these companies would, but there could be all kinds of unwanted goodies in the OS.

One unwanted goody could be auto-registration of your product. Once registered, very difficult to change registration - phone totally locked to your account (by IMEI) making it difficult to give phone to family member or sell it even if you delete account. Phone has been registered once - can't reregister even with a factory reset.

Love/hate relationship with marketing for anyone with a brand - they love to see new users, but would also love to see new users NOT have any way to leave or change the brand - no matter how shoddy the brand gets.
Click to expand...

You can not lock a phone number to anything, the number portability law prevents that. You have the right to take your number with you when you leave and go elsewhere, I ported my ATT land line to Sprint years ago, it is my business number and I plan to take it with me if I ever leave Sprint.
 
I just sold my old Android phone to a friend, and he just popped in his SIM card, and all was good. What is this
making it difficult to give phone to family member or sell it even if you delete account. Phone has been registered once - can't reregister even with a factory reset.
Click to expand...
business?

Can you point out the part in the Google privacy policy that says you can't sell your phone?
 
aysiu said:
I just sold my old Android phone to a friend, and he just popped in his SIM card, and all was good. What is this business?

Can you point out the part in the Google privacy policy that says you can't sell your phone?
Click to expand...

I believe zuben el genub was postulating what *could* happen, not what was happening with the current state of mobile devices.

The carrier networks use the IEMI/ESN to authenticate the device on their networks and Google/Apple/MS use email account/password to verify access to their services. I'm not sure how tying those two bits of information permanently together could benefit either the carrier or the OS maker in any way?
 
I don't see how it'd benefit anybody. In this case, I was a T-Mobile user who sold my phone to another T-Mobile user. If I couldn't sell my phone, HTC would still not get my business (I went to Samsung). If I couldn't sell my phone, T-Mobile would still not get my business (I went to Verizon). If I couldn't sell my phone, I'd still be using Google (signed in with the same account on my new Galaxy Nexus Android phone). If I couldn't sell my phone, all it would mean is that it ends up in a landfill somewhere. So who benefits from my being stuck on a particular phone? Nobody.

And, more relevantly, where in the new Google privacy policy is there any mention or hint of someone's account being permanently tied to a phone? Nowhere. So this just sounds like unwarranted paranoia.
 
Locking IMEI to account would sell more phones and lock people into services if they want a discounted upgrade. Instead of giving old phone to your kid, you would have to buy him a new one. Could mean no more unlocked phones here.

The part about not being able to sell phone was speculation. Carriers can turn off a stolen phone. How far any law would go, or loopholes in this day and age are up in the air.

Congress is still pretty good with pork.

CIQ got onto some phones - did anyone see it coming? Who paid to put it on the phones?

If the provision about jailbreaking/rooting gets the kibosh, we will have lost control.

People need to learn to consider what if? Most of the comments on the privacy policy have been "I have nothing to hide" You might not have anything criminal to hide, but whatever could lead to identity theft should be hidden. The old proverb about "Give them an inch and they'll take a foot " is true. I don't think too much is immune from a dedicated hacker.

It isn't paranoia. Think about that case of decrypting a laptop. What do they do with info not needed to make a court case. Also about unscrupulous federal/state/city employees wanting to make a buck. Some AOL people got caught selling personal info. Criminals have paid store employees to put skimmers on credit terminals.

Taken with a grain of salt but possible:
How to spot a fake Facebook profile (infographic) | ZDNet
Any information is grist to marketing's mill.
 
zuben el genub said:
Here you go:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google's-privacy-policy

Don't know about you, but I don't want Google's suggestions. It's more fun to hunt.

Besides - if I hunted for something like jaguar printed fabric, I'd get the car, the animal, or the football team.
Click to expand...

I completely and totally disagree. I don't want to hunt through stuff. If I'm looking for Jaguars and I'm a hardcore football fan, I want the team to come up first. It's the most relevant result for me. If I'm a tree hugging hippie, I want the animal to show up first. If I'm a gearhead, then the car should show up. Those are the results most relevant to me.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Google is sharing data with itself. It's the same data they already have and have been collecting forever. They're not collecting anything new. They're not sharing anything with third parties. They're just telling themselves what they already know.
 
It's not about data sharing. It's about the search. If I entered jaguar fabric, I don't want the car, animal, or team.

Google apparently can't tell the difference between astronomy and astrology at times.

I just ran into the same on Market. Looking for a launcher for tablet. Tried entering every way I could think of, and got nothing but pages of skins for Go Launcher.

You had to hunt through all that to find an actual launcher app and not the skins.

I have nothing against Go Launcher - in fact I'm trying it. But having to search through skins to find the basic app was the pits. I finally found a review site that listed launchers for tablets and typed in the apps from the review.

If Google can't collect data right - it isn't much help.
 
zuben el genub said:
It's not about data sharing. It's about the search. If I entered jaguar fabric, I don't want the car, animal, or team.

Google apparently can't tell the difference between astronomy and astrology at times.
Click to expand...

As someone who used to work in the SEM and SEO field I can tell you that majority of the time this has nothing to do with Google. They set up an algorithm for search results and people who do SEO work very hard to get pages set up properly so that they appear at the top of the search results. If you are getting false results, it is usually the person that set up the page putting the wrong terms into their pages.

It isn't Google that can't tell the difference in astronomy and astrology it is the people who built the webpage. If they put terms that connect them to both or if they put in the exact phrases you are looking for (Google offers key word lists based on searches per month and on average) then the page is going to show up for you. If the one site on the web doesn't use the key words you used for your search then you may never find it. It all depends on who and how the SEO is done. It is a really big business for a reason.

The app market appears to function in many of the same ways. The terms the developer uses in their app listing combined with download numbers and reviews look to push apps to the top of the results.
 
To be completely fair to Google, there are many, many people out there who can't tell the difference between astronomy and astrology. I once mentioned in passing to someone that I enjoyed astronomy casually. I then endured a long tirade about how evil astronomy was because it was based on paganism and you're putting your faith in the stars and the location of stars has no influence on our lives and blah, blah, blah, blah. I tuned them out after about 2.5 seconds and felt I listened too long.

I've also heard people claim that astrology is legit because it's scientifically based and NASA has professional astrologers on staff. *Le sigh* Garbage in, garbage out applies to search.
 
Google could try the whole word. That would put astrol before astrom and you wouldn't have the garbage in between. You wouldn't have to know the difference. Predictive text keeps going until it can't get the word.

Market could use a file tree of some sort.

Launcher apps main folder, and skins for that app in a subfolder. And alphabetized!

If Google wants to make all this info public to those who want a public account they need to do better with sorting and labeling.

Can give another reason - there used to be a Red Hat society for women. It might still be around for all I know. Red Hat to me means Linux! Be wasting either the women's or the geek's time if there was no differentiation.
 
zuben el genub said:
Google could try the whole word. That would put astrol before astrom and you wouldn't have the garbage in between. You wouldn't have to know the difference. Predictive text keeps going until it can't get the word.

Market could use a file tree of some sort.

Launcher apps main folder, and skins for that app in a subfolder. And alphabetized!

If Google wants to make all this info public to those who want a public account they need to do better with sorting and labeling.

Can give another reason - there used to be a Red Hat society for women. It might still be around for all I know. Red Hat to me means Linux! Be wasting either the women's or the geek's time if there was no differentiation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. It wouldn't be Google wasting anyone's time. It would be the person inputting the keywords into the website. All Google does is gather the information and log the data from the website. If some red hat geek decided to base his site around the keywords "red" and "hat" and then decided to include the keyword "society" in the script it would his mistake that messed someone up, not Google's. It works the same way with every search engine out there. The keywords that someone inputs into the script are a part of what forces a page to show up in search result. If you ever want to see this open up firefox and go to any website. I'll give this site as an example. If I go to "view" in the menu bar and select "page source" from the drop down I see this in the meta information:

<meta name="keywords" content="android forums, android forum, android, google android, android phone, android phones" />
<meta name="description" content="Android Forums is a community of Google Android enthusiasts who love their Android Enabled Phones!" />
Click to expand...

This, along with many other things, tells Google that people searching for Android, android forums, google android and android phones that this is a site they will be interested in. Now there are plenty of other things that go into this obviously, but this is a part of it that is easy to see. If I do a Google search for Android Forum, the main page is right up there at the top.

Now, take a look at what the Samsung Galaxy Nexus forum shows:

<meta name="keywords" content="Samsung,Galaxy,Nexus,Samsung Galaxy Nexus, android forums, android forum, android, google android, android phone, android phones" />
<meta name="description" content="Samsung Galaxy Nexus - " />
Click to expand...

Again, this tells Google that this page is about Samsung, Galaxy, Nexus, Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Google, Android Phones and Android Forums.

If I do a search for "Samsung Galaxy Nexus" then the forum doesn't even show up on the first page of results, but if I add the word "forum" then we show up 5th in the search results.

If the guys that built this site made a mistake and threw the word apple or iphone on either of these pages then this site just might show up in searches for those keywords as well. That wouldn't be Google's fault. That would be the fault of the site designers or anyone that was optimizing the site for Google searches.
 
I did understand. The thing is - usually in any workplace, things get filed either in numerical or alphabetical order. Same for places with a lot of files. The phonebook is. Why should the search engines be any different? If most Office software regardless of maker or OS can sort that way, then coding it can't be too hard.

If the keywords were taken letter by letter like predictive text on a search, it wouldn't matter who input what. It's the search terms.

Maybe libraries are almost obsolete, but the Dewey Decimal System worked. So does sorting by alphabet.

You could still use keywords, but the results would come up in alphabetical order.
 
zuben el genub said:
I did understand. The thing is - usually in any workplace, things get filed either in numerical or alphabetical order. Same for places with a lot of files. The phonebook is. Why should the search engines be any different? If most Office software regardless of maker or OS can sort that way, then coding it can't be too hard.

If the keywords were taken letter by letter like predictive text on a search, it wouldn't matter who input what. It's the search terms.

Maybe libraries are almost obsolete, but the Dewey Decimal System worked. So does sorting by alphabet.

You could still use keywords, but the results would come up in alphabetical order.
Click to expand...

You do realize at that point that almost ever single site on the web would become AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDROID FORUMS or some such variation at that point to get a top ranking?

The whole idea in the beginning was to base everything on content, but then people started to understand that and pages started getting manipulated to beat the system. Do you remember the pages that used to have those really long blank areas at the bottom or the ones that had just a series of what appeared to be words in random order at the bottom? That is one of the ways that people used to manipulate the system to get higher page ranking. As this trend continued Google, along with other engines, started to modify the way things were done so the people couldn't take advantage. Once people caught onto that method things changed again and so on and so forth. Now, there is a pretty good system in place and believe it or not. You will still get some random pages or some content that isn't right because someone didn't do things the way that they should, but for the most part you end up getting the better pages on the subject you are looking for.
 
zuben el genub said:
I did understand. The thing is - usually in any workplace, things get filed either in numerical or alphabetical order. Same for places with a lot of files. The phonebook is. Why should the search engines be any different? If most Office software regardless of maker or OS can sort that way, then coding it can't be too hard.

If the keywords were taken letter by letter like predictive text on a search, it wouldn't matter who input what. It's the search terms.

Maybe libraries are almost obsolete, but the Dewey Decimal System worked. So does sorting by alphabet.

You could still use keywords, but the results would come up in alphabetical order.
Click to expand...

Yahoo's original plan was to index the web similar to what you describe. Didn't work out that well for them. The concept is sound enough, but the Internet is so vast and so big it doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom