Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:46 AM   #101
M-O
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
eBay is in the top 10. there goes the credibility.
M-O is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:53 AM   #102
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkk View Post
facebook has been knocked out of the top 20 most trusted companies...

facebook was actually viewed as a trusted company..?
No argument there. That was easily the most shocking bit of information contained in the article.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:53 AM   #103
MacMilligan
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
This seems like a very flawed survey. They simply ask the participants to write down 5 companies that they trust with their privacy information. It seems to be more about what companies someone can recall rather than an actual polling of trust.
MacMilligan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:01 PM   #104
notabadname
macrumors 65816
 
notabadname's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cincinnati
So 21 versus 20 would have been such a difference in the perspective of the thousands of companies that are considered?

What's more important, IMO, is how it compares to similar companies, like Google and eBay. Comparing Apple to Nationwide, the US Postal Service and P&G is laughable. How many of us give our personal data, and credit information to P&G while buying soap at the local grocery store? No wonder Procter and Gamble has not earned consumer disdain in issues of privacy.
__________________
"Audaces fortuna iuvat"
notabadname is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:07 PM   #105
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMilligan View Post
This seems like a very flawed survey. They simply ask the participants to write down 5 companies that they trust with their privacy information. It seems to be more about what companies someone can recall rather than an actual polling of trust.
I'm trying to answer this question for myself, right now, and the only company I can think of that I actually trust my personal information to is my bank. And even then, my reason for trusting them is more along the lines of "well, they have to have it anyway, they already have it, and so far so good" rather than any overt statements of trust.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:09 PM   #106
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
We trust that buisnesses are in the buisness of making money and will produce the best, most cost effective products when left unregulated (and customers are free to pick the products they buy.)

Do you have evidence of companies doing otherwise?

We don't trust buisnesses to not collect data that they aught not - we trust customers to be intelligent enough on their own to make their own choices and to not use products offered by companies that take an uncomfortable amount of data away from their users. (BTW, how much is uncomfortable will vary from person to person... Thus some companies will target different people in the hopes of making as much money as possible in seperate niche markets.)


I'll just quote myself from an earlier post:


Quote:
So you think it's just fine for a corporation to pollute our environment, deceive customers, pay low and unlivable wages, offshore jobs, break laws, sell information, and countless evil practices that I can keep naming to simply to make a buck? The problem is exactly that, we the people have such a weak and corrupt government. The politicians running it are in the back pockets of these corporations that they get away with their shady business practices.

I have no problem with anyone trying to make money so long as they play within the rules. The problem in the reality that we live in is that there are no rules and we end up in the calamity we have going on now.

Laissez faire is only a pipe dream that intellectually lazy people buy into. When markets are left unregulated for the falsehood idea of libertarian "freedom", it quickly falls apart.
iMikeT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:14 PM   #107
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMI View Post
Personally, I don't need targeted advertising to tell me what I want. I'm perfectly capable of deciding that for myself. When I want something I can search for it, and don't need it appearing on every website and email I see. Knowing that most or all of my information (even anonymous information) is kept private (or as close as possible) is well worth the small inconvenience of searching directly for what I already know I want.
Ultimately it's not about what you or I want, though. These big companies are marketing their services to other big companies. Whether or not you prefer to see targeted ads as compared to a completely random selection is one thing, but the companies that are funding the pockets of Google and Facebook are the ones interested in having their ads targeted toward people who they think are more inclined to respond to them.

For example, on Facebook, I run a page for a charity I volunteer with. Facebook is already starting to target ME with opportunities to spam other people. "For just $5, we can promote this post or status update! It will be sent out to your page fans and to all their friends who show similar interests."

Nowhere in my "regular user" Facebook settings is there an option to allow or disallow this from showing up on my feed.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:35 PM   #108
JAT
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Is it too meta for the 6000 respondents to ask if Ponemon was on that list of 217?
__________________
-- Spiky
JAT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:38 PM   #109
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
I'll just quote myself from an earlier post:





I have no problem with anyone trying to make money so long as they play within the rules. The problem in the reality that we live in is that there are no rules and we end up in the calamity we have going on now.

Laissez faire is only a pipe dream that intellectually lazy people buy into. When markets are left unregulated for the falsehood idea of libertarian "freedom", it quickly falls apart.
If you disapprove of the way a company pollutes the environment, don't buy their products.

If employees were being treated that badly, they'd request better treatment, and if they don't get it, they'd quit. If it turns out the employee was just a squeaky wheel, then they'll be replaced without problem. If there's an actual issue, employees will quit in groups and won't be replaceable. So long as an employer can find scabs, it's an indication that the job isn't actually as bad as the employee who quit made it out to be.

If you want to be treated better, become more valuable. Invest in yourself. Go to school and learn useful skills that are in high demand.

There are some things we need the government for - regulating buisnesses isn't one of them.
ArtOfWarfare is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:43 PM   #110
AppleScruff1
macrumors 604
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Not anymore. Didn't you get the memo over at XDA? We quit doing the whole bring down Apple thing last week sometime.
I'm always the last to find out. Nobody tells me anything.
AppleScruff1 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:44 PM   #111
supercoolmanchu
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hollywood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Out of curiosity, what kind of information do you think Google has on you? Do they sell your home street address to security companies? Do they sell your name to clothing stores? Do they know what kind of car you drive? Do they know your favorite food?

Do you think there's a file somewhere in Google's databases with your real name, and all the information about you anyone would ever want to know down to your social security number, credit history? And they just...you know...sell it to advertisers?
I don't know what they have on me. Maybe less than most, more than some? (However I do not 'drive' my car, I merely 'hold on' as it pierces the air.)

Can't say if Google has a separate field for this under "God of Awesome" in their database. However if my blocker isn't working with this site's forum, then I believe that "God of Awesome" is now listed in my Google file, which is also shared with the government, and I think that qualifies for official recognition of the title. Foolish mortal... what may appear to be circular logic to you, is merely a finely crafted series of tightly woven, non-intersecting loops that connect point radical with point amazing... also now in my Google file. Hope that answers part of your question.

I believe that Google does indeed know all those details you mention for some people, and that Google not only gets this information from their own products, but purchases things like credit reports and property listings from outside sources, and then matches up all this data into their databases. Like any other database, I believe they have the ability to sort this information by name with relative ease by system administrators.

Further, I believe it would be nearly impossible for them (and extremely unlikely) to find a way to erase this capability and maintain their services. Why would they sort it any other way, scumbags that they are? Are you genuinely curious about my beliefs or is my spider-sense correct in that you doubt my version of reality?

For your consideration...

Who are Google's top customers? Which advertising services do they specifically buy? Just Adwords and GoogleSense? Why do you think Google doesn't say? Do you think there are no premium products and features for bigger clients? Do you believe you'd get the same products and service options as Ford? Do you believe that the only perk for for $40 billion dollar company's ad spending would be increased ad placements? What other types of features might Google offer among their efforts and assets to attract larger clients? Do you think that University of Phoenix, a $2 billion company, gets the same services from Google as Target, a $40 billion dollar company? What kind of demographics would you offer when courting a $40 billion dollar client, vs. a $2 billion? Would you order a nicer bottle of wine for the table at the Target business lunch?

Do you believe Google sells your name to clothing stores? Do you believe that Target would be interested know the average age, income, credit history and education level of their customers? Do you believe that Target would like this information to develop future products for their customers? Do you believe that Target might like to know about competitors' customers' average age, income, credit history and education level? How about potential online customers? How about Geico? Goldman Sachs? Department of Defense? FBI? Your parents? That weird, chinless, methed-out, weak, disgusting sack of human garbage on the bus... no wait, that's just Sergey Brin... sorry!

Based on what part of Google's corporate history, would you recommend providing them the benefit of doubt? Are there any past instances where Google's practices might have given you pause? Does this clown on a bus in retard glasses, speak credibility to you? Do you believe this man has a vision for the future or is he really just a garden variety scumbag, badly in need an iShower?

Didn't you used to have burning sock for an avatar? Looks like some kinda pixelated heart now... is it a seasonal affectation?
supercoolmanchu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:48 PM   #112
mrsir2009
macrumors 604
 
mrsir2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
LOL@All those people who said Google was "more evil" than Apple
mrsir2009 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:59 PM   #113
yourtoys7
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
the fact that people finding this info. out, for many they will feel different about Apple,
__________________
iPhone6 (Westone UM2), iTV x 2, (late 2012/ 2014), Macbook Pro Retina 15" 8/ 256 (April 27/ 2014)
yourtoys7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:10 PM   #114
cxny
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
I think folks mixup privacy with security. I do feel less secure thanks to iCloud migration and already had an incident with another user's photo stream (not necessarily malicious)
cxny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:24 PM   #115
supercoolmanchu
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hollywood
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
So we're at the same point. You still cant answer my question. So let me keep this as dumbed down as I possibly can, and you just give me an answer, and if you're going to make a claim, back it up with proof. I'll even highlight the key part of the question in red for you.
Testy... what makes you think you 'deserve' an answer? You were the guy that lumped the ad company together with the computer soft/hardware companies and claimed they all did the same thing regarding data scamming.

When was the last time Apple or Microsoft got caught and punished for hacking browser privacy settings? That's pretty damning of Google. It's not their first offense, nor is it the first time they've gone out of their way to make a privacy infringement.

Further, Google discloses very little about their clients and services of their ad business. See my post to Renzatic, and I suggest you take some time to ponder some of those points too. Then we can debate your outlandish claims that Apple and Microsoft behave the exact same regarding privacy. I think you're going to have to do some more work before you present your theories. Secretive 'ad' company + privacy violations = well it doesn't take a rocket scientist... but I came anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
It's all well and good you slagging off Google PR, and making claims, but not a single person has backed said claims up with proof that their information has been sold to anyone. It's a load of bollocks that Google haters make up.
Uh, in this reality, Google is the company that hacks browser privacy settings. That destroys their credibility, it also kinda taints the people who keep standing up for them. What was Google done since they hacked Safari to make me forgive and want to trust them? That is a concept that is far from unreasonable. Google deliberately violated the privacy of users, for the benefit of their tracking software's results. Where do you get Poodle credibility from that? It might help their case if they made dog food and got caught scanning residential networks and storing passwords accidentally. When it's directly related to 90% of their revenue, then it tends to be a little more serious. Dig?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
And news flash. Apple collect the same information every time you download an app, song, etc and run them. Can we therefor declare that Apple sell that information on?
Apple has never been caught inappropriately acquiring additional personal details from it's iTunes Store or online store customers. You're trying to squid the privacy issue. Google is a company where a substantial part of their revenue is dependent on such 'additional information', has run into that issue, several times very publicly. Your comparison is flawed and seems like just a game to equate one with the other.

Please oh please, keep responding...
supercoolmanchu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:30 PM   #116
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
If you disapprove of the way a company pollutes the environment, don't buy their products.

If employees were being treated that badly, they'd request better treatment, and if they don't get it, they'd quit. If it turns out the employee was just a squeaky wheel, then they'll be replaced without problem. If there's an actual issue, employees will quit in groups and won't be replaceable. So long as an employer can find scabs, it's an indication that the job isn't actually as bad as the employee who quit made it out to be.

If you want to be treated better, become more valuable. Invest in yourself. Go to school and learn useful skills that are in high demand.

There are some things we need the government for - regulating buisnesses isn't one of them.


Your rebuttal is nothing more than overly simplified right-wing propagandized talking points. On top of that, Ayn Randian philosophy doesn't work, it's a pipe dream. Why? Because the individual isn't as powerful as she or a person like you would like to think. It takes a united populace to make any meaningful change in the world we live in.

So if the government is not needed to act as a referee, who should act as the referee in this game? The corporation itself? Like that ever works in favor of the consumer.

If it wasn't for government, and by government I mean WE THE PEOPLE, businesses would not stand a chance of existing. Why is that you ask? Because the free market you think of doesn't really exist. The free market you think of, the laissez faire free market, is designed to fail.

Look, you have an ideology that you stick to and don't want to let go, I get it. But how can you defend corporations that do nothing but destroy the world we live in, pay their workers low and unlivable wages, buys politicians so they can get away with crimes that you and I would go to prison for life over, and doesn't give a rat's tail about you, the very person that defends them? Corporations are NOT people my friend.
iMikeT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:45 PM   #117
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post

Apple has never been caught inappropriately acquiring additional personal details from it's iTunes Store or online store customers.
No. But from iOS - they have.
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:01 PM   #118
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
Your rebuttal is nothing more than overly simplified right-wing propagandized talking points. On top of that, Ayn Randian philosophy doesn't work, it's a pipe dream. Why? Because the individual isn't as powerful as she or a person like you would like to think. It takes a united populace to make any meaningful change in the world we live in.
It takes a singular will to make a meaningful change in the world we live in. Most people lack one. Grouping together people gets you quite possibly less than the sum of your parts (because of their conflicting wills, however small they may be.)

Quote:
So if the government is not needed to act as a referee, who should act as the referee in this game? The corporation itself? Like that ever works in favor of the consumer.
The customers should. I already stated that. If you know a company makes defected products, stop buying from it, and encourage everyone else to do the same. Leave reviews online. Have the media cover it. The government needs not be involved.

The same can be applied to anything else the company might do that you don't like (IE, if they abuse human rights.)

Quote:
If it wasn't for government, and by government I mean WE THE PEOPLE, businesses would not stand a chance of existing. Why is that you ask? Because the free market you think of doesn't really exist. The free market you think of, the laissez faire free market, is designed to fail.
Do you actually have any evidence that it's designed to fail? Do you have any evidence of free markets of its own accord failing?

Quote:
Look, you have an ideology that you stick to and don't want to let go, I get it. But how can you defend corporations that do nothing but destroy the world we live in, pay their workers low and unlivable wages, buys politicians so they can get away with crimes that you and I would go to prison for life over, and doesn't give a rat's tail about you, the very person that defends them? Corporations are NOT people my friend.
They absolutely are people. They don't destroy the world - if you truly believed that, you'd stop buying Apple's products - they change the world. Whether the net impact is for the better or worse is debatable - I for one think it's for the better.

What are you suggesting they're doing that's illegal?
__________________
Don't tell me Macs don't last: 2007 iMac, 2007 Mac Mini, 2008 MacBook Air, all Vintage.
(iMac obsoletion: April 28, 2015, MBA: October 14, 2015, Mac Mini: March 9, 2016)
ArtOfWarfare is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:13 PM   #119
GoodWatch
macrumors 6502a
 
GoodWatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMilligan View Post
This seems like a very flawed survey. They simply ask the participants to write down 5 companies that they trust with their privacy information. It seems to be more about what companies someone can recall rather than an actual polling of trust.

If Apple was at #1, would you still regard it as a 'very flawed survey'? Just curious.
__________________
Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody - I've got to go
GoodWatch is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:23 PM   #120
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodWatch View Post
If Apple was at #1, would you still regard it as a 'very flawed survey'? Just curious.
Of course not. Just like Consumer Reports is useless when they don't recommend the iPhone but just fine when they do.

Same thing happens when there are reports of marketshare. Or any customer feedback reports.

I find the hypocrisy funny. Well funny and sad.
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:56 PM   #121
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Testy... what makes you think you 'deserve' an answer?
Maybe because my original post was asking a question which was taken off on a tangent completely unrelated to the question, a very simple question which you still cant answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
You were the guy that lumped the ad company together with the computer soft/hardware companies and claimed they all did the same thing regarding data scamming.
Last I checked Apple made Hardware, software and ran an add agency. The same applies to Microsoft.

Google also runs an online MP3, Video and App store - each companies other activities are irrelevant to the discussion we're supposed to be having here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
When was the last time Apple or Microsoft got caught and punished for hacking browser privacy settings? That's pretty damning of Google.
I agree that Google were in the wrong on the whole Safari thing - there's no questioning that, and it certainly damaged their reputation (and rightly so) however look at what it actually was they did. It's not 'hacking' it was exploiting a flaw that was present in Safari. Facebook were also found to be doing it. The shocking thing is, it was a glaringly obvious flaw. So we've got three culprits. Google and Facebook for exploiting it, and Apple for not patching it.

Google will be rightly sued for it, and will learn their lesson. But lets look at what the data they got out of that actually was - its the exact same data they would have got if people didn't click the 'opt-out' button, so its hardly the crime of the century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
It's not their first offense, nor is it the first time they've gone out of their way to make a privacy infringement.
Care to provide sources for a few more cases of such 'hacking' that Google has been involved in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Further, Google discloses very little about their clients and services of their ad business.
Google ads are served via the following methods:

- Adsense (using Adwords where anyone can buy adspace)
- Doubleclick (which is essentially adwords but for 'big' clients)
- Google domains (for parking pages)
- AdMob (mobile adverts)
- YouTube ads

What else would you like them to disclose? They even disclosed a big list of their biggest clients not long ago (have a look on Mashable

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Then we can debate your outlandish claims that Apple and Microsoft behave the exact same regarding privacy.
- User visits Google, searches for 'Golf' then sees golf ads on a website.
- User visits the iOS AppStore, downloads a free Golf score card app, and sees an iAd inside it for Golfing vacations

The same methods are used. It's called keyword profiling. They build up a database of keywords based on your interestes, activities, etc and return relevent adverts. Very simple in principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
I think you're going to have to do some more work before you present your theories. Secretive 'ad' company + privacy violations = well it doesn't take a rocket scientist... but I came anyway.
You know, reading back through your posts I've yet to actually see anything of any relevance. You've made some pretty big claims about why Google is bad, with not a shed of evidence, and point to the only flaw (the safari incident, of which Apple is not an innocent party) in an otherwise spotless record.


Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Uh, in this reality, Google is the company that hacks browser privacy settings. That destroys their credibility, it also kinda taints the people who keep standing up for them.
As above, its unacceptable that Google did that. However by your logic the people who support Apple (The ones who failed to patch a highly known vulnrability) are also tainted. Everyone cocks up at some point. Apple is far from perfect

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
What was Google done since they hacked Safari to make me forgive and want to trust them?
On the flip side, what has Apple done since failing to patch a vulndrability that was known for a long time? Why would you trust that OS X is now secure? You can throw ifs and buts around but it comes down to personal choice, and sanity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Apple has never been caught inappropriately acquiring additional personal details from it's iTunes Store or online store customers. You're trying to squid the privacy issue.
By that logic, if Google had never been caught exploiting Apple's Safari vulnerability then they would be considered to be fantastic.

Oh and as someone else pointed out, Apple were caught being naught, arguably worse than Google as it affected a lot more people. Look at the iOS user tracking scandal

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-a...6-2012-10?op=1

Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Google is a company where a substantial part of their revenue is dependent on such 'additional information', has run into that issue, several times very publicly.
Correct. Google's income does rely (although recently to a lesser extent) on picking up users browsing habbits and using it to show related advertisements. Whats your point here though? As we already established, they would actually LOOSE money if they sold that information on. It's a much more financially viable business model to use the keyword system where advertisers pick certain keywords, and the ads are then shown to users who's browsing habbits match those keywords, thus creating a recurring income for Google. Selling the details would be a one-shot deal, once its sold the buyer buggers off until they need more info a few years down the line. The keyword model forces them to keep paying Google monthly. And yes, this is something Apple do with iAds, as does Microsoft on Bing, Viglink do it here at MacRumors, etc.

It's not some sort of conspiracy. It's the way advertising has always worked. Google are just able to make a hell of a lot more money as they own 2 of the top 3 websites in the world (Youtube and Google.com) and a good 20% of the top 100 websites in the world. Nobody else has the kind of exposure they have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post
Please oh please, keep responding...
Likewise. It's almost like you're under mind control, forced to hate anything non-Apple. I bet you hate Samsung and Microsoft too dont you, and I bet you think Android is a 'blatant copy' of iOS

When it comes to Google, you really only see this blind hatred here at MacRumors. Clearly very few people share that view otherwise YouTube would be empty, Android sales would be in the pan and everyone would use Bing.

Last edited by rmwebs; Jan 30, 2013 at 04:02 PM.
rmwebs is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:26 PM   #122
louis Fashion
macrumors 6502a
 
louis Fashion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
trust no one.
__________________
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. - Lao Tzu
louis Fashion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:31 PM   #123
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by supercoolmanchu View Post

Didn't you used to have burning sock for an avatar? Looks like some kinda pixelated heart now... is it a seasonal affectation?
It's secret wall chicken, junior! And my avatar changes upon my moods, which may or may not be seasonal.

Also, I'm not gonna reply to the rest of your post because, A. I'm recovering from a very weird flu over here, and I'm still weak and noodly feeling, and B. I'm so, SO tired of these Google is good/evil arguments that come up seemingly every other week. Yeah, you can call it cowardice or whatever, but I just don't feel like going through the same old worn out spiel yet again.

Instead, I'll just cut to the usual end paragraph. What Google does is generic advertising. It's like a more indepth, wide covering Nielsen Rating setup that tracks demographics, popular websites, and the latest internet trends. In and of itself, it's fairly innocuous. But...

Could it be used for evil deeds? Sure. Quite easily, in fact. All Google would have to do is throw a few switches, add in a few lines of code to their web apps, and suddenly they're tracking everything about you.

Does that mean Google will do this? Probably not. They just got out of an extensive antitrust lawsuit with the US government. I doubt they'll be doing much to draw their ire yet again.

You don't have to like what Google does. I think that, as their setup currently exists at this point in time, it's pretty harmless. But lets not pretend they're the 5th iteration of the Illuminati, tracking every move we make so they can eventually root out the Free Thinkers, The Rebels, The Crazy Ones, so they can round them up, bring them out to the secret FEMA base under Denver International Airport, and "reeducate" them.

Cuz that's just only half true.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:38 PM   #124
blackhand1001
macrumors 68030
 
blackhand1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by weezor View Post
And their annoying data collecting popups don't even have a X or cancel button. A couple of days ago they asked me for my real name on youtube and the only way out was closing the whole page.
Added to this, there is no way to stay logged into youtube and not be logged in on google search as well. I don't want all my data from both of the biggest internet resources do be associated with each other.



Sure about that? I bet this whole google AdSense stuff is linked to our google accounts as well. Which means there is absolutely no anonymity whatsoever, no matter where we surf. Google ads are everywhere.
No if you actually stopped and read it there was an option that said I prefer not to use my full name and that exits it.
__________________
Macbook 2008
HP Dv7t - 2.53 ghz, 9600m GT, WSXGA+, 120gb ssd, 250 gb 7200rpm
Core i7 3770k, 8gb ram, 2x 120gb sdd raid0, 500gb hdd, GTX 460
Moto X Dev Edition (VZW) Nexus 7
blackhand1001 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:44 PM   #125
soundguyami
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Doesnt surprise me

This doesn't surprise me. Apple needed to shore up some app security. Google of all companies should be dead last. If people only knew what they track...but again..they give you free stuff so i guess they feel they can sell info on things right down to how many times you clicked the R key.
soundguyami is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Acquired 24 Companies Over Last 18 Months, 'We're On The Prowl' for More MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 39 Jun 5, 2014 10:39 PM
Amazon Beats Apple As Most Trusted Company in U.S.: Harris Poll GermanyChris Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 2 Feb 13, 2013 11:22 AM
What I don't get: Why doesn't apple acquire companies like corning? brinycbri iPhone 25 Jun 5, 2012 02:13 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC