[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Anonymizing Google's Cookie If you use Google, and you accept it's cookie, you should give some thought to the implications, both good and potentially bad : this page tries to help you do that, together with an easy way to anonymize it without missing out on its benefits. First the good. It's useful to you. It's how Google saves your preferences (such as language, filtering, number of results per page, etc). If, like me, you want fifty results per page (not just ten), in English only (not in languages I can't read), unfiltered for adult content (I'm not a child), then you need the Google cookie. Now the potentially bad. You use Google a lot, right? If someone was peering over your shoulder, watching every Google search you made; making a note of what you looked for; what you found; and sometimes where you visited from the results; (and maybe every email you sent and received); and did so for years and years: they'd grow to know quite a bit about you, eh? Well, that's what the cookie allows Google to do, forever, if you don't take simple precautions. You can read more on all that below, if you like. Here are a couple of simple, hassle-free precautions. Either :- * Use this simple GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize your Google cookie. Right-Click Here : GoogleAnon v2 - and save as a favorite or bookmark (or drag it to your Links/Personal bar). When you click it your Google GUID will be displayed (it's the 16 digit number after PREF=ID= ), and you will be prompted to reset the GUID to all zeroes, making you effectively anonymous to Google. Then you'll be redirected to the appropriate page to set or reset your search preferences (such as language, filtering, number of results, etc). Or :- * Flush your cookies frequently, or every so often. Here's how for IE, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox, or use a cookie manager. FAQs 1. Got any tips and tricks for using the GoogleAnon bookmarklet? 2. So you're a Google-hating, cookie-hating, conspiracy nut then? 3. What are cookies, and why are they both good and bad? 4. Why does the Google cookie have a GUID anyway? 5. What about Gmail? 6. So are Google building a terrible, privacy-threatening marketing / profiling / spying database? 7. Aren't Google the good guys? 8. Will anonymizing the cookie block my access to Google Account services like Gmail, etc? 9. But what if I want Google to remember everything I search? 10. How good is the privacy afforded by this GoogleAnon bookmarklet? 11. You must be a Google insider, or really clever? 12. Could I use a Greasemonkey User Script to anonymize my Google cookie instead? (N.B. Check here for details of a serious Greasemonkey vulnerability! ) 1. Got any tips and tricks for using the GoogleAnon bookmarklet? 1. Which browsers? It should work for almost all browsers, and at least IE4+, Opera, AOL, Netscape, Mozilla and Firefox. (Opera users must Ctrl+click (or drag'n'drop) it, if you choose to turn off "reuse existing page"). 2. When and where to use? Click it while still viewing a Google search page (either the main http://Google.com site or any of the country domains like Google.ca or Google.co.uk) : it won't work while viewing non-Google sites. Upon zeroing the cookie GUID, GoogleAnon tries to redirect you to a Google preferences page (typically http://www.google.com/preferences ) so that you can set or reset your prefs (or not, it's up to you). But while most Google services/domains have such a /preferences page (e.g. Images, Froogle, Local, Maps, Alerts, Catalogs, Directory, Reader, Scholar, SMS), some don't (e.g. News, Groups, Answers, Blogsearch, Labs, Mobile, Print, Gmail), and some of those may be different for country localisations (112 of them and counting), and some may change tomorrow or next month/year, and there are new services arriving all the time (e.g. Base) and/or coming out of the Labs. Keeping up with every possibility would be ... er, impossible, so while GoogleAnon tries it's best to find the appropriate prefs page, it's sound practice to start from a web search page rather than one of the others. If you see a prefs error page, you can just click 'back' in the browser and/or navigate to your usual Google prefs page yourself. 3. Browser settings? You need to have your browser set to accept cookies, of course, and not have Proxomitron or a similar tool mangling the javascript too much. Use the Hello World bookmarklet just below, for sanity checking, if you like. You may get a security warning because they contain j*v*script: if you wish you can check the page code before you download them (right-click/view source or file/edit...), or before using them (right-click/properties). For the latest versions/patches of IE (from XP SP2) you may need to add the site to your Trusted Zone to enable drag'n'drop. You shouldn't be adding Bookmarklets from a site you don't trust anyway, but if in doubt use the right-click method instead, or remove the site from the Trusted Zone afterwards. 4. Repeat how often? Click it again whenever you flush your cookies and thus get a new one from Google. You shouldn't need to do it more often (it's intended as a set-and-forget tool), but you can click it at anytime if you want to check you're still anonymized (i.e. that the GUID is zeroed) - then just click "Cancel" (not "OK") if you do see the 16 zeroes. 5. Other cookie tools? You can use these bookmarklets to see ShowCookie or delete ZapCookie any cookie set by any site you're currently viewing. And here's a very basic HelloWorld one, just to sanity check browser/security settings, etc (try left-clicking it here, and/or saving it as a bookmark, using right-click and/or drag'n'drop). More at Squarefree. 6. Changelog? - October 2005: v2 released. Google introduced a checksum function, which overwrites the zeroes under many circumstances. They've always done this for some of their cookies, as this analysis of Google Print's cookie describes, but the main search cookie had been immune until very recently. Google's servers compare the GUID (and some of the other cookie components) to the checksum (the s:= value) and, if they find something incompatible, overwrite the GUID. So, from Oct 05, if you still use GoogleAnon v1 it will obtain a new GUID from the Google server; but will not zero it. So Upgrade to v2 by right-click/saving the GoogleAnon button above; then use it; set your prefs; and forget :). - March 2004: v1 released. 2. So you're a Google-hating, cookie-hating, conspiracy nut then? No, I like Google, use it all the time and have a bunch of Google-related bookmarklets here. I allowed the Google cookie to hang around long before this anonymizing tweak came to light, and I allow all first-party session-only cookies as a matter of course (and any permanent cookies that offer some functional advantage to me). I see no point in letting in third-party cookies (i.e. advertisers' cookies, almost always) though. I have a Gmail account (though for the time being I don't use it for my mainstream email, not least because some of my non-Gmail correspondents prefer not to have 'their' emails stored and scanned by Google). But absent some strong incentive, I'd rather be largely anonymous to Google for the time being. 3. What are cookies, and why are they both good and bad? In short, a cookie is a small file containing textual information, stored on a user's hard disk by a web site server, allowing the web site to later retrieve it. Too short? Okay, better explanations here and here. Most good cookies store users' preferences and logon information, etc. Most bad cookies enable advertisers and profilers to track users' surfing, without their knowledge or (informed) consent. 4. Why does the Google cookie have a GUID anyway? One possible answer was demonstrated by the limited public testing of the current Google pages design, when those with a particular GUID saw and used the design before everyone else: so Google can customise their sites and/or results for different groups of users (design guinea pigs in this case). As one Google employee puts it :- ... we're always trying experiments for new features. Testing new features with a very small random sample of users is a good way to try out new ideas, see how users react, and get an idea of whether it's useful. Perhaps to personalise search results in the future. Maybe for restricting access to things such as Google Print. Maybe to build a marketing profile too, perhaps tomorrow if not today; perhaps under different or public ownership, if not under it's present ownership. Who knows what the future may bring? Of course, a GUID isn't personally identifiable information in itself, and you don't generally tell Google your name, address or telephone number. But it links your PC (or your user profile) to everything you search at Google, for as long as you keep the same cookie. If Google one day decide to target adverts to you, based on your search interests for the past, say, five years, they don't need to know your name and address. Though if they one day join forces with, say, Doubleclick and their databases, and/or combine their Gmail and web search profiles, they probably will know far more than your name and address. If the Government one day visits your PC, makes a note of your GUID, and asks Google to provide chapter and verse on your searches (and maybe your email correspondence) for the last five years - Google will be willing, and probably able, to tell them. Or perhaps Google's database will one day leak like so many others. Or you could just use the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize that cookie and go about your business, largely anonymous to Google. Why not do that ... just in case? 4. What about Gmail? Gmail is a forthcoming Google web-based email service (presently in widespread beta testing). Typically for Google, there are lots of good things about it, especially in comparison with the crummy offerings by Hotmail and Yahoo etc : no fees; lots of storage space; no popups; only text adverts and then only alongside the web page display; Google-powered search and topic-threading; and more. There are significant privacy considerations with keeping all your email correspondence in one place, online, whether it be with Google or Hotmail or Yahoo or anyone. But Google's Gmail service has additional issues because the text adverts will be related to content of the emails being viewed, including emails by people who are not themselves Gmail subscribers (and who haven't had the opportunity to agree or not to the Gmail terms and contractual protections); because of the extended storage facilitated by the 1GB allowance; because of the potential to link all that email correspondence with your ordinary web searching, either to personalise search results, or to further refine the targeting of Google and/or Gmail adverts, or both (about which Google say "It might be really useful for us to know that information [...] I'd hate to rule anything like that out."); and because of the same issues discussed below in respect of Google's search engine services. Brad Templeton, Chairman of the Board of the EFF, discusses the issues well here. Mark Rasch, columnist and former head of the US Justice Department's computer crime unit, tackles the common misconception that non-human scanning is not privacy invasive here. Google responds in depth here. What Google don't currently offer is any choice about the nature and extent of such potential profiling: if you want the benefits of saved preferences, you have to accept what Google may do with your cookie GUID, in practice today and potentially in the future. Unless you take your own precautions: use the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize your Google cookie and thus divorce your web searching 'profile' from your Gmail 'profile' - become largely anonymous to Google without losing your Gmail access or login information. 5. So are Google deliberately building a terrible, privacy-threatening marketing / profiling / spying database? No, probably not ... at least not yet. Nothing that Google does right now (search results and adverts, mostly) needs them to track and profile every cookie GUID and/or user's IP address. And they're doing spectacularly well at what they do, both in terms of customer satisfaction and making billions of dollars. I believe they use the cookie GUID for innocuous, useful and non-privacy invasive purposes, and probably have no firm plans to change. But ... it's very likely indeed that all that information is retained indefinitely (like most search engines). So that your GUID could be data-mined and linked to every search you've made, and every Google link you've clicked. And the possibility of doing more profiling with that GUID is clearly in the minds of Google's management : "It might be really useful for us to know that information [...] I'd hate to rule anything like that out" and "Google is likely to require its users to begin providing personal information to use some of its products and services, said CEO Eric Schmidt. [...] Having more personal information would enable Google to offer more useful improvements, Schmidt said. He didn't provide a timetable or specify which services might require registration". If something bad happens with that information in the future (some intrusive marketing/profiling scheme, or Government monitoring, for example) it'll be too late for you to do something about it then. John Battelle describes it as the Database of Intentions :- The Database of Intentions is simply this: The aggregate results of every search ever entered, every result list ever tendered, and every path taken as a result. It lives in many places, but three or four places in particular hold a massive amount of this data (ie MSN, Google, and Yahoo). This information represents, in aggregate form, a place holder for the intentions of humankind - a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends. Such a beast has never before existed in the history of culture, but is almost guaranteed to grow exponentially from this day forward. This artefact can tell us extraordinary things about who we are and what we want as a culture. And it has the potential to be abused in equally extraordinary fashion. And is concerned that :- One might argue that while the PATRIOT Act is scary, in times of war citizens must always be willing to balance civil liberties with national security. Most of us might be willing to agree to such a framework in a presearch world, but the implications of such broad government authority are chilling given the world in which we now live is a world where our every digital track, once lost in the blowing dust of a presearch world, can now be tagged, recorded, and held in the amber of a perpetual index. Niall Kennedy of Technorati calls it Google's "total information awareness potential" :- Google is gathering as much information as possible about our online activities [...] future products might include data gathering and targeting as a primary business goal [...]. Google is already well on its way to building an information awareness network on its own sites as well as the sites of hundreds of thousands of willing webmasters and millions of desktop clients. What is the current state of Google's information network? [...] track and analyze every web search query, news request, and television or video browsing. Google Alerts [...] Every e-mail sent, received, or drafted in Gmail or every instant message or voice conversation delivered through Google Talk [...] Social networking services such as Orkut [...] Google Analytics and AdSense tracks your movement on every site with the service enabled, creating a behavioural profile. [...] Google Toolbar picks up every site you visit [...] an Internet service provider blanketing entire cities with free wireless access [...] route all your traffic through Google Secure Access [...] Google Desktop will index all of your files and connect to the central database once you connect to the grid [...]. All that is missing right now is all these different data collection tools talking to each other to create one large profile per user. [...] Google has the ability to silently deploy cross pollination of its advertising platforms across a multitude of services whenever it would like to flip the switch. Scientia est potentia. Knowledge is power. And Lauren Weinstein put it like this :- Google has created a growing information repository of a sort that CIA and NSA (and the old KGB) would probably envy and covet in no uncertain terms -- and Google's data is virtually without outside oversight or regulation. [...] Google has become the smiling 800-pound gorilla of the Internet. They've done this with the help of a somewhat fanatical following who just can't imagine that someday Google might do (or be *compelled* to do) something nasty with all that data they have salted away. What makes this all the more difficult is that their services are so good, and that there is no reason to suspect at this point that Google has evil intentions. But rosy motives don't provide immunity from what has repeatedly been revealed to be Google's naive world view (particularly toward privacy and some would argue copyright issues) and the ways in which their vast machine could someday become an instrument of genuine repression despite Google's best intentions today. Something to think about, at least.. Unfortunately, inevitably, the database is preceding the legal and social framework to govern it and to tie it's privacy implications to our informed consent. Until that day comes (if it ever does), just use the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize that cookie and go about your business, largely anonymous to Google. Why not do that ... just in case? Then there's the security implications: today Google seem unlikely to sell or leak or give away their databases in bulk, as many others have done. Tomorrow, or in ten years time (including data collected today)? Who can say? And Google are far from a paragon of good security and/or safe coding: there have been many instances of security holes in Google products and services, which enabled the potential theft or leakage of our private information. If there's a pattern to such breaches, it's that Google almost always release products/services first, and worry about properly securing them later. Do you want so many of your eggs in one basket? Or why not anonymize them a little? 6. Aren't Google the good guys? Mostly they are, yes. To an amazing degree, I think, bearing in mind the power and influence they've accumulated. They seem to suck far less than any company of comparable status. But ... they aren't saints, and there are a number of things Google do which appear to me to be less than ideal, and/or which warrant a watchful eye :- 1. Google use never-expiring cookies (well, until 2036 or 2038, that date being the maximum they can store, a quirk of old Unix systems). Presumably because it's easier than refreshing them periodically, but they don't explain why. They don't really obtain informed consent when users opt for them. It's a minor issue, unless linked to a cookie GUID, which enables a lasting profile to be built and maintained. But ... 2. ... they do include a GUID, which isn't needed to save each users preferences, and don't explain why (in anything other than the vaguest terms). They don't really obtain informed consent when users opt for them. 3. For those who use either cookies or the Toolbar or Deskbar, Google record at least a GUID, IP, date, time and search terms. The result is potentially one of the best profiling databases in existence. It appears Google don't abuse it at the moment, and may hardly use it beyond improving the search results they deliver. But Google aren't just a search engine, they are a huge Internet advertising broker, with annual sales of billions of dollars. Ethics (or respect for individuals' privacy) and advertising rarely co-exist well. And Google are a library, of sorts: de facto the world's virtual library. What about in the future (now that Google has gone public, and has to consider short term market pressures)? If MSN and/or Yahoo/Overture (kings of the pay-for-placement subversion of search engine results) buy them out (yikes)? What about when the US Government decides it needs unfettered access to that database in the interests of Homeland Security (if it doesn't already)? Google doesn't have a data retention policy, it simply appears to store everything it records, forever. Compare and contrast that stance with the American Library Association, which, horrified by the ramifications of the USA PATRIOT Act, and following the widespread shredding of member records by individual libraries (records of who checked out which books, made which Internet searches: you know - like Google), adopted a resolution which, amongst other precautions, urges all libraries to implement data non-retention policies. Here are some extracts :- WHEREAS, Libraries are a critical force for promoting the free flow and unimpeded distribution of knowledge and information for individuals, institutions, and communities; and [...] WHEREAS, Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library, the subject of users' interests should not be examined or scrutinized by others; and [...] WHEREAS, The USA PATRIOT Act and other recently enacted laws, regulations, and guidelines increase the likelihood that the activities of library users, including their use of computers to browse the Web or access e-mail, may be under government surveillance without their knowledge or consent; now, therefore, be it [...] RESOLVED, That the American Library Association considers sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users and urges the United States Congress to: And from An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights :- In a library (physical or virtual), the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one’s interest examined or scrutinized by others. Confidentiality exists when a library is in possession of personally identifiable information about users and keeps that information private on their behalf. [...] [...] All users have a right to be free from any unreasonable intrusion into or surveillance of their lawful library use. Users have the right to be informed what policies and procedures govern the amount and retention of personally identifiable information, why that information is necessary for the library, and what the user can do to maintain his or her privacy. [...] Existing ALA Policy asserts, in part, that: “The government’s interest in library use reflects a dangerous and fallacious equation of what a person reads with what that person believes or how that person is likely to behave. Such a presumption can and does threaten the freedom of access to information.” Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library Users If the American Library Association cares about your privacy in that way, shouldn't Google? Shouldn't you? You could just use the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize that cookie and go about your business, largely anonymous to Google. Why not do that ... just in case? 4. The Google Toolbar. These are minor points, I think, but, for example, it auto-updates without informing the user, or seeking any other permission (other than the original take-it-or-leave-it EULA, though the information is available elsewhere, if you already know to hunt it out). For a long time it has included the structure for a distributed computing module, needing nothing more than flipping a reg key to activate. The user has to agree, and press a button, to activate it - but we don't get asked, or even told, whether we want that functionality included from the outset. Not even within the original EULA. (Check to see if you have a C:Program FilesGoogleDCC folder? That's only related to the distributed computing module: are you surprised to see it?). It's uncomfortably close to what KaZaA did: the difference being mainly the perceived (and thus far deserved) 'goodness' of Google vs. KaZaA. They built it in, why shouldn't they say it's built in? Maybe there's something else built in, ready and waiting these days too, who knows? (They finally dropped the distributed computing module with v.3). 5. The PageRank and other search algorithms system effectively dominates great swathes of, maybe most, internet traffic. It's completely unaccountable to the sites it lists and to the public it serves. It's great that it's not in thrall to advertisers or to overt political will. But all that social/commercial/political power in the hands of a single, unaccountable commercial company? Hmm. Calls for more than blind faith in past/present good behaviour, I think. 6. Their censorship policies regarding their very cool AdWords system are less than ideal too. AdWords can be, and are, a vehicle for free speech too - made so because Google make them so accessible and affordable to so many people and organisations. People can and do use them to promote ideas, as well as products. Given those circumstances, I wish Google were more careful about denying access, and about how they wield control of that access to effect modification or censorship of web site content. Rather more careful than they appear to be, at least until persistently challenged, perhaps. The extracts below are meant to be tasters, not balanced representation of the whole story (for which you'll need, at least, to read the linked pages) ... "We will allow analytical arguments to run advertisements, however, these arguments must not be emotional arguments. They must show both sides of the argument even if they support one side more heavily. Please edit your ad text and site accordingly." [Link] "If you think the creep of invisible censorship won't affect you, think again. The private control of so many of the tools of communication has made insidious forms of censorship commonplace. Just this week Google took exception to me expressing my personal opinion about a news event and suspended my ad campaign on their site." [Link] "The world according to Google: If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. This is the tyranny of the unimaginative. And it should make the weblogging world nervous. Expressing a personal opinion on a personal site about a well-publicized news event or public figure can be grounds for rejection from Google's advertising programs." [Link] "I still think Google's policy of not allowing political advocacy ads is misguided, impossible to administer with any kind of fairness, and a scary step toward restricting the free marketplace of ideas. I hope they will consider revisiting it soon. But in the meantime, it's important -- even for me -- not to forget that Google is the only major search engine which hasn't completely sold out to corporate interests." [Link] 7. It's not as if they are exactly stalwarts against external censorship or influence either. Sure they say they (and generally do) only rank what's there, not judge. But under pressure they make some wobbly decisions about pulling content. Most especially in the localised versions - google.de and google.fr users are denied access to sites which most US users would defend as entitled to their free speech. Google don't list them as blocked, nor notify anyone, least of all users. They just disappear them from the Google radar. And Google actively collaborate with China over their wholesale censorship of parts of the web. 8. As a US company, they don't have much choice but to bend over for the DMCA, I suppose. But what happens when the US Government pressures them to do something even more unpalatable. Publicised examples of Google caving under pressure outnumber then standing up to it (except when their commercial interests are at stake).... "Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done." [Link] Perhaps Google (unlike some other search engines, reportedly) will be willing and able to stand up to some pressures, sometimes ... The [Government] asked a federal judge to order Google Inc. to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases. [...] The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches. In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period. [Google] opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents. Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.'' ``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said. [...] The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google. [...] [Link] But if Google loses that "vigorous" fight? Or if the next subpoena is less "overreaching", in Google's opinion? Perhaps that has already happened, perhaps many times? 7. Will anonymizing the cookie block my access to Google Account services like Gmail, Google Answers, Google Web APIs, Google Groups posting, My Search History? No! Google Account services require you to register, and offer to store your login information within your permanent cookie, thus linking your GUID to your account information. But it doesn't need the GUID, and your login information will still work even if you use the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to set the GUID to all zeroes and become largely anonymous [i]. So using the GoogleAnon bookmarklet to anonymize your Google cookie will divorce your web searching 'profile' from your Google account 'profile'; without losing your Google account access or login information. Remember too, that you can have as many different Google accounts as you like, so even if you like having access to some or all of those services, you can still discombobulate your uber-profile. 1. Sometimes you'll need a non-anonymized GUID if you check the "Remember me on this computer" box when you logon. If you check that setting, for some services the Google server will use a checksum to reset your zeroes to something unique (you should try with and without, to see if the modest functionality enhancements are worth it for you). But it is possible for some services to be slightly affected. For example, in the new style Google Groups, you may see a list of "Recently visited" groups on the left hand pane. Normally they'd be the groups that you had visited, but if you've anonymized your Google cookie, they may be groups visited by other people using the same zeroed cookie ID number. Or if you browse a book at Google Print, and if someone else has been browsing the same book in the last 24 hours (quite a coincidence), you might find that the content viewing limits have already been reached, or will be reached sooner than otherwise, and you might have to wait 24 hours to read some more. You can read Greg Duffy's interesting analysis and hacking of the Google Print cookie system for more details of this wrinkle. Note also that using the GoogleAnon bookmarklet will attract a reset of the date of the cookie next time it is read by Google, (because the checksum will be incorrect: so the server will generate a new date and checksum). Your anonymous ID will not be overwritten, but if you've used GoogleAnon and visited Google within the last 24 hours, the 'Search within this book' feature may be missing, even if another zeroed cookie user hasn't browsed the same book (but you'll still be able to browse pages/snippets yourself, until you reach the normal content viewing limits). Also note that while Google promise not to associate your Google Print reading habits "with personally identifiable information about you, such as your name or address", they don't promise not to associate it with any profile they've built up with your GUID, and perhaps other means, which aren't "personally identifiable" but may still be unwelcome to you (now, or one day). 8. But what if I want Google to remember everything I search? Then you're in luck: check out Google's My Search History, and in particular the privacy policy and privacy FAQ. And remember, as Google's Marissa Mayer put it : "This isn't for someone who is particularly sloppy about signing in and signing off," she said. "You have to have very good computer hygiene to use this." 9. How good is the privacy or anonymity afforded by this GoogleAnon Bookmarklet? Pretty good, only. It'll remove the GUID from cookie, and therefore from any information Google collects as you interact with it. For many people that will be enough to completely avoid the possibility of Google building up a cohesive profile about 'them'. But if you have a permanent IP address and/or use the Google Toolbar or Deskbar, you may be allowing the possibility of a more cohesive profile. If you really want to be anonymous, you'll need to work much harder. 10. You must be a Google insider, or really clever? Neither, alas. I heard about using a cookie GUID to latch on to a Google design limited release[i] from Jesse Ruderman's terrific site/blog, and slightly adapted this Bookmarklet to suit this anonymizing tweak. I have some basic Bookmarklets here, but Jesse Ruderman really knows about Bookmarklets and much more. Thanks Jesse (for this one, and others I use every day). And thanks also to Sam Schinke for the regex tweak to encompass the Google country-specific domains too, and for much help in coping with the server check in v2. [i] As it was then: now it's the design everyone sees. By the way, if you're nostalgic about Google's previous design (you know, the one with the blue and white tabs; when Froogle and Local and News hadn't yet escaped from the Labs; before they enhanced/broke (according to taste) Google Groups), you can have it back! Just go to Preferences and from Interface Language select "Bork, bork bork!" from the pulldown list. Update: sorry, Google have now plugged that little human quirk :( . Ah yes, Bork ... well, retro design comes at a small usability price for anyone not a Swedish chef ;). And no, Elmer Fudd, Klingon or Pig Latin won't do the same trick. 11. Could I use a Greasemonkey User Script to anonymize my Google cookie instead? Of course, User Scripts can do anything, whilst making you a cuppa at the same time. Ed Heil wrote a GreaseMonkey User Script and added it to the central Script Directory, amongst lots of other Google and other scripts. And CustomizeGoogle have one amongst many user-selectable components within their combined script. Please note that both work in slightly different ways to the bookmarklet, and to each other: so read the accompanying documentation and discussions to see how they'll suit you. Both are designed for Firefox, so you'll need to test for yourself whether they work as User Scripts for Opera or Internet Explorer. But take care, GreaseMonkey User Scripts can be dangerous too!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All aristeides (#0)
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, but what if the error you're trying to push on people can never survive intellectual combat?
It might help, but not entirely.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Then the idea will be defeated.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
What if websites like this one had a google bar in it. One that didn't keep records of who is searching. Then people could search safer.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
And that's an idea that our lords and masters find intolerable.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||