
Google Web/Search History Disable Does Nothing (2014) - selinalau
http://jacquesmattheij.com/google-search-history-disable-does-nothing
======
2T1Qka0rEiPr
Not that I'm a fan of big brother, but I think there's a genuine difference
between logging all requests and logging _and attaching to your user profile_
all requests? I know that they could infer pretty reliably back to you with
just the request information, but I'm not sure that "does nothing" is strictly
true here.

~~~
Bartweiss
Anecdotally, I've gotten curious and messed with this setting. I'm pretty
confident (>80%) that I could see a difference in what ads I was served, with
logging-disabled searches not influencing my Google ads they way logged
searches did.

Honestly, this article felt a bit FUD to me. Google's privacy text never led
me to believe they would purge all record of no-log searches, just that they
wouldn't attach them to my primary profile. As far as I can tell that's still
what they're doing.

------
halite
I periodically delete my history
([https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/465?co=GENIE.Pla...](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/465?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en))
but wonder how true of a delete that is.

------
dang
Previously discussed at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809055).

------
rashkov
So let's say you're logged into google's services using Firefox. You visit a
page and it downloads a bunch of google owned JavaScript and a few fonts and
image assets. How do they connect it back to your account? Does that
JavaScript have access to the google cookie, or does that get blocked by
cross-origin restrictions? If it's blocked, then what are some other
mechanisms to connect you back to your google account?

------
mvkaxon
One question? What's the painless alternative? I'm as much paranoid as anyone
who is greatly concerned of privacy and specially all information going to one
big brother. Seriously, what's an alternative majority of population can
follow?

------
herbst
> As an aside, if I were in law enforcement I would be paying special
> attention to those searches done by people who have the ‘history’ feature
> disabled.

spreading fear to use something that possibly ads at least some additional
privacy. Great

~~~
2T1Qka0rEiPr
Nevertheless quite possibly true. You hear people discuss VPN users in the
same way

~~~
herbst
And Tor users, and people who Google proxy. Sure, as soon as we managed to
spread enough fear that only criminals would ever do that "they" reached what
they wanted.

This whole shit is based on the mysterious "lists", which as far as we know
are just filters which are used with other filters to identify possible
criminals. Even if there are lists its not relevant as long as there are
enough people on it.

I see your point, but i think saying things like this is dangerious.

~~~
Bartweiss
I do wonder about the effects of privacy-paranoia, but at a certain point it
feels dishonest _not_ to say this. We already know that people searching for
Tails are fingerprinted on that basis. (And, confusingly, that Tor searches
outside Five Eyes territory are fingerprinted, but Tails searches anywhere
count.)

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that the cure for this _isn 't_
avoiding security and privacy tools. First because that doesn't help (someone
knowing you use encryption still beats someone seeing what you didn't
encrypt). And second, because normalizing these tools is a _really good
thing_. Using browser privacy tools, and Signal, and whatever else you see fit
isn't going to get an upstanding American in trouble, and it does help protect
journalists and Turkish dissidents and all kinds of other people who benefit
from these tools.

So yeah, it's a tricky question, partly because you need something quick-and-
readable to say. I agree with you that statements about tracking privacy
seekers should generally come with an addendum of "but it's still good and
won't get you in trouble on its own".

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/nsa_targets_p...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/nsa_targets_pri.html)

~~~
herbst
We dont know that they are fingerprinted like this no. At least not generally
as in "people". The whole XKeystore thing is blown up by reporters who barely
have a idea what they are talking about.

What we know is that XKeystore offers filters for this kind of stuff. This
could also just mean that if they look for a german hacker actively that they
throw a few of those filters in. There is no reason to believe from the data
we have that these filters are actively used against the general population.

Dont get me wrong, i hate the NSA and actually the whole bullshit system the
USA builds on. Also i am at least as paranoid as any other geek. But this
topic is simply based on assumptions.

Edit:// To further clearify, if this actually means that these filters are
always used with other more concrete filters it does mean that _the general
population_ (who uses Tails, Tor, Proxies) never ever showed up in any of
those "lists" people seem to care so much about.

------
andy_ppp
It probably segments you into a more valuable advertising group if you click
it. Your attempt to opt out is another signal that Google can use to target
you.

~~~
Bartweiss
I've always had the general sense that "uses uBlock" is a hugely useful
advertising signal. On one hand, it means you hate ads and are unlikely to
respond to the average crappy banner ad (or phishing attempt). On the other,
it means that you're tech savvy and potentially high-income. That's some great
info.

(Given all that, why are so many under-ad-space texts so bad? It seems like if
you're going to target ad blockers under your display ads you could do better
with it.)

