Httpwatch? Doesnât Wireshark do the same and then some more?
Quite possibly, but not really the point hereâŚ
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 customerâs site would be removed from Googleâs listings.
Somewhat (very?) hypocritically, Googleâs own software do not adhere to these policies, and in fact the number of times Iâve seen Google toolbar installed on friendâs/acquaintanceâs PCâs is testament to the malware like set up that they themselves run.
One of the ways this has actually worked in the general publicâs favour is something I know has been an issue - in the past, my girlfriend searched for âOpen Officeâ, clicked on the top link (not realising this was a Google advert) which led her to an outdated and malware riddled download for Open Office.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 âgardenâ 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.
Iâm 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 Googleâs defense, they know the extent to which their own software is or isnât malware. They donât 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 Googleâs own software offering. Pretty sure Google doesnât 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 thatâs misdirected in this case.
AlthoughâŚwhen 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 âbrowserâ. 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 doesnât matter.
Iâll let people who sell software pass judgment on how bad or not-so-bad the policy is, but thisâŚ
Google Support: Hmm, They do want [a EULA] on the download page itself
Simtec: How come there isnât one here? Google Chrome â Download the fast, secure browser from Google
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 Googleâs chat lines, but thereâs a time and a place for lulz.
Câmon, 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 âlet me help you with thatâ and âiâm sorry youâre having this trouble, let me look into itâ, was given the chance to express an actual emotion. LOL summed it up nicely. âYou know what, youâre right! Weâre forcing you into compliance with a policy that we gleefully ignore. Letâs see if we can get you fixed up and moving along again.â Itâs 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 donât see it. Google doesnât need to be convinced to trust itself. Perhaps there should be an internal group or set of policies within Google to ensure that they donât create unintentionally adware-esque software (Iâm looking at you, Apple). However, the standards Google is setting is for multitudes of software that they canât vet internally. So I donât see it as hypocrisy, I think itâs perfectly rational.
Not saying that this wasnât a frustrating ordeal for the people at HTTPWatch, or that it couldnât have been handled better, but I donât see any hypocrisy.
Your friends not paying attention to the software they install is not a sign that Google Toolbar is malware.
I didnât say Google Toolbar is malware, I implied that itâs installation methods are dubious.
Yes, the people I know who have had this happen are the âlowest common denominatorâ of computer users, Iâll admit - but thatâs 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 Iâve 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.
