It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google's IMMORTAL Cookie.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:56 PM
What I will be presenting is past and current information about your usage here on the internet. Though we think that at times we are secure by either, add-on's, virus and malware protection, etc,. There are still ways that the intelligent minds of the computer world have found ways to keep us in line, and how easy it is get ourselves involved with big brother without even knowing it.

Google for Privacy Conscious Users

Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. Immortal cookies are now commonplace among search engines. These cookies place a unique ID number on the users computer. Anytime a user lands on a Google page, a Google cookie is given if it does not already exist. If it exists, Google reads and records the unique ID number.

Sites like google or any other search engine, which users visit at least once a day have large amounts of data about all their users. Google, which is the starting page for most of our queries, can keep tabs on all our search words. Google news even keeps track of the links we click on. The current privacy policy of google states, “Please be aware, however, that we will release specific personal information about you if required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order”.

The "Google as a Big Brother" article at gives a detailed overview of the dangers with google’s privacy policy. If a user decides not to use cookies, google does not give access to all its features, even when some of the features can be provided. For example, if a user disables cookies on the browser and visits google’s preferences page, a blunt warning sign saying,

Google says it won’t give access to the preferences feature unless the cookies are enabled. That is not what the user wants. The reason why this page came up in the first place is because the user doesn’t want google to store personal information. What the user expects is an alternate way to store preferences with out storing a cookie.

October, 2004: Google acquires CIA-linked company

Google has acquired Keyhole, Inc., which has a database of 3-D spy-in-the-sky images from all over the globe. Their software provides a virtual fly-over and zoom-in with one-foot resolution. Keyhole is supported by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm funded by the CIA, in an effort to "identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests."

In 2003, Keyhole's CEO John Hanke was quoted in an In-Q-Tel press release: "Keyhole's strategic relationship with In-Q-Tel means that the Intelligence Community can now benefit from the massive scalability and high performance of the Keyhole enterprise solution."

The spooks in Washington now had another hook into Google, Inc. Then in mid-2005, Rob Painter joined Google as Senior Federal Manager. He came straight from In-Q-Tel, where he had been Director of Technology Assessment.

Purpose revealed behind the 2038 expiration date for Google's cookie!

On 2004-02-26 Larry Page told Reuters:

"On the more exciting front, you can imagine your brain being augmented by Google. For example you think about something and your cell phone could whisper the answer into your ear."

At the Search Engine Strategies conference on 2004-03-03, Craig Silverstein said that in the future people will have "search pets":

Silverstein sees search pets as being able to find to the correct answer to these tricky interpretive questions. Will searching as we know it be completely replaced by search pets? "We'll still search for facts," he says, "but in all likelihood the facts will be contained in a brain implant."

Having fun yet???
There seems to had been concern over what Google was doing when it began making all of these changes in 2003, but surprisingly there hasn't been much protest since, hmmmm I wonder why?

Google cache raises copyright concerns

At the heart of Google's caching dilemma lies a thorny legal problem involving a core Web technology: When is it acceptable to copy someone else's Web page, even temporarily?
A phantom life for dead pages
Google's cache, a feature introduced in 1997, is unique among commercial search engines, but it's not unlike other archival sites on the Web that keep digital copies of Web pages. Google's relatively little-known feature lets people access a copy of almost any Web page, within Google's own site, in the form it was in whenever last indexed by the search giant. That could mean the page accessed is either minutes or months old, depending on when Google last crawled it.

Unlike formal Web archive projects, Google says its cache feature does not attempt to create a permanent historical record of the Web. Rather, the company actively seeks to delete dead links; once a Web page disappears, the search engine seeks to purge that record and any related cached page as quickly as possible.

I share this info, not to further scare the masses, as I am sure most of us already know that we are being watched, and recorded, but knowing how its happening and who is doing it is just as important.

I chose to research Google, as they seem to be the monopoly at this time, and are getting bigger by the day.

I wanted to add that I choose the year 2003 because that seemed to be where many of other computer geeks (in a good way) saw something, and expressed their concern. I am fully aware that this has been going on way before that. It doesn't take one day to get this massive.

Peace, NRE.
The link to the image seems to be taking it to top topics, I dont know what I did wrong, and have been having problems. So I apologize, and the photo I linked is on the first link I provided above

edit on 16-11-2011 by NoRegretsEver because: problem link.. sorry

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 17/11/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:01 PM
This issue has always bothered me. They can collect and archive all of your history...then pass it along to whomever. I can just imagine how some of my search terms would be perceived by the watchers at Google.

That's why I use They are a great search engine!

S and F
edit on 16-11-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:18 PM
Can we change our computer dates to 2038 so these cookies expire, or is that on their end only? That was a trick that use to work for time trial software back in the day.

edit on 16-11-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:31 PM
It's a common practice to set cookies that won't expire for 100 years. Google is hardly alone in this.

If you use FF, download an extension called "Better Privacy", you can easily zap those 'immortal' cookies - along with all those LSO/Flash or persistent cookies. Just be aware that if you play online or flash games you'll likely lose your saved scores.

PS: another way to avoid Google yet get Google search results is with Scroogle scraper -
edit on 16-11-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:48 PM
Install Ghostery on your browser and enable cookie protection. Problems solved

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This issue has always bothered me. They can collect and archive all of your history...then pass it along to whomever. I can just imagine how some of my search terms would be perceived by the watchers at Google.

That's why I use They are a great search engine!

S and F
edit on 16-11-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

I checked out startpage and I am going to start using it. Thanks for the heads up on this search engine!

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM
Good thing Google isn't the only search engine.

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM
I have to say that this is great. I have checked out all the suggestions, and appreciate the input. This is how we get one step ahead.

We share.
We post.
We learn.

We get one step ahead!!!!

Peace, NRE.

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:06 PM
Would sites that feature the Google+ "+"-button also register your unique ID when visited?

For example, does Google record my activities every-time I visit, say, ATS?

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:14 PM

Here is whats tracking us in this thread

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Kutas

Here is whats tracking us in this thread

What was that called, I remember it was an add-on for firefox, that's about it.

EDIT: Remembered as soon as I submitted my question.
edit on 16-11-2011 by satron because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:00 AM
I cannot understand for the life of me how they get away with this. Its perfectly clear cut in my opinion. Unless a person is suspected of a crime, and the law enforcement authorities have evidence enough to survey and spy on a given party, then that party ought not have its data recorded. If and when a person or party comes under that kind of suspicion, THEN thier data may be harvested, but until that time, there should not be any legal way, in which a persons personal private information may be handed out, recorded, or even known to exist by any organisation, be it a law enforcement agency, or a private company.

What the hell happened to allow google to be God?

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

You should know by now that we are all considered criminals from birth. The government are so dirty and so paranoid they have to inflict that paranoia upon us all.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Firefly_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:11 AM
so deleting my search history doesnt erase the copious amounts of porn........ damn you google..... DAMN YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by Firefly_

Then surely a civil action against governments that behave as if thier people are all guilty before even suspected of committing a crime, would be an idea.
Fact is that this is a period of positive action, and there is no better time to get a movement underway to change that which ails you about your nation, your government, and in a wider sense the world we all live on.

I personally am using my governments E-petition facility to demand that the people be given the power to oust ineffective and disobedient governments from power, and force new elections when our government refuses to obey the command of the people.

In the states no such facility exists as far as I know, so getting a movement together is important to ensure the voice of the people is heard.

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:20 AM
We can all freak out and think Google is spying on us for the government, or you can get the facts that the cookie and it's ID is ANONYMOUS. If you want someone to be mad at, be mad at Facebook. Google straight up tells you what they do. Facebook said they stop gathering data when you log out, and they lied, they still gather ALL your data and sell it. Facebook also personally links their data while you are logged into Facebook to you and your profile, with no anonymity.

Hate Google who hide your identity, or Facebook who does not and sells your information linked personally to you. I know who I hate, and it isn't Google.

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by TrueBrit

Do you think this would work, True Brit? [I put this comment on another page here.]
The governments of the world have forgotten their purpose and it's time we reminded them. Signing petitions, phoning, sending emails, etc. does NOT work because they simply ignore them.

Rather I suggest that we hit them where it hurts them and use our voting power. Not to elect anyone, but to indicate that we're NOT electing anyone, because we're dissatisfied with government, their methods and their policies.

If we instigate a worldwide movement, and ignore their antics, their political rallies, their speeches and only show up on voting day to put a symbol, possibly a 'zero' instead of 1 or 1-10, or whatever method we are supposed to use, this message will indicate itself in their counting of votes, their 'elected' right to govern and give a sure clear signal that we are not taking any more of their BS.

It would be a peaceful way of letting them know to change their ways and also that we're not playing their games.

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by Maigret

Governments would take that and use a hung parliament to force another term in office. What would work better , is campaigning to have an option on the voting form which states that NONE of the candidates or parties are acceptable, rather than just insinuating it by not voting, or putting an unidentified mark on your ballot card.

People say you shouldnt be angry with google because at least they are honest about the ways they are trying to mess with you. I say , thats exactly why I do not trust my government. They remind me of Google, and Google remind me of them. Both obsessed with cameras, both obsessed with where things are, how much of it there is , and making better assumptions based on whatever data can be accessed about a person, business or town.

Google couldnt get away with operating thier private intelligence operation (which is what it is in all but name) if our members of parliament had a sense of doing the publics bidding, rather than making laws and forcing us to abide by them, often to our cost.

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 02:34 AM
Great thread. Very informative responses.

Of course you know that many browsers are now including a built in ID tag which will effectively identify you on the Internet to whomever might be interested. To see how much they actually know about you, check this out -
Anonymity Test

top topics


log in