Google vows to delete Chrome's unique client ID Google is changing the way it handles the unique identifier that accompanies each installation of its Chrome browser. As noticed by H-Online, a Google white paper (pdf) says the company will now delete the unique ID after the browser updates itself for the first time. Google has confirmed with The Reg that the change will be …
"Please suggest a non-google search that works as well*?"
I just went thru' my cache (which I haven't cleared in many months[1]), and I couldn't tell you the last time I actually used search engine. It's hardly necessary ...
[1] I'm trying to break Firefox on Slackware 13.0 ... so far, it hasn't even slowed down.
Because we choose to trade information about us for services. And they are the best "free" cloud services out there, nothing else works as well and ties together so well.
We just have to hope regulation prevents them doing anything too evil (their mantra won't of course, that's just marketing).
"Do no Evil", "Don't be Microsoft" are two famous claims of how they are supposed to run their multi-billion dollar business
Well... they sure fail on the first one these days, and they've far suppassed anything Microsoft has ever done when it comes to invasive data mining of unsuspecting users
Yet... people still think Google are this big warm fluffy cloud that mean us no harm.
They are a Corporation beholden to shareholders and investors and smarmy missions statements don't mean zip when it comes to finding new ways to monetise their assets (you are not their customer... advertisers are their customer... you're just an asset)
You can also use Scroogle (SSL) as an anonymising proxy if you really need all the Google results such as shopping pages for the item you've already got that you're Googling to unbrick. There are search plug-ins for most major browsers over on Mycroft ( http://mycroft.mozdev.org ).
Use the SSL variant. It makes man-in-the-middle snooping rather difficult (not impossible, but you knew that already after the recent MITM attack on OpenSSL using renegotiation).
The thing about the paranoid is that they can't be proved wrong, only right.
So to all the paranoid anti-Google ranters on this site, I'm one of those happily using Google services. And whilst I agree I can't proove that there isn't a room at Google HQ where a man stroking a white cat pours over every detail of my online activity, I can report so far so good.
Here's the deal... if you're all proved right one day then you can tell me you told me so. Until that day I'm going to assume you're all paranoid FUD-spreaders.
I appreciate the service Google provides, and accept the privacy implications.
Search
Maps
Stockmarket
Chrome
Android
Use all the above, provided by Google, because they all work, and usually better than the alternatives.
If at any point Google's future actions prove to be 'a bad thing', I will change. At the moment I see no reason to.
There is Iron. Then there are other good browsers out there - maybe not as Chrome-y as Iron, but they have their own advantages. Users are free to install any of them. They know that Google gathers all data its software agents can get hold of, and they still use its products, after putting the "I accept" mark in the EULA out of their own free will. Google isn't malicious, it is just maximizing its profits in any way its users agree to. That's the same thing the mom'n'pop business around the corner does. No reason for Google bashing here.
To paraphrase a recent editorial in another tech publication, Stasi 2.0 are we, the crowd.
It was this unique identifier that made me quickly uninstall Chrome a year ago, after I found out about it. It would seem, from the article that the identifier is used and then re-issued and is solely to do with updates, but it always came accross as marking Chrome out as 'spyware' - something which it hasn't really shaken off until I read this.
This is the right decision for Goggle, I think, but they should have addressed it, or the perception that existed around it, a long time ago.
Of course I'm not using Chrome or any other browser that doesn't have an adblocker that strips out horrible bloated flash adverts BEFORE they're downloaded and prevents delays in the time it takes to load pages, so ... I'm not really all that fussed at the moment about what is happening with Chrome, or Opera or Internet Assploder.
"But why ship it at all. Is it really that important to track individual users through their first automatic (and silent) update?"
Well, since it's per install, it doesn't track individual users, but individual installs. A shared computer would have the same unique identifier for each user, as would a single download subsequently installed on several computers.
Glad that unique identifier is off our computers! Now to get rid of the one for Windows (or OSX or Linux or whatever), MS Office, any other software that "activates", the BIOS serial #, the TPM, the CPU serial #, the NIC's MAC address, the HDD serial #, etc., etc., etc.
Just to echo sentiments above, railing against Google is stupid as although they take, they also give. You do have choices. Whereas Microsoft take lots of your cash, and give you crap products, which is a one sided equation.
I know what I mind less. Everything is a compromise. Except linux of course, which is perfect.
"Because their web services work incredibly well and are free to use."
What do they do that you can't get on your local box for free, without burning bandwidth?
"I have yet to have my identity stolen by a search company"
And yet they know everything you have done with their "service", and they can cross-reference that in any way that they see fit. Doesn't that ring a few alarm bells?
"although maybe my pod hasn't finished growing yet, if I keep my tinfoil hat on they will never know where to find me."
It ain't paranoia, it's reality. Maybe you don't know how data mining works?
...but remember this: Once you've given your privacy away you can't just take it back again, especially if you have given it to an obsessive data mining and retaining outfit such as Google.
As an aside, I can't help thinking that this apathy towards online security and privacy is the continuing evolution of the Geocities "DIG ME!" type people sans clue who think they know everything but, in reality, have very little idea of what goes on in quiet corners of the Internet, let alone the consequences of their actions online and all the little ways their habits get noticed. It's also perplexing that they see loss of control as a small price for everyone to pay and extol the virtues of a privacy-free society before they have even the least idea of how big that bill is going to be when it lands.
Your faith in human nature is touching. Naïve, perhaps, but touching.
I actually don't mind using yahoo. I only wish their site was a search engine rather then a site for teenagers & comcast investors. When you look at the comcast homepage and yahoo you really can't tell the difference.
maybe we'll have a comcast search in the future, the companys going to need something to get itself out of the coming red.
"As it stands, Google lays down the unique identifier in the Chrome installation folder, but it says this is not linked to personal data and that it is merely used to check for updates and report crashes back to the company. It is reassigned each time the browser is updated."
.. relating the old ID to the new ID. Nothing's changed.
It's understandable that an algorithm-driven company like Google wants to know how well the installation process for Chrome succeeds. It is also understandable that end users are not particularly thrilled to have this information collected. That the Chrome installation ID will be deleted and not reappear after the initial update is a step forward. More generally, however, the important thing is that the process is made transparent for all Google - and other producers' (Microsoft, anyone ?) ! - products, so that end users can make an informed choice as to whether or not to install and run them....
Henri
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
