background preloader

How to Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect

How to Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect
[UPDATE 2/22/2012] It is important to note that disabling Web History in your Google account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information and using it for internal purposes. More information at the end of this post. On March 1st, Google will implement its new, unified privacy policy, which will affect data Google has collected on you prior to March 1st as well as data it collects on you in the future. Until now, your Google Web History (your Google searches and sites visited) was cordoned off from Google's other products. Here's how you can do that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Note that removing your Web History also pauses it. [UPDATE 2/22/2012]: Note that disabling Web History in your Google account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information and using it for internal purposes. If you have several Google accounts, you will need to do this for each of them.

MonEspionGoogle_nomap. MonEspionGoogle_nomap. Ce n'est un secret pour personne... Google recense via ses Google Car et ses téléphones Android, tous les points d'accès WiFi que ces derniers peuvent rencontrer. L'intérêt c'est qu'en croisant ces hotspots avec des coordonnées GPS collectées au moment du passage de la Google Car, il est possible à un téléphone dont la fonctionnalité GPS est offline, de se géolocaliser simplement avec les hotspots environnants. Malin... Mais que faire si vous ne voulez pas que votre point d'accès WiFi soit enregistré par Google ? C'est la solution officielle (et bof bof) que propose Google pour les râleurs qui considèrent ce fichage de bornes WiFi comme une fuite de leur vie privée. [source] Vous avez aimé cet article ?

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a potentially game-changing statement on the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and drew an important line in the sand by emphasizing that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet." Yet, the fight is still far from over. Even though the New York Times reported that the White House statement "all but kill[s] current versions of the legislation," the Senate is still poised to bring PIPA to the floor next week, and we can expect SOPA proponents in the House to try to revive the legislation—unless they get the message that these initiatives must stop, now. So let’s take a look at the dangerous provisions in the blacklist bills that would violate the White House’s own principles by damaging free speech, Internet security, and online innovation: The Anti-Circumvention Provision The “Vigilante” Provision

Facebook Denies Poaching Your Text Messages On Android High performance access to file storage Facebook has dismissed allegations in The Sunday Times that the web giant's Android app can hoover text messages from phones as "creative conspiracy theorising". Flatly denying the claim published by the broadsheet at the weekend, the social network's UK office said its app's ability to access text messages was open and transparent, and that Facebook isn't actually looking at text messages anyway. “The Sunday Times has done some creative conspiracy theorising," the rep said in a statement: "The suggestion that we're secretly reading people texts is ridiculous. The permissions page for the Facebook app on the Android App Marketplace does clearly state this feature of the app: Facebook added that although its app does have the permission to read, send and edit text messages in a user's phone, it's not something it does. However, other than some very limited testing, we haven't launched anything so we're not using the permission.

Surveillance en France : Google veut une prise de conscience Face à la surveillance des États, Google appelle les citoyens du monde à se mobiliser et à demander des comptes à leurs dirigeants. C'est en susbtance le message qu'a voulu faire passer Dorothy Chou, l'une des responsables d'un programme établissant chaque année un rapport de transparence sur les demandes de suppression de contenu et les demandes de renseignements sur les internautes. Interrogée par Le Point, Dorothy Chou estime qu'il est normal que les citoyens, les organisations non gouvernementales et les associations se saisissent pleinement de ces problématiques. Car il s'agit, en fin de compte, de leurs données personnelles. Et de plaider pour une action concertée à l'échelle européenne, afin de pousser les États membres à faire preuve de transparence et de responsabilité. "Les citoyens doivent se demander : "les autorités servent-elles mes intérêts ?

Electronic Frontier Foundation The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit digital rights group based in the United States. History[edit] Foundation[edit] In April 1990, Barlow had been visited by a U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation agent in relation to the theft and distribution of the source code for a series of Macintosh ROMs. This generated further reaction and support for the ideas of Barlow and Kapor. The Electronic Frontier Foundation was formally founded on July 10, 1990, by Kapor, Gilmore and Barlow. In 1990, Mike Godwin joined the organization as the first staff counsel. Early cases[edit] The creation of the organization was motivated by the massive search and seizure on Steve Jackson Games executed by the United States Secret Service early in 1990. EFF's second big case was Bernstein v. Expansion and development[edit] In early 2010, EFF released this poster in celebration of its founding 20 years before. DES Cracker[edit] Activities[edit] Litigation[edit] Awards[edit] Support[edit]

What lawful access is all about and why it matters The Canadian federal government is expected to table its latest iteration of "lawful access" legislation in Parliament this week. This is a BIG DEAL. First, let's set the record straight: Assuming this bill is roughly the same as the last one that fell off the order paper, it will NOT allow warrantless access to the contents of any online communications. They can't read your email or watch you surf the internet, unless they get a warrant. But it is expected to set up a system under which the police can get a huge list of non-content personal information without a warrant. Ask yourself this: Should the police be able to get access to the names and addresses of anyone who shows up at a G20 protest? The Internet is not quite like the real world. Every device on the network has an IP address. It's just the nature of how networks work. Every mobile phone regularly chirps out its location so that the phone company can route calls to your device. Don't get me wrong ...

« La vie privée, une anomalie » : Google de plus en plus flippant « Le vie privée pourrait en réalité être une anomalie. » Non, cette phrase n’a pas été lâchée par James Clapper ni un autre responsable de la NSA. On la doit à Vint Cerf qui n’est autre que le « chef évangéliste de l’Internet » de Google. Cet homme, considéré comme l’un des pères fondateurs d’Internet, avance que vivre sans aucune intimité n’a non seulement rien de neuf, mais rien de bien inquiétant. Il explique ainsi qu’il a lui-même grandi dans une petite ville de 3 000 habitants, sans ligne téléphonique, où le postier savait de qui venait toutes les correspondances. L’idée d’anonymat serait selon lui apparue avec l’urbanisation et la révolution industrielle et n’est plus nécessairement compatible avec notre société contemporaine. « Il sera de plus en plus difficile pour nous de garantir la vie privée. » Cette déclaration peut nous choquer, nous faire peur. Eric Schmidt à Hong Kong, le 4 novembre 2013 (Vincent Yu/AP/SIPA) Google, le gentil monstre Google, un ami qui vous veut du bien

Electronic Frontier Foundation Topics Page Latest news from USA TODAY New lab works on security shoe By Kevin Begos, Associated Press PITTSBURGH High-tech security? Forget those irksome digital eye scans. Meet the biometric shoe. From the Web What you didn’t post, facebook may still know 4h 26m ago Charlotte Observer each third-party data partner’s website. On Deaf Ears the Electronic Frontier Foundation had a post entitled Texas Court Confirms You Can’t Patent Math | Electronic Frontier Foundation. Privacy and electronic tolls on the Golden Gate Bridge 1d 9h ago San Francisco Bay Guardian shift to receive little ink in recent media reports is the privacy implications of the new electronic system. Electronic Frontier Foundation More stories from USA TODAY

Google Privacy Change Provokes Outrage - Security - Privacy One user profile and privacy policy to rule all of Google's services. Simple, or evil? Google says it will soon alter its privacy policy and terms of service to reflect the fact that it is now combining data from its various services into a single user profile. In blog post published Tuesday, Google privacy director for products and engineering Alma Whitten announced the upcoming change, characterizing it as a way for Google to offer a better user experience. "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services," Whitten explained. By connecting data gathered from various services, Google might be able to target Google Offers based on where you use your Android phone or present ads influenced by information in Google Calendar entries, for example. [ Google's competitors don't like the way Google is tying its services together. It's no longer a matter of if you get hacked, but when.

Richard Stallman, le RGPD et les deux faces du consentement Richard Stallman, figure emblématique du mouvement du logiciel libre, a publié cette semaine dans The Guardian une tribune dans laquelle il réagit au scandale Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, en élargissant la perspective à la problématique de la surveillance. Pour lui, le problème ne vient pas de Facebook en particulier, mais du fait que la législation sur la protection des données personnelles ne va pas assez loin : il ne s’agirait pas en effet de réguler simplement l’usage des données, mais de poser d’abord un principe général d’interdiction de la collecte des informations relatives aux individus. La surveillance qui nous est imposée aujourd’hui excède largement celle qui avait cours en Union soviétique. Pour le salut de la liberté et de la démocratie, nous devons l’éliminer en grande partie. Il y a tellement de façons d’utiliser les données d’une manière préjudiciable pour les individus que la seule base de données sûre est celle qui n’en aura jamais collecté. WordPress:

Related: