141–150 of 396 posts
I got this a couple of years ago, and noticed immediately. Just as quickly denied the request, because I have fingers and can type my current address. It's a minor inconvenience.
> because I have fingers and can type my current address How would you always know your current address? I often use maps with gps to find out where I am. Many places have no address .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other things: slightly simpler external DNS surface, probably tiny speed improvements because users only need to have the IP of www.google.com, not one for maps, one for www, one for whateverelse. More possibility for connection re-use, as you'd only need to have a connection open for www.google.com, not one for each service. And security wise: ISPs can now only see that you're accessing something at google, but not…
True. I’m sure being a beyondcorp company they can’t figure out how to add dns entries. Those google guys really should learn more about the internet and it’s technologies. I don’t buy the simplicity argument for a second. The infrastructure exists, has existed for many years, and is not particularly exotic in the world. The only thing that matters to a surveillance and advertising company is surveillance and adverti…
Also, I don’t think your reply to the above comment was entirely fair; they didn’t say anything about adding DNS records, and also mentioned several other potential benefits of not using subdomains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the history of Google's stance towards privacy and tracking, I think it's naïve to assume technical reasons. It may have been ok to fall for that argument for 10 years, but after AMP, manifestv3, android's location log disaster, the recording of wifi names and countless lawsuits across the globe, it seems that the resource of good faith assumptions has been depleted. Some may even say that trusting google (the…
> after AMP, manifestv3, android's location log disaster, the recording of wifi names and countless lawsuits across the globe Tangentially, it's funny how the whole Google+ fiasco with forcing G+ account creation for YT etc. was quickly forgotten.
Funny thing is, it depends on your threat model. Using google.com/XXX for all its services protect the user from being spied by external actors such as ISP because everything is hidden behind HTTPS. Whereas, with XXX.google.com, external actors knows that you are using service XXX.
DNS over HTTPS is the solution here.
This is a fantastic example of motivated reasoning. This "change" (which apparently isn't even new) can have so many different reasons, some of which are less harmful and some of which are probably worse (privacy-wise) than the one mentioned here. There is no indication that re/mis-using permissions is specifically what they wanted to do here, there is also no example of them doing it right now. Don't get me wrong, t…
It may not be the only reason, but you’re being too generous if you don’t think this was at least one of the reasons they did it. Other than some abstract “branding” campaign, I cannot really see many other reasons why they would be doing this. And as someone who worked in adtech in the past, it was very well known that Google used their domain as their tracking cookie domain as it’s nearly impossible for adblockers…
If you consider it absolutely unthinkable that it was not one of the reasons, it's you who is being too generous. Unconsidered side effects occur plentiful and all the time.
Funny thing is, it depends on your threat model. Using google.com/XXX for all its services protect the user from being spied by external actors such as ISP because everything is hidden behind HTTPS. Whereas, with XXX.google.com, external actors knows that you are using service XXX.
DNS over HTTPS is the solution here.
Its reverse for translate. https://google.com/translate redirects to translate.google.com
I can understand why: Translate is the only service that works in China. Countries with censorship laws can easily choose what they allow.
And when they worked, the domain was translate.google.cn instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
House names, rather than numbers, are very common in rural UK.
Searching for my address just straight up doesn't work. Named house rather than a number, and the postcode isn't a particular street but covers a number of little tracks up to various farms. I also don't have a road name. The address syntax is: Building name Town County Post code The combination of no road and no number means Google absolutely fails. It just gives suggestions of businesses nearby... Ish.
https://www.openstreetmap.org
I live about 1 mile from suburbs in a town called Bingley in Yorkshire, England.
I can't trust Google maps locally (though its good for local business searches), as the mapping quality is terrible. My village and local town have roads missing, numerous public rights of way missing (over both public and private land). Major areas of trees missing. OSM is much, much better.
See the difference:
https://ibb.co/fk74k3s https://ibb.co/GTKMTzn
I am noticing more and more how poor Google maps is for non-drivers (such as myself recently having to stop driving), such as not being able to do walking routes over local foot bridges, OSM with OSRM or Grasshopper is fine:
This is a fantastic example of motivated reasoning. This "change" (which apparently isn't even new) can have so many different reasons, some of which are less harmful and some of which are probably worse (privacy-wise) than the one mentioned here. There is no indication that re/mis-using permissions is specifically what they wanted to do here, there is also no example of them doing it right now. Don't get me wrong, t…