Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Google autocomplete censoring search about the New World Order
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 65228" data-source="post: 723091"><p>I know exactly what you're talking about, however bear in mind that Yahoo and Bing search results <em>aren't going to accurately prove</em> that Google has done anything - all three of the search engines are owned and maintained by different companies and they'll have their own intelligence. It's <strong>unlikely </strong>that Google are <strong>not </strong>censoring your examples though, <em>I recon that they are</em>. If you go ahead with the actual search and loads of results are presented, then that's even more evidence. I'm sure you cannot be the only person to have attempted to search what you did in your examples, and the auto-suggestions seems to be based on what is commonly searched by other people as well (and may also be region-locked - e.g. people around your area have searched for XXXX so when similarities between your search query arise, different suggestions based on what others around you have searched are presented over what the search results shown for someone in another area would get).</p><p></p><p>It depends on numerous factors, although I do think that they are censoring.</p><p></p><p>I have reduced my usage of Google services ever since I went through with the data take-out option and <em>saw how much they had really collected</em> on me over the years. Imagine if you slipped up and your Google account was breached by a malicious attacker, they'd be given a portion of your life (personal thoughts, an eternity-worth of e-mails, location tracking intelligence, etc.). It applies to everyone using Google services.</p><p></p><p>Google are happy to give their privacy policy updates headlines like "How we protect your data" but once you dig deep into the privacy policy, you'll find out that in reality they aren't actually protecting your data (in my opinion). By collecting data in the first place you are leaving the individual vulnerable to having their personal data stolen by others, the only way to play it safe is to not collect the data in the first place. That is just how it is. You can go on further regarding secure data removal - what if a rogue employee setup interception on the deletion removal or took data externally without consent somehow?</p><p></p><p>I remember the tweet where someone found documents they had erased from Google Drive years ago... found in the take-out data. What a coincidence. It just further proves my point regarding data removal.</p><p></p><p>Anyway for both censorship and privacy, I would say that DuckDuckGo is a no-brainer. You can never ever have 100% privacy whilst on the internet but that doesn't mean you cannot take precautions and make wise decisions to avoid intrusive companies as much as possible. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook... Legally they can censor and collect data because if you use their service then it means you've accepted their Terms of Service, but if people slowly start dropping usage of the services in disagreement of those Terms of Service, maybe intrusive and controlling behavior will be reduced over time to a reasonable extent.</p><p></p><p>If you ever feel like being curious and want to feel important, feel free to beta test Google's and Facebook's data collection system. All you must do is sign up and agree to their rules and bobs your uncle, you're now a participant. The best part about it is that it isn't even obvious in regards to how much data will be collected, you'll be a beta tester and may not even necessarily know it. These companies know that a majority do not even read the license agreements - that's why they add the persuasive and re-assuring head-line titles to make you feel safe and trusting and blindly accept. In fact, I'd go as far to point out that I would consider it a social engineering attempt. An attacker can social engineer people into providing sensitive information such as login credentials to an online web-based portal used for their work, and companies can be persuasive and social engineer a viewer with the wording to induce the accepting of agreements blindly, or legally fill the document and bloat it up and word it in a way that makes it difficult to understand the true extent of the data collection unless you're rich and have an expensive lawyer who is exceptionally good at their job.</p><p></p><p>These companies may even start talking and referring to "file scanner system implementations" to "detect malicious attachments", but in reality they will suck most of the time and will likely just be an excuse to make you transfer personal documents more frequently with that service.</p><p></p><p>Look at Skype from Microsoft. Once upon a time the concept and creation was great, well... until it was handed over to Microsoft. It's just a huge surveillance festival now. I wondered why chat and calls slowed down heavily after Microsoft acquired it for a long time, but [USER=58943]@ForgottenSeer 58943[/USER] cleared up those thoughts when he showed me an article from the past where the US government claimed to be willing to spend a lot of money on anyone who could decrypt the Skype communications. What a surprise! Microsoft bought Skype out more or less a year later. LOL. Do yourself and favor and ditch Skype as well - it's insecure anyway because of IP address leaks.</p><p></p><p>I know that I went a bit off-topic because this thread is about censorship and not data collection but both of these topics are closely tied in my opinion so hopefully I am not irritating anyone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deleted member 65228, post: 723091"] I know exactly what you're talking about, however bear in mind that Yahoo and Bing search results [I]aren't going to accurately prove[/I] that Google has done anything - all three of the search engines are owned and maintained by different companies and they'll have their own intelligence. It's [B]unlikely [/B]that Google are [B]not [/B]censoring your examples though, [I]I recon that they are[/I]. If you go ahead with the actual search and loads of results are presented, then that's even more evidence. I'm sure you cannot be the only person to have attempted to search what you did in your examples, and the auto-suggestions seems to be based on what is commonly searched by other people as well (and may also be region-locked - e.g. people around your area have searched for XXXX so when similarities between your search query arise, different suggestions based on what others around you have searched are presented over what the search results shown for someone in another area would get). It depends on numerous factors, although I do think that they are censoring. I have reduced my usage of Google services ever since I went through with the data take-out option and [I]saw how much they had really collected[/I] on me over the years. Imagine if you slipped up and your Google account was breached by a malicious attacker, they'd be given a portion of your life (personal thoughts, an eternity-worth of e-mails, location tracking intelligence, etc.). It applies to everyone using Google services. Google are happy to give their privacy policy updates headlines like "How we protect your data" but once you dig deep into the privacy policy, you'll find out that in reality they aren't actually protecting your data (in my opinion). By collecting data in the first place you are leaving the individual vulnerable to having their personal data stolen by others, the only way to play it safe is to not collect the data in the first place. That is just how it is. You can go on further regarding secure data removal - what if a rogue employee setup interception on the deletion removal or took data externally without consent somehow? I remember the tweet where someone found documents they had erased from Google Drive years ago... found in the take-out data. What a coincidence. It just further proves my point regarding data removal. Anyway for both censorship and privacy, I would say that DuckDuckGo is a no-brainer. You can never ever have 100% privacy whilst on the internet but that doesn't mean you cannot take precautions and make wise decisions to avoid intrusive companies as much as possible. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook... Legally they can censor and collect data because if you use their service then it means you've accepted their Terms of Service, but if people slowly start dropping usage of the services in disagreement of those Terms of Service, maybe intrusive and controlling behavior will be reduced over time to a reasonable extent. If you ever feel like being curious and want to feel important, feel free to beta test Google's and Facebook's data collection system. All you must do is sign up and agree to their rules and bobs your uncle, you're now a participant. The best part about it is that it isn't even obvious in regards to how much data will be collected, you'll be a beta tester and may not even necessarily know it. These companies know that a majority do not even read the license agreements - that's why they add the persuasive and re-assuring head-line titles to make you feel safe and trusting and blindly accept. In fact, I'd go as far to point out that I would consider it a social engineering attempt. An attacker can social engineer people into providing sensitive information such as login credentials to an online web-based portal used for their work, and companies can be persuasive and social engineer a viewer with the wording to induce the accepting of agreements blindly, or legally fill the document and bloat it up and word it in a way that makes it difficult to understand the true extent of the data collection unless you're rich and have an expensive lawyer who is exceptionally good at their job. These companies may even start talking and referring to "file scanner system implementations" to "detect malicious attachments", but in reality they will suck most of the time and will likely just be an excuse to make you transfer personal documents more frequently with that service. Look at Skype from Microsoft. Once upon a time the concept and creation was great, well... until it was handed over to Microsoft. It's just a huge surveillance festival now. I wondered why chat and calls slowed down heavily after Microsoft acquired it for a long time, but [USER=58943]@ForgottenSeer 58943[/USER] cleared up those thoughts when he showed me an article from the past where the US government claimed to be willing to spend a lot of money on anyone who could decrypt the Skype communications. What a surprise! Microsoft bought Skype out more or less a year later. LOL. Do yourself and favor and ditch Skype as well - it's insecure anyway because of IP address leaks. I know that I went a bit off-topic because this thread is about censorship and not data collection but both of these topics are closely tied in my opinion so hopefully I am not irritating anyone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top