Google Chrome...Any good?

[arad85]

Although it may have changed now, I still can't get over the original Chrome T&Cs that basically stated they can use, publish, do whatever they like with anything submitted through their browser. Google it ( in your choice browser of course ;p ) it's quite intesting.

I don't see anything sinister in:

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/privacy.html

or

http://www.google.com/intl/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy.html

which is what the EULA of Chrome (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) points to:

6. Privacy and your personal information

6.1 For information about Google’s data protection practices, please read Google’s privacy policy at http://www.google.com/privacy.html and at http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/privacy.html. This policy explains how Google treats your personal information and protects your privacy when you use the Services.

6.2 You agree to the use of your data in accordance with Google’s privacy policies.

Perhaps you could point to the text that causes you a problem?

 

[johnfotohouse]

I used Firefox for years but when it started failing regularly earlier this year I changed to Chrome and I won't be going back, clean and efficient, I use it on my Window laptops and my iMac.

 

[Yardbent]

I use SRWare Iron, its Chrome without all the we own your little toe t&c's

running FF4 on a slow broadband connection

so tried SRWare ....dowloded and installed

it's got a animated banner across the top -- in GERMAN..............:thumbsdown:

 

[strumstrum]

so tried SRWare ....dowloded and installed

it's got a animated banner across the top -- in GERMAN..............:thumbsdown:

eh! we talking bout same browser??

mine looks like this, never seen any animated german thing and we have it on 4 PC's..

 

[Yardbent]

have had a few Shiraz... but not seeing things

defo German banner...perhaps i downloaded from a German mirror site.....:shrug:...............[if that's the right terminology]

however downloaded file was deleted in frustration so cannot run again for screenshot

at 700kbps download i am getting very p------off at trying to load browsers to compare

even TP takes 27secs to load

considering using IE broadband at library and ditch my PC all together for TP
suppose wont be able to upload any images - but with my recent photographic endeavors that is no great loss....

why is life so complicated with rural connections...:bang:

 

[Islander]

I don't see anything sinister in:

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/privacy.html

or

http://www.google.com/intl/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy.html

which is what the EULA of Chrome (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) points to:



Perhaps you could point to the text that causes you a problem?

Have a search around on The Register and see what Google's CEO's attitude to data and personal privacy is. See how many times they've breached personal and data privacy including the WiFi debacle when they were going around with the street view cars. See what legal action is pending against them around the world.

I trust Google about as far as I can spit. No, in fact not even that far. Why use their browser when SRWare's Iron or the original Chromium browser are available *without* god knows what code embedded. They work the same way, offer the same speed and footprint and can be trusted. You can even inspect the source code if you want - you can't with Chrome.

You call it FUD, I call it common sense.

Chrome offers nothing over Iron or Chromium so why take the risk?

 

[arad85]

Chrome offers nothing over Iron or Chromium so why take the risk?

Probably because I don't care if Big Brother is watching what I browse - I don't believe anyone having my browsing habits is worth anything to anyone. If people are willing to pay for it, then more fool them. I never click through on ads and whether the ads are targeted or not from information Google capture (although you can get a plug-in which opts you out of targeted adverts), they will still appear on pages.

Anyway, whichever browser I use, I'd still use google as my search engine and I have a static IP so google would still be able to track my browser usage and target me.

I think people are generally over protective of their privacy on the net whilst not in real life. For example, do you use the same zealousness with store loyalty cards (e.g. Tescos Clubcard). That's WAY more intrusive than Google can ever be.

 

[Islander]

Probably because I don't care if Big Brother is watching what I browse - I don't believe anyone having my browsing habits is worth anything to anyone. If people are willing to pay for it, then more fool them. I never click through on ads and whether the ads are targeted or not from information Google capture (although you can get a plug-in which opts you out of targeted adverts), they will still appear on pages.

Anyway, whichever browser I use, I'd still use google as my search engine and I have a static IP so google would still be able to track my browser usage and target me.

I think people are generally over protective of their privacy on the net whilst not in real life. For example, do you use the same zealousness with store loyalty cards (e.g. Tescos Clubcard). That's WAY more intrusive than Google can ever be.

I'm protective of my privacy generally - it goes with my profession as an Information Security Manager. I'm careful with marketing and mailing databases and always opt out, same goes for the edited electoral register. I get no junk mail or marketing calls apart from the random stuff and the contract stuff that RM delivers. I don't have any loyalty cards and wouldn't consider them either. I use a VPN for the majority of my online stuff and have done since the BT/Phorm fiasco. My browsing habits are nothing exceptional - apart from the security/hacking type stuff I look at professionally, but they're MY habits and as such, I want to keep them private.

I think people are far too lax with their privacy both on the net and in real life.

So, I recommend that people avoid Chrome like the plague and use the proper open source versions (Iron and Chromium) instead.

 

[arad85]

I don't have any loyalty cards and wouldn't consider them either

You are very much the exception.

So, I recommend that people avoid Chrome like the plague and use the proper open source versions (Iron and Chromium) instead.

I would do, if you could point to what extra information Google can get from a Chrome install vs Iron or Chromium other than FUD.... Personally, I can't see what else it can get as it's the use of Google search engine where that information is gained, and Google is my preferred search engine - so they'll find my browsing habits whatever browser I use....

 

[Islander]

You are very much the exception.
I would do, if you could point to what extra information Google can get from a Chrome install vs Iron or Chromium other than FUD.... Personally, I can't see what else it can get as it's the use of Google search engine where that information is gained, and Google is my preferred search engine - so they'll find my browsing habits whatever browser I use....

Actually I know a lot of people that won't touch loyalty cards. I'm by no means 'very much the exception' - maybe part of a minority, but it's not as unusual as you seem to think.

Google's attitude to privacy is appalling and that comes from the very top of the organisation. It's not FUD and a little bit of research would show you how terrible their track record is. They quite simply don't deserve trust.

As for the browsers, they're all based on the Chromium open source project and perform identically as far as system resources go. Iron and Chromium are properly open source with compilable source code that can be examined by anyone who cares to. Google's Chrome isn't. Personally, I wonder why.

 

[arad85]

Personally, I wonder why.

And there you go with the FUD.

QED

 

[Islander]

And there you go with the FUD.

QED

I'll give you that one

I'll stand by the concerns I have about Google's attitude and past behaviour though. IMO, which is based on the plentiful evidence, they're not to be trusted.

 

[arad85]

I'll stand by the concerns I have about Google's attitude and past behaviour though. IMO, which is based on the plentiful evidence, they're not to be trusted.

If it's the company attitude you're worried about (which is a view I have a little more sympathy with) then you should be looking at the search engine you use and not the browser. The browser used is pretty immaterial as all the search engine has to do is store a cookie to identify you and your habits whether you use Chrome, SWIron of Chromium.

I'll stand by my statement that I think there's a lot of (unfounded) FUD surrounding Chrome.

 

[Islander]

If it's the company attitude you're worried about (which is a view I have a little more sympathy with) then you should be looking at the search engine you use and not the browser. The browser used is pretty immaterial as all the search engine has to do is store a cookie to identify you and your habits whether you use Chrome, SWIron of Chromium.

I'll stand by my statement that I think there's a lot of (unfounded) FUD surrounding Chrome.

I use Scroogle a lot of the time - it uses the Google search engine but effectively stops Google from storing the seatch information

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

We're going to have to agree to disagree on Chrome. I can see no benefit of using Chrome over the proper open source versions (Iron and Chromium) and given the cavalier attitude of Google, I'd rather not take the risk nor would I advise anyone else to - there's simply no point. Call it FUD if you want but it's simple risk management which is at the heart of good security practice.

 

[arad85]

No problems with agreeing to disagree Tony...

My personal opinion is that anything google can gain from me is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't matter to me that they have it. If Google can make money from it - then more fool the people buying the information...

 

[andy s]

Chrome for me now on

 

[AllFallD0wn]

For me, at the moment, nothing can touch chrome in terms of performance (both speed and not hogging memory), stability, security and general awesomeness (angry birds app, anyone?)

 

[m3csl2004]

Chrome is good, and is generally what I let people at work use.

Personally I loved FF3, but the versions are changing too quickly now with no noticable improvment from 4 to 5 for me. I will stick with proper open source every time however .

AOL browser? I remeber using that on a 56K modem .

 

[Pete Gl]

Have tried Chrome, but I don't like the way favourites are handled, IE, you have to have a favourite bar showing, thus losing an amount of screen space; or am I missing something?

Pete

 

[arad85]

Have tried Chrome, but I don't like the way favourites are handled, IE, you have to have a favourite bar showing, thus losing an amount of screen space; or am I missing something?

You can turn that off or on - Options->Basics->Toolbar and make sure always show the bookmarks bar is NOT ticked.

 

[Pete Gl]

You can turn that off or on - Options->Basics->Toolbar and make sure always show the bookmarks bar is NOT ticked.

Yep, have got that far Arad, but if I turn the toolbar off how do I access my favourites?

Pete

 

[arad85]

Yep, have got that far Arad, but if I turn the toolbar off how do I access my favourites?

Pete

Ctrl-Shift-B toggles the bookmark bar. Alternatively Spanner->Bookmark Manager will give you a whole tab with your bookmarks in.

 

[DigestiveBag]

I don't see anything sinister in:

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/privacy.html

or

http://www.google.com/intl/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy.html

which is what the EULA of Chrome (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) points to:



Perhaps you could point to the text that causes you a problem?

Sorry for delayed reply. I wouldn't say it causes me a problem as such, I just choose not to use it. But the offending bit is/was:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

I guess it's up to peoples interpretation, and believe me I have nothing to hide, but this effectively says they can do whatever they like with anything you type. If any employees are using their webmail through chrome, google can use what may be confidential info. Whether they would or not is another question, but I have to very carefully consider these things. I believe they were pushed to remove this line as there was quite a fuss, hence why I say it may have changed now and may take another look.

 

[arad85]

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

Have to say I can see why you might get worried by this, but that sounds like a cover all so you can't post something and then claim it's Googles fault.

Having said that, it would be difficult for Google to claim copyright on anything you posted THROUGH the browser...

 

[DigestiveBag]

I guess that makes sense, maybe could have been worded better, which I assume it now is.

I'm downloading it now.......