how stupid is that.... ms controls all parts too: hotmail, live search and internet explorer. Yes, live search doesn't have as many users are google, but IE has way more than chrome for now and hotmail has more than gmail.... + they have windows too...

+ most of the users still use IE6.... and I don't think that's safer than chrome

I'm not sure ms has been as intent on aggregating user information as google has.

I know at least 3 of my early hotmail accounts were scrubbed regularly back in the early 2000's.

While "on paper" it would seem ms controls more user info, their "information farming" seems haphazard at best – so realistically they pose less of a privacy threat.

Google were after our information from the get-go with that 28-year expiring cookie.

"They were created by Man.
They Evolved.
AND THEY HAVE A PLAN."

Google can't do anything without fierce criticism. Gmail was blasted and people said that nobody would use it. People even refused to email to a @gmail.com address. Where are they now?

Three companies to be concerned about:

1. Google – they know everything
2. Apple – owns the smartphone business and online music biz
3. Wikipedia – when you do a search, they are always in the top three and every site that links to a reference links to Wikipedia.

Bottomline: With billions of Web pages and thousands of companies, these three are pretty much a monopoly. Voluntarily, we are handing everything over to this triumvirate.

Oh happy day!

okay, maybe they do more farming.... but they also tell you what they farm and what not....

+ the cookie doesn't expire in 28 years, they changed that a while ago to 18 months

One important point of the criticism is, that Google released the first public version of a "beta"-Browser and is immediately promoting it on the Google homepage to inexperienced internet users, who can´t judge the risk of using a beta browser. Looks like a fair argument to me.

you just have to be kidding me, bravo to Google for providing us users with smart online accessible tools for easy and convenient web browsing. I wish them best of lucks and hope for more innovative and intelligent products.

Google has changed the face of internet browsing and please if you cant appreciate it at least try to use one of their products before you indulge into silly accusations.

[signature removed]

the strategy behind is quite simple. german people, and also austria, france and others, trust their state and they want it to control everything. so, not the user should think about what he does, but the government should do it through laws.

this is emphasized by their news statements (like this one from a state ministry) by telling their people that they should not use it because they don't know it and so on. and therefore automatically dangerous!

the desired effect is, to keep the people in line for obeying their government more than their own doings. a next step is, for example, to prohibit (or limit even more than already) exchange or collection of any data by a non-government entity. then, the state controls much more and doesn't loose it's grip on the people.

How do they know that Windows doesn't contain a secret back-door option to turn on key-logging and send all the results to Redmond?

The notion that you should be concerned about a product that is open source and can be fully examined vs one about which you know nothing is ridiculous.

Seems the mainstream media in Germany may be as clueless about technology as they are here in the US. Their focus is more on hairstyle and makeup.

On the difference between Chrome and IE/FF: It's the OmniBox, stupid.

IE 8/FF3 let the user decide when and what they want to use transfer to Google via Suggest – by simply typing into one text input box or the other.

Chrome won't.

[signature removed]

Mega stupid I would say.

The way I look it, "controlling everything" is something good, I mean, it's Google!, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is behind all this.

And geez, why didn't they flame FireFox or Safari too....

Its a beta, and a lot of this can be thrown at google already, take for example someone installing their toolbar and enabling pagerank upon installing?

Far too critical, given the fact that this is open source and a beta.

A sign of things to come

More and more loss of privacy is being snuck up on us

When I first heard about chrome, there was nothing about the data being collected and sent back to google

Question is what are they doing with all the data collected. Where on earth do they store it?

the "tagesschau" .... in this blog ... i AM impressed ....

So it seems like this report mentioned two reasons:

1. It's a beta (as is IE 8 Beta 2, the new beta of Firefox 3.1, and almost any new software)

2. Some information gets sent to your chosen search service if you type a search into the address bar (which also happens with IE8 Beta 2, via their "AutoSearch from the Address Bar" feature). And Firefox also offers a suggest-as-you-type feature which sends info the user's search service to suggest queries as you type. Of course, it's easy to turn off the Suggest feature in Chrome or change your search service provider.

I wonder if people are aware that unlike Google Chrome, which does not send information about how you surf as you click around the web, IE8 beta 2 will send that information to Microsoft if you allow their "Suggested Sites" feature to be enabled.

According the Microsoft's documention, if "Suggested Sites" is on, "your web browsing history is sent to Microsoft, .... the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with some standard information from your computer such as IP address, browser type, regional and language settings. .... Information associated with the web address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included. [That means that queries to Google or Yahoo are also sent to Microsoft] .... Statistics about your usage of Suggested Sites will also be sent to Microsoft such as the time that websites were visited, which website referred you, and how you got there (e.g., by clicking a link or one of your Favorites)."

That info is drawn from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/privacy.aspx . It seems like most people haven't noticed the new Suggested Sites feature in IE8, which would sent a wholesale record of your surfing to Microsoft--Google Chrome does nothing like that. Only a few people have noticed this so far, but a few people have, e.g.
http://techreviews.in/ie-8-suggested-sites-feature-sends-your-personal-information/ and http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000421.html .

It's strange to me that someone would take a strong stance against the beta release of an open-source browser, when the beta of Microsoft's new closed-source browser is much more likely to send vast amounts of information to Microsoft, including the searches you do on other search engines.

Matt: There is not yet a beta of Firefox 3.1 ;) Mozilla published recently the 2th alpha.

andreas Philipp is a German. I think it is not the first time that the Tagesschau is mentioned in this blog ;)

I wonder if it's a great idea to heavily promote version 0.2 of a software (using ads and links from a lot of international domains of a certain search engine). It's far from finished and it's likely to have a lot of bugs, so why not delay the promotion at least one or two months?

Wow, I ten to keep up with latest technology news, but I never heard about IE 8 issues Matt mentioned. I think it needs a lot more coverage...

Matt
And IE 8 Beta 2 and Firefox Beta-Versions are promoted on the homepage of a major search engine and get through this thousands of inexperienced internet users who can´t judge the risk of using a Beta-Browser?

Phillipp: I thought you live here in Germany (?). This was also in radio news and on Spiegel and Heise, e.g. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Chrome-ruft-Google--/meldung/115537
and http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,576664,00.html .

AFAIK the key objection is to a unique user identifier that is generated during installation and is used as a permanent quasi cookie for any communication with Google.com. Also it is critizised that the software installs in data directories and can be installed without privileges (*).

Matt Cutts: The objection to the unique identifier was the same with MS Office years ago and the public outcry was MUCH louder. Few people here so far understand that GOOG keeps 2% of the communication between Omnibox and Google.com – which is tagged with the unique user identifier. Thus RIAA, police, NSA can use that (when given access by the courts) and will be able to identify a certain number of people as shown in the AOL case.

European countries cannot leave their citizens' privacy to US courts. If you want to run your business in the EU you better deal with it – MSFT did. If not: stay in the bay area.

BTW the unique user identifier is probably NOT IN THE OPEN SOURCE code since the link from Heise (above) tells us how to use Chromium to patch the unique identifier to one that is the same for each user and this patch is based on Chromium.

Besides, there was an entry in the comments on your blog asking about Chrome indexing https traffic that went through Chrome, as published on TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39176-108.html). Why did you delete that?

---
(*) that is a Microsoft problem, though, IMO.

Ala, the German officer had just found many new things regarding to internet security.

This reminds me, when Google Maps came out, some security experts or scientists in China warned the Google Maps will expose many secret sites, raising great concerns about national security. They never mentioned that military spy satellites had covered every inches of China and other part of the Earth since early 1970s, and people could obtain similar info from commercial satellite image companies. This clearly indicates that these security experts and scientists are very ignorant.

After some counter articles laughing at these experts came out, these experts apparently became quiet.

Israel and US government also asked Google Maps to block some info, however, the excuses looked a bit smarter, they claimed that terrorist could get the info cheaply – to much convenience for terrorist.

Anyway, Google just comply and block these sites as a kind of candy to comfort the government officers.

By the way, did the US government asked for blocking the site of area 51?

  

Andy Wong: Google Earth is used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Google Earth is used by automotive companies to better understand the proving grounds of their competitors (and I have helped certain new Chinese auto companies with that, since they have none of their own :-).

Limiting access to information can be a good thing. More importantly, though, it is not up to a private company to define laws for privacy and distribution of information.

Ridiculing others for insisting not to run naked on Main Street just shows that you're not old enough to understand that for the rest of your life you'll be called an exhibitionist.

Regarding the unique user identifier. Like Google Toolbar, Google Desktop and probably most Google software, Chrome sends that unique ID when asking for updates, not when you use Google search.

"Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google when you first install and use it and when Google Chrome automatically checks for updates." (http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html)

I can't confirm this info, but it's likely that Chromium (the open source version) doesn't include an auto-update feature, so no unique ID is transmitted to Google.

First, congradulations, Phillipp, your comments area is becoming a better (and better) place to debate.

Next, isn't Google really dedicated to developing the first "conscious" machine? The primary "artificial intellegence" for the world?

But in the short run, they just want to get a chance in court against Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. And MS has already lost over the "browser" wars. It's just WWII this time. (Sorry, BWII.)

Well, it's an open source software and I'm sure that many programmers will examine the code and tell us exactly which data is sent to google, make a derived version that doesn't sent any data or include some of the good features into other browser projects. Of course one should be concerned about data mining, but it's open source, stupid! Google can't hide any secrets in the code or make you use a version that just serves their needs. Why don't the mass media mention that? (I guess, it's because they don't know the difference between proprietory and open source.)

"And IE 8 Beta 2 and Firefox Beta-Versions are promoted on the homepage of a major search engine and get through this thousands of inexperienced internet users who can´t judge the risk of using a Beta-Browser?"

Jojo, is your memory that short? Maybe you should review the US Department of Justice press release when it filed suit against Microsoft in 1998. Link is here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm and a couple quotes from it:
"• Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system.

• Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95."

Offering a download link on Google is nothing compared to how Microsoft forced IE in front of users. And if people do choose to install, Chrome respects your search decisions. And if you still dislike Chrome, you can take the source code, modify it, and even redistribute the new version. So with the Chromium source code, Ask could take a version of the code and hard-code all of the searches to go to Ask, if they wanted to. That's the beauty of open-source.

Personally, I've used Chrome for months without any crashes, so I'm glad that more people are getting a chance to try it out. Many eyes make for shallow bugs, so the code base will steadily improve.

Matt Cutts re: "1. It's a beta (as is IE 8 Beta 2, the new beta of Firefox 3.1, and almost any new software)"

AFAIK, MS isn't promoting their IE8b2 release on search.live.com.

Would't one agree that this makes a difference, especially for IT laymen who just want a "better internet"?

If I'd were in a position responsible for a country's IT security like this BSI officer, I'd disencourage Joe & Jane Doe as much as possible from using a hyped beta product like Chrome for anything which might fail gloriously. @see http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=google+chrome+vulnerability&go=

Would anyone suggest seriously dare to use your banking account or PayPal with Chrome?

Robert | http://talkpress.de/

Jojo writes:
> And IE 8 Beta 2 and Firefox Beta-Versions are
> promoted on the homepage of a major search engine
> and get through this thousands of inexperienced
> internet users who can´t judge the risk of
> using a Beta-Browser?

Internet Explorer 8 Beta is actually currently promoted on the Microsoft.com homepage. *Not* to say that would necessarily have the same impact. I don't know, but I figure a link from Google's spare homepage can have huge effects. Not sure about Microsoft's homepage...

Stefan Kr.:
> Well, it's an open source software and I'm sure that
> many programmers will examine the code and tell us exactly
> which data is sent to google, make a derived version
> that doesn't sent any data or include some of the good
> features into other browser projects.

I wanted to add one thing about Chrome being open source meaning everyone would be able to check what exactly it does... I would think that is not a given, because people don't compile Chrome based on the sources but they download and install the ready-made Chrome software which may or may not do exactly what the open source version Chromium does. Not to say I would find it likely that Google would sneak in any secret stuff (and perhaps such secret stuff could be found out about via comparing compiled binaries or by decompiling, or analyzing traffic Chrome opens, not sure) but just saying.

Matt Cutts:
> And if you still dislike Chrome, you can take
> the source code, modify it, and even redistribute
> the new version.

I don't believe that brings any real changes *unless* you also have a huge user base to which you can offer your changed Chrome. For most of the rest, they will probably go with the default installation... not what Ask offers or what webmasters offer... and probably, go with the default settings within that installation (so even "you can turn of the feature in the options" isn't the greatest argument at all times, though of course it goes some way in helping with issues).

(Just to add, releasing something as open source is of course still much better than *not* doing so.)

Christoph Francke writes:
> Besides, there was an entry in the comments on your
> blog asking about Chrome indexing https traffic that
> went through Chrome, as published on TGDaily
> (tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-v ...). Why did you delete that?

Just to clarify, you were asking Matt about a deletion on his blog, or were you referring to this forum?

Matt, do you have any comments on the installation ID controversy?

Robert, I'm less concerned about how people are offered the option to try each browser. When MSFT is ready to promote IE8 strongly I believe they will, because my home Windows computer upgraded from IE6 to IE7 without me asking for IE7 at all.

If we want to talk about actual (as opposed to perceived) danger to privacy, I believe IE8b2 is more of a risk--see my comments about the "Suggested Sites" feature of IE8b2.

And as far as security, Chrome was built from scratch to provide a more secure experience than most current browsers. Consider that almost a week after Chrome's release, as far as I know all the current security attacks against Google Chrome rely on social engineering rather than successfully attacking the core of the browser itself. With ~1% market share, Google Chrome also represents a much smaller target than other browsers; money-motivated hackers are not likely to attack Google Chrome at this point when the market share of IE is ~75%.

So in my opinion, surfing with Chrome is a much more reasonable security decision for Joe and Jane Doe compared to surfing with IE. And I say that as someone who surfs in very scary parts of the internet (hacked sites, malware) as a daily part of my job.

Robert: so I guess you recommend Joe & Jane to not use Gmail :D

It's still a beta. And it has made the Internet much better. So why should Joe and Jane wait for their administrator's authorization to use it?

And BETA is in capital letter on the Google homepage: I think there is also a search engine on this homepage, in case you ignore what it means ;)

Ionut:
> "Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique
> application numbers. These numbers and information about
> your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language)
> will be sent to Google when you first install and use it and
> when Google Chrome automatically checks for updates."
> (http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html ...)
>
> I can't confirm this info, but it's likely that Chromium (the open
> source version) doesn't include an auto-update feature, so no
> unique ID is transmitted to Google.

According to Heise.de, every user – not just every computer – will get their own application identifier, too, because Chrome installs in the non-standard user data directory rather than in the programs directory.

Furthermore, as Heise says, Google spokesperson Kay Oberbeck told Heise that these app identifiers would not be merged with user accounts.

Can someone explain why Google needs such a unique program identifier in the first place?

PS: I'm also still curious about why Chrome drops 1 or 2 Google cookies if you clear all cookies and restart the browser.

Christoph Francke, I didn't see your comment. To the best of my knowledge I haven't deleted any comments/links to any TGDaily posts. I've done about 5-6 Chrome posts; do you know which post it was? I'm happy to check whether a comment is waiting for approval, but I don't believe I've deleted any comments about TGDaily.

Philipp Lenssen, I don't think I've seen the installation ID questions; is there an English-language url to point me to?

By the way, if people are interested it sounds like this url gives feeds about Chromium announcements: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-announce/feeds . Nothing there now, but I would guess that things like release notes and similar stuff should show up there.

Google has burned some steps, first it should keep this first testing for volunteers and experienced users and with clear warnnings.

Bilal, Google has been testing for months with volunteers and experienced users within the company. The browser is stable for the vast majority of users, and the next logical step is a beta release where people who want to try the browser can take it out for a spin and provide feedback about what they'd like to see next.

Only by opening the software up for wider release to real users do we see whether people ask more for Mac/Linux support vs. extensions vs. better bookmark handling, etc. That in turns helps Google prioritize what to tackle next to appeal to more people.

<< PS: I'm also still curious about why Chrome drops 1 or 2 Google cookies if you clear all cookies and restart the browser. >>

Interesting. I can only reproduce this if Google is the default search engine and "New tab" is the homepage (both options are enabled by default).

Matt Cutts quotes:

> "• Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers
> to agree to license and install its browser, Internet
> Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for
> the Windows 95 operating system.
>
> • Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet
> browser software to its new Windows 98 operating
> system, the successor to Windows 95."

I like the argument that "we can be evil because someone else was *more* evil 10 years ago" ;-)

Matt, doesn't the fact that Microsoft continued to ship IE as part of Windows – and does to this day – suggest to you that the DoJ lost this part of the case? (It lost it on appeal.)

The 1995 consent decree with the DoJ specifically allowed Microsoft to integrate features into the OS, but it was not allowed to tie separate products. Microsoft therefore integrated IE into the OS, or so it argued in its defense. (Integration was a bad idea but you can blame Janet Reno.)

In any case, Microsoft adding features to Windows isn't really different from Intel adding features to its processors, Ford adding features to its cars or Google adding features to its search engine, eg Google News (another target for lawsuits). Products get more capable and more integrated over time. Consumers benefit. The world moves on. So should you.

> << PS: I'm also still curious about why Chrome drops 1 or
> 2 Google cookies if you clear all cookies and restart the browser. >>
>
> Interesting. I can only reproduce this if Google is the
> default search engine and "New tab" is the homepage (both
> options are enabled by default).

I can reproduce this with e.g. Live being the default search engine, and "about:blank" being the default homepage. *But*, you need to give it some seconds... after restart, if I hit the options during the very first second or so I don't yet see the cookies. I only see them if I wait like 2 seconds and then open the options.

totally agree with it.
People are always very quck to lable microsoft evil but google have far more of a monopoly and control then MS do.

People need to learn not to rely on one company for all their needs. most of googles services are pretty cheap and nasty anyway.

Google stores EVERY search you make and can associate it with your IP address at will. They can provide this information to anybody of their choosing if they want. They admit this. Do you want every single thing you do online to be recorded? Even if you are doing nothing wrong, you MUST see the horror in this scenerio! Google is not a good thing.

Andy Wong,

If google earth is requested to block certain US and some specific country maps.. then they should start blocking sensitive areas of every country.. Can they really do that?? If they block only certain US & some specific country maps.. then Google is not playing fair too??

As a fan of Google I got to be so disappointed in this matter. So should others. I still believe Google will do something better than we expected but the expectations really didn't come up to the edge for the Chrome Browser.

Matt Cutts

Ok, but testing it inside the company does not mean that the product is ready to be used by a simple user. I think it would be wise if Google did less pub on the product and put more complex procedure to download the product such as only the users with some experience level can reach it. (Example: Google is allowing tests of its new browser. you want to help us improve the product submit the form below .... Attention the product .....).

I think it would be better for the reputation of Google and the safety of of the users.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3403/aiepz8.jpg

I have been testing it and i think it is still early to say this is a beta release.

an alternative screencasted here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0I6WdYORq0

for a government to say chrome is 'bad' is an outrite action of bad information gathering. Key word is open source. Also r they saying tat talented and open policy-ed companies should not perform and not develop good products for the consumers ?
MS has the same product range(services) n yet no mention of them. i know tat Google can run circles around MS with its strong and loyal customer base and products n is that why Google is targeted this way ??

It's not how much information we have, but how the information is used tat is thus more important....

Being a German, I find it embarrassing how the government is over-regulating the market with such simplistic statements.

Germany sucks. Really.
And I am (still...) German, so please don't bother me.

But starting 2.Oct, I do have a new chance: DV2010 (aka GreenCard Lottery)

:-)

Ionut Alex. Chitu – as far as I know, you're right. The ID is only used to count the number of active users & it's only used in the Google Updater (not in Chrome). Especially with a browser, I think that automatically checking and installing updates is very important, but you're free to use a build from chromium.org without the Google Updater (if you do, please make sure that you keep up with updates though).

Bilal – I've also been using Chrome for months on various machines and feel that the move to promote it to more external users was definitely right at this point. I'd rather that we be criticized for having too many public beta testers than too few. I think that having many users with vastly different setups is vital to an open-source project like this.

some of the comments here make me laugh, there's the odd person with their head screwed on straight, but for the most part people are showing some concerning amounts of hypocricy.

the argument about google and microsoft make me laugh.

Consider these two points
1) where was microsoft's shouting from the mountains press-release and international news coverage of ie8 beta being publically available. Don't even get me started on chrome's the 38 page info-comic. Microsoft may make a hubub when ie8 goes live and final, but it's not, and as such they know it's not ready for wide usage yet.
2) the argument about 'how can microsoft get away with this, and google can't' is funny for a number of reasons. Usually the same people will happily use a mac which comes bundled with all manner of software services and tools that microsoft is forced to move because of monopoly concerns. Why is it okay for apple and not microsoft, because apple is not the 90% (very rought estimate) share that microsoft is, and the same applies for google vs microsoft. Google is the larger market shareholder of webservices at the moment, and microsoft is not.
Secondly google are doing things with chrome that they have previously criticised microsoft for.

Looking back over the past 10 years of google's history i think anyone that's been in the IT industry for that year will argue within the blink of an eye that google have a FAR worse privacy record that microsoft do, and it only seems to get worse. Despite their history they always try to slip things under the radar. see chrome's initial EULA, or DesktopSearch's practice of copying indexed networked content to google's servers for permanent storage.

Google got back to me one one of the questions:

Q: Why does Google Chrome install in the user application data directory and not the programs directory?

Google: <<Google Chrome is a per-user install and doesn't require admin privileges. This forces us to put it in the User Data directory. For our software update system to work, allowing us to rapidly distribute security updates, Google Chrome must be installed in a location where the user has write access. This location is recommended by Microsoft for per-user application installations.>>

Google points to manager Brian Rakowski's answer in regards to another question:

Q: Why does Google include a unique application identifier with every installation? Among apparent other places this number is stored in Chrome/User Data/Local State -> user_experience_metrics -> client_id.

<<There's a little confusion here that I'd like to clear up. There are two IDs being discussed. They are stored and used separately.

First of all, there is an installation ID (iid) which is created at install time to de-dup install counts. This is necessary to accurately count the number of successful installations that have occurred. The iid is generated randomly (not based on any other information) and is deleted in the next update check after first run.

There is a second ID called the clientID which is used for the user metrics service. This is an opt-in service that lets users send usage statistics to Google so that we can learn how the product is being used for the sake of making improvements. It helps us answer questions like, "Are people using the back button?" and "How common is it that people click the back button repeatedly?" Users can always update their preference about sending usage statistics on the "Under the Hood" tab of options.>>
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1813

Regarding the initial cookie, it could be related to this bug: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1204

Wow, are they serious? It's like 3 clicks away from the executable download page to download chromes source code.. get a [attack removed] grip

Jesse read a little more closely. The source code is for Chromium, not Chrome. Google compiled Chrome for us, and doesn't give us "open" access.

Philipp Lenssen thanks for pressing on the ID issue. Good to see those responses from Google.

Shouldn't we say: open-source means no secret?

In recent days the use of chrome, whenever I run chrome, I can hear the hard drive has been in operation.

No browser will create a continuing drive the operation, including IE, which I doubt

I just saw this: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-suggest.html . 98% of Google Suggest data is not logged at all, but Google is planning to anonymize even the 2% of "Google Suggest" data within 24 hours.

Matt Cutts, its a great day for privacy posts on Google's main blog!

dear rme some of our euorpean bothers and sisters just dont get the internet do they.

> Regarding the initial cookie, it could be related to this bug:
> code.google.com/p/chromium/iss ...

Do you know why Google does this top-level domain check mentioned?

look at this page

http://photosynth.net/install.aspx?cid=1078cb60-00fd-45cc-8b9d-d3f492124420

It's funny how microsoft can't show the content's page for google chrome:

"We detected that the browser you are using is not one of the tested browsers listed above. It is highly recommended that you use one of the tested browsers"

hi,
in response to macbeach->
How do they know that Windows doesn't contain a secret back-door option to turn on key-logging and send all the results to Redmond?

its really easy to check it, just turn your network sniffer on and check if any crypted data send to redmond :)

best regards

nfo

codejungle.org