Google Offers Encrypted Web Search Option 288
alphadogg writes "People who want to shield their use of Google's Web search engine from network snoops now have the option of encrypting the session with SSL protection. In the case of Google search, SSL will protect the transmission of search queries entered by users and the search results returned by Google servers. Google began rolling out the encrypted version of its Web search engine on Friday. 'We think users will appreciate this new option for searching. It's a helpful addition to users' online privacy and security, and we'll continue to add encryption support for more search offerings,' wrote Evan Roseman, a Google software engineer, in an official blog post."
The real reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly right. This is not about your privacy... Its about Google protecting their market from say Verizon who could be packet sniffing anything you search on Google, and then selling that data... which then competes with Google.
Google is simply protecting their business. It has nothing to do with user rights or privacy.
But it is a welcomed addition. Its certainly a good thing... but it is also more for Google, than for you.
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an enhancement that isn't a disadvantage for the user, so we should welcome it.
And if it also prevents man in the middle hacking of web pages it's a good thing.
It doesn't. (Score:2)
Unless I'm missing something, this is only for the search itself. As soon as you actually click on of those results, you're at the mercy of whatever server you're connecting to -- and probably no longer encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very interesting to see how you think that Google would resolve that problem. But of course - they could at least have provided a padlock icon or something for every link that is referring to a page using HTTPS.
But at least - now it's not that easy to snoop on the net what a certain person searches for. "Ice Cream Bomb" or "Nuclear Bomb"?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me that you believe Google doesn't offer security agencies black-box connectivity to its storage / routers.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on which agency - and for which country.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... the results are also running through the secure site.
Give it a shot and see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, your browser will do this for you anyway:
RFC 2616, 15.1.3 [ietf.org]:
Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, also now nobody else will know which words I need to look-up the spelling of, relieving my virtual embarrassment!
(Did you know there are two "r"s in "embarrassment"?)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I use FireFox - it has a spell checker! :p
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I once misspelled "harass" as "harrass". I fixed this by recalling that I should not "har-ass her-ass". This has both everything and nothing to do with embarrassment, so embarrassment works the other way.
Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, we all know that in a free market economy
Where?
It's what we'd all do if given the chance.
Speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Kids don't have instinctive responses to particular web pages
If you think this then you haven't dealt with many teenage kids.
adults who think that implied disgust and taking away of information are correct ways of providing education.
Who said anything about providing education?
I'm pretty anti-censorship and think that people should have access to whatever information they like. *However* I'm not crazy enough to believe that the very young are capable of dealing with all that information - they should only get access to some of it when they have matured to the point of being able to deal with it.
There are 3 things that kids need protecting against:
1. accidentally stumbling
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I see this also useful against Phorm, and other in-transit ad-insertion mechanisms.
All and all, the good guys benefit here. Google doesn't have ISPs modifying their ads in transit, replacing their ads with their own. The user gets search results that have not been tampered with (where a site for product "A" takes you to a different company, or associate IDs are replaced so different parties get credit for ad responses), and have potentially malicious ads thrown in. ISPs can't passively log the connection and sell the data (just like the parent said.)
Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
It is apparent that you don't like Google. That's fine. However, that is beside the point. What is important is that the connection between the Google user and Google is only belonging to those two. A third party can slow down or block the SSL transaction, but unless they jack a root CA, compromise one of the endpoints, or break one of the encryption algorithms, they are not going to be seeing what is going on.
To reiterate: Regardless of opinions of Google, this is a good thing. A search query with Google is my business and Google's business. Not the ISP's, not Phorm's, not a MITM watching the traffic go by. I'm sure as time goes on, less scrupulous ISPs will be slavering over ad revenue from in-transit ads.
Re: (Score:2)
It is apparent that you don't like Google. That's fine. However, that is beside the point.
"You just don't like me!!!" No; I don't like what Google's doing, and I've provided some reasons.
A search query with Google is my business and Google's business. Not the ISP's, not Phorm's, not a MITM watching the traffic go by.
No-one disagrees that it's Google's business from the PoV of delivering search results. But from the PoV of storage and datamining, it's as much Google's business as it is Phorm's.
(Hey, at least an former elected MP and senior civil servant are on Phorm's board, individuals whose careers have been advanced directly and indirectly by the prol^Wpeople rather than venture capitalists and advertisers. A pox on every
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But from the PoV of storage and datamining, it's as much Google's business as it is Phorm's.
Uhm, no it isn't. You went to google to do a search. You didn't go anywhere else. Therefore, it isn't anyone else's business. And if you don't want google to have your search data, you can opt out of that by not using them at all. Phorm isn't even in the equation, they are interlopers. Encrypting the traffic cuts those types out completely. That way you only have Google to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
You had me until:
Slashdot is a first tier news site, where not just any incoherent sentence fragments are acceptable.
3/10. Maybe if Google didn't put Wikipedia at the top of all search results, you'd understand your fallacies.
Re: (Score:2)
i've just tested https://google.com/ [google.com] ... the query parameter is sent as GET request and therefore unencrypted. What am I missing? Isn't the query and not the response the valuable part of google search ?
-S
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't care if it is. I don't know why all of our internet traffic these days isn't encrypted. Good job Google for stepping up even on the simplest of things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All useful sites offer complete SSL access, but I guess Google - as with IPv6 - gets to be congratulated when it makes a half hearted attempt to do what real technology pioneers have been doing for a good decade.
In other news, everything Apple's ever done is original.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can pay for a slashdot subscription for https access...
Xbox Live is encrypted (Score:2)
[Encryption] would just be down right unforgivable for internet games in terms of ping/lab.
Gaming over Xbox Live Gold is an arguable counterexample to your assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
SSL is TCP based, so it does take time for to create the connection and tear it down.
However, a game which uses UDP packets primarily could easily set up a session key via a DH exchange (using an existing mechanism like SSL, or having keys/certs built into the game itself so third party CAs are not an issue), and once this is set up, CPU overhead due to using a symmetric cipher like AES would be very low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would this close down scroogle?
If you have a multi-billion dollar budget, then seeming to duplicate some of [scroogle.org] the features of a non-profit (not the important ones, mind) is a good way to reduce interest in the non-profit.
Not that Google's done anything else to bother Scroogle [theregister.co.uk] this month.
Now I can Google my SSN and CC#!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now I can Google my SSN and CC#!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now I can Google my SSN and CC#!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Google: 123450000..123459999
This way you can search for SSN, CC numbers etc.
Re:Now I can Google my SSN and CC#!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Better yet google for the a range of 10000 numbers by adding two dots between the lower and upper number:
Google: 123450000..123459999
This way you can search for SSN, CC numbers etc.
When I try that, all I get is a message from Google that accuses me of being a bot, and they won't process my request in order to protect their users.
Google's We're sorry page (Score:3, Informative)
I had to wait a couple minutes, log in using my Google account, and then search for various antispyware-related keywords before Google would let me run a query like this again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to work. Google comes back and says "We're sorry... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now."
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how old you are - those of us born before the IRS started requiring SSNs for all dependents claimed on the tax forms often have SSNs acquired years after and miles away from where we were born. I didn't get an SSN until I was in the 8th grade, when we
Implications on China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's meaningless. You search for some keywords over SSL and click on a non-https link in the result page. BAM, the Referer now points to the result page, which contains the keywords you just used in its URL.
Of course Referer is easily spoofed, but you get the idea: Google search is only one aspect of a person's online activities, and the secret hiding in it can be analysed using side channels.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a fix for that, look at what Opera is doing, they are allowing you to browse in a mode, that first caches the pages on Opera side and then pre-processes them and sends them to the browser. This could also be used to surf all the found sites through an SSL encrypted connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Google already provides DNS servers, why not encrypted ones?
Re:Implications on China (Score:4, Informative)
You search for some keywords over SSL and click on a non-https link in the result page. BAM, the Referer now points to the result page, which contains the keywords you just used in its URL.
According to RFC2616 (HTTP/1.1) section 15.1.3 "Encoding Sensitive Information in URI's" [ietf.org], "Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Some forum software use such a feature when making URLs clickable.
Other methods include javascript tricks.
The actual output from Google when searching for slashdot is this and clicking the link is the following, which is primary javascript with fallback to the html meta header:
<script>var a=parent,b=parent.google,c=location;
if(a!=window&&b){if(b.r){b.r=0;a.location.href="ht
Re: (Score:2)
Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol.
RFC2616, 15.1.3 [ietf.org]
all browsers follow this.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from the Google information on their SSL search, "As another layer of privacy, SSL search turns off a browser's referrers. Web browsers typically turn off referrers when going from HTTPS to HTTP mode to provide extra privacy. By clicking on a search result that takes you to an HTTP site, you could disable any customizations that the website provides based on the referrer information."
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be perfect or up to date but you could access the cache page (via SSL) and still get to access (reference) material.
Re: (Score:2)
They mention that most good browsers, don't use HTTP_referrer for SSL sites.
What can I expect from search over SSL?
Here's how searching over SSL is different from regular Google search:
Note that SSL search does not reduce the data that Google receives and logs when you search, or change the listing of these terms in your Web History.
So you need to make sure your browser disables http_referrer for SSL sites, and otherwise behaves well.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome/Firefox address bar still not SSL tho. (Score:2)
Most people today probably enter search through their address bars...
That doesnt appear to go through SSL... yet at least.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, you can find instructions on setting Google SSL as your search engine here: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-secure-search.html [blogspot.com]
Have fun!
Re: (Score:2)
All HTTP traffic should be encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
As a matter of course, we should use SSL on all connections. In some rare cases the computation may be too much of a burden, but in the vast majority of situations it's trivial and there's no reason not to do it.
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic.
Not only would that provide some measure of security against eavesdropping, but it would also assist with detection of phishing attacks. Browsers could and should throw up nasty warnings/errors when connecting to a site whose certificate has inexplicably changed. This is similar to how SSH handles trust of server keys, a system that works very well in practice.
Regarding this move by Google, I think it's great. I applauded their decision to make Gmail and Google Apps HTTPS-only, and providing the option for Google Search is great, too. Hopefully they'll eventually go to HTTPS-only for search as well. Their page volumes are such that they'll have to seriously consider the impact of the encryption overhead, but I think they'll get there.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld. In fact, there was a bug filed against Firefox a while back now when it did flash up such an error and it transpired that the connection was being e
Re:All HTTP traffic should be encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld.
Did you read my post? That's why the user shouldn't be given any indication that the connection is secured when a self-signed cert has been presented, because it's really not.
Sites where sensitive data is managed should not used self-signed certs, so that the certificate chain can be verified, to defeat MITM attacks. But sites that would currently not use any encryption could increase their security by a non-negligible amount by using HTTPS and a self-signed cert -- but the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is stupid and broken.
Re: (Score:2)
How's the browser meant to know the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
How's the browser meant to know the difference?
The difference between what and what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is well and good, but remember most people don't really have the inclination to learn how the security works - they just want to know it's there. Such a suggestion means that you're essentially introducing a new level of security: "sort-of secure, fine if you're not doing anything important".
IMV, this is introducing confusion. For most practical purposes, "refuse a self-signed certificate" is perfectly good advice and eliminates much of the confusion. If you're a company and you don't want to go o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the user’s point of view, the suggestion wasn’t to add a new level of security. The suggestion was that a SSL connection with a self-signed certificate should be presented to the user _exactly_ the same as a normal HTTP connection. Which makes sense, as the user still doesn’t have any sort of guarantee about who they’re connected to.
Again: for the user, there’s secure (which means properly certified SSL, and a lock, and whatever other visual indicators), or insecure (anyth
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What?
Of course the browser doesn't know the difference between a site that uses signed certificates that is being MITM'd and one that uses a self-signed certificate. That's why neither of these should be advertised as being "secure". Because they're not. And when you go to https://my.bank/ [my.bank] and notice that the lock isn't there because someone's doing a MITM with a self-signed cert you should realise "whoa, hey, this isn't a secure connection" and proceed to not give your bank details to whoever is at the oth
Re:All HTTP traffic should be encrypted (Score:5, Informative)
How's the browser meant to know the difference?
The browser is not meant to (and cannot) know the difference between sites using a self-signed-certificate and those that should use a "real" certificate. That is what the user is supposed to do. What the original poster was suggesting was that sites using a self-signed-certificate display the site AS IF no security was present. Thus when you visited "Chris's House of Fly Fishing Forums" with a self-signed-certificate, you would not be presented with an obtrusive "watch out! this might be phony!" notification, but you would also not be presented with lots of flashing padlocks and icons indicating your high security. Such a system would not penalize websites which used self-signed-certificates IN COMPARISON TO sites which use NO certificate at all. Users however would have some actual benefit in that their fly fishing discussions would be more well secured from third parties. If people use the same or similar account names and passwords on lots of websites, identity theft would be a bit harder than just sniffing their unencrypted web traffic if all of it was secured with self-signed-certificates.
It does seem as though there would be some non-zero positive effects to more "regular" sites using encrypted sessions, and encouraging use of self-signed certificates in cases sign as these.
For a real-world example: a cheap-ass lock discourages the good-for-nothing-neighbourhood-punk-kids from rummaging through the garden shed. There is little benefit to also putting up a big sign in the drawer where we keep the key saying "the lock on the shed is a piece of shit and provides no real security".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem with allowing self-signed certs is that it means that https doesn't mean you're secure anymore.
Yes, technical users might be able to use them safely, but I wouldn't trust myself to be that attentive. Consider if I clear all my local browser state, or if I'm using a new computer and I go to my bank's web site. I've entered https so I think I'm safe. Do you think I'm going to notice the lack of a lock in the browser window? What about sites like facebook where I don't even see https, even tho
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly, if the browser receives a self-signed certificate from a formerly-secure site, it should complain loudly. Also, browsers should make the secured status of sites very obvious, and sites with self-signed certs are not secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld. In fact, there was a bug filed against Firefox a while back now when it did flash up such an error and it transpired that the connection was being eavesdropped.
Yet you're using slashdot without encryption. Treating self-signed certificated as worse then HTTP traffic is broken. Self-signed does provide some protection that HTTP doesn't. Namely it no longer can be passively eavesdropped, it requires MITM. Now go look at how many CA's are in your browser, that's how many organizations you're giving permission to pretend to be whoever they want. There is no silver bullet in security. So you should take the 50% solution over the 0% solution. Yet right now we're
Re: (Score:2)
There are sites that allow you to get free SIGNED SSL certificates. I got a StartCom Certificate a number of months back, and people no longer get browser errors on my site. Sure, it's a little bit of a hassle, but in the long term it's worth it.
I got a glimpse of this early yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
After typing in www.google.com to play some Pac-Man [slashdot.org] yesterday I was saddened to see the regular logo instead of the game but then I noticed I was at https://www.google.com/ [google.com]. At first I thought all requests to http://.../ [...] were being redirected to https://.../ [...] but after a couple reloads I was back at http://.../ [...] and Pac-Man, and even when I typed in https://.../ [...] it redirected me back to http://./ [.]
My question now is, how long until the built-in browser search box in Safari uses this? (I'm sure the one in Firefox can handle this already, or will soon.) Another question: why not use https all the time? I know it's a bit more CPU to encrypt things, which is unnoticeable on modern clients, but how much of a strain is it on servers? Also, are there any popular clients out that don't support it? Is there any reason not to go all https all the time?
protects your privacy from everyone but google (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IP tracking (Score:3, Insightful)
But google still knows what you did.
Re: (Score:2)
and? (Score:2)
look, i'm all for privacy, but too many expect the impossible
even if google publicly announced it was keeping no logs, this wouldn't be good enough for some people. you'd complain about something, anything. because you want to complain, not because you have anything useful to say
some people's standards are too insane
look: if you go to the store, and buy a can of coke, someone knows you went and bought a can of coke. deal wtih it, that's life: you leak personal info all the time in disjointed ways. there is
Adjusting search boxes (Score:2)
Re:Adjusting search boxes (Score:4, Informative)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/161901/ [mozilla.org]
Mocking DuckDuck Go (Score:2)
Looks like google is just mocking [gabrielweinberg.com] DuckDuckGo.
But the use of SSL on google does not offer you privacy: google still knows who you are and what you searched for.
Check that fingerprint... especially at WORK (Score:3, Interesting)
but be sure to write down google's ssl fingerprint... and check it every now and then yourself. You never know when your place of work decides to start intercepting https! Mine did recently until I pointed out issues with HIPAA compliance in conjunction with our limited personal use policy! They (work) installed their own certificate on everyone's computers (but they didn't do Firefox which is why i noticed)... and then they modified the proxy servers to start taking a peek before re-encrypting and sending it along :(
The feature we really need (Score:2, Insightful)
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
This will stop nosey people in the middle sniffing my searches.
Is there a way of doing an "advanced search" that only brings up HTTPS results - apart from putting that as a part of the search string?
Close... but what about auto-suggests (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting side effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporate IT will no longer be able to monitor Google search activity merely by intercepting port 80 traffic.
They also cannot implement a webfilter that simply monitors port 80 traffic, and denies your ability to search, based on keyword.
They can't block SSL either, since Google requires SSL for certain things (login to Google accounts, google webmaster tools, google checkout) that Enterprise users may require.
Re:Security != privacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you still trade your privacy for the service provided by Google; the difference is the trade being less likely to be interrupted now.
Google has never shown any tendency towards abuse of my private data. My government, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break its own laws whenever it's convenient for any of their actual constituents, i.e. corporations. I'm much more worried about my government watching my search history than google doing it. Of course, they'll give that information to my government any old time, but that's not the same thing as having it continually logged where it can fire off triggers.
No, I'm not doing anything that I feel my government would attack me for. But then, I'm not doing anything google would attack me for, either. Google continually stands in opposition to the corporations that I am concerned about. The enemy of my enemy may or may not be my friend, but odds are better than if he's my enemy's friend. Contrarily, much of what the U.S. government does makes it the enemy of any right-thinking citizen, where right-thinking is defined as "freedom-loving". (I may have a bias, but I certainly don't hide it.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My government, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break its own laws whenever it's convenient for any of their actual constituents, i.e. corporations.
You do realize that Google is a corporation too, don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My government, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break its own laws whenever it's convenient for any of their actual constituents, i.e. corporations.
[...]
No, I'm not doing anything that I feel my government would attack me for. But then, I'm not doing anything google would attack me for, either. Google continually stands in opposition to the corporations that I am concerned about. The enemy of my enemy may or may not be my friend, but odds are better than if he's my enemy's friend.
You do realize that Google is a corporation too, don't you?
You just failed your CTBS reading comprehension test. Back to elementary school with you! (If you are in elementary school now, I apologize. I do not want to be ageist.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not doing anything that I feel my government would attack me for.
Today perhaps. The rules can change tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has never shown any tendency towards abuse of my private data...Of course, they'll give that information to my government any old time, but that's not the same thing as having it continually logged where it can fire off triggers.
How do you know it's not being done automatically now? You don't.. My advice is simply to trust no one. The internet is a party line, any anybody can hear what you're doing. And government and corporation are the same. That's the way the majority wants it. The cool thing is t
think logically (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, you still trade your privacy for the service provided by Google; the difference is the trade being less likely to be interrupted now.
Privacy isn't an all or nothing proposition. I don't "trade in" my privacy, I disclose information selectively. When I search on a search engine, necessarily that search engine know what I searched for. Google has defined retention policies, and there is no reason to believe that they don't comply with them.
However, there are other aspects of privacy I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed wholeheartedly. There are things that I want to keep private; those things do not go on the Internet. There are things I don't mind companies knowing. eBay knows my name and address and for a while I had a credit card on file with them (I still do with PayPal). Similarly, I don't particularly mind Google knowing what I search for... any more than I mind the local bakery knowing what goods I like. Nobody complains about a bakery keeping track of sales (Hmm, the elderly seem to like xxx while kids
Re:Security != privacy. (Score:5, Informative)
Google clearly states this on their page. There is no such thing as 'free'.
"few notes to remember: Google will still maintain search data to improve your search quality and to provide better service. Searching over SSL doesn't reduce the data sent to Google -- it only hides that data from third parties who seek it. And clicking on any of the web results, including Google universal search results for unsupported services like Google Images, could take you out of SSL mode. Our hope is that more websites and services will add support for SSL to help create a better and more consistent experience for you.
We think users will appreciate this new option for searching. It's a helpful addition to users' online privacy and security, and we'll continue to add encryption support for more search offerings. To learn more about using the feature, refer to our help article on search over SSL."
They make there money by monetizing your search and with ads. You are free not to use their service.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yeah, the queries you actively send to Google are in Google's hands.
The privacy benefit is directly linked to the security benefit, in that people other than the one to whom you are choosing to give your data to provide you with a service don't have quite as easy access to it in transit.
Privacy doesn't mean no one has your information, it means that only the people you choose to give your information to have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you captain obvious. Any more insightful commentary for us?
Odd != Even?
The whole in my donut is still missing?
Time + Materials != the portmanteau 'Timaterials'?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but Scroogle has recently been shut down by Google, so this is their alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Scroogle was never shut down by google. Google changed the layout of their results page, and scroogle had to update its scraping software in order to be able to read the new format.
here [theregister.co.uk] is the article where Scroogle claims they'll have to shut down forever, and here [scroogle.org] is scroogle, working fine.
One last note, for the truly paranoid: how do you know scroogle isn't a front, run by google?
Re:Scroogle is better (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but Scroogle has recently been shut down by Google, so this is their alternative.
http://www.scroogle.org/scrapen8.html [scroogle.org] - well, it certainly didn't take much research to work out that isn't true.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
SSL adds protection to both ends of the communication. This may look like a circus from the user's perspective; but for Google themselves, it's better self-defense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(given google's questionable record on privacy issues)?
Really? Like what?
moved to other search engines
Like which one? Bing? What reason do I have to trust them any more than Google?
I can't help but question who this feature is for.
Pretty much anybody. Right now, your ISP and your government likely are scanning your unencrypted web communications for keywords and prohibited content. Even if you don't do anything wrong, you may trigger those systems, with potentially unpleasant consequences. An SSL conn
Re: (Score:2)
It only needs to be good enough to make wide-scale interception expensive, and it needs to be as fast as possible. Remember Google has a lot of traffic, and SSH is not free in terms of bandwidth and processor usage, not even after the initial handshake.
Re: (Score:2)
Or so they claim...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case you need to put a root cert on the school's computers, and do a MITM for SSL.
SSL doesn't mean no MITM. It means no *unauthorized* MITM...