As if Google wasn't creepy enough
Yet another reason to stick with Firefox...
Google has released a new stable version of its Chrome browser, adding an "Instant Pages" service that attempts to accelerate your Google searches by rendering pages before you actually click on them. Chrome 13 – available here for Mac, Windows, and Linux – also a offers a print preview tool just for Windows and Linux users, …
Important: This is an experimental API and may change—or even be removed—in the future, especially as the Page Visibility API standard, which is an early draft, evolves. Check this page for updates to this API.
Really, who cares of Google want's this. THis is only more stress and burden for developers for a API that may vanish later on in live, know google, it will since most of there proposals fail anyways
The video is for numbskulls who need to be told something 20 times before they get it.
Also. Have you played the game of aiming the mouse at the 'Google Search' button, only to find that you've missed completely and got one of their helpful, incorrect, suggestions coughed up by their wretched autocomplete algorithm?
I think the idea was to get you the wrong page twice as fast as they did before. Now it's even quicker - Google gets you the wrong page in zero seconds.
Why don't you just press ENTER?
If you don't like Instant Search, use NoScript to disable it.
If you don't like Google retaining a history of everything you search and cross-referencing it with the ads you see or click in all other web sites, and all other info they may hold or be able to distil about you - use Scroogle.
I don't get why people always talk about Chrome, but you never hear anything about Chromium, the Open Source project that makes Chrome possible. There is no advantage in running Chrome over Chromium. Only, with Chromium you can actually check whether Google put something nasty in it.
Also, when is WebRTC landing in Chromium? That seems to be a much more interesting feature than something like Instant Pages. Finally the possibility to write complete voice & video webapps without the use of plugins. Exit skype!
So not only it installs like malware it actually acts like it on the Interweb too. That's what you get when you tie an ad agency and major website into a browser.
But I shudder to think what's coming next.
""So not only it installs like malware..." = "So, not only does it install like malware..."
I'm not sure why you had a big problem with that. "
I have a problem with your statement because it is a semantic null. My previous post was essentially asking for more information about something I found unclear.
"Scroll up a little and try to comprehend rvt's contribution if you're up for a real linguistic challenge."
The only post I can see by rvt above has nothing to do with installation - which is what I was asking about - but about an API in flux and whether anyone should care.
The subsequent reply by +++ath0 about installation pointed me to an apparently relevant previous article - your reply adds no information.
I refer you to the comments on the earlier story:
"Schmaltz-powered Chrome overtakes morally superior Firefox"
Apparently Chrome installs by default with much of Google's other software. I'm just going by comments there as it's been a while since I installed anything from the Chocolate Factory.
I still do get a lot of irritating ads telling me to install it, as if it was somewhat wrong not to.
This is actually fucked up. Someone has to say it.
So, the client is aware if the page is being requested in an invisible fashion, but it's obviously too hard to, say, put in an HTTP header like Mozilla played with a long time ago (the X-Moz-Prefetch header, if my memory does not deceive me) to indicate to the server whether or not the page should be treated as loaded by Google?
The problem is the page may actually be shown, but it won't be re-fetched if it is.
So just based on that header the server wouldn't know either to count it as a page view.
But in saying that I completely agree that this is fucked up.
Microsoft would be proud.
Not only might ad impressions be counted but what about malware - will it automatically download them?
I like to decide what my browser downloads. I've a well filled hosts file that blocks most ads and many possible malware infected sites but I still dislike the idea of Chrome fetching web content before I've decided that I want to view it.
Has Google considered that someone looking for porn might inadvertently appear to have been viewing content deemed illegal in his/her country due to Chrome pre-fetching it?
Another consideration is whether artificial inflation of a site's visitor stats might affect the site's evaluation by the algorithms of some search engines. Has Google introduced this to skew the results of other search engines?
I hope Chrome includes an off button for this pre-fetch feature.
Extra data charges on something you never clicked on.
Another option to disable, hidden somewhere deep, completely away from pictures, plugins,...
Is there a browser out there that can define some kind of profile for 'full content' and 'limited content' which you can switch with 2-3 mouse clicks?
..how this experimental API can prefetch a page that normally takes 7.2 seconds to load and present it for instant rendering when it only took 4 seconds to load the results page and click on the first link?
I NEED TO KNOW GODDAMMIT!
With my hectic modern lifestyle, I am all for shaving the odd second here and there off mundane tasks - but Google repeatedly screaming OMG 0.0s!!!! at me in the video just sets off my BS detecter and leaves me with a poor first impression of this technology
"We know what you want before you do" .... Google.
Ok. That is a neat trick. But the real future art, in order to be big cheese in predictive productive search, is are you able/enabled to provide it, Google, thus to generate a mutually beneficial creative feedback loop in ...... well, they would be prime subjects and objects of desire, wouldn't they, able and enabled to lead search engines/virtual machines to where they need to go with discovery of novel lode/core virgin source input.
Beware and be aware though, that some laid and baited trails are for grooming and betatesting of systems' depths/breadths/heights, and thoughts of leveraging an abusive remote control advantage with phished and phormed information against intelligent source provision of prime subjects and objects of desire, will be catastrophically counter-productive at least, as well as being designedly obscenely prohibitively expensive.
So, is it possible to draw a virus from a page you did not actually visit?
on a personal note, I am still at 768k (yeah, is a lot, but not in a 7 million people agglomeration in central Europe), so loading page on a wild guess is going to make me upset.
...and even I'm a little creeped out by this. I mean, on the one hand it's just an extension of the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, but on the other there's an element of "just add this experimental API call to your web page(s) - not that big of a deal..."
Come back Lycos! All is forgi... Nah...
For months Chrome has had the option "Enable Instant for faster searching and browsing" which I initially thought was a good idea - until I saw the requests it was making: as soon as the user's typing picks up the website (e.g., 'www.ther') it will make a page request for every further character the user types (e.g., 'egister' would generate a further 7 requests for the homepage).
Does Google Analytics take account of this?
so to stop you page counts (and therefore potential ad revenue, bandwitdth costs, server load etc etc) being totaly screwed up, you have to use an unapproved "standard" from a vendor creating the issue in the 1st place. If it's like instant preview, a heck of lot of sites won't display correctly anyway.
i.e.6 come back all is forgiven! (Joke)
Personally I hope it amends the AGENT request string when pre-fetching (or adds a trackable header) - otherwise how could someone (in some situations) explain that they *didn't* load a page (detected via corporate proxy engines etc) which may be deemed as "suspect" by someone, courtesy of a search result?
I'm no rocket scientist but....
Firstly I agree with some of the comments above surrounding the basic point of, what effect might pre-loading a page have.
Secondly, here's my thoughts.
Imagine you search for an item and you are shown 10 results.
Then imagine you quickly click the first result.
Chrome probably didn't have time to pre-fetch the page, so it really isn't much quicker.
Scenario B - My personal method for searching/browsing
Imagine you search for an item and you are shown 10 results.
Then you quickly middle click the top few results to open them in new tabs so they are pre-loading for you, any browser with tabs supports this.
Again Chrome probably wouldn't have time to pre-fetch the pages, so it really isn't much quicker.
Scenario C - Perhaps when Google does speed things up.
Imagine you search for an item and you are shown 10 results.
Then you ponder for say 7 seconds thinking which page to load.
Finally deciding that the first link is what you want.
Great stuff Google pre-loaded it for you.
Scenario D - Oooops no quicker again
Imagine the same as scenario C, however this time you don't choose the top result.
Chrome was busy pre-loading the first page and not the one you've chosen, so again it isn't any quicker.
I seriously think that Webkit, Chromium, Google and Chrome are pretty decent for this world, mainly because they increase competition. However, on this occasion it's a bit like having a LED light on an appliance, it's reassuring. This feature sounds like it will always make things quicker but in reality it cannot, thus it's a nice illusion, something that keeps people reassured that Chrome is very fast.
I just tried the upgrade and it hasn't fixed the problem I was having where Chrome locks up completely when it can't open the page on one tab ( so where is the benefit of using separate threads the whole time? ) and can't open a whole lot of Google sites. In my experience it has proved to be shockingly and consistently unreliable as a browser.
Fortunately Opera appear to have sorted out the abysmal performance that their 10.* versions so I have switched back to that, which apparently also makes me more intelligent, so I guess that's a win all round really.
Then, they'll change it, so instead of searching for what you typed, it'll return the result for the search it thinks you should have typed.
I got to page three of an apparently incomprehensible set of search results, the other day, before I finally worked out that, instead of showing me the results for:
"I/O ChildEvents stEdit editTab.length must be nonzero"
It was showing the results for:
Io childrens events street editable length must be one zone
If anyone from Google is reading this, I have a word of advice for them. This idea was shit, when it was a paper clip. Stop doing it. Even you're not clever enough to do a shitty thing well.
I can see it being tied into Google Docs...
You start typing a search for "Dear" and a cute little Google drawing pin with a red/yellow/green head (or whatever) pops up and says "It looks like you're typing a letter - would you like some help with that?" whilst pre-fetching Google Docs for you in the background... *sighs*
Irrespective of the fact that you were going to search for "Dearth of useful information on Google these days because of this stupid helper!".
Google is well and truly embroiled in a stage I call "optimum meddling"
The adage "It's not broke, so don't fix it" falls on deaf ears.
The good old days of a ridiculously simple search interface are gradually being eroded by a plethora of features dreamed up at the chocolate factory.
They have so much money and power, the luxury to just meddle, poke, fiddle and stir is there in spades.
Some of it is great - some of it is crap and some is downright invasive.
We are but mere numbers on Google's great big ad machines marketing curve- *everything* is geared toward gleaning as much data as possible, just within the bounds of legality, under a banner of "do no evil"
Gotta love that phrase, because, it's essentially a double-edged sword. By feeling the need to proclaim you "do no evil", that kinda leaves the door open to interpret the statement.
The gathering of data has massive advantages - hell, Google Maps and Google Earth are nothing short of staggering, probably Google's finest achievement. What is worrying is the business model.
The business marketing web is slowly but surely being entirely controlled by Google to the point where you simply cannot run a web business without some google involvement.
I'm rambling, this is about Chrome, but it's part and parcel of Google's strategy to effectively *own* the internet - and that, folks, is not a very good thing at all.
Stop fucking with the net like you own it.
You became the top search engine because of simplicity and good results, and are currently top because everyone's used to you now. Even if a better matching engine comes along they'll have a hard time beating you.
However, if you keep fucking around with the results page's behaviour (buggy instant search and previews, now this) eventually the great unwashed will go somewhere else, and then you're well and truly screwed. And I'll laugh.
Google has issued an unexpected update to its Chrome browser to address a zero-day WebRTC flaw that is actively being exploited.
The culprit is CVE-2022-2294, and is a problem in WebRTC – the code that imbues browsers with real-time comms capabilities.
Details of the flaw, number 1341043, are not currently detailed in the Chromium project bug log, and details of the CVE have not been published at the time of writing. But Google's notification of a new browser version describes it as: "Heap buffer overflow in WebRTC. Reported by Jan Vojtesek from the Avast Threat Intelligence team on 2022-07-01."
For the past three months, an elusive bug in Google's open-source Chromium project has been causing a small percentage of Chrome extensions to silently fail.
The bug affects about three to five percent of users of several popular Chrome browser extensions, according to Jói Sigurdsson, founder and CEO of CrankWheel, maker of a screen-sharing extension for sales teams.
As described in the Chromium bug report, event handlers registered via
chrome.browserAction.onClicked.addListener sometimes will fail to get dispatched when the associated button or icon is clicked by the user. For an individual using an affected extension, the result would be that the extension's button just stops responding to click events.
Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.
Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.
The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.
Google is winding down its messaging app Hangouts before it officially shuts in November, the web giant announced on Monday.
Users of the mobile app will see a pop-up asking them to move their conversations onto Google Chat, which is yet another one of its online services. It can be accessed via Gmail as well as its own standalone application. Next month, conversations in the web version of Hangouts will be ported over to Chat in Gmail.
Google is to pay $90 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with US developers over alleged anti-competitive behavior regarding the Google Play Store.
Eligible for a share in the $90 million fund are US developers who earned two million dollars or less in annual revenue through Google Play between 2016 and 2021. "A vast majority of US developers who earned revenue through Google Play will be eligible to receive money from this fund," said Google.
Law firm Hagens Berman announced the settlement this morning, having been one of the first to file a class case. The legal firm was one of four that secured a $100 million settlement from Apple in 2021 for US iOS developers.
Comment For all their differences, the biggest tech companies share one thing in common: They don't like to stay in their lane.
In the more than 20 years we've evolved alongside Apple, Google and Amazon, and the slightly less than 20 we've lived with Facebook, each has branched into areas different from their founding purpose.
Cloud services, ecommerce, hardware and advertising have variously cropped up to displace original businesses, and in recent years, the news has shifted to will-they-won't-they discussions of whether big tech is looking to enter the financial services space.
Updated Another kicking has been leveled at American tech giants by EU regulators as Italy's data protection authority ruled against transfers of data to the US using Google Analytics.
The ruling by the Garante was made yesterday as regulators took a close look at a website operator who was using Google Analytics. The regulators found that the site collected all manner of information.
So far, so normal. Google Analytics is commonly used by websites to analyze traffic. Others exist, but Google's is very much the big beast. It also performs its analysis in the USA, which is what EU regulators have taken exception to. The place is, after all, "a country without an adequate level of data protection," according to the regulator.
Google has added API security tools and Workspace (formerly G-Suite) admin alerts about potentially risky configuration changes such as super admin passwords resets.
The API capabilities – aptly named "Advanced API Security" – are built on top of Apigee, the API management platform that the web giant bought for $625 million six years ago.
As API data makes up an increasing amount of internet traffic – Cloudflare says more than 50 percent of all of the traffic it processes is API based, and it's growing twice as fast as traditional web traffic – API security becomes more important to enterprises. Malicious actors can use API calls to bypass network security measures and connect directly to backend systems or launch DDoS attacks.
Democrat lawmakers want the FTC to investigate Apple and Google's online ad trackers, which they say amount to unfair and deceptive business practices and pose a privacy and security risk to people using the tech giants' mobile devices.
US Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and House Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA) requested on Friday that the watchdog launch a probe into Apple and Google, hours before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for individual states to ban access to abortions.
In the days leading up to the court's action, some of these same lawmakers had also introduced data privacy bills, including a proposal that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has rejected Google's and Mozilla's objections to the Decentralized Identifiers (DID) proposal, clearing the way for the DID specification to be published a W3C Recommendation next month.
The two tech companies worry that the open-ended nature of the spec will promote chaos through a namespace land rush that encourages a proliferation of non-interoperable method specifications. They also have concerns about the ethics of relying on proof-of-work blockchains to handle DIDs.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022