 
stltech
join:2002-01-27
Florissant, MO | nice not a bug! lol | |
|
 | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: nice What I REALLY want to know is how to clear the cache of this information so it can't be found! Anyone know? | |
|
| | DSLrgm
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
Oak Park, MI
| Re: nice said by wifi4milez  :
What I REALLY want to know is how to clear the cache of this information so it can't be found! Anyone know?
Standard processes:
Clear your cache, history, location, and cookies.
Do NOT have your browser 'remember' your password.
Just all those things you are suppose to do anyway...... | |
|
| | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: nice Thats good becuase I do that already. I thought there might be some hidden file or folder that I/we were unaware of.
Thanks | |
|
| 
Laughing
| LMAO! Google says NO but wait until someone gets busted for file sharing or porn that has been ferreted out of the pc without you knowing it. Or some loose cannon that works for Google searches your machine for passwords and such.
For those of you worried about the cache cleanup you can use Zone Alarm firewall it has a cleaner that works well.
Acronis Privacy Manager works.
And System Security Suite works too and is free. | |
|
ViniTheHat
Hat Trickery
Premium
join:2002-09-29
Brooklyn, NY | i love exciting features! my SUV was designed to roll over. it adds excitement!
--
Let the good times roll. | |
|
| navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Re: i love exciting features! lmfao... | |
|
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: i love exciting features! Public PCs should be configured to clear browser cache and history when the browser is closed. Then search tools wouldn't have this "flaw".
Google's tool is just indexing files on the hard drive. You can browse the cache on your PC and find stuff on there yourself, with or without Google.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
|
| | | claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA | Re: i love exciting features! Even if you set the browser to clear the cache and history automatically, that will only happen if the exit is clean and without problem. If you go check the IE cache directories after "clearing" by IE, you will often find lots of leftover stuff. | |
|
| |
Phucker
Premium
join:2001-09-12
Reno, NV
clubs: | Holy shit! big security issues here. Especially for a public machine.
It makes screen captures as well.
I found my bank statement in its cache and it just brings it up. | |
|
| |
| | Zemus420
join:2004-02-19
Dallas, TX | Re: Holy shit! This guy make me feel DUMB  | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
 ·ViaTalk
·T-Mobile US
 ·Bandwidth.com
| Re: Holy shit!
I'm not trying to make you feel dumb.
I'm just saying that for the past 20 years interfaces have been becoming easier and simpler. That's not a bad thing, but the caveat is that everything gets automated, and the user is not required to have any idea what the consequences of his or her actions are.
Think of it as when the day comes when cars drive themselves -- but you don't know what the brake pedal does when that auto-pilot doesn't behave exactly as you expect.
Computers are not simple appliances. Even though the marketing pinheads would like to position them as such, and every Wal-Mart computer purchaser would like to use them as such - it will never happen. If you are storing, sending, and receiving personal information on a device, it has to be stored somewhere. Whether that's in memory or on disk..
Encryption is possible, and should be used wherever possible - but it does slow things down, and does require further engineering and user complexity - since user authentication and the concept of trusted events and resources must now be used.
Note it this way. This problem is not a problem on a computer used by only one person. So, the issue is on multiple user systems. On a multiple user system, if the cache was encrypted (this is not under Google's control), there would have to be a separately maintained cache and authentication system for each user. This adds complexity back to the user interface. Now "Joe User" is complaining as to why he has to log in to his web browser, or create a new profile when he logs on to a public machine. Follow that thread on and on.
G | |
|
| | | | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Holy shit! I think you intended to respond to Zemus420 rather than my post??
I'm agreeing with you. | |
|
| | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Why should users have to know the inner workings of the programs they use? Programmers write programs that leave things laying around in a cache somewhere, and its the users fault for not knowing this?
I've seen so many posts like this blaming every woe in the Internet on the 'stupid users.' How will computers and the Internet ever be ubiquitous, useful tools if programmers and industry professionals in general don't step up and start writing programs that are safe and secure?
You are right, this has always been in cache, and Google is just finding it. But the vast majority of general computer users don't know this, and they shouldn't have to know it. You can't require Joe User to have a degree in computer science in order to use a computer or a piece of software 'properly.' Thats totally unrealistic and would be antithetical to the growth of the computer industry.
Instead, the computer industry needs to understand who their audience is and learn how to create safe and secure products for them. Stop blaming my mother for your inability to keep her checkbook secure. | |
|
| | |
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
·T-Mobile US
·Bandwidth.com
| Re: Holy shit! said by Talis :
Why should users have to know the inner workings of the programs they use? Programmers write programs that leave things laying around in a cache somewhere, and its the users fault for not knowing this?
It's not a question of them having to know EVERYTHING, but so many users have NO CLUE what's going on. "Leave things lying around in a cache?" The cache has to go somewhere. If there was no cache, the "dumb users" would be complaining that things have slowed down.
quote:
I've seen so many posts like this blaming every woe in the Internet on the 'stupid users.' How will computers and the Internet ever be ubiquitous, useful tools if programmers and industry professionals in general don't step up and start writing programs that are safe and secure?
Yes, and likewise, I imagine our highways will never be safe until cars drive themselves and prevent all accidents through mechanical engineering and sensors. The user has to take some responsibility. Thinking you can use a complex system without having even the slightest clue as to what's going on behind the scenes is insanely naive. I'm not saying users should have to be able to write an interface to a binary or flatfile database on their system and manually alter the cache. I think it's reasonable to expect them to understand that when you view a web page, it gets downloaded to your hard drive, and can be viewed by other people that use that computer if you don't take precautions. That's basic.
quote:
You are right, this has always been in cache, and Google is just finding it. But the vast majority of general computer users don't know this, and they shouldn't have to know it.
Why not? So how do you rectify this.. Outright prevent searching of the cache? Maybe some people want to search the cache. Using your logic, wouldn't offering up the option to search the internet cache (which Google does provide, and calls it "web history") just confuse people more?
Google lets you turn it off. So what's the big deal?
quote:
You can't require Joe User to have a degree in computer science in order to use a computer or a piece of software 'properly.' Thats totally unrealistic and would be antithetical to the growth of the computer industry.
A) Expecting a user to know that web pages get stored on their disk is hardly tantamount to having a CS degree.
B) You must not have been around computers very long. I imagine you'd be completely floored by how difficult it was to do something as simple as installing a modem ten short years ago. Hell, even five or six years ago. IRQs, TSRs, IO addresses, jumpers.. You don't know how good you have it. Things ARE easier today.
You can only dumb down a complex system so much until it just stops working properly.
quote:
Instead, the computer industry needs to understand who their audience is and learn how to create safe and secure products for them. Stop blaming my mother for your inability to keep her checkbook secure.
Horrible logic. Who is their audience? Strictly Wal Mart consumers who expect a computer to operate like a VCR? Sorry, if you're storing personal information you might want to know a thing or two about security. You talk about your mother keeping her checkbook secure.. Would you blame the bank for printing necessary account numbers on checks if a cashier copies down her account and routing number?
It's lovely to think the world and the internet is a simple, nice, fluffy place where your 85 year old grandmother can just hop on to AOL with no problems, and that we programmers can engineer out any pitfalls. Too bad it just ain't so, and I'm ticked off that so many armchair quarterbacks are telling engineers how to write software.
Remember, what's simple in your mind may not be so simple in practice. Think logically - HOW could Google have done this otherwise? The files are stored on your disk, by IE and Firefox, not Google, unencrypted. Google allows you to turn this feature off. Where did they fail, other than perhaps making the description of this feature blinking, rotating, and in bright red and yellow? | |
|
| | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Holy shit! said by tcp1 :
A) Expecting a user to know that web pages get stored on their disk is hardly tantamount to having a CS degree.
Thats a true statement. But expecting users to know anything about how a particular application works internally doesn't make sense if you want general joe-blow individuals to use your application.
said by tcp1 :
B) You must not have been around computers very long. I imagine you'd be completely floored by how difficult it was to do something as simple as installing a modem ten short years ago. Hell, even five or six years ago. IRQs, TSRs, IO addresses, jumpers.. You don't know how good you have it. Things ARE easier today.
I've been working with computers for 20+ years. Things are definitely easier today, no doubt about it. But developers still do not think in terms of safety and security - defensive development would be a good way to say it, with respect to the user.
said by tcp1 :
You can only dumb down a complex system so much until it just stops working properly.
I disagree. I'm not even suggesting you dumb down anything. I'm saying you make the programs smarter, the interactions between programs smarter, to account for the lack of knowledge of the users.
said by tcp1 :
Remember, what's simple in your mind may not be so simple in practice. Think logically - HOW could Google have done this otherwise? The files are stored on your disk, by IE and Firefox, not Google, unencrypted. Google allows you to turn this feature off. Where did they fail, other than perhaps making the description of this feature blinking, rotating, and in bright red and yellow?
This isn't Googles problem, and I don't believe I ever said it was. The problem is that the data is laying around in the cache to begin with. It should not be. It isn't that difficult to build protocols that describe sensitive data and protocols that define how applications should treat that data. But the industry as a whole has not cared to address those issues. Until they do, this will continue to be a problem forever, and it isn't the users problem. | |
|
| | 
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| said by tcp1 :
That stuff is there anyways - Google is just FINDING IT, for chrissakes. Windows search would do the same thing, just slower.
You don't seem to understand how Google's program works. It installs a sniffer on the computer in order to capture certain things. How else could it log AIM conversations if you didn't have another logging program in place?
The point is, it doesn't just search files that are already on your hard drive. It also intercepts and logs network communications.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA | Re: Holy shit! Does it actually intercept communications? I don't read it that way. But if it does that would indeed be a major security issue. The last thing we need is another sniffer. | |
|
| | | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: Holy shit! said by claudeo :
Does it actually intercept communications? I don't read it that way. But if it does that would indeed be a major security issue. The last thing we need is another sniffer.
Yes, it really does. I just installed it (and uninstalled it 10 minutes later) on my computer to check it out and see for myself.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | | | 
Inflex
join:2002-09-05 | Re: Holy shit! Proof? | |
|
| | | | | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost | Re: Holy shit! Install the program and prove it to yourself. I don't have it installed anymore, and I'm not going to install it again.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Inflex
join:2002-09-05 | Re: Holy shit! I'm not interested in proving someone else's baseless claim, thank you. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: Holy shit! said by tcp1 :
Jerw134, you are simply the most alarmist person I've ever seen on this board.
The only thing close to "sniffing" it does is with AIM chats, and it explicitly asks if you want to do that.
Not turning it on is the same as not having it installed at all.
Alarmist? I'm pointing out what the program does. You're claiming that all it does is look at files that would already be on your hard drive if the program weren't installed, and I pointed out the fact that this is not the case.
I know that you have to give the program permission before it does any of this. I wasn't taking issue with the program, I was taking issue with your misinformation. Please learn how to distinguish between those two things.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | | |
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Re: Holy shit! We were talking about the WEB HISTORY function, not the AIM function. This is in regards to how it "stores" e-mails. | |
|
| | | | | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost | Re: Holy shit! Well I decided to talk about the AIM function, so that interested people could understand more about how the program works.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | 
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| I know what you mean by "behind the shiny GUI". I was listening to a radio show (supposedly the longest running computer-oriented show, "SoundBytes", on WHAM 1180 in Rochester, NY) about a guy who was having problems w/ his Internet connection. I knew precisely that he had to remove any gateway declaration in his networking configuration files ("GATEWAY=" in either /etc/sysconfig/network or /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 on RHL/FC systems) and make sure pppd starts with "defaultroute" as an option, but with all kinds of GUIs and TUIs for networking, it would have been tough to tell this guy how to get things done. Virtually everyone who uses these GUI frontends has no clue whatsoever what's behind them (the ip(8) and pppd(8) commands). If they did, it'd be relatively easy to fix this sort of problem.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
|
| |
Schnook
I Flatulate On Your Approximate Azimuth.
Premium
join:2004-04-12
1 edit | First, IPO... ...then shareholder value is all.
Users? BAH!
Minimicrosoft built before your very eyes. | |
|
|
| |
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | What does this have to do with the topic?  | |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Re: Hold up... By all accounts, it should - as long as your access your webmail through HTTPS. Accessing it through HTTP is a bad idea anyways. | |
|
| | | | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Where bug? THERE bug! The bug isn't in the search tool. It's in webmail programs which don't indicate that the information shouldn't be cached or in browsers that cache secured data (insecurely).
If it's stored unencrypted on your hard disk, anyone with access to your hard disk can read it; the search tool only exposes that. Probably doesn't even go that far, as I doubt it breaks user security (that WOULD be a bug). | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
1 edit | If This Wasn't Proof Enough If the statement "This is not a bug, rather a feature," wasn't proof enough that Google wants to be the next Microsoft, I don't know what is...
Oh well, at least they aren't trying to tell us that 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
|
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: If This Wasn't Proof Enough said by nixen :
Oh well, at least they aren't trying to tell us that 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
Who has ever said that? And don't say Bill Gates, because that myth was dispelled a long time ago.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: If This Wasn't Proof Enough said by nixen :
Your mom said it.
I thought this was Broadband Reports, not grade school.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| lol... have to admit, them saying it is a "feature" instead of a bug is the most ridiculous statement ever made ....
what an idiot ....
--
"Long-winded diatribes are not necessary for one-liner comments (regardless of THE POINT). Something some will never get." | |
|
SequimPC
Got Fiber?
Premium
join:2004-02-11
Sequim, WA
| google me this....Batman I don't see the correlation between google and M$???
People just seem to hate anyone who gets ahead these days.
Possibly the poor dot-com bastards from years past, angry they didn't create a decent business/marketing plan.
--
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics | |
|
| 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: google me this....Batman The incorrect adage that has been pushed on society that those who succeed could only do so by taking advantage of the little guy rears it's ugly head.
It's just not fair that those guys who came up with something you or I didn't, and would have the gall to actually profit from it.
--
John Kerry- doing for America whatever it is you want him to do for however long you want him to do it; except if you didn't want him to do it in the first place in which case he never did it. | |
|
nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA
|  This is a joke
Geeze, RTFM before you get all sensational.
Idiots. | |
|
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: This is a joke Thanks for posting the solution for people who don't know how to secure their cache. That last word does nothing to improve your post, however. | |
|
| | |
| | |
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: This is a joke said by tcp1 :
Why? It's tremendously frustrating that problems - such as viruses, hoax e-mails, and other "idiot" actions are caused by users who don't take the time to learn what is going on.
It is frustrating - but look at your language: you blame the user for malware!, you say they "caused" it!
The oft displayed BBR gearhead assumption is that users *should* understand PCs & networking which, while it would be nice, is an absurd premise. I could care less about and am ignorant of the inner workings of most systems I depend upon (insurance, my car engine, cow slaughtering) and surely people who make it their livelihood get frustrated with me & everyone for being ignorant about their work. There are many hundreds of millions of computer users and to expect they are all gonna keep their always-on, always-connected systems always clean is silliness. To label them all as idiots is, well, idiotic. The vast majority don't even know what a packet is - nor should they be expected to.
Law makers need to draft laws that have teeth and private-party recourse against spammers, not spam-friendly crap like the canned-spam act. Residential ISPs need to automatically detect malware packets & traffic patterns & disconnect source IPs + communicate to the customer when/why service was disconnected + make it easy for customers to get back online once the problem is fixed. ISPs that consistently spew tainted traffic need to have their IP-ranges blocked by other ISPs. In short, both the players in the connectivity industry and the laws that regulate them need to mature.
This is a young industry that has exploded and there is no small amount of de-bugging to do. That end-users are successfully victimized by other users on the network & don't know it is not surprising. Principally, solutions will come from (or should come from) the legal system, network designs, and OS designs (in that order) not the end-user base. | |
|
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
1 edit | I like it! This is such a smooth interface, I can see it being used as a stealthy way to spy on someone. I, personally, think it's great. I love the way it groups emails together in conversations similar to gmail. | |
|
jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA
| Check this out QDF filetype:QDF
Type that in google and see what you get. You can obtain people's quicken files, which consists of all their financial records, including credit cards.
Also very easy to do on P2P programs as well. This is only one example of finding out very private information. | |
|
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA | Re: Check this out A public PC should not contain .qdf files. My concern is about public PCs and Google search. If someone is dumb enough to provide full access to their files to a P2P application that is another story altogether. | |
|
|
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | And it is absolutely no fault of Google if someone's storing a quicken file in a publically accessible place. | |
|
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| Big boongoogle The problem is that a public terminal is typically preconfigured and I have no way to change the settings. Now this is one more thing to worry about--I need to go and verify that Google search is not enabled before doing my email.
This is a real world problem, even if your are tech savvy. I was at a conference this week where the only way to access the internet was public PCs that were hard configured. Plugging in my laptop was not an option. Wireless was not an option. VPN was not an option. Carelessly, the IE Tools dialog box was not secured, so I could go and supposedly delete temporary internet files after doing my email, but we all know that doing that from the dialog box usually does not actually remove all temporary files.
Moral of the story: If you use a computer on which the Google toolbar is installed, be careful, be very careful. Why doesn't that thing get installed by default with the "spy" enabling features disabled, requiring some effort (with appropriate warnings) to enable them? Of course this is a minor annoyance compared to the keylogger and other crap that might or might not be installed on an internet cafe computer. But still, why does the Google answer have to be so arrogant? And why are some of the posts here compounding that arrogance by suggesting remedies that are beyond the grasp of the 99% of people for whom computers are just tools do get work done? Do you really expect any normal human being to understand every one of those features with ambiguous names in the Advanced options for IE? | |
|
| 
martissimo
join:2001-12-01
Las Vegas, NV
clubs:
| Re: Big boongoogle You make a somewhat valid point and all, but without even going into all the advanced options and all isn't it easy enough to just tell people not to conduct anything that they hope will remain private on a public computer?
private and public imply two very different things  | |
|
| |
| | 
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
·Qwest.net
| Re: Big boongoogle That's really the issue. I try to never conduct any sensitive stuff (banking, etc.) over a public computer. Even ignorning cache files, you could have keystroke loggers or anything else on the PC.
I saw one web cafe where they actually reimaged the hard drive after each user. Extreme, but probably very effective in eliminating spyware.
The same problem with revealing unsecured files exists on the web-search Google. Searching for typical password or logging files will return hits from unsecured web servers. | |
|
|
swilson191
@208.190.x.x
| all the pc's at my school are re-imaged with standard image at midnight daily. However, the school allows any user to install any program. i could go to the school at 7:00am and install this on every pc THEN come back and work my way around to all the pc's extracting all the info from 14hrs with a simple search. | |
|
Cheddarhead
Ain't Nuthin But A Thang
join:2002-02-19
Hudson, WI | AOhell Does it work with aol browser? My kids got aohell... would like to put it on there to be a instant message nazi. | |
|
Tigger-oN
@dsl.comin | This is a windows problem, not googles This is far from a google issue. If google can do it, so can anyone else. Instead of targeting google for 'indexing' a hard drive, how about you ask Microsoft for 'real user permissions' (Like on a BSD/UNIX/Linux system). | |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs:
| umm. cached pages anyone? talk about complete morons. on ANY computer, the browser caches pages to your drive. this includes your webmail messages. after these are cached its all free game by anything on the same system. google is not to blame. if anyone is to blame (even this is questionable), its between the chair and the keyboard.
honestly, i think this is a good feature. although i dont use webmail that often here at home (Outlook Express works fine), if i had any reason to (hotmail for example, after they start charging for OE access), i would appreciate google desktop alot more. its alot easier to search for what i want in google desktop, even if i know its in my webmail, instead of going through the mess of logging in to the webmail site and searching each message individually. | |
|
|
Chang Noi
@vtx.ch
| Re: umm. cached pages anyone? I know GDS just takes snapshots of whats already on my PC, however it is "relatively" simple to clear PC caches. What bugs me is that you can't clear GDS's index cache except by removing and reinstalling. Hopefully enable cache cleaning and reindexing in future releases... | |
|
|
Cheddarhead
Ain't Nuthin But A Thang
join:2002-02-19
Hudson, WI
·Comcast
| Not done As this is beta version on the google search tool, I hope they add functionality, I notice it doesnt come up with nearly as many results as powerdesks search fucntion. Its fast, but not all inclusive.
--
AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 60gig HD, DVD-Ram Drive, Sony 17" LCD, Geforce FX 5200 Ultra, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, Creative Inspire 5.1, 3mb Comcast Cable Internet | |
|
Ookii
@bbtec.net | Google Desktop Did you know that Google Desktop can search password protected MS Office files?? | |
|
|
Anonymous
@63.109.x.x | Re: Google Desktop Don't know the intent of your post, but if an application can search a "password protected" file, without the password, then it's obvious the file isn't "protected" at all. | |
|
|
|
|
Google Desktop Privacy
[Info] Removing the ads in Gmail with Firefox
. If you can trust Microsoft to create your Operating System