Httpwatch? Doesn’t Wireshark do the same and then some more?
Quite possibly, but not really the point here…
It looks to me like Google is trying to crack down on malware being installed through ads that Google itself is supporting. In doing that Google have come up with a number of stipulations to how a software download should be presented, but at the same time neglected to tell anyone of the changes, or to warn that the customer’s site would be removed from Google’s listings.
Somewhat (very?) hypocritically, Google’s own software do not adhere to these policies, and in fact the number of times I’ve seen Google toolbar installed on friend’s/acquaintance’s PC’s is testament to the malware like set up that they themselves run.
One of the ways this has actually worked in the general public’s favour is something I know has been an issue - in the past, my girlfriend searched for “Open Office”, clicked on the top link (not realising this was a Google advert) which led her to an outdated and malware riddled download for Open Office. Do the same search now and only the legitimate link is shown at the top.
Seems Google have tried to clear their “garden” of weeds, but inadvertently (and temporarily, provided you contact them and jump through some Kafkaesque hoops) removed a lot of the roses at the same time.
I’m hyper-suspicious of Google, generally speaking. This seems like a great policy, which unfortunately went into effect before it was announced, and before Google itself was in compliance.
In Google’s defense, they know the extent to which their own software is or isn’t malware. They don’t know the extent to which third party software is malware. They can have a more relaxed policy when it comes to their own compliance, as they control the software itself. The goal of the policy is to reduce or eliminate third party malware in Google Ads. That policy has no relevance to Google’s own software offering. Pretty sure Google doesn’t advertise its own software in Google Ads, although maybe it does and I just never noticed.
I get that folks hanker for a sense of fairness and feel that Google should lead by example, but I think that’s misdirected in this case.
Although…when it comes to malware, I think Google might turn out to be 900 million ton gorilla in the room. Time will tell.
ETA: I just did a Google search for “browser”. Chrome did not come up above the fold. To me this confirms that Google does not use Google Ads to promote its own software, or else is so inept at it that it doesn’t matter.
I’ll let people who sell software pass judgment on how bad or not-so-bad the policy is, but this…
Google Support: Hmm, They do want [a EULA] on the download page itself
Simtec: How come there isn’t one here? https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/desktop/
Google Support: Lol
is kind of awful given that the customer just got done saying they were pissed off at this happening after 12 years and a million dollars of ad buys. ROFLMAO.
I know a million dollars is chump change to the kids working Google’s chat lines, but there’s a time and a place for lulz.
C’mon, why should the techsupport drone be denied the expression of seeing the irony of the situation?
I cringed at that LOL.
It seemed an appropriate expression of empathy to me. Some poor schmuck stuck in a cubicle doing support chat, with a clickboard full of ‘let me help you with that’ and ‘i’m sorry you’re having this trouble, let me look into it’, was given the chance to express an actual emotion. LOL summed it up nicely. ‘You know what, you’re right! We’re forcing you into compliance with a policy that we gleefully ignore. Let’s see if we can get you fixed up and moving along again.’ It’s all right there in that little LOL. I can see it.
The poor bastard on the chat line is exactly as helpless in the face of corporate incompetence as the guy coming to him for help. Sometimes all you can do is laugh.
Actually, I don’t see it. Google doesn’t need to be convinced to trust itself. Perhaps there should be an internal group or set of policies within Google to ensure that they don’t create unintentionally adware-esque software (I’m looking at you, Apple). However, the standards Google is setting is for multitudes of software that they can’t vet internally. So I don’t see it as hypocrisy, I think it’s perfectly rational.
Not saying that this wasn’t a frustrating ordeal for the people at HTTPWatch, or that it couldn’t have been handled better, but I don’t see any hypocrisy.
Your friends not paying attention to the software they install is not a sign that Google Toolbar is malware.
I didn’t say Google Toolbar is malware, I implied that it’s installation methods are dubious.
Yes, the people I know who have had this happen are the “lowest common denominator” of computer users, I’ll admit - but that’s no reason for Google (or anyone else for that matter) to have other software installed as a default option when a specific package is chosen to be installed.
Where do you get web support from Google? All I’ve ever been directed to are useless forums full of people who know about as much as I do.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.