Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Privacy Encryption Google

GoogleSharing, Now With No Trust Required 152

An anonymous reader writes "GoogleSharing, the popular Google anonymizing service created by well known privacy advocate and security researcher Moxie Marlinspike, has released a major new version today. The biggest change is leveraging Google's SSL search option to provide an anonymizing service which doesn't require you to trust either Google or GoogleSharing. This means that anyone who wishes to opt out of Google's data collection practices can now do so without having to trust the operator of the anonymizing service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GoogleSharing, Now With No Trust Required

Comments Filter:
  • by microbee ( 682094 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @08:09PM (#33789880)

    Isn't there?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The content is SSL protected, so not unless the GoogleSharing proxy operator has an SSL exploit.

      • Unless GoogleSharing is playing the attack.

      • by Minwee ( 522556 )
        Don't worry, I'm sure that I can trust They have an SSL certificate and a little banner on the site which says they are 100% hacker-free.
    • The man-in-the-middle is there, but he can't do anything, because of the way SSL works. There is not man-in-the-middle attack. Very good question though!

  • Google search and news work fine without one.

    • by spazdor ( 902907 )

      Don't think that just because you haven't got an account, they haven't got an "account" on you.

      • That would be a silly waste of their resources.

        • by spazdor ( 902907 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:58PM (#33790678)

          You do know what Google's business model is, right?

    • I imagine you're still tracked by your IP address, by cookies, and/or any other methods I don't know about.

      • > I imagine you're still tracked by your IP address...

        Dynamic. They might be able to tie clusters of my searches together that way. So what?

        > cookies...

        No cookies, no scripts.

        > ...and/or any other methods I don't know about.

        Which would be just as likely to work through this thing. Browser fingerprinting would be one such. It would let them tie all of my searches together. So what?

    • What about cookies and IP address?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I do all my browsing in Google Chrome and don't want Google to know about me when I use my Gmail, Google Voice, Google Transit, Google Maps, or just plain Google. The fact that it's only supported in firefox doesn't help out people like me.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Chaonici ( 1913646 )

      > and don't want Google to know about me when I use my Gmail, Google Voice, Google Transit, Google Maps, or just plain Google
      If it requires you to be logged in (such as Gmail), GoogleSharing doesn't help you. This is intended for Google services that can track you without an account, such as search.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Is this sarcasm? By virtue of using personalized login-required services like Gmail and Voice, you cannot hide information about you.

      Chrome users can install these two Google extensions for further privacy:

      Disclaimer: These two extensions rely on you trusting Google. Neither of them achieve what TFA intends to do.

    • by minus9 ( 106327 )
      This was modded funny, it should have been "insightful".

      If you really hold such distrust for google that you need to jump through all these hoops perhaps you should use the services of another company instead.

      Other search engines are available.
  • While I appreciate (the existence of) the service, methinks this is a trademark suit just begging to happen. I mean take a look at their logo [] [png graphic]. It really looks like an official Google site. In this age of massive information sharing, I have my doubts about patents and copyrights in general.

    However with patents, I'd give the trademark owner the benefit of the doubt (you're not necessarily evil if you sue for trademark infringement), unless your trademark happens to be a pure (uncombined) dictio

  • My favorite part (Score:3, Informative)

    by MyFirstNameIsPaul ( 1552283 ) * <> on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:24PM (#33790468) Homepage Journal uses no javascript. Hurray!
  • I got an Android phone a month ago and that damned think does everything in its power to get you to enable "total information awareness" settings. Every time I use Google Maps I've got to proactively stop it from sharing my location information. Apps like this will be a blessing as soon as we see a more complete suite of pro-privacy variants come into being.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Google is your god? :-)

    • Yeah well. I'm on the Android platform myself, but have a more resigned approach because at some point the whole exercise becomes absurd. But then, I'm not really the target audience: I just wanted a modern pda, not a googlephone; sadly pda's don't exist any more. And even more sadly, the OpenMoko and similar truly open initiatives failed to produce a device that's workable in practice (the OM is awesome, but not exactly stable or long-lived).

      • I'm kind of with you. While I value my privacy, I'm starting to not care so passionately about trying to alert others to the importance of privacy and to at least understand what information they're giving up. Like you, I'm probably not in Google's target demographic. I don't impulse buy anything, and any purchases I do make I research thoroughly, so I'm more than happy for them to try and find a pattern that they think will sell me stuff if it means I get to enjoy a bunch of great services for free. If the
  • Yo Dawg! I heard you anonymize the non-anonymous SSL, so now anonymous can opt-out and be an anonymize anonymous.

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.