What3words dodgy downloads

'What3words is a geocoding system for the communication of locations with a resolution of three metres. What3words encodes geographic coordinates into three dictionary words. For example, the torch of the Statue of Liberty is located at "toned.melt.ship". This differs from most other location encoding systems in that it displays three words rather than long strings of numbers or letters.' Using three words is much more human friendly than systems like Google's Plus Codes which generate a alpha numeric string [e.g. 849VCWC8+R9]. Try copying that down or dictating it over a phone.

What3words is not very useful if a location has a postal address. It could be very useful for places that don't. For example, open country or sea,  or countries that have obscure address systems or no address system at all.

When I tried to install the app to my android phone I found that I was only available from the Google Play Store and I would have to sign in using a Google account. No thanks.

Linking phones to Google accounts is the Holy Grail for Google. They not only collect information from the app you have downloaded but also link your phone to other information on you that they already have in their account databases. Particularly valuable will be the location data they will be able to collect either from your phone or from What3words.

Google have amply demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. I don't plan to give them any more information than I must.

So no What3words until they provide direct downloads from their website and have a privacy policy that does not allow them to sell my data to Google.

Too bad. Short term greed for Google money will reduce the number of users. If they do not soon get a critical mass of users their business will never take off and their three words will become yet another obscure geolocation system and their company will become another failed startup.

Alternatives to Google's services

The Guardian has a handy list of alternatives to Google's services.  Click here.

I already use DuckDuckGo as my search engine. It is a very acceptable alternative to Google.

I did not know about Nokia's maps but they seem to be as good, if not better, than Google Maps.

The Guardian mentions Tumblr as an alternative to Blogger.  I have started using  both Wordpress and Tumblr after it became clear that Blogger was on Google's kill list. Given the rate at which Google is closing its services it makes sense not to post anything to Blogger that you would be sorry to lose when it closes.

Spyware in Firefox?

Is there spyware in the Firefox for Android browser?

I started using Firefox several years ago because it had far better privacy protections than Safari or Internet Explorer.  The desktop version still has.

I recently acquired a new Android tablet and went to  Google Play  [aka Android App Store] to download Firefox.

Link to Firefox on Google Play

To Google's credit they show what permissions an app takes if you install it [Apple do not]. When you look at some of these lists of permissions it is clear that many of the apps in the Play Store are little better than spyware.

I checked Firefox's permissions but I did not expect to find anything untoward.

The apps description emphasises privacy as you can see below.

However, when you look at the detailed list of the permissions the app would take it is clear that it provides anything but privacy.

 

 Particularly alarming was what Firefox wanted to do with my tablet's cameras.

Anybody who installs Firefox gives it permission to take photographs or video [from either camera] whenever it likes. The users permission is not required.  Nor are users told when the cameras are operating. Think of the implications of this.  Even if users were foolish enough to trust Mozilla [producers of Firefox] what would happen if some malign malware was able to get control of your browser and start the cameras rolling?

How can Mozilla  justify including this in Firefox?  If it is not spyware it is hard to imagine how else it could be defined. It would be interesting to know what has gone wrong at Mozilla for this to happen.

I didn't download Firefox [though over 200,000 idiots have done]. I took a look at Google's Chrome browser and it does not seem to need to operate my tablet's cameras. These are the permissions it wants. They are not trivial but at least they exclude the permission for rectal probing that Firefox wants

Now that I have seen what Firefox for Android wants I wonder what the desktop versions of Firefox are up to.

An alternative to Google

For the past year I have been using the DuckDuckGo search engine as an alternative to Google.

Don't be put off by the idiotic name, it is a pretty good search engine.  It does not have all the services offered by Google. There is no translation and DDG's image search is not as good.

However, it works well for web searching and its privacy policies are much better.  Whenever you use Google it collects information about you and uses it to build up a profile which it can sell to advertisers.  DDG claims that it does not do that and does not track its users. It also filters out dross from 'content mills'.

"DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of many sources, including Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha and its own Web crawler, the DuckDuckBot. 

DuckDuckGo positions itself as a search engine that puts privacy first and as such it does not store IP addresses, does not log user information and uses cookies only when needed. Weinberg states "By default, DuckDuckGo does not collect or share personal information. 


Weinberg has refined the quality of his search engine results by deleting search results for companies he believes are content mills, like Demand Media's eHow, which publishes 4000 articles per day produced by paid freelance writers, which Weinberg says is, "...low-quality content designed specifically to rank highly in Google's search index." DuckDuckGo also filters pages with substantial advertising."


Read more about it at

Wikipedia

Washington Post

PCWorld

New York Times

Why is Google short-changing Wikipedia?

Google gains a lot  from Wikipedia. People use search more if they find good stuff. The more they use search the greater Google's scope for showing them advertisements.

If they don't find good content then they will use search less and Google's bottom line will suffer.  Thats is why Google funds services like Blogger, it creates good content. Otherwise, all searchers would find would be spam and articles from the content farms.

Wikipedia millions of articles  appear early Google's results pages. In many cases a Wikipedia article  will be right at the top of a Google results page.  Giving money to Wikipedia helps Google's users get what they want. That keeps users searching and makes a lot of money for Google.

Given that Google makes so much money from Wikipedia it is disgusting that, so far, they have only donated $2 million to Wikipedia.

In 2009 Google made a profit of $6.5 billion, but all they could spare for Wikipedia was $2 million.  What a bunch of pitiful gripe farthings. They should be giving Wikipedia a minimum of $20 million a year.

Not only have Google been short-changing Wikipedia, they even tried to start an alternative encyclopaedia called Knol. That  failed and now appears to be dead in the water.

Google needs to move away from its current greedy ways and be more socially responsible. It needs to demonstrate that it is a good internet citizen.  That should be easy when it is clearly in its own financial interest to encourage services like Wikipedia.

P.S.  Google has announced that it is giving a $100 million equity award to departing CEo Eric Schmidt.

Other Google executives are also collecting big bonuses. CFO Patrick Pichette received a $2.7 million cash bonus and $15 million in stock options; Chief Business Officer Nikesh Arora received $2.7 million as a cash bonus and $20 million in options; SVP Alan Eustace got $1.8 million in cash and $10 million in options; and SVP of product management Jonathan Rosenberg received a $1.7 million cash bonus and $5 million in options.

Do you remember  Google's 'Don't be evil' motto'?

Should it have been, 'Don't be greedy little shits'?

The real issue with Google Street View

Google is under attack for its Street View service. Some people have objected to having photographs of themselves or their property appearing online. I do not see the problem. The camera cars only capture what can be seen from the public highway. Also, Google will blur faces or remove images if requested.

It has also emerged that the Street View cars have captured data from unsecured wifi networks as they have driven past.  It appears that the contents of emails, passwords etc may have been collected.  Google have said that this was done in error and I believe them. I cannot see what business reason they could have for deliberately collecting such information.

I think the fuss about these two aspects of Street View is missing the real issue.

The real issue - WiFi location mapping

Google's cars are not just taking photographs. They are also collecting the IP address of every wifi router they pass and recording that address along with its GPS coordinates.

This is for Google's location service. The idea is that phones without GPS [the majority] will be able to find their location by detecting wifi signals. The phone will then check the IP addresses of the wifi routers that are sending out the signal and be told their current location.

If Google take the wifi address of my router and its GPS coordinate and combine it with a postcode directory and mapping data they already have they will know the router is located at 15 High Street, Peckham, London.

If they then combine the address with the UK Electoral Register they will know that John Smith lives at 15 High Street, Peckham, London.

If they then combine the name and address with other socioeconomic databases they will be able to extend my profile with the value of my house and an estimate of my income.

If they can combine my name and address with data on my spending patterns [from my supermarket loyalty card] they will know how I spend my money.

Whenever I go online to a Google site or one that has DoubleClick [a Google subsidiary] or Google Analytics they can collect my routers IP address and link my browsing with my profile.

Goodbye privacy. It will be no use deleting cookies or taking any other steps to protect my privacy. Google will know my True Name and my privacy is screwed.

If people want to worry about Google don't waste time on the Street View nonsense. Worry that Google has mapped every wifi router and thus outed everybody who goes online.

Why are they doing this? To make money. The better the profiles they can create, the more they can charge for really targeted advertising.