Google Chrome

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:36 am

I dont have any google or chrome folder under "program files". is it stored in C:\Documents and Settings\%user%\Local Settings\Application Data\Google? if it is, then thats a pretty weird place.

Heres a bug, % don't render properly when making posts on these forums.

Hyos · Post by **Hyos** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Stablity? Pfft. Just check this:
http://evilfingers.com/advisory/google_chrome_poc.php

I.S.T. · Post by **I.S.T.** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:06 pm

Bear in mind that Chrome is a beta.

Hyos · Post by **Hyos** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:17 pm

Sure, however Google has stated that they use Chrome in their offices already.
A slight WTF there, they use a beta with obvious crash exploits and security holes for work? Not the kind of thing I would expect from them.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm

they would be using weekly builds afaik.

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:25 pm

int 3

beta indeed

Hyos · Post by **Hyos** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:39 pm

franpa wrote:they would be using weekly builds afaik.

Are you working for google or have a reliable source? Because AFAIK means "As Far As I KNOW" instead of "I just guess".

Even with weekly builds, one shoud know better than to use a beta for production. You see, we are talking about using a browser for surfing the internet - with all the maliciousness out there - no matter if it is always a new weekly build, it is a beta, it is unsecure, don't use it in production. If you are a company, this will cost you money.

Google mentioning they use it in their offices already might create a false impression that the browser is stable and secure. Sure, other browser have flaws too, but a stable FF, Opera or Safari version > any browser Beta IMHO.

mytmyke · Post by **mytmyke** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:23 am

Creepy indeed!! A little snip from a news article.

CNet's Ina Fried also noticed some creepy language in the end-user license agreement that must be agreed to before installing Chrome.

Not only does Google reserve the right to update Chrome on your machine without your consent — arguably necessary in an era of "zero-day" hacker exploits — but it also implies that, as with Gmail, it might display ads tailored to your content right in the browser itself.

More startling is this: "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."

In other words, Google claims the right to use anything you create using its Web-based applications, such as the Google Docs office suite, the Picasa photo organizer or the Blogger blog creator to promote its own services, without permission or compensation.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:28 am

Moral of the story: Read your license agreements.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:30 am

In other words, if you miss the words "You are selling your soul to me", then it's your fault.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:48 am

Google: Taking over the world, one user at a time. But it's okay, because our corporate motto is "Don't be evil."

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:15 am

Yay for Wikipedia being wrong again? Chrome scores 79, not 78. perhaps there was a silent update to Chrome at some point o_o. Wikipedia now says 79 too.

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:39 am

we need more technical Lawyer to dechiper those cryptic legal tech/term in chrome' privacy, then sues google back.

Post by **odditude** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:30 pm

the license agreement fiasco was corrected last night, and can be avoided completely by obtaining and compiling the source under the BSD license it's been provided under. next?

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:57 pm

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

Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers ... will be sent to Google when you first install and use it.

anonymity? with unique numbers?? unlikely ...

you're uniquely numbered, being "anonymous" & using proxy won't help you anymore.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:45 pm

Rashidi wrote:http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-US/privacy.html
Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers ... will be sent to Google when you first install and use it.
anonymity? with unique numbers?? unlikely ...

you're uniquely numbered, being "anonymous" & using proxy won't help you anymore.

They've been doing that for years with the search engine and everything else. You're only noticing now?

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:03 pm

franpa wrote:Yay for Wikipedia being wrong again? Chrome scores 79, not 78. perhaps there was a silent update to Chrome at some point o_o. Wikipedia now says 79 too.

You know that random people edit pages there, right?

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:14 pm

franpa alerts exists for a reason.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:19 pm

franpa wrote:Yay for Wikipedia being wrong again? Chrome scores 79, not 78. perhaps there was a silent update to Chrome at some point o_o. Wikipedia now says 79 too.

Conspiracy! Google owns Wikipedia!

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:54 am

Even I knew that google monitors peopls actions. It's the only reason they have a decent search engine.