Crome

chrome

The reason why I've finished with Chrome - A few thoughts on cryptography technology I wanted to specifically tell you today about Google Chrome, how much I used to love it in the past and why I won't use it again in the future due to Chrome's new user-unfriendly mandatory sign-in. Ten years ago, when Google introduced Chrome to the market, it seemed to be one of those uncommon cases where everyone won.

Chrome was a nice answer in this environment. Although the web browsers have never generated a fraction of Google's revenues, they have still fulfilled their mission by opening the web to Google's other services. The advantage for the web site would be a great open code web site with the best software developers you can buy for less.

That may be somehow sorry for Mozilla (who got a high rate for Chrome), but overall it would be a good thing for webnorms. Of course, Google provided an opt-in "login" for Chrome, which probably sucked your surfing information and sent it to Google, but that was an opt-in.

This is an optional feature that you could readily overlook. But if you didn't use this choice, Google's commitment to your privacy was clear: your information stays on your computer where it belongs. If you are looking for it, your only alert is that your Google Profiles image appears in the top right of your webpage.

That' s regrettable - and I really sincerely expect it to happen - because this latest release has a tremendous impact on Google and the continued existence of our game. No one on the Chromes engineering staff can give a clear explanation of why this modification was necessary, and the explanation they gave makes no point. These changes have tremendous impact on users' personal lives and confidence, and Google does not seem to be addressing them.

Changes make Google's own data protection policy for Google a hash for Google to use for changing your personal information. Googles must stop handling consumer confidence like a renewables asset because they've screwed it up hard. Following discussions with two different charting creators on Twitter (who will stay anonymous - mainly because I don't want them to loathe me), I was given the following justification for the change:

In order to put this statement in a nutshell, if you're in a position where you're already logged in to Chrome and your boyfriend is sharing your computer, you can inadvertently upload your friend's Google cookie to your inbox. You must already be logged in to Chrome for this issue to work.

If I wonder about the discrepancy between the indicated "problem" and the "fix", I could squander a great deal more penknife, but I won't worry about it: because no one on the publicly accessible side of the charge was able to provide an explanatory note squaring that notion. Champion Chrome's squad has proposed a sole defence of the amendment.

Please note that just because your browsers are "signed in" does not mean they upload your information to Google's server. Now that Chrome will sign in to your Google account without your permission (after a Gmail login), Chrome will not enable the Synchronize function, which will send your information to Google.

Theoretically, your information should stay locally. However, I think it's fairly to describe the general attitude of the charters with whom I've spoken as follows: without this "sync" function, there's nothing wrong with the changes they've made, and everything's just okay. I' ve been asked one simple query in the chart window for ten years:

"Would you like to sign in with your Google account? However, it' s just that it does not reward my choice now. I think the chartists want me to think that's okay, because (phew!) I'm still covered by an extra rail. Obviously, if you didn't honour my failure to agree to the largest user-side data protection policy options in charge of charge (and didn't even tell me that you quit honouring them!), why should I rely on another policy agreement you give me?

Why can't you change your minds about this in a few month's time when we've all ceased to be attentive? In fact, I had never even known about Chrome's "Sync" feature - for the easy part, I had never signed in to Chrome until September 2018.

I am now compelled to study these new concepts, and hopefully the charge team will keep its promise to keep all my information locally, as the barrier between "logged in" and "not logged in" is progressively removed. Chromed synchronization surface is a black patter. And now that I'm compelled to sign up with Chromes, I have a whole new meal that I've never seen before.

Briefly, Google has turned the issue of approval to download something positive that I had to interfere with - typing my Google login information and signature in Chrome - into something I can now do with a click of the mouse. Intentionally or not, it has the effect of making it simple for folks to enable synchronization without even realizing it, or thinking they're already synchronized, so there's no extra charge for Google to increase traffic to theirs.

There is even a goose bump on (former) Google folks. Chamomile Engineering says yes. As far as we know, the new paradigm has an impact on personal information protection, even if synchronization is turned off. However, the authors of Chromes maintain that a Chromes without "Sync" has no impact on your private sphere. If I have for example unsubscribed my webrowser, then I login and activate "synchronize", will all my previous (unsubscribed) datas be transferred to Google?

If I am compelled to be signed in and then switch on "synchronize", what happens? No one can tell me exactly whether the files you upload under these circumstances are identical. It is a remarkable simplicity of writing. Contrary to most of the privacy guidelines, it was clearly spelled as a pledge to the user of charge of Chrome and not as the common attorney CYA.

"Base Browsing Mode" and "Login Mode". Your personal information will be saved in the " base browsers " local area. Your personal information will be transmitted to Google's server in "registration mode". You want a little privacy, don't register. What happens if your web browsers decide to change you from one session to another?

From a technical point of view, the declaration of confidentiality is still correct. When you are in simple browser modus, your information will continue to be saved on your local hard drive. Trouble is, you can't tell which modus you're in anymore. Perhaps Google will refresh the paper to mirror the new "Sync" difference that the chart designers share with me.

After tweeting about my misgivings, I got a DM on Sunday from two different guys who were developing Chromes and gave me the good news: Googles is revising its data protection statement to take account of Chrome's new operations. However, I can't help but notice that upgrading a data protection statement on a week-end is a whole bunch of hassle to make a fix that... doesn't even seem to fix a single issue for registered members.

Google has been able to prevent the adverse conventions on personal information protection that we link to Facebook, for example, for a business that maintains itself by gathering large volumes of information from users. That' s not because Google does not collect as much information, but because Google has become more and more careful and accountable. Wherever Facebook changes personal information preferences on a routine basis and apologizes later, Google has followed clear guidelines that don't routine it.

Certainly, when it does collect information, it does collect information, but where Google makes explicit commitments to secure and protect your information, it tends to do so. Wish Google could persuade me of that. Arguably, Google is already spying on you through cookie and its widespread ad networks and relationships, so what's so special about putting your browsers in a sign up state?

A person I respected described the chromium alteration as "wearing two name badges instead of one". And I think this argument is stupid both for ethical reasons - just because you violate my private sphere, it's not okay to throw in a huge new invasion - and because it's objective stupid.

Android and Chrome have been added to Google's list of popular search engines. This is not for amusement, but because it clearly generates the kind of information they want. I am an a00b for using Google at all, and of course they always wanted to do that.

In my opinion, it is quite possible for a business like Google to develop good, useable open code that does not seriously infringe users' private lives. Ten years, I think Google Chrome did just that.

Auch interessant

Mehr zum Thema