Free Board

To keep away from leading different folks astray, https://fetishbreak.com/ please don't refer to movies utilizing the host identify youtube.com or its aliases. Instead, make a link to invidio.us or one of the associated proxy websites. Lead people to what is good, not to what is unhealthy! Just make sure not to decide on a proxy that's "protected" by Cloudflare, since that sends its own nonfree software. This way of referring might be fail-safe: it might cease to work, but it should in all probability not begin leading folks to run nonfree software program. There is also a Firefox add-on to bypass that Javascript code. IceCat comes with that add-on by default. But that won't overcome the blockage of access via Tor. If Google defeats the invidio.us proxies, I can ell you ways I can't reply. I can't surrender to youtube's nonfree software program and surveillance. I enjoy getting access to the music and video there, but I will not do foolish or determined things to maintain that entry. You shouldn't either! You do not want a particular "platform" to put up an audio or video on the web. You may publish an audio or video file on any web site. Just put the file on the location and hyperlink to it as if it have been an atypical page. All graphical browsers can handle that.Google censored installation of Samsung's ad-blocker, saying that blocking advertisements is "interference" with the sites that publicize (and surveil users via ads). The advert-blocker is proprietary software, identical to the program (Google Play) that Google used to deny entry to install it. I'd refuse to have both of them on my laptop. Using a nonfree program provides the owner energy over you, and Google has exercised that power.

Surveillance

To determine yourself to a Google service is a grave error. - Google shops a listing of all purchases a user has made that in any method mention the user's a gmail account. A person can delete purchases from this record, however just one purchase at a time. Then that purchase disappears from the checklist that the user sees. Whether it stays in another listing, we do not know, but I'd anticipate Google to answer that query with doubletalk. The article talks about what Google cites as its motive for doing this, however the motive is irrelevant - as a result of it is not an excuse.- Google's alarm system, "Nest Secure", turns out to have contained a microphone all along - however only recently started listening.- Google "sanitizes" its total search logs, then publishes them; however it declines to describe the means of "sanitization", and there is proof that users can be tracked by way of them.

The article additionally mentions two-issue authentication, which in and of itself might be a helpful technique (although I've read that crackers can now defeat it), however has the flaw of requiring a cell phone. My rule #2 for digital safety is not to have a cell phone.

- Gmail was planned from the start as a massive surveillance system, to make psychological profiles not only of Gmail users but of everybody who sends mail to Gmail users.- Google quietly combined its ad-monitoring profiles with its browsing profiles.- Google has discovered a means to track most credit card purchases in the US, even these not carried out through a phone, and correlate that with folks's on-line actions.

Google can't do both facet to me, since I pay money and don't carry a cell phone, and it does not know what internet sites I look at.

- Google Play sends app builders the non-public details of customers that set up the app. Merely asking customers' "consent" for this is not enough to legitimize that. We all know that almost all users have given up on reading just what they are "consenting" to, and the reason being that they're accustomed to being told, "If you need to use this service, you should consent to blah blah blah." To truly protect folks's privateness, we should stop Google (and other corporations) from getting this private info in the first place!- Google stores a huge quantity of knowledge on each consumer. This can include, along with the user's search historical past and promoting profile: - A timeline of the consumer's location throughout each day- Data on the usage of non-Google phone apps- 'Deleted' emails and information uploaded to Google Drive

Facebook and Google joined with ISPs to defeat a privacy initiative in California. Collecting the many ways Google is concerned with US government surveillance, abroad and within the US, amounts to fairly a package.

Google invites folks to let Google monitor their phone use, and all web use in their properties, for an extravagant payment of $20.

This malicious functionality will not be a secondary aspect of a program with another function; this is the software program's sole function, and Google says so. But Google says it in a way that encourages most individuals to disregard the main points and stay unaware of the extent of the spying. Anyway, mere consent does not legitimize large surveillance.

Amazon and Google need "good" gadgets to report all exercise to them.

In different words, you probably have a "sensible" (learn "spy") lightbulb with that proposed feature, and inform an Amazon or Google listening machine about it, thenceforth any time you switched it on or off regardless of how, it might ship a report back to Amazon or Google.

Even immediately, the one option to make "smart" merchandise protected is to make sure they can not connect to anybody else's methods.

Another piece of Google's surveillance capitalism: when shops mail receipts to a gmail.com account, Google figures out and information who bought what.

I believe that the store itself mustn't get this information, which is why I all the time pay money and by no means give my identify.

*Google faces lawsuit over monitoring in apps even when users opted out.*

- Google cuts off accounts for customers that resell Pixel telephones. They lose access to all of their mail and documents stored in Google servers below that account. It needs to be illegal to place any "phrases of service" on a physical product. It should even be unlawful to shut an account on a service without letting the user obtain no matter was saved there. These events present one other reason why colleges should never ask a scholar to use a service account linked to the pupil's identify.

Censorship

- Amazon and Google have cut off area-fronting, a feature used to allow individuals in tyrannical countries to reach communication methods which can be banned there.- French blogger Claims YouTube Tried to Censor Juncker Interview.- Google has agreed to perform particular censorship of Youtube for the federal government of Pakistan, deleting views that the state opposes. This will help the illiberal Pakistani state suppress dissent.

- Youtube's "content ID" automatically deletes posted videos in a manner copyright legislation does not require.- YouTube has made personal offers with the copyright industry to censor works that are truthful use. More data.

- Google shut off Alexa O'Brien's Google Drive account, denying her entry to it, as a result of her reporting on Chelsea Manning's trial included copies of al-Qa'ida propaganda that was offered as proof.- Google is deleting porn artists' porn videos from their own non-public accounts, quietly and mysteriously.

Never belief a remote storage company to keep anything however a spare backup copy. Whenever you store that, put your information into an archive and encrypt it so that the corporate can't tell what's in them - not even their file names.

- Vox lawyers bought Youtube to take down criticisms of a video published by Vox, and threaten the critics with punishment, too.

The videos have been nearly absolutely truthful use, but Youtube decided in opposition to the critics anyway. This reveals how Youtube's common submission to the copyright business constrict's folks's rights.

Miscellaneous

- Google is a tax dodger. In fact, it isn't the only one, however that isn't any excuse.- Google helps the TPP due to three mostly-evil provisions that would profit Google.- Google has made it in order that Chrome now routinely installs the DRM module. This makes it harmful for safety researchers within the US to investigate attainable insecurity in Chrome. More info.- Support is rising for reverting US antitrust regulation to what it was before Reagan weakened it. That is why Google is using its affect to weaken those who marketing campaign against this.

How I Got Fired From a D.C. Think Tank for Fighting Against the power of Google.

- Google told a reporter in 2011 that web pages with out "+1" buttons could be punished with lower search rankings. When she published a narrative in Forbes about that, Google pressured Forbes to take it down.