# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Google Admits Google+ Was Just A Ploy To Track Your Behavior Online

## DamianTV

http://valleywag.gawker.com/google-a...arah-hedgecock




> As a social network, Google+ is just a bunch of empty circles spinning in a barren wasteland. But Google could give a $#@! if consumers prefer Facebook. What the $400 billion data vacuum really wanted, reports The New York Times, is to track everything you do online and sell that personal information to advertisers.
> 
> No shock there. Critics saw this coming as far back as 2011 when Google+ started forcing profiles to use their real names and Google+ suddenly became your sign-in for other Google services. But the company finally confessed their long con to the Times, albeit with a corporate spin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


(Continues on link.  Source links not included.)

Duh.

Now lets hear it from the "Nothing to hide" crowd.

----------


## angelatc

I'm am only shocked that this is shocking to anybody.  

I know you tend to get lost in your war on corporations, but nobody is forcing you to sign up.

----------


## DamianTV

> I'm am only shocked that this is shocking to anybody.  
> 
> I know you tend to get lost in your war on corporations, but nobody is forcing you to sign up.


I never did.

Any company sells a product they create or service they provide, meh, alright.  But people are now the products.  Data Mining has become far more profitable than goods or services.  People are not products to be bought or sold.

----------


## fr33

Google has really gone downhill. IMO they've totally screwed up youtube. I used to spend well over 4 hours a day there and I hardly pay attention to it anymore.

----------


## RickyJ

Google and Facebook are both CIA creations. Those Jewish boys didn't do it.

----------


## CPUd

> Google and Facebook are both CIA creations. Those Jewish boys didn't do it.


Is there anything out there you think the CIA didn't create?

----------


## kahless

> Google and Facebook are both CIA creations. Those Jewish boys didn't do it.


I remember it was reported early on where they getting their funding and the CIA connection. The comments were overwhelming predicting that Facebook is going no where, people were going to cancel and the death of Facebook predictions.   

As usual people always underestimate the sheer number of uninformed in this country, the same folks that vote.

----------


## DamianTV

> Is there anything out there you think the CIA didn't create?


Create, or just have their hands in the cookie jar?

----------


## gwax23

Pretty $#@!ty one since no one used/uses it.

----------


## Nolan

> Pretty $#@!ty one since no one used/uses it.


No one uses it, but it uses everyone. 
All that google+/facebook/twitter buttons you see everywhere on the internet these days? They tracks where people goes.

----------


## fr33

> Pretty $#@!ty one since no one used/uses it.


Youtube was an incredible site when it started. Now if you want to use youtube, you have to "use" Google +. That isn't the only thing they've done to ruin youtube.

----------


## angelatc

> I never did.
> 
> Any company sells a product they create or service they provide, meh, alright.  But people are now the products.  Data Mining has become far more profitable than goods or services.  People are not products to be bought or sold.



Wah.  Consumers consume, marketers market.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Pretty $#@!ty one since no one used/uses it.


That isn't true anymore.  Google is factoring Google Plus in SEO, so pretty much everybody in content creation is using it now.  The rest will follow.  As a content creator I have to be on all these stupid social sites, and to be honest, Google Plus is the least noxious of the lot.  The key to Google is the "Communities" section, which I think most newspaper reviewers who speak of the "ghost town" of Google Plus have never visited.  The web design group I am in has 80,000 members, the SEO groups all have tens of thousands, the Genesis Framework group has 1,000 and the AK variant gun group I'm in has over 100.  The "communities" are what sets Google Plus apart and make it a useful service being just posting pictures of your cat or sharing the latest meme.  It also helps that Google Plus is still more male and tech dominated.  Compare that to Facebook, which is now pretty much 90% women aged 25-55, or Pinterest, which is 100% women aged 25-55, or twitter which is dominated by annoying teens.

----------


## DamianTV

> That isn't true anymore.  Google is factoring Google Plus in SEO, so pretty much everybody in content creation is using it now.  The rest will follow.  As a content creator I have to be on all these stupid social sites, and to be honest, Google Plus is the least noxious of the lot.  The key to Google is the "Communities" section, which I think most newspaper reviewers who speak of the "ghost town" of Google Plus have never visited.  The web design group I am in has 80,000 members, the SEO groups all have tens of thousands, the Genesis Framework group has 1,000 and the AK variant gun group I'm in has over 100.  The "communities" are what sets Google Plus apart and make it a useful service being just posting pictures of your cat or sharing the latest meme.  It also helps that Google Plus is still more male and tech dominated.  Compare that to Facebook, which is now pretty much 90% women aged 25-55, or Pinterest, which is 100% women aged 25-55, or twitter which is dominated by annoying teens.


I dont and will never use tracking software in any content that I create.  If you cant create content without building in tracking technology, then youre creating it wrong.

As far as the rest, good thing you update your status constantly as it makes spying on everyone completely unnecessary.

----------


## compromise

> Is there anything out there you think the CIA didn't create?


Ricky J believes the government is capable of technological innovation far beyond the realm of private businesses, as he is a national-socialist.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Wah.  Consumers consume, marketers market.


I must have missed the part where this was a free market.

----------


## Bern

Are they forcing people to sign up for Google+ to use gmail?  Because there are a lot of people using gmail.  Android smartphones are pretty well integrated/set up to use Google+ for contacts/email too.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Are they forcing people to sign up for Google+ to use gmail?  Because there are a lot of people using gmail.  Android smartphones are pretty well integrated/set up to use Google+ for contacts/email too.


Google is ONE Sign in. If you use ANY product, you are signed up for all of them

----------


## osan

> People are not products to be bought or sold.


That's what *you* think.

----------


## Cabal

I'm struggling to see what all the fuss is about. What Google has done as far as linking all of their services to single accounts makes pretty good sense to me. And the practice of businesses gathering data on consumer trends and habits isn't anything especially new or exciting, especially given that Google provides trend information as one of their features. 

Some people seem to have some rather unrealistic expectations of privacy, IMO, which only stand to become more and more unrealistic as technology continues to advance. I use Gmail, google, and youtube all the time--pretty much every day. Not all that concerned if they compile my usage habits into a database for trend statistics. Perhaps if everything else were kittens and rainbows, I might be more concerned, but Google gathering trend data is really the least of our problems, or my concerns right now.

----------


## angelatc

> I must have missed the part where this was a free market.



Are they forcing people to sign up for their service?   Did they tell you you can't buy the information?

Perhaps you guys do not remember life before Google?  Yahoo, Alta Vista and Ask Jeeves were search engines, and they relied so heavily on paid inclusion that they were practically useless.  Hotbot made things a little better.  But then Google came along and wiped them all off the face of the Earth by offering a far superior experience.

In order to cash in on that they track the behavior of their customers across the entire web, and sell the information to people who want to target specific audiences.  Its like the shopper's cards on steroids.

Creepy, sure.  But I would wager that it increase efficiency in the markets.

----------


## Wooden Indian

I don't use sites like Facebook. Just not a fan of sharing my personal life with strangers, and I don't especially dig on seeing my "friends" dirty laundry aired out for the world to see. So, I feel like I can look at this pretty objectively. I have no issue with what Google said. I have no issue with what they are doing. Don't like it... don't use it.

Selling/handing over the information to the Feds, on the other hand, is a different monster entirely. And, I'm pretty sure I recall that Google processed over 10,000 requests  from the NSA last year alone... all without a warrant of course. Google can go $#@! themselves for that one.

Now, if "we" all stopped sharing our information with companies like Google and Yahoo, would anything change? No. Not likely.
Going back to paper mail delivery doesn't' help, they can and do go through our letters too. You can't so much as drive down the street without at least one camera state camera pointed at you, your ID is scanned, your cards swiped on nearly every purchase. Use cash, you say. Yeah, pick it up from the bank, where your withdraw is reported, and they shove 15 cameras up your arse there too.

There is no slowing this beast down. We are caught in a whirlwind here, people. Nothing short of a modern day revolution is going to change that.

----------


## angelatc

> There is no slowing this beast down. We are caught in a whirlwind here, people. Nothing short of a modern day revolution is going to change that.


Who is going to revolt?  Most people don't seem to care.

----------


## Wooden Indian

> Who is going to revolt?  Most people don't seem to care.


You're right. But, I have a feeling those in power will end up doing it to themselves. 
Sooner or later the right spark will land on the right tender, people will revolt, and the government will answer with a heavy hand, thus creating more sparks... and a revolution of sorts will be born from it. Those in power always seem to do it to themselves eventually.

History is pretty clear on this.

----------


## brushfire

"Dont be google"

----------


## asurfaholic

To those who say "don't like it, don't use it" this is getting aggravating. I don't use Facebook, I can avoid it. With g+ I never signed up for it, I was forced onto the g+ service.

I originally had a gmail account, and a separate YouTube. Now somehow its all one account and it bugs me almost every login to see the request for my phone number too . 

Google can loose its entire business and all its employees to a massive sinkhole then erupted into a volcano and turned to dust and I wouldn't blink an eye.

----------


## angelatc

> I originally had a gmail account, and a separate YouTube. Now somehow its all one account and it bugs me almost every login to see the request for my phone number too .


Me too.  But I do not have a cell phone, so I could not put a number in if I wanted to.   I wonder how long before they shut me out entirely?

----------


## DamianTV

> Me too.  But I do not have a cell phone, so I could not put a number in if I wanted to.   I wonder how long before they shut me out entirely?


Not very long at all...

*Google Wants to Require Smartphones For Sound-Based Passwords*

If this happens, it will be linked to the phones exact location with unique ID for google and ALL others to monitor at ALL times.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## DamianTV

As if it wasnt invasive enough...

*New Technology Allows For TV Ads to Target Specific Individuals, Families*
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/...uals-families/

Whats the difference between Advertising and just Watching you in your own home?  Smoke a bowl while watching TV, go to jail.  Teen party, jail.  Cleaning an Unregistered Gun, Jail.  Users are still encouraged to run around in their underwear however.  Asking the Govt and companies like Google to protect ones Privacy is like asking a pack of wolves to protect the rights of their next meal.  The "Free Market" here is to be offered the choice of which pack of wolves to become dinner for.  Our so called "Free Market" exists in a Facist Govt where companies and corporations rule the Govt.  Free Market or Freedom to not be tracked is an Illusion.  California is already considering a law that allows them access to Private CCTV Cameras in home security systems.  Chip Implants when mentioned by the MSM are usually only in support of it.  Internet of Things (all electronic devices in your home from Fridges to Light Bulbs) is well on its way.  Drone Targets are determined by Phone Metadata, and often inaccurately.  Tea Partiers and Libertarians are being portrayed as Terrorists, as well as almost every other vague definition of Terrorist they can come up with.  So how long until your very life is in danger for even so much as uttering the word "Constitution"?  What happens if Martial Law is declared?  Will ANY Rights be observed?  Once that level of Surveillance exists, will an actual Revolution, or more importantly, ANY form of change even be possible?

----------


## dinosaur

> I'm am only shocked that this is shocking to anybody.  
> 
> I know you tend to get lost in your war on corporations, but nobody is forcing you to sign up.


I was forced to sign up in order to complete the requirements of my master's degree.  Yeah, I suppose I had the choice of throwing away the eight previous years of work toward licensing in my profession.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm struggling to see what all the fuss is about. What Google has done as far as linking all of their services to single accounts makes pretty good sense to me. And the practice of businesses gathering data on consumer trends and habits isn't anything especially new or exciting, especially given that Google provides trend information as one of their features. 
> 
> Some people seem to have some rather unrealistic expectations of privacy, IMO, which only stand to become more and more unrealistic as technology continues to advance. I use Gmail, google, and youtube all the time--pretty much every day. Not all that concerned if they compile my usage habits into a database for trend statistics. Perhaps if everything else were kittens and rainbows, I might be more concerned, but Google gathering trend data is really the least of our problems, or my concerns right now.


How about them "selling" your information to the government, of whom you are extorted to pay?

$#@! Google. The POS.

Some people have an amazingly cavalier attitude.

So they compile data to create algorithms that enhance NSA spying capabilities? Meh. So long as I get bombarded with creepily targeted messaging, profiles created from data swaps, and a phone that tracks me, life is good.

----------


## DamianTV

> How about them "selling" your information to the government, of whom you are extorted to pay?
> 
> $#@! Google. The POS.
> 
> Some people have an amazingly cavalier attitude.
> 
> So they compile data to create algorithms that enhance NSA spying capabilities? Meh. So long as I get bombarded with creepily targeted messaging, profiles created from data swaps, and a phone that tracks me, life is good.


Exactly.  Where does the NSA get its data from?  A lot of it comes from Private companies.

Excuse:  We'll show you more relevant ads.  Translated:  We'll offer you the chance to save a bit of money on product A or B.  The choice (or the Box / Limitation of Choices = Illusion) is to spend money.  The choice that is NOT offered (by Default) is to not be tracked, period.

Is any of this Tracking done with the permission of the individual?  Tracking has exceeded well beyond the internet and ownership of tracking technology.  The only choice a person now has is to be tracked, or to not be a part of society.  Either way, it is all done without a Warrant or Probable Cause.  Every single person is now Guilty until proven Innocent.

John Adams once said:

_“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt 
and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen 
will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no 
protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that 
would be the end of security whatsoever.”_

----------


## Cabal

> Some people have an amazingly cavalier attitude.


More like perspective and priorities. But if you intend to consistently apply your loathing of any and all who cooperate, exchange, and associate with the State, you ought to be prepared to loathe every tax-payer, every law-abider, and every employee of the State as well.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> More like perspective and priorities. But if you intend to consistently apply your loathing of any and all who cooperate, exchange, and associate with the State, you ought to be prepared to loathe every tax-payer, every law-abider, and every employee of the State as well.


I do not loathe you, or in general the tax paying public. Perhaps my post was poorly worded. I actually like a lot of what you post. Your attitude is the same of virtually everyone I know. But their ideas of perspective and priorities are based on sports statistics and other pointless bull$#@!. I try to explain the issues with regards to a certain topic, and needless to say, no one cares. You are obviously quite well educated and aware of what is going on. Maybe my frustration with others shone through more than I intend to let it.

----------


## Cabal

> I do not loathe you, or in general the tax paying public. Perhaps my post was poorly worded. I actually like a lot of what you post. Your attitude is the same of virtually everyone I know. But their ideas of perspective and priorities are based on sports statistics and other pointless bull$#@!. I try to explain the issues with regards to a certain topic, and needless to say, no one cares. You are obviously quite well educated and aware of what is going on. Maybe my frustration with others shone through more than I intend to let it.


I wasn't talking about me personally... I'm saying that if you hate Google for cooperating with the State, and if you intend to be consistent, you must then be prepared to hate others who do the same--which would then include tax payers, employees, and law abiding citizens. OTOH, perhaps Google, just like anyone else, is just as much a victim of the State as anyone else. Surely Google is not the most perfect company, or the greatest victim, occupied only by angels, but neither are they same dastardly comical villain, twisting its mustache and toking a cigar as it colludes with the State by selling them your *gasp* search history, as if the State doesn't have the resources to dig up whatever information on you it wants to anyway. I suppose I prefer to keep my eye on the prize and not get distracted by these kinds of ...red herrings.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I wasn't talking about me personally... I'm saying that if you hate Google for cooperating with the State, and if you intend to be consistent, you must then be prepared to hate others who do the same--which would then include tax payers, employees, and law abiding citizens. OTOH, perhaps Google, just like anyone else, is just as much a victim of the State as anyone else. Surely Google is not the most perfect company, or the greatest victim, occupied only by angels, but neither are they same dastardly comical villain, twisting its mustache and toking a cigar as it colludes with the State by selling them your *gasp* search history, as if the State doesn't have the resources to dig up whatever information on you it wants to anyway. I suppose I prefer to keep my eye on the prize and not get distracted by these kinds of ...red herrings.


A red herring would be to imply law abiding citizens as being on the level with government employees or even those who pay taxes (or rather, to add in that universally accepted norm (law abiding citizens being 'good'), at least with regards to sane people, and attempt to link that to whom I would have issue with). What would possibly be the issue of obeying the law if not to be an attempt fallaciously misrepresent my position? People have an obligation to obey the law. If they break it, you know, say, flagrantly and systematically violate the privacy all humans are inherently documented to relish, they ought to be punished. If they say, intentionally babble in intricately double spoken legalese so as an attempt to thwart the law, or as an attempt to trick people into using their product, a product of which is propped up artificially by government influence... you know, they ought to be punished. And for instance, when they accept the payments, of which are stolen, to provide information of which is stolen, or at best questionably obtained, they ought be punished (for at least one thing, if not the other, is a crime). 

The law isn't this but is that, I expect to hear. What the average person considers to be law, hardly would play into the conversation. To clarify, it matters not of what they consider to be the law, and what they obey as that result. What matters is that people obey the _law_. Your post didn't discern between the two. (nor did your post acknowledge that Google has broken the law, of which (the law) it was [fallaciously] implied I would logically be bound to loath those who obeyed)

Google is as "neutral" or as victimized as a hemorrhoid could be said to be. Play ball or don't play ball; I'm sure it keeps them up for days.

Furthermore, if you don't mind me asking, what priorities are you speaking of?

----------


## Cabal

> what priorities are you speaking of?


The State.

The law is just more force initiated by the State, btw. But the language you use doesn't seem to acknowledge this. 'Privacy all humans are documented to relish'? Documented by who or what? The State? Careface.

The law is an extension of the State force. Whatever the State does or doesn't 'document', or claim, or say, or mandate, is all irrelevant to me, because the State itself is illegitimate, and has no real authority to exist, let alone grant or deny anyone any rights, or hold anyone to any laws that it dreams up and enforces, or punish anyone in accordance with these laws. Spooner says hi.

In any case, your position comes off as incredibly inconsistent to me. You're essentially QQing about Google having dealings with the State when this could quite literally be said for every single citizen, business, company, corporation, or employee in this country, most likely including yourself, and most of whom tend to have no, or very little, choice in the matter; and you're not holding them all to the same standard. Meanwhile, all you're offering are a bunch of fairly hollow, or at least ambiguously defined allegations about something that is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and almost entirely concerned with State law which has no legitimacy anyhow, as if that is supposed to be of some great concern. 

I clearly have a much different perspective, as well as much different valuations, on these things than you do so it's whatever. Different strokes for different folks. But if you expect me to appreciate where you're coming from, you're going to have to do better than 'obey laws' and 'documented rights'.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The State.
> 
> The law is just more force initiated by the State, btw. But the language you use doesn't seem to acknowledge this. 'Privacy all humans are documented to relish'? Documented by who or what? The State? Careface.


No it is not. The law is the law. It is not what a majority comes to perceive as being the law or what the majority is led to follow as the "law". It is not rules written and enforced by government agents. The law existed before, and will exist after, any state. Illegitimate edicts are just that, illegitimate edicts. Your language does not seem to recognize this irrefutable truth.

The right to privacy is naturally ingrained in every person. It is fundamental to human beings. It cannot be argued that all humans do not relish privacy; that all humans do not seek at times, seclusion from others. It is inherent to our being.

This global panopticon of surveillance tactics violates this natural law. It effectively creates a people of which do not act as they otherwise would. It infringes on the very being of one's being. Second guessing and chilled speech are the result. This even ignores the point that YOU ARE BEING ROBBED TO PAY FOR IT. You pay to spy on yourself and you pay for your own virtual confinement under an ever-watching eye. You have bigger things to worry about, though, so with that, be on your way.




> The law is an extension of the State force.


No, it is in fact, not. What they bastardizingly assert to be the "law," which violates natural law, is in fact, not a law at all. 




> Whatever the State does or doesn't 'document', or claim, or say, or mandate, is all irrelevant to me, because the State itself is illegitimate, and has no real authority to exist, let alone grant or deny anyone any rights, or hold anyone to any laws that it dreams up and enforces, or punish anyone in accordance with these laws.


Baby steps, my friend. Why is it illegitimate? (a rhetorical question, of sorts)




> Spooner says hi.


Perhaps you could ask him to explain to you what I am speaking of?




> In any case, your position comes off as incredibly inconsistent to me. You're essentially QQing about Google having dealings with the State....


You're essentially not understanding my position, or more probably, deliberately attempting to misrepresent it. Humans have natural rights. One of which is not to be forcibly extorted. Another of which is not to have an inherent aspect of humanity degraded. That is, to be surveilled, tracked, and prodded like a goddamned cow.

So therefore, what might you assert to be inconsistent in saying: Being robbed so that you can be effectively surveilled, tracked and prodded, to unlawfully exult certain corporations into monolithic, almost untouchable entities, is violating of the law. (what a shocking revelation for the supposed enlightened)




> ... when this could quite literally be said for every single citizen, business, company, corporation, or employee in this country, most likely including yourself, and most of whom tend to have no, or very little, choice in the matter; and you're not holding them all to the same standard.


See, you have whores and you have agents and you have people trying to morally get by as best they can without being confined to a cage. Google would be an example of a whore.




> Meanwhile, all you're offering are a bunch of fairly hollow, or at least ambiguously defined allegations about something that is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and almost entirely concerned with State law which has no legitimacy anyhow, as if that is supposed to be of some great concern.


It is quite relevant in the scheme of things. More relevant than almost any other thing, in fact. Effecting a global surveillance network is not relatively insignificant. Give it ten years, and wait for the knock.





> I clearly have a much different perspective, as well as much different valuations, on these things than you do so it's whatever. Different strokes for different folks. But if you expect me to appreciate where you're coming from, you're going to have to do better than 'obey laws' and 'documented rights'.


How much more simply do you need me to speak?

----------


## devil21

> Wah.  Consumers consume, marketers market.


I'd agree with you entirely if I didn't suspect the info is shared with much more entities than just paying "marketers".

----------


## Weston White

> Is there anything out there you think the CIA didn't create?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

Don't tell me that you really believe Google has mapped, 3-D mapped, and street viewed virtually the entire planet; bought out YouTube; maintains Google Library, etc., just off Website-click ads and sponsored search query fees?

----------


## Travlyr

The privacy issue is what I loathe about the Defense Resolution Organizations in anarchy. Best I can tell, privacy is abandoned by the DRO.

----------


## Cabal

> The privacy issue is what I loathe about the Defense Resolution Organizations in anarchy. Best I can tell, privacy is abandoned by the DRO.


It's dispute resolution, not defense.

Beyond what is already understood to be reasonably included in property rights and voluntary contracts (such as NDAs), what other privacy is expected, exactly?

Would you agree that as technology evolves, reasonable expectations of 'privacy', however arbitrarily defined, with exception to the aforementioned, tend to diminish?

----------


## KCIndy

> Me too.  But I do not have a cell phone, so I could not put a number in if I wanted to.   I wonder how long before they shut me out entirely?


 
Just do what I do.  If a site is demanding my phone number and I **KNOW** they won't have any legitimate reason to call me, I enter:

800-555-1212



Computers are stupid.  To them, one set of digits is as good as another!

----------


## KingNothing

You know that you can make a phony gmail and google + account, right?  Like, they don't actually have to be linked to YOU.

----------


## fr33

It was a long time ago when I created my gmail accounts but I'm pretty sure I had to validate them by using my phone. Maybe it's changed since then?

----------


## devil21

> You know that you can make a phony gmail and google + account, right?  Like, they don't actually have to be linked to YOU.


What exactly is a "phony" account?

They are linked to your IP and MAC addresses on your computer and other identifying info if you use it on a phone, unless you're savvy enough to use a proxy.  Most are not and Im not sure whether you can even use proxies on cell phones.

----------


## Weston White

It will still be linked and cross-referenced to every computer used by those accounts, which also provides Google with your locale.

----------


## CPUd

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
> 
> Don't tell me that you really believe Google has mapped, 3-D mapped, and street viewed virtually the entire planet; bought out YouTube; maintains Google Library, etc., just off Website-click ads and sponsored search query fees?


No, they just bought out companies who did.  Google Maps came from Keyhole, which kinda was a spy satellite, but the data was public- people just didn't know about it.  Google Groups came from them acquiring the orgs who hosted the Usenet archives.  Just about all their services were previously known under other names.  For a time in the early 2000's, a company's whole business model could revolve around growing enough to get bought by Google.

But the comment was about the creation of Google and Facebook, which were both known by other names, and whose origins are in the public domain, just like Keyhole data was.

----------


## Weston White

> No, they just bought out companies who did.  Google Maps came from Keyhole, which kinda was a spy satellite, but the data was public- people just didn't know about it.  Google Groups came from them acquiring the orgs who hosted the Usenet archives.  Just about all their services were previously known under other names.  For a time in the early 2000's, a company's whole business model could revolve around growing enough to get bought by Google.
> 
> But the comment was about the creation of Google and Facebook, which were both known by other names, and whose origins are in the public domain, just like Keyhole data was.


Either way, Google was running Google Maps long before its 3-D and street views were made available, and Google Cars started collecting Wi-Fi data from all everywhere in the process.  And now their newest feats: Google Cloud, Google Chauffeur and Google Glasses.

These companies all connect back to government intel and DARPA.

Facebook from its beginnings connects to Paypal, and Accel Partners, which links back to In-Q-Tel.

----------


## alucard13mm

I hated it when it messed around with youtube.

----------


## CPUd

> Either way, Google was running Google Maps long before its 3-D and street views were made available, and Google Cars started collecting Wi-Fi data from all everywhere in the process.  And now their newest feats: Google Chauffeur and Google Glasses.
> 
> These companies all connect back to government intel and DARPA.


The cars were taking pictures for street view.  They weren't going out to specifically get data from access points, but wifi protocols are chatty, so that stuff made it into their logs.  They could have filtered once they realized what they were getting, but they kept it, and probably kept collecting it.  Besides the cars, they were paying people to send pictures for street view.  And mom-and-pop businesses had an incentive to submit photos and street views of their locations, because it was getting them well-placed in local search.

----------


## Weston White

> The cars were taking pictures for street view.  They weren't going out to specifically get data from access points, but wifi protocols are chatty, so that stuff made it into their logs.  They could have filtered once they realized what they were getting, but they kept it, and probably kept collecting it.  Besides the cars, they were paying people to send pictures for street view.  And mom-and-pop businesses had an incentive to submit photos and street views of their locations, because it was getting them well-placed in local search.


So then do your cell-phones, Smart TV, wireless router, as well as the wireless features of your automobile do this as well?  That reasoning makes zero sense.  For one you do not need to access wireless data to take photographs or to update GPS positions, and for another if it was just a case of getting into their logs by accident, it would have corrupted them with a flood of erroneous data making their work completely useless.  The only way for them to collect that data in the first place would have been to have been running an autonomous program designed to seek out and capture specific data being made available through the unsecured connections.

Also In-Q-Tel seems to have come out of the closet, admitting their connection outright (https://www.iqt.org/):

The IQT Mission

We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community.

----------


## DamianTV

> You know that you can make a phony gmail and google + account, right?  Like, they don't actually have to be linked to YOU.


What difference does it make when they get your IP address and every site you visit?  They dont give a $#@! what a persons name is, what they do care is that a persons behavior, when linkable across multiple sources, becomes the persons unique identifier in and of itself.

Now, if the Fed Gov was as efficient and adept as Google is, we should be beyond scared.  Of course, its also why the Govt goes after Google for their info.

Youre probably more technically savvy than 99% of the people on the planet.  Think of what chances they have of protecting their privacy?

----------


## CPUd

> So then do your cell-phones, Smart TV, wireless router, as well as the wireless features of your automobile do this as well?  That reasoning makes zero sense.  For one you do not need to access wireless data to take photographs or to update GPS positions, and for another if it was just a case of getting into their logs by accident, it would have corrupted them with a flood of erroneous data making their work completely useless.  The only way for them to collect that data in the first place would have been to have been running an autonomous program designed to seek out and capture specific data being made available through the unsecured connections.
> 
> Also In-Q-Tel seems to have come out of the closet, admitting their connection outright (https://www.iqt.org/):
> 
> The IQT Mission
> 
> We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community.


Yes, all those devices do the same thing.  That's how they can have the little icons poop up that tell you wireless networks are available.  The first time I saw wifi packets on a packet sniffer, it made me want to set it up on a laptop and drive around town.  Then, on road trips, I would leave one running to see if I could get back to my machine at home solely by hopping from one access point to the next.  I didn't do it because I wanted to take over the world, I did it because it was damn interesting at the time.

----------


## DamianTV

> Yes, all those devices do the same thing.  That's how they can have the little icons poop up that tell you wireless networks are available.  The first time I saw wifi packets on a packet sniffer, it made me want to set it up on a laptop and drive around town.  Then, on road trips, I would leave one running to see if I could get back to my machine at home solely by hopping from one access point to the next.  I didn't do it because I wanted to take over the world, I did it because it was damn interesting at the time.


And many have back doors built in for the NSA.  But thats also off topic from Google tracking.  Point is, people are not given the choice to not be tracked, sign up or use technology or not.

----------

