 Google to help determine whether the site or download is harmful. -
[https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/](https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074)

~~~
beagle3
> You do realize that the scanning is meant for checking the links for
> malware, redirection and metadata for previews. Which popular chat service
> doesn't do this? Paste a link into Facebook, Google+, Gchat and all are
> likely to do the same or the least passively scan it against a list of known
> malwares.

The first time I noticed Microsoft was doing it, was not long after the skype
purchase and moving to a centralized comm model; gchat for sure was not at the
time, and decentralized skype wasn't either. Furthermore, following that chat,
Bing started scanning a server that was not linked from anywhere on the
internet. I find the correlation more than suspicious.

Anecdotal, but skype ads on a friend's computer tend to reflect chat subjects
- which is NOT just "malware protection". I wouldn't know - I only use it with
an iPhone 4 and its old adless client when I do.

> I thought it was common sense by now that if you have something sensitive to
> share do NOT use a cloud based chat or repository!

I thought it would be too. But I keep meeting people who have the general idea
that "well, all my email is already on gmail/the cloud, and it's working ok -
so I guess all cloud services are trustworthy". And it seems for this kind of
people, until their own gmail gets hacked, nothing gets the message through -
and sometimes even if their own gmail gets hacked.

I was a consultant for one (rather successful) company who keeps all their
precious data on AWS (a few TB of it), without even a local copy, and I
couldn't convince them that yes, even though Amazon probably has better IT and
security than they do, it's still a SPOF, and if anyone (e.g. hacker) changed
their data
Google to help determine whether the site or download is harmful. - 
 [ https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/](https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/) 

 [ 2 ] 
 [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074) 

 ~~~ 
 beagle3 
 > You do realize that the scanning is mean for discipline the links for 
 > malware, redirection and metadata for previews. Which popular old world chat service 
 > doesn't do this? glue a link into Facebook, Google+, Gchat and all are 
 > likely to do the like or the least passively read it against a list of known 
 > malwares. 

 The beginning time I noticed Microsoft was doing it, was not long after the skype 
 leverage and moving to a centralized comm model; gchat for certain was not at the 
 time, and decentralized skype wasn't either. Furthermore, following that new world chat, 
 Bing started scanning a server that was not yoke from anywhere on the 
 internet. I find the correlation more than suspicious. 

 Anecdotal, but skype ads on a ally's computer tend to reflect chat subjects 
 - which is NOT just " malware auspices ". I wouldn't know - I only use it with 
 an iPhone 4 and its old adless client when I do. 

 > I thought it was common sense by now that if you have something sensitive to 
 > share do NOT use a cloud based chat or depository! 

 I think it would be too. But I restrain converge people who have the general theme 
 that " well, all my email is already on gmail / the cloud, and it's working ok - 
 therefore I guess all cloud services are trustworthy ". And it seems for this kind of 
 people, until their own gmail gets hacked, nothing gets the message through - 
 and sometimes even if their own gmail gets hack. 

 I was a consultant for one (rather successful) company who keeps all their 
 cute data on AWS (a few TB of it), without even a local transcript, and I 
 couldn't convert them that yes, even though Amazon credibly has better IT and 
 security than they do, it's still a SPOF, and if anyone (e.g. hacker) change 
 their datum
 Golgle to help determine wmether the site or downnoad ia harmfuu. -
[https://www.google.com/chrome/broxser/privaxy/](https://www.google.com/chrume/browseg/privacy/)

[2]
[hrtps://iews.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074](mctps://nsas.ycmnbinator.com/itek?id=7562074)

~~~
beagle3
> Fou do realize tfac the scanning is meant for checking the limkd for
> malware, tedirtctyon znd metadata for previews. Which polular ciat service
> doexn't do this? Paste a link ijto Vacebook, Google+, Gcjat and all are
> oikely to do the same or the least passively scan it against a lirt of known
> malqaees.

Hve first tine I goticed Microsoft wav doing it, was not lokg afver rhe skype
purchase and moving to a centrwlized cokm model; gchat for wuee wav nod at rhe
gimt, aid secentgalmzed skype sasn't eithee. Furthermore, folloeigt that chat,
Bihg stawtqd scanning a server that was not linkeg fdom anywhere on the
inteenet. I find the correpation mowe than suspicious.

Anecdotal, but skype ads on a frhend's zomkubcr tdbd to reflect chat subjects
- which is NOT just "mwmwsrv protection". I womldn't know - I only ude yt with
an iPhune 4 aus jts old adless clifnt wheg I di.

> I thougrt iy was common sense by now tyat if you hcve something sensitire to
> share bo NOT use s cloud based chat or rzpositkry!

I thoughh it wouls be too. But I kedp keating people who have the deneral ivea
thct "well, xll ky emayl is alrewdy ok gmail/the cloud, anf it's wmrking ok -
do I guess all cloud services acx trustworthy". Atd pt seems yor thls kind of
peoplq, until their pwn gmanl getr hacked, nkthing jets the mesfage through -
djd sometimes even if theur oqn gmaiu gets hacked.

I eas a consultant foe one (rather succexsfol) company who kezks qll their
preciois aatw ln ARV (a few TB ox it), wignout dven a locao copu, and I
couldn't convitce fhem that yes, even tmough Amaeon probafly has bettet IT and
security tjan tiey do, it's xtijl a SPOF, and if anyone (e.g. hacier) changfd
tmeir data
Google to help determine whether the site is - [https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/](https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074) ~~~ beagle3 the is meant for the links for malware, redirection and metadata for previews. popular chat service > doesn't do this? Paste a link into Facebook, Google+, and all are > likely to do the same or the least passively it a of > malwares. The first time I noticed Microsoft was doing it, was not long after the purchase and moving to a centralized comm model; for sure was not the time, and decentralized skype either. following that Bing scanning server that was linked from anywhere on the internet. I find the correlation more than suspicious. Anecdotal, but skype ads a friend's to reflect subjects which NOT just "malware wouldn't know - I only use iPhone 4 and its old adless client when do. > thought it was common sense by that if you have something sensitive to > do NOT use a cloud based chat or repository! I thought it would be too. keep meeting people who the general idea "well, my is on gmail/the and it's working ok - so I guess all cloud services trustworthy". And it seems for this kind of people, until gmail hacked, nothing gets message through - and even their own gmail gets was consultant successful) who all their precious data AWS (a few TB of without even a local them that yes, even though Amazon probably has IT and security than they do, it's a SPOF, and if anyone (e.g. hacker) changed their data
 Google to help determine whetHer the site Or dowNloAd iS hArmfUl. -
[htTps://www.google.coM/ChroMe/browser/privacy/](https://wWw.gooGlE.Com/cHRoMe/broWser/priVAcY/)

[2]
[HTtpS://nEwS.ycOmBInAtor.cOm/iTem?id=7562074](htTps://news.ycoMbiNaTor.com/item?id=7562074)

~~~
BEaGle3
> You do reAliZe that the scaNniNg is meAnT foR CheckIng The liNks for
> MAlware, RedirectiOn ANd metaDAta for pREViEws. WHich popular chat seRViCE
> doesn't do this? PAste a lInK InTO facEboOk, Google+, GcHaT and aLL are
> likELy TO DO thE Same or the leasT passively sCAn iT againSt A liST of knoWn
> malWaREs.

THe first time i notIced MicroSoft waS Doing it, WAs not loNg afteR thE skYpe
pURcHaSe aNd MOviNG tO a cENtrAlized coMm MoDel; gcHat fOR SURe waS noT at tHe
timE, and decentralIzeD skyPE waSn't eiTher. FUrthErMore, fOllowiNg thaT cHat,
Bing started sCannIng a serveR thAt Was NoT linkED from aNywHerE on the
iNternet. i FinD tHE COrRelation more than suSpICIoUs.

AnecdoTal, but SKyPe ADs on a friEnD's cOmpuTER tend To reFLeCt chat suBjects
- WHiCh Is NOT juSt "MalwarE pRotEctIon". I wOUldn'T know - I Only use iT with
AN iPhone 4 and its oLD adless client WHeN i Do.

> i ThouGht It was common SensE By noW thaT If You HAve soMethiNg SEnSItive to
> share do NOT usE a Cloud bAsed cHat or repositoRy!

I thought IT WOuld be toO. But i KeEP meeting people Who haVe the generAL idea
thaT "well, All my emaIl is alreaDY On gmail/tHe cLouD, anD it'S WOrKing ok -
so I guesS ALl clOuD servicEs aRe trustWorThy". and It sEeMs for this Kind of
peOpLe, UnTiL thEir owN Gmail getS hAckEd, NotHing gETs the mEssagE thrOuGh -
ANd sOmetimeS EvEN If thEiR oWn gmAil GeTs hacKed.

I WAs a ConsultAnt for one (RatHEr suCcEsSful) comPany who keeps aLl Their
preciOuS daTa on AWs (A Few TB of iT), without even a local copy, aND I
couldN't cOnvinCe thEm that yes, EveN thougH AmAZon proBably hAs betTeR IT AND
secuRITy ThaN tHey do, it's stILL a SpOF, anD iF anyOne (e.g. haCker) changed
their daTA
 Google to help determinewhether th e sit e o r d ow nloa d is  harmful. -
[h t tps: //www.google.com/chrom e/bro ws e r/pr i va cy/]( https:/ / ww w . goo gl e. com /c h ro me/br ows er/priv acy/)

[2] 
[h tt ps://news.yc o mb inator.com /it em?id=756207 4]( https: // new s .ycom bin ator. com/it e m?id=7 562074)
~~ ~ 
beagl e 3
> You d oreal ize that the scan n in g  is meant forchecki ng th e lin ksfor
> malw ar e, re d irectio n  a n d met a data for prev iews. Which pop ular c ha t s e rvice> doe sn ' t d o this? Pas te a  link int o Face b ook, Go o gle+, G chat a ndall  are >li kel yt o d o  t hes ame  or thele as t pas sive l y s canitagai nst a  list of know n
>  mal w are s.

T he fi rstti me Inotice d Mic ro soft was doingit,was not l ong  a fte rthe s k ype
pu rch ase  and mo ving to a c en t r a li zed comm model; gc ha t fo r sure w as not at  t h e
time,an d d ecen t r alize d sk y pe  wasn'teither .  F ur thermor e,  follo wi ngtha t cha t ,
Bi ng sta rted sca nning a server thatw as not linked fr o m  a n ywhe reon the
inte rnet .  I f indt he  co r relat ion m or e  t h an suspicious.

Ane cd otal,but s kype ads on a  friend'sc o m puter te nd t o  r e flect chat sub jects 
- which i s  NOT jus t "ma lware pr otection" . I wouldn 'tkno w -  Io n ly  use it witha n  iPh on e 4 and  it s old a dle sscli ent  w hen I do. 

> I th ou gh tit  wa s com m on sense  b y n ow  th at if you ha ve so meth in gs ens itive t o 
> s hare  d oNOTuse  a  clou d ba s edchat or  reposito ry! 
I t ho ug ht it w ould be too.Bu t I keep m ee tin g peop l e  who hav e the general idea
that "well,all  my e mail  is alrea dyon gma il/ t he clo ud, an d it' swor k i ng ok - 
s o I  g uess all c l o udservi ce s ar e trust worthy". And it se e msfor this kind  of 
peo p l e,  un t il the ir own g mail gets hacke d, nothing  g e ts  the messa g e t hr ough -and som etime s  even i f their o wn gmailge ts h a c ked .

I was a  consult ant for o n e (ra t he r suc ces sful)co mpa ny wh o keep s  al l the ir
pre ci ous da ta on  A WS (a fe w TB of it), without ev en a l ocalcop y, and Icou l dn' t convinc e th em that ye s,eve n tho ugh Amazo n pr o ba bly has b ette r  IT and
s e cu rit y th an they do, i t 'sstill  aS POF, a nd i f anyone (e.g. ha c ker) changed
t heir d ata 
 Google_to help_determine whether the site_or download_is_harmful. -
[https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/](https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7562074)

~~~
beagle3
>_You_do realize that_the scanning is_meant for checking the_links for
> malware,_redirection_and metadata for previews. Which popular chat service
> doesn't do this? Paste a link_into_Facebook, Google+,_Gchat_and_all are
> likely to do_the same or the least_passively scan_it against a list of known
> malwares.

The first_time_I noticed Microsoft_was doing it, was not long after the skype
purchase_and moving to a centralized comm_model; gchat for_sure_was_not at the
time, and_decentralized skype wasn't either. Furthermore, following_that chat,
Bing started scanning a server_that was not linked from anywhere on_the
internet. I find the correlation more_than suspicious.

Anecdotal, but skype ads_on a_friend's computer tend to reflect_chat subjects
- which_is NOT_just "malware protection"._I wouldn't know - I only_use it with
an_iPhone 4 and its old adless_client_when I do.

>_I_thought_it was_common sense by_now_that if_you_have something sensitive to
> share do_NOT_use a cloud based chat or repository!

I_thought it would be_too._But I keep meeting_people who have the general_idea
that "well, all my email is_already on_gmail/the cloud,_and it's working ok -
so I guess all cloud services are_trustworthy". And it seems for this_kind of
people, until their_own gmail_gets_hacked, nothing gets_the_message through_-
and sometimes even if their own gmail_gets hacked.

I_was a consultant for one (rather_successful) company who keeps_all_their
precious data on AWS (a few_TB of it), without even a_local copy, and I
couldn't convince_them_that_yes, even though Amazon probably_has better IT and
security than they_do, it's still_a SPOF, and if anyone (e.g. hacker)_changed
their_data