说明：翻译本文并不代表译者同意或者赞同文中观点。

很明显，Google不断地在搜集每个人的信息，却拒绝告诉我们为什么这样干。这对我们来说早就不是什么新鲜事了。在Google不能控制搜索结果页是什么样子的时候，他们却能控制谁在什么时候看什么内容。
Google are clearly gathering information about us but refuse to tell us why. It’s nothing new to us, but while they cannot control normal SERPs, they do however control who is viewing what and when.

我们在页面上运行Google广告是为了生存。但这就意味着我们不应该把下面的信息与你分享吗？如果你知道别的方法可以给我们网站支持，请和我联系。
We run Google adverts in order to survive. Does this mean we shouldn’t share the information below? If you know an alternative way to sustain costs please get in touch.

如果你察看包含Google Adsense的网页，Google就会追踪你的隐私。但请注意，Google追踪你隐私的办法不止于此。
Please note, Google does not track you by simply viewing pages containing their adverts.

1，不死的cookie：
1. Google’s immortal cookie:

在各家搜索引擎中，Google第一个使用到2038年才过期的cookie。那个时候网站还被禁止使用永久有效的cookie。现在，各家搜索引擎服务提供商都使用永久有效的cookie。因为没有人对这一点有异议，因此Google的行为为整个行业设定了标准。Google的cookie在你的硬盘上放置一个唯一的标识数。不管什么时候，只要你打开Google的网页，如果你的硬盘上没有Google的cookie，Google就会给你放一个。如果你有了，Google就会读取你的标识数并做记录。
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it’s years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines ; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don’t already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.

2，Google记录一切他们能记录的东西
2. Google records everything they can:

你每做一次搜索，Google就会记录cookie的标识数和递交搜索的IP地址，时间日期，搜索关键词和浏览器配置。Google越来越可能提供基于你IP地址优化的搜索结果，因为IP地址分配和物理位置是有关系的。
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as “IP delivery based on geolocation.”

3，Google永久保存他们记录的数据
3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google内部没有数据保留多久的规定。有证据表明Google能够很方便地接触到搜集和保存的全部用户信息。
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.

4，Google不解释为什么他们需要这些数据
4. Google won’t say why they need this data:
向Google发出隐私政策的查询总是得不到回应。当纽约时报询问Sergey Brin（Google创始人之一和总裁）Google有没有因为隐私政策信息而受到法庭传唤时，他不予置评(2002-11-28)。
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

5，Google雇佣间谍
5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts，一位重要的工程师，曾经为National Security Agency（译者按：我不清楚这个组织是干什么的）工作。Google希望能够雇佣更多的人来对搜集到的数据进行调查，这样他们就能向华盛顿的间谍们组织叫卖值钱的信息。
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the . Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.

6，Google 工具栏是间谍软件
6. Google’s toolbar is spyware:
如果你允许使用高级选项，那么你看的每一个网页都会被工具栏记录并且传送到Google服务器。安装工具栏时候的隐私策略已经承认了这一点，不过那仅仅是因为可能的起诉。Alexa的工具栏干了同样的事情却没有在隐私策略中声明，从而输掉了一桩官司。更糟的是，Google工具栏不会在升级之前询问你的意见，它总是静悄悄的就完成了升级。这意味着，一旦你安装了Google工具栏，每一次你连接到Google网页（一天里有很多次吧），Google就对你的硬盘有完全的访问权限。大多数软件供应商，甚至微软都会询问你是否需要升级。Google不是这样。任何自动升级的软件意味着大量潜在的安全隐患。
With the advanced features enabled, Google’s free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that’s only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google’s toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you’d like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.

（译者按：Google Desktop呢？）

7，Google的网页快照是非法的
7. Google’s cache copy is illegal:
依据第九巡回法庭将美国版权法应用于互联网的判例判断，Google的网页快照似乎不合法。唯一避免网站被Google保存快照的办法就是在每一个页面里面加上noarchive元标记。浏览者喜欢网页快照，但是网站管理员们不喜欢。很多网站站长已经删除了网站上有问题的内容，却发现这些内容依然存活于网页快照。网页快照应该是可以选择加入或不加入，而不是现在这样，只能选择退出或不退出。
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google’s cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a “noarchive” meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don’t. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google’s cache. The cache copy should be “opt-in” for webmasters, not “opt-out.”

8，Google不是你的朋友
8. Google is not your friend:
到目前为止，绝大多数网站访问量的75%都来自于Google。如果网站站长要增加流量，他们得先问问Google同不同意。如果站长们想利用Google半保密半公开的算法中的某些漏洞来得利，他们很快就会被Google惩罚，流量完全没有了。Google没有发布详细公开的惩治流程。对被处罚的网站来说，也找不到任何上诉的途径。Google的行为根本是无法预计的。大多时候Google甚至都不回复网站站长的信件。
By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google’s approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google’s semi-secret algorit
hms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn’t even answer email from webmasters.

9，Google是隐私定时炸弹
9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
Google每天承担2亿次的搜索，其中大多数来自美国以外。由此可见，Google已经积累了足可以引发一场隐私灾难的数据。华盛顿那些新上任的负责数据挖掘的官僚做梦都想的高效率早就被Google实现了。
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.

译者按：起初看了觉得挺有意思。但在翻译的过程觉得作者比较偏激，缺乏引证。

再次说明：翻译本文并不代表译者同意或者赞同文中观点。