Recently in Black Hat SEO Category

Last night, I spoke on air at Webmaster Radio (dot) FM about the imminent Microsoft Bing and Yahoo! Search deal. As expected, this morning (about 30-minutes ago), Bing announced on Twitter, linking to the official news that Microsoft Bing will power Yahoo!, and that Yahoo! will leverage its considerable relationships with major search advertisers to exclusively handle the advertising side. The deal is reputedly worth guaranteeing advertising dollars for Yahoo!, as Microsoft can easily afford to sweeten the deal that way.

Microsoft will also compensate Yahoo! from traffic and revenue resulting from traffic that originates from Yahoo! sites and affiliated network at a share of 88% over the fist 5 years. Panama and Search seems to have been given over to favor Microsoft Bing Search and Advertising platforms. That appears to be an admission by Yahoo! that Panama just failed to compete.

Paid Inclusion could lose its value when the switch to Bing happens. Unless Yahoo! can insert the feed somewhere with Bing search volume, there's no telling what will happen with inclusion deals past and present. It would be insane to leave that rich content, even when paid, on the table. That's literally leaving money on the table. Either Microsoft or Yahoo! will likely figure out a way to benefit by Paid Inclusion advertisers.

The key to making Paid Inclusion work, is understanding how it might not fit into Bing at all. If not, then finding search volume somewhere down the chain. Popular affiliated sites could make sense as a destination for the feeds. It's just that without being part of Bing, the value of Paid Inclusion is practically lost. Will Yahoo! control the first listings in Yahoo! Search? Or is it wholly over to Bing? Only time will tell what they decide to do. It's looking pretty bad for Paid Inclusion.

In the mean time, there's plenty of time. There needs to be regulatory approval of the deal. I said last night that I expect this would pass with government regulators. After approval, Yahoo! would make the transition within two years. That buys a lot of time for current Paid Inclusion deals to ponder the next strategy. Paid Inclusion will at least be as valuable now as it was yesterday until the deal is approved by government regulators. Even after that, the technical transition could take some months but no longer than two years. If you're an advertiser, plan ahead for this.

The things that are exciting about this news, is a rejuvenated platform to compete for search with Google. Whether that comes from Yahoo! past, Microsoft Bing's future, there's never a good reason to have just one search provider. As is the case with Microsoft's browser division for Internet Explorer, the company relaxed after winning dominant market share leaving room for new upstarts like Firefox. Google's search quality has been in a steady decline since it's wide appeal began in earnest (back in 2002).

Google's search quality has had to endure being the top search provider, and what that means in terms of commercial noise (spam) targeted specifically at undermining their search quality. Big online ecommerce over the last decades have proven that website owners and big box merchants alike will do practically anything to gain top search engine rankings. For the past 7 years, that has meant Google alone, and not Yahoo!. Commercial sites now have to plan for a strong likelihood that Yahoo! Bing will become a contender again.

Yes, Yahoo! could have been a contender. It flippantly dismissed the search back in 2002 when it saved a small fee for Inktomi powered search, and offered Google instead. Google capitalized precisely as Inktomi had warned Yahoo! they would, by just growing their site into the behemoth that it is today. Google's world changed from being a small upstart search engine based on hypertext analysis to a major software provider that competes with Microsoft. Microsoft is now in real danger that Google will make them less and less relevant.

That's today's thriving competitive search marketplace making its way into all sorts of industries. In my opinion, that's the real story here. Google has Android, Chrome OS and cloud computing with applications that traditionally were Microsoft's bread and butter: Office. Google has the online worldwide audience captured by their free offerings including Maps. This is threatening the very core of Microsoft's business in all ways except gaming and their XBox. Microsoft has not done very well with Windows Mobile or Zune.

The XBox, however, is a popular gaming console. During the next 10 years, the period that will coincide with this search deal, search will find its way into every conceivable device and access point across the globe. Apple just rejected Google Voice for the iPhone App marketplace yesterday. Microsoft is already poised as a player, poised as the player that Google must take on directly without flinching. There is room for both which makes the competition even more fierce for dominance in these down stream marketplaces. Just imagine the whole competition.

Stay tuned.

Lifestyle Lift (to employee): "Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had." This is taken from an email discovered by the New York State Attorney General's office during an investigation into 'Astroturfing.' You can read more about it here: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/july/july14b_09.html

How many times have you been paid to consult on Reputation Management? How many times have you heard some bad ideas coming from your client? Did you decide to do the right thing? Did you decide to advise them against acting poorly in response? When you have a gut instinct that what they're asking you to do is bad then always choose the right thing to do. It can come back on them. It may come back on you too.

For this one case, (there are many cases where companies have gotten away with Astroturfing), how many times have you heard your clients complain that their competitors are doing bad things in posting reviews? Have you heard clients say that they're considering doing bad things themselves as a response? Have you advised them against it? I hope so. They would be acting in a disingenuous way and you would be party to it.

What about those companies involved in competition who decide to post negative reviews about others? You wouldn't want misinformation written about you. Would you? It's happened to me. Misinformation is finally out there about me too, after more than a decade in business without it. It's hurt my search business. It's really not funny to have happen. It can mean the difference between staying in business or not.

The thing to remind people, is that while they can get away with it while they do it, there is a chance that down the road they could be looking at a hefty fine or something else. Who knows? It's just really never a good idea. I have not quit my own reputation business. Stay tuned on that. This is part of my message in response.

I found myself in a situation where I've had to defend myself for months. It hurts my ability to operate freely. It happens in my rankings where potential clients and partners look for me. A person with the means, decided to attack me in my rankings. He decided to attack me in response after I beat him in a relatively small, private legal matter regarding his use of images that belonged to me.

Can you imagine that I asked for a call to correct his mistakes? I demanded he take down images that belong to me. I have that right, don't I? He never called me. Instead, he posted additional misinformation that spun it to make himself look like the victim. As if! He promoted his posts with Twitter, Sphinn and Digg. At least it was deleted from Sphinn as (personal attacks) should be. It still ranks on search for my name. Damage done.

It's mean. It hurt. His audience could care less about what's real. They thought it was all pretty funny, funny that it was even happening at all. Never mind how I felt. Never mind the truth getting in the way of a funny, viral joke. Some of his friends thought it was fun to participate. It was actually very mean-spirited. One of the comments from the OP called me an 'it' (as if I didn't belong to the human family).

There was much worse from his audience. I had an actual privately delivered threat which hinted at physical attack. All of this (except the threat) is still online, ranking. His headline makes sure it sticks by clicks. The trick post has staying power that way. It's SEO gone bad. It's when reputation management goes wrong. He lost a small legal matter. He chose to attack me publicly in response.

It's never a good idea. He spun it around and attacked me as if I had a problem. I have a problem with him having used my images, posting misinformation, then continuing to publish additional misinformation, promoting it to the point it resulted in physical threats against me. Imagine asking someone to stop using images of you that were used without permission, then ultimately being physically threatened for it.

Imagine being told to never show your face in public again. It was pretty frightening, actually. I was called by some really hateful names. All I could do was gather evidence of what occurred, keep myself from responding anywhere but with my own websites. That way I can rank alongside it all with my message, just as I would suggest to for my clients.

I don't need to promote this article in Twitter, Sphinn or Digg. It wouldn't really matter if it was promoted. It would result in more people searching my name and clicking whatever result, including the bad one just to read the tabloid. Patience and discretion are virtues I have from acting professionally for decades.

A few clicks and a little attention to this isn't going to hurt me any more than I've hurt already. It'll rank just fine. I really don't need to promote my personal brand. Read about who I really am here: Disa Johnson. Time is on my side. As the Rolling Stones would say: "Yes, it is."



I recovered my composure. I quickly began ranking on words I originally had no use for, (including my own name). It's useful to me now. I'll make it so. One thing is true: I kept my cool as much as anyone could under the circumstances. I felt like I had ended up as my own client, (but without the pay).

I managed to effect some positive change so that the other postings at least stopped ranking well on my friend's name. It's still ranking on her name, but at least not on page one anymore. Once indexed, these things can last practically forever. That's why I have ample opportunity to pull anything up as examples, even if he chooses to delete all his stuff. He dabbled in hate, which is dangerous for him long-term.

It's still ranking in the middle of page one on my name. I am the one with the story to tell since the truth resides with me anyway. I did what I could to minimize it. I'll do what I can short of refraining from telling my story. I had always planned to write a book. I can afford to do way more than he can. It still hurts.

The thing that really had me decide to write about this again on a blog (at this point), was that Michael Arrington of TechCrunch decided to publish materials that were sent to him by a hacker who stole email from the founders of Twitter. I really think that was crass of Arrington, (crass like what happened to me), but to a far greater extent more damaging to Twitter than what happened to me.

The communications Arrington published were meant to remain private, just like my legal notice was sent privately. Arrington and the nuisance blogger both share that they decided to publish stuff they shouldn't, just because they can. They both claimed that the 'newsworthiness' of publishing the materials gave them the right to do so. That's the same instinct that attracted my harassment in the echoes of later commentary.

From a criminal legal standpoint, it may be true that they're safe from prosecution for this behavior. At least their attorneys seem to be reassuring them they can do what they want without worrying about criminal liability. They may be confident too, that the likes of Twitter wouldn't file a civil suit, one which they wouldn't be perfectly happy to defend.

That's just rich. The attorney's are going to make a mint off the case if a Twitter civil suit ensues. The whole thing has lost its integrity a long time ago. There is very low journalism here except that which would interest a tabloid 'newspaper.' Arrington has profited greatly at the personal expense of Twitter and its employees.

It all came at a cost, in my opinion at least, that TechCrunch has become a 'popular' online tabloid to me. Perhaps that was the hacker's aim? Arrington even claimed, wrongly, that he had been given a green light to publish it. This is much like what I experienced with false claims about what I had said and done in private.

People are gullible. There were no discussions with me whatsoever. I can only imagine what may have not transpired with Twitter ...which Arrington claims as fact. Citizen journalism at its best? My personal experience drove me to such sarcasm about blogs and using my newest blog for it. Love the irony in that.

I am not happy about these transgressions happening to us and the Web. It's further evidence to me that people will do anything to promote their personal brand at the expense of others. I don't think the personal email correspondence from Twitter should be in the hands of a hacker, much less a bad actor like Michael Arrington.

Arrington's personal brand increases at the expense of Twitter and its employees. The Web's gawking users lose too. This brings me to my latest musings on the industry. I hope given Google's good financial news that this moment ushers in more signs of economic recovery for us all. Maybe we'll all act better if there's ample business for everyone.

It's a wish. I think Internet marketing has its place. Even when I came into marketing during the mid-1990's without any sense for marketing, (but from technology), marketers were paying the bills. I had to overcome an automatic disdain for marketing. I learned it. Don't fall for the 'All Marketers are Liars' sense for marketing things. Don't trade integrity for cheap plastic thrills. I've done my best to avoid dressing anything up too much.

Take this stark contrast between images of fast food in advertisements, versus images of the real food. Makes me feel queasy, looking at that. It just shouldn't feel right to market things with lies. Intentional misspellings hurt me a lot during the assault on my personal being. Leave lying to the unscrupulous. Listen to your instincts and act with the better nature of your personal being.

Let the lying marketers lie. They lose in the end. I might have made more money in my life. I chose to avoid marketing anything that doesn't seem right to me. Some would say, leaving money on the table is not smart. I would challenge them to a game of marketing chess. I can whip them on that point. The fact is, wealthy living with money has its own costs. A tabloid life of plastic thrills doesn't appeal to me.

A greater experience from doing things smartly, a person ends up enjoying a higher sense of being a class act. That's my way of living richly with what I have, within adequate financial means (that affords me plenty of life's luxuries). I don't have actual needs that aren't satisfied. There's room for me to grow financially, too. It should be thought of as part of the whole that makes a life of intention.

I argue it's a far better pathway to improve one's personal abilities for life, than to work like the Dickens to afford an excessively large house, (especially with today's economic environment). Most of these things people do, especially to obtain cheap plastic thrills including the all out assault on my online personality, seem to require them to increase their own personal brands. All too often, this comes at someone else's expense.

You'll see people with a gullible audience talking about how it's 'all about your personal brand.' These tend to be the sort that attack others. Don't listen to it. Make sure that your own personal brand has nice qualities. It's about authenticity. Not all marketers have to be liars. Not all personalities have to be offensive.

I would think you want your brand to promote an amalgamation of the better parts of society. Promote life online where life online meets the reality out on the street (or in the countryside). Discover where you truly fit in the scheme of this modern life. Live a life of good intentions. It's your ultimate marketing message where all others originate.

If you've followed my story at all, (chances are that you haven't), but you might see some strong hints about how I really feel about what happened with my own little saga. So, let it play. If you have 30-minutes or so, I highly recommend taking a look at the following video: "The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture, Politics of Authenticity."

Stay tuned!

Updated March 11th, 2009



I can only ask that ShoeMoney delete his entries and quit polluting my name. He continues to publish bad info (using Heather's name is wrong on many levels) and it is still ranking. I'll repeat myself from below: If you want to work in a professional setting, people will Google you. If you plan to go out on a date, people will Google you. It's personal, and it's important.

The next time I sell Reputation Management services, I am going to use myself as an example of someone that pulled the trigger under great duress and spent resources during the economic crisis to defend my good name. Despite that I have succeeded in bringing it down six positions in Google after three weeks of work, it's work that I wouldn't have otherwise had to do.

Less than a month from Jeremy's original publish date, with some three weeks of online actions, my query is recovering fairly well. Jeremy is obviously blissfully unaware of the strife he caused me with bad facts and a complete disregard for respect towards me, his elder in this industry. It's a shame, really.

Original Post March 7th, 2009:

Medium-term plans for Reputation Management with [Disa Johnson] are paying off within three weeks of starting concentrated work. The story unfolded with quick rankings via Twitter, which I can now relax a bit and stop using my query in all the messages. That will come as a relief to my main followers, and Danny Sullivan.

Other short-term strategies, getting profiles up at various social media sites also paid off relatively quickly. The Google search engine fancies these sites for navigational queries, the most personal of all reputation management needed. If you want to work in a professional setting, people will Google you. If you plan to go out on a date, people will Google you. It's personal, and it's important.

The number one spot is a neutral listing. If someone is looking for the volleyball player, they deserve to get her. I like volleyball a lot, incidentally. Having a listing like that is like Danny Sullivan, the race car driver on the Indy 500 circuit. He deserves to be in Danny's result set.

I've owned number two (and sometimes three with a folded result) using Twitter within 2 days of starting optimization, just by tweeting a lot. I solidified that ranking fairly well using 'Disa Johnson' in my messages. It worked like magic. I also published some quick domains that were on idle, and bought some more to flood the result set.

I do *not* recommend flooding as a tactic. If you find your name polluted by an idiot, like Jeremy, perhaps it can make sense. It's dangerous. Be forewarned.

This is where the medium-term strategy started kicking in. It's almost 3-weeks. I previously owned several domains without content, and I put quick bio HTML pages up in a directory on my webserver. I then pointed DNS settings for various domains at the folder. That meant that there will be content to crawl under new domains. This works particularly well for Microsoft's Live Search.

I then started this blog with another domain name (AirDisa) and began blogging as much as I could under the circumstances (full-time work load). This whole thing has turned into quite a little catalyst for getting me out of my dark SEO cave from the past several years. I really hope you like it in the long run.

Anyway, the medium-term plan has started to pay off. Now I own 3 of the top ten domains showing up. I influence 3 more via social networking profiles, I influence 1 additional (SMX bio page) and 1 site is friendly to me (Danny's Daggle post). The top listing is neutral, and only number 4 is an irritant that I hope to knock out soon or have the author delete.

Search Return is also number three - thanks at least in part to a new link from my friend Eric Ward. We've been working together on our Link Building application called Squid, and now I have links pointing in from his website. Search Return began at number 9 and within a day of Eric linking, the listing jumped up to number three - ahead of the offending post.



My long-term plans? Now that sites which aggregated the offending post have faded into page two and beyond, I've gotten the main ranking to move down a couple of positions. I intend to apply pressure regarding the inaccuracy of the entry. I might persuade it's deletion. He should remove it as a gesture, an acknowledgment of messing up and in apology.

Since the sites outside his control will never delete the content, he can never make up for his bad judgment, but he can delete his own entry. I can use the power of the pen. The basis of the offensive ranking includes Heather's name - and it shouldn't. Including Heather was and is totally crass and just plain wrong.

In fact, I can talk about it on the air, write about it in blog entries, and tweet about it in Twitter all day long. I have far more energy to protect my name than he does for sullying it. The fact is, it is all due to ShoeMoney's violation of Intellectual Property ownership.

Stay tuned.

I would sit back and listen to The Sea, after shutting the drapes, closing the blinds and making the room nice and dark. I would exchange the burning of incandescent lights, with lighting up bona fide candles. Follow me on a journey to visit the mind of a Black Hat, this recently echoing story of sinister thoughts from long ago, to later return safely to this perfectly sound space.

One of the great practitioners of SEO's dark arts, is known as Fantomaster. He made it clear long ago, that the list where he used to contribute, an email digest I operated called I-Search, was the only place where his real name could be published. It was a rule I had for comments. He complied and gave up a measure of his anonymity, because our discourse was always fun, and we both grew from it.

Fantomaster, once my nemesis, my online friend and now old-school cohort on Twitter, has begun polite discussion with me once again. I met Fantomaster in physical form in London. For Fantomaster resides in Belgium. An expat who lives only some few meters away from his native Germany. I discovered the nature of the dark side of SEO in this particular man was: gracious, generous with his wisdom and above all respectful to those he admires. We don't always agree. I remember he liked smoking clove cigarettes. I don't smoke.

For me, this is an excellent time to reflect on the state of the industry, both White Hat and Black Hat, and my own involvement with it. In case you can't tell, our journey to the dark side of SEO traverses both time and space. Fantomaster and I have engaged once again nearly a decade later. And it all coincides uncannily with the reappearance of John Heard in Twitter, (Fantomaster's American version).

What possessed the proud, the paranoid, to practically hack search engines, spoofing content using cloaking or otherwise known as IP Delivery? Was it the attraction that there is nothing illegal about it? There's nothing wrong with using your technical savvy to detect search engine spiders, deliver them content which differs, sometimes drastically, with the content a search user would see clicking the result. There's easy money too. Touche!

As a White Hat practitioner, one can't resort to such simple beauty in SEO. Beauty that is, if who you do this on behalf of aren't the unsavory kind, like Porn, Pills or Casino (the other PPC). Unfortunately for us back then, cloaking was not always relegated to that other PPC. I often went directly against Black Hat pitches for cloaking big brands when I was director of SEO at Outrider, and MMG even before that. Our prospects would often decide to go the easy route instead of choosing a White Hat firm. Black Hat meant they didn't have to change a thing about their website.

To some of those prospects, their utter doom later on, did not go unnoticed by me smiling. Perhaps my smile will pay the bills one day, but it doesn't yet, and it didn't then either. The way I won business was through having superior writing skills, providing solid reasoning why resorting to such Black Hat tactics, while sexy, isn't long term for anyone concerned with their brand. I argued that cloaking should be relegated to that other PPC, much as it is today. Even Fantomaster has adopted effective White Hat tactics. If he performs work on behalf of a major brand, he readily admits he wouldn't wreck their domain doing anything irksome to search engines.

What he is aware of, is that you can't unring a bell. If you become noticed for unfairly ranking, you risk being caught and banished by the search engines. As Mikkel would put it eloquently: "Some people use cloaking to hide really bad spam." Really bad spam has been caught in really big goofs, like when that certain SEO in Arizona who liked to think of themselves as International, Crossed the line with what's known as poor man's cloaking. It was poor thinking, indeed. Big brands were busted in that sweep. The SEO replaced 'International' with a lower case 'i' and now feign true White Hat principles.

So, this journey to the dark side wouldn't be complete without a small window into our public discussions. Fantomaster Tweets, and he TweetBot Tweets. That means he publishes with a robot. The robot publishes a series of rotating quotes and fun stories from around the Web. These are often fresh, and irreverent due to Fantomaster's style, and it makes him tough to follow on Twitter (unless you can tune the noise out). What's true with Fantomaster, in true Black Hat fashion, there is always a payload of marketing buried in the feed. Yummy.

An example of some fun quotes, that are sure to capture some interesting search queries (should his Twitter profile surface in rankings) are: "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." Nietzsche, and "In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy." David Korten. Interesting stuff, to be sure. When he promotes an article for the Black Hat community, he drops it into Tweet rotation with these.

The case that caught my eye, was one where he characterizes Google's Chrome browser as spyware. That's quite a charge. Now, while I wouldn't necessarily believe it, from Fantomaster's point of view, the dark nature of his thinking, his is evidence enough in his own mind. He's completely convinced. And he convinces Black Hats too. He convinces them that Google would record websites you visit by grabbing keystrokes just as you type into the address field. His article on it is perfect Black Hat link bait :)

"Google's Chrome Browser Calling Home: Blatant Spyware - the Proof"

It was worth viewing even for me. So, I visited to see just what Fantomaster gathered as evidence. I wasn't surprised to see browser sub-requests being made in the background. I might have been shocked if it looked less like a common feature. In this case, Google Search Suggestions. My reply was to say: "@fantomaster I beg to differ with you on Chrome phoning home per se. That phrase denotes something more sinister than search suggestions." I don't think collecting keystrokes for Search Suggestions equates with snooping on the surface of it. For me, it's a conceivable stretch at most.

Not one who would recoil from a technical: En Guard, Fantomaster and I had a fun public display of trading point, and counter-point. Kind of like we used to do, in long format with I-Search. We left it with neither side really wanting to demolish the other. There's too much respect between us. If it should be a crowd pleaser, it would be because he appeals to the Black Hat, the conspirators and theorists of conspiracy. While my own argument lends itself well to those who intrinsically wish that the world is not entirely made up of those who would exploit others shamelessly. We would even believe that is true of, gulp, Google.

By nature, Black Hat practitioners are those who engage exploitation tactics in order not to be outdone by those who would exploit them. Namely, search engines and competitors for business. They strike early and they strike often. They strike first. On contrast, by nature White Hat practitioners are those who believe there has to be a better way, a way where we do not need to step on a colleague or take a negative view of search engines in order to succeed ourselves. And we reserve the right to complain about search engines and to discuss all our experiences. We want long-term success and happiness for all.

I may not wholly like the search engines everyday, and Google has rubbed me wrong once or twice. However, it is my judgment that I am better off if I don't fall too easily into paranoid thinking, whether with Chrome or anything else. I sleep well, and I'm not concerning myself with a Chrome feature distracting me into thinking Chrome is snooping sites I visit. I can assume they have enough on me, it was a trade I made a long time ago, and I don't really care. When I spoke with Vint Cerf at SMX West, I confirmed my own beliefs about some of what Google intends. There's bigger fish to fry for Google.

As for how the chat with Fantomaster went, the following excerpt is a transcript of the exchange we had, as my room in Chicago darkened. As the world of Fantomaster crackled in the sky, and with it, came the rain. With hot tea in hand, I embarked my journey to meet Fantomaster in the corners of his mind on this point. A friendly little duel ensued. A fencing match commenced. Depending if you're Black Hat, or White Hat, you'll either side with the one, or the other side on the matter. It should be fun to read regardless. Do you think Chrome's Suggest feature for the address field is snooping sites you visit?

Fantomaster: Unless you strip it of about 80% of its functionality, I'm afraid that's exactly what it's doing: search tied to IP

AirDisa: Well you are insinuating that they monitor sites you visit with this method, and perhaps, but it's the suggest feature. The other important fact is that the resolving hasn't happened, so they would be capturing erroneous data with this method

Fantomaster: To suggest stuff in a meaningful way they have to track and analyze your queries first, no?

AirDisa: Well, that depends on meaningful. MySpace before Microsoft. Hahah. But seriously, they are pulling records from Google Suggest based on your entry chars.

Fantomaster: Point is that Chrome's behaving like a keyboard sniffer, only restricted to the browser. Meaningful=query-related.

AirDisa: They don't need user data for that to work that way.

Fantomaster: Maybe we should define "user data" first: assigning an IP to a query's nothing new - but doing it via browser=100% tracking=spying.

AirDisa: Well, you're right. It's behavior is exactly like a keyboard sniffer in this case to power a feature. The data is erroneous tho. The data only becomes useful to Google if the user elects to visit the site in question. I'm not saying it's not possible that Google is in fact sniffing your address field for recording keystrokes, tying it you.

Fantomaster: Oh, sure: we always got cloaked pages crawled in no time by visiting them with Goo toolbar in snoop mode turned on, too. Queries are important to profile a user (via IP - not saying they're sniffing your HD or mail client credentials). But: if you're logged in with Goo, it adds up very nicely as well. This is one prime instrument of observation which, in my dictionary, equates with snooping. What most people don't seem to know in the States, too: Goo's deemed a pretty serious strategic risk by EU govts. now

AirDisa: Right. No one would enter their site credentials in an address field anyway :)

Fantomaster: Ha, you'd be surprised!

AirDisa: LOL. Well, I understand where, err... *you're* coming from with that broad definition of snooping. I'm more inclined: G Suggest. You must realize it's the Suggest feature. They *could* be recording the keystrokes, sure. It's like auto-complete for search in the address field to help users navigate - and it has snoop potential. I half agree with you. We can do Google Suggest on the chars to see if it matches the responses. Then it would *not* be personalized but just Suggest.

Fantomaster: Hehe. Every single letter you enter in the Chrome address (NOT the search!) field gets "reported home", that's what we discovered beyond any reasonable doubt, and confirmed by other third parties. Goo = data mining --1: commercial, --2: gvt. intelligence services tie-ups. Wanting "to know everything about you" (Eric Schm.) If that doesn't translate to "spooks", I really don't know what does. Similar to Scientology being under surveillance e.g. by Germany's intelligence service: considered a US 5th column.

AirDisa: I just checked it out. Perfect match for Suggest. h = hotmail, home depot etc.

Fantomaster: Well, it's what Personalized Search is all about in the first place, no? Sigh - please read our blog post on that (again, if you must): it's all spelled out there clearly.

Fantomaster: You checked out what, please? And did you use any packet sniffers? Which ones?

AirDisa: I simply used Google Suggest. Our results will vary slightly unless you used an US proxy.

Fantomaster: We run these extensive tests via all sorts of setups including a slew of different proxies, sure.

AirDisa: What the handshake back and forth is for, is Google Suggest, apparently. Note the result numbers associated with array items. What that means is, Chrome sends your chars back, just like the toolbar, or the page in order to power Suggest.

Fantomaster: As I pointed out to [name withheld], Chrome's merely a part of an overall mosaic. And we even have Goo's official statements to support it. The data they're getting is turning ever more granular.

AirDisa: Your view is that they record the chars and piece together addresses for recording user navigations as a spyware. I understand that view, and I don't believe they would get anything without resolving these strings to a website. Bad data. If they record the keystrokes, there will be mis-spellings and then corrections impossible to piece back together unless they record the final Get and keep that request which resolves to the website.

Fantomaster: Yes, it makes technological sense, but that doesn't make it less of a political and societal issue. As Danny S. (I think) recently put it: Google has turned into a habit.

AirDisa: Well, either way, it's a feature that needs to phone home to enable it. They get the chars and match it back for Suggest. If they recorded each and every keystroke (which I don't deny is possible) then they would have a lot of garbage on their hands. LOL. I agree they have turned into a habit, a bad one for some :) And I think it's cool you captured the scripting code.

Fantomaster: Frankly, I don't see that: 1. determine a user's ID + location (by IP etc.); 2. determine their search behavior; 3. determine their surfing behavior --- I mean, hell: what more could a gvt. surveillance agency ever want, no?

AirDisa: Heh. Yep. I know you like to point how engine hypocrisy and we love you for it. You and Greg Boser are the best :)

Fantomaster: Greg sure knows what he's talking about, too, indeed.

Indeed.

(Fantomaster Tweets Reprinted with permission. Read why permission is important.)

Disa Johnson: "Testing testing... one, two, three. Hey, alright!"

February 25th, 2009 - Disa Johnson created this blog at Intelligentsia on Randolph and Wabash in Chicago.