Chrome 70 Will Allow Users to Opt-Out of Controversial Automatic Sign-in Feature

[Mr. Heckles]

Back in 2014 an IT guy for the hospital I was working for had to keep deleting chrome from the computers at the nurse’s station because the night crew keep downloading it. Chrome was not HIPPA Compliant because it installed a server that ran in the background that they had no control over and could not be sure patient data was not being transmitted back to Google. Whenever they did this our systems would not work properly because the chrome server interfered with the hospital servers when running. It would also block Internet Explorer making it glitch and lockup. He showed me the server actively running but you had to know how to find it. When I ask why they didn’t block downloads he said they used to but Google had recently modified their code to bypass bocks in such a way that to block it they would have to disable too many features of windows, so he just deleted it when he found it. My computer suddenly s worked perfectly after removing their server and chrome.

I like to know what IT guy would allow anyone to be able to download anything on a company computer, especially a computer at a hospital.

 

[Razeus]

I am so glad Google cares so much about our privacy on the internet.

/s

There's no such thing as privacy on the internet.

 

[MikeAnd]

LOL, opt out. IOW, 99% of users will have no idea that this has been activated or know how to deactivate it. Of course, the opt out setting itself may work just as well as opting out of location tracking.

 

[Nuvi]

Can anyone on this earth say with a straight face that Google willingly does anything in the user’s best interest with regard to privacy? I sure as heck can’t say that sentence aloud without laughing at the ridiculousness.

I do believe “Don’t be evil” wants its sarcasm tag back. Luckily Alphabets “Do the right thing” is way more straight forward aka make sh*t loads of money and non of that “save the world” nonsense.

 

[ILikeAllOS]

And to think that this is just the desktop browser from Google.. yet there are people who use an entire OS (android) from Google!

 

[Sill]

I like to know what IT guy would allow anyone to be able to download anything on a company computer, especially a computer at a hospital.

I've seen some pretty bad IT decisions, even in the face of very strict corporate policies. Plus, employees sometimes think they are the ultimate arbiter of what should and shouldn't go on a computer. I used to specify certain things and people would do exactly what I told them not to do, then they'd be surprised when things went haywire. I remember numerous times having to resurrect systems that were compromised by malware due to people's desire to look at certain non-business sites during their time in the office. Complaining about it to management did little good, because it was the management doing it. In some cases it was the principals at a particular location. People are gonna people, no matter what IT wants.
I'm glad I left that vocation behind many, many years ago because things have only gotten worse. I occasionally do support for friends who are amazed when I tell them their problems with online apps are because they're using Chrome, which I always warn against for security purposes as well as functionality, then they're equally amazed when I show them Firefox and everything works.

 

[chinito77]

I like to know what IT guy would allow anyone to be able to download anything on a company computer, especially a computer at a hospital.

I'm in IT and work in a Hospital. Chrome is my primary browser and most of my users prefer it over IE. In our environment, all work is done on IE and personal stuff on Chrome.

At home, I use Chrome. I'm well aware of Google's data mining. As long as they don't start charing me to surf the web or the FBI doesn't come knocking on my dooor, I'll keep using Chrome.

 

[dumastudetto]

Google does something similar on mobile devices. Sign in to one of their mobile apps is handed off to safari, once you authenticate your browser is signed in capturing all your google searches and activity moving forward.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I'm in IT and work in a Hospital. Chrome is my primary browser and most of my users prefer it over IE. In our environment, all work is done on IE and personal stuff on Chrome.

At home, I use Chrome. I'm well aware of Google's data mining. As long as they don't start charing me to surf the web or the FBI doesn't come knocking on my dooor, I'll keep using Chrome.

I completely understand, but the post was:
“Back in 2014 an IT guy for the hospital I was working for had to keep deleting chrome from the computers at the nurse’s station because the night crew keep downloading it”
So this IT person couldn’t figure out how to lock down the computers?

 

[fairuz]

Google says it is willing to make changes to its new Chrome auto-login feature, following heavy criticism from privacy-conscious users.

Look, I'm no privacy-conscious user, but if I were, there's no way I'd be using Chrome in the first place. (And I don't use Chrome anyway just cause it's really inefficient and battery-hogging.)

 

[8281]

Back in 2014 an IT guy for the hospital I was working for had to keep deleting chrome from the computers at the nurse’s station because the night crew keep downloading it. Chrome was not HIPPA Compliant because it installed a server that ran in the background that they had no control over and could not be sure patient data was not being transmitted back to Google. Whenever they did this our systems would not work properly because the chrome server interfered with the hospital servers when running. It would also block Internet Explorer making it glitch and lockup. He showed me the server actively running but you had to know how to find it. When I ask why they didn’t block downloads he said they used to but Google had recently modified their code to bypass bocks in such a way that to block it they would have to disable too many features of windows, so he just deleted it when he found it. My computer suddenly s worked perfectly after removing their server and chrome.

Sorry, but your story doesn’t make sense. I doubt any hospital IT department would give users the privileges to install any software.

 

[ImNoSuperMan]

....their own CEO went on record as saying - and I'm paraphrasing - "no such thing as privacy, don't do anything you don't want us to know about"

Can you provide a link for this? I tried to look it up online but couldn’t find anything.

 

[Sill]

Can you provide a link for this? I tried to look it up online but couldn’t find anything.

I couldn't find much with only 15 seconds of searching, but maybe some of these links help:

https://www.ghacks.net/2009/12/11/if-you-have-something-that-you-dont-want-anyone-to-know/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091208/0221047243.shtml

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/

Here's some good info on their general attempts at burrowing into the lives of everyone, even those who aren't using their services:

https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_...ing_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/

This one went after Gmail:

https://www.sfgate.com/technology/b...-If-You-Send-To-Gmail-You-Have-No-4730587.php

I mentioned the Google for Kids thing earlier but didn't put up any info to support it.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Digi...ogle_acknowledges_data_mining_GAFE_users.html

Caught, but that didn't stop Google! See two years later:

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...it-email-scanning-student-data-apps-education

Scott Cleland, one of the greatest monitors of Google's anti-privacy actions, wrote a semi-fictional article lampooning their responses to being caught taking data from children:

http://www.precursorblog.com/?q=content/preview-googles-apology-collecting-kids-sss

This one puts the spotlight on the childrens' data issue, and even shows that the creepy Podesta brothers are involved with Google:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-scheff/google-apps-for-education_2_b_5290110.html


If I have another 45 seconds later on, maybe tomorrow, I'll see if I can find more info.

 

[C DM]

Sorry, but your story doesn’t make sense. I doubt any hospital IT department would give users the privileges to install any software.

You are assuming that things are basically always done competently everywhere.

 

[MacBH928]

Its crystal clear what they are doing and the alternative exists. FireFox and Brave and Safari are all better than Chrome. DDG for Search.

Where Google is really abusing the consumer is YouTube and Android... since youtube has no alternative and Android has only 1 other alternative which is the iPhone. It is also very hard to abandon an email account since you have to change all your subscriptions and site logins.

 

[Sill]

Any one opting using Google services today is probably ignorant or retarded...its crystal clear what they are doing and the alternative exists. FireFox and Brave and Safari are all better than Chrome. DDG for Search.

Don't forget StartPage. I use DDG but StartPage is a worthy alternative, until proven otherwise.

Do you really trust Brave? When I found out it was Chromium-based, I deleted it, same as I did with Opera when I found out it used the same rendering engine. Chromium still "calls home", so I really don't trust one line of code that comes out of Alphabet. I realize that there is nothing to prevent them from introducing one or more bad actors into an autonomous code farm outside the company and injecting malicious, pro-Google code lines into a given source, but its more difficult to do that successfully than it is to dump an entire working code base on the open source community, as I am willing to bet bulk, complete programs will go into use before they're fully vetted.

 

[IG88]

Sorry, but your story doesn’t make sense. I doubt any hospital IT department would give users the privileges to install any software.

Admin rights are only required to install software that affects all users. Chrome by default is installed in your user directory.
[doublepost=1538065401][/doublepost]

No. They just want to avoid "bad optics". Right now, there is a push coming for internet privacy. Despite their half-hearted attempts at paying lip service to privacy, their own CEO went on record as saying - and I'm paraphrasing - "no such thing as privacy, don't do anything you don't want us to know about".

Google CEO Eric Schmidt -
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

I'm sure Eric wouldn't mind me getting into his bedroom whenever I feel like it, going through any / all pictures of his wife & kids, since obviously he doesn't have anything that he doesn't want anyone to know about.

 

[341328]

I’m about the change. Google is scum.
[doublepost=1538081628][/doublepost]

Admin rights are only required to install software that affects all users. Chrome by default is installed in your user directory.
[doublepost=1538065401][/doublepost]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt -
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

I'm sure Eric wouldn't mind me getting into his bedroom whenever I feel like it, going through any / all pictures of his wife & kids, since obviously he doesn't have anything that he doesn't want anyone to know about.

I agree. Also... we don’t know what google might do with data in the future.

 

[MacBH928]

Don't forget StartPage. I use DDG but StartPage is a worthy alternative, until proven otherwise.

Do you really trust Brave? When I found out it was Chromium-based, I deleted it, same as I did with Opera when I found out it used the same rendering engine. Chromium still "calls home", so I really don't trust one line of code that comes out of Alphabet. I realize that there is nothing to prevent them from introducing one or more bad actors into an autonomous code farm outside the company and injecting malicious, pro-Google code lines into a given source, but its more difficult to do that successfully than it is to dump an entire working code base on the open source community, as I am willing to bet bulk, complete programs will go into use before they're fully vetted.

StartPage seems too obscure too trust. There is also Qwant which I am not too sure about.

Brave is open-source , and any open source project is trust worthy. Nothing to hide. Chromium is open source and its different from Chrome. Its ok if you don't like it, you can use FF which I feel are starting to do some sketchy stuff.

 

[Sill]

StartPage seems too obscure too trust. There is also Qwant which I am not too sure about.

Brave is open-source , and any open source project is trust worthy. Nothing to hide. Chromium is open source and its different from Chrome. Its ok if you don't like it, you can use FF which I feel are starting to do some sketchy stuff.

I brought it up in a thread a couple of years ago, but I'll ask again: how can you be certain that open-source is trustworthy? I'm genuinely curious about this.

We had a pretty big discussion about my question then and the consensus was that because a given codebase was open-source, it had to have been checked out completely. But no one could tell me how they could be sure that line after line of code had been vetted. Everyone's classic response was, "someone checked it out". What if no one did?

I think people have it in their minds that code review is like a "peer review" process in the scientific world, where theses are closely examined for errors in fact or method prior to publication. I doubt that happens in programming. With all of the reusable code libraries people depend on now - especially from known bad actors like Google - I doubt that anyone can offer any certainty about any code at all, even if its open source.


I'm not the only questioning this.

https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/169

 

[MacBH928]

I brought it up in a thread a couple of years ago, but I'll ask again: how can you be certain that open-source is trustworthy? I'm genuinely curious about this.

We had a pretty big discussion about my question then and the consensus was that because a given codebase was open-source, it had to have been checked out completely. But no one could tell me how they could be sure that line after line of code had been vetted. Everyone's classic response was, "someone checked it out". What if no one did?

I think people have it in their minds that code review is like a "peer review" process in the scientific world, where theses are closely examined for errors in fact or method prior to publication. I doubt that happens in programming. With all of the reusable code libraries people depend on now - especially from known bad actors like Google - I doubt that anyone can offer any certainty about any code at all, even if its open source.


I'm not the only questioning this.

https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/169

You ask a good question. My answer is it is a bit like doing something illegal in a public area... Some might not notice it but due to the large number of passers, some one will. When the source is open for any one in the 7 billion in the world in all the universities in the world, all the tech experts, news agencies, all security experts, all app developers, and all privacy conscious organizations...some one will find out. Also when they fix bugs I guess someone goes back and rereads the code and analyse the problem. They say there are more than 170 MILLION people using FireFox... so...

It gets more dangerous if the app is more obscure...

 

[Sill]

When the source is open for any one in the 7 billion in the world in all the universities in the world, all the tech experts, news agencies, all security experts, all app developers, and all privacy conscious organizations...some one will find out.

Like I said, the classic response: "some one would check it out/find it/expose it/etc". What if everyone is saying the same thing? I'm sure there are apps that have several tens of thousands of code that "some one must have gone over", and rely on reusable libraries and objects that "some one must have gone over". What if everyone said "some one", and there was really "no one"? That is an extreme, of course, but somewhere in between the two extremes is the answer. I think a healthy skeptical attitude is a good first layer of personal protection, and I will always believe that.