Slashdot Mirror
Netscape 6 is Spyware?
spoon00 writes: "AOL is collecting information on what Netscape 6 users are searching for on sites like google.com. IP address, the date Netscape was installed and a unique ID number are other bits of information AOL is also collecting."
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
According to IE 6/XP's "Search Companion", this feature "provides task suggestions and automatically sends your search to other search engines."
How does this occur if it doesn't transmit the information to Microsoft as well?
Sure, if I add a search engine into the preferences, I can type "google keyword" all I want to go directly to Google. I suspect, though, that if I rely on the "features" that Microsoft provides, they have access to exactly the same information-- regardless of what the article might claim.
Netscape needs to collect information about the frequency of searches in order to bill the search engines correctly. The very fact that it only occurs in the "Search bar" shows that they are very likely to be telling the truth. It wouldn't be hard to log much much more data than they apparently do.
The commment about the ip address was misleading as well. Any time that information is sent to my computer, I can log the IP address. It doesn't mean that I am going to be doing anything with it.
Ceci n'est pas un post
It shouldn't be tolerated. People shouldn't be informed they are being spied on and say, "Eh, I figured as much anyway." Would you say that if you found that the CIA had been wiretapping your phone line and/or DSL/Cable line for the past 6 months? /. headline, "MS-AOL using tiny dust-sized robot probes that ship with Windows 3K that get into your nostrils, sit behind your eyes and monitor everything you do." *shutter*
I haven't read the licence agreement to Netscape 6 recently, but I don't care if it says anything about monitoring your browsing trends (it's hard to call them 'habits' due to the very definition of the word). It almost appears as people are becoming complacient about this. If you get used to it, they will just push further once they have their hand in your privacy and you don't flinch. Eventually, it may come down to a
Once more a large company is stepping on your rights and your privacy, and while maybe you shouldn't be suprised, you should be outraged.
Please?
Pretty please?
True, but considering that a lot of people still think that Mozilla == Netscape, it still becomes a problem for Mozilla, granted it's only perception, but try explaining that to the "average" user.
behavior and information is something a product should clearly and regularly identify it is doing to the customer. Customers are generally willing to cooperate when they perceive there is value to the free product/service they are getting-- but only if they understand exactly what is being recorded, when, and how.
Having to worry about software doing stuff behind your back without informing you is exactly the reason why I go to great lengths to avoid using Windows Media and why I don't use a number of current gnutella clients.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
The problem with that is, it works exactly the way they want it to. The computer savvy people in the world know what they want to search for, and how to find the engine of their choice. What they're targeting are the inexperienced users who don't know any better. They are the ones that will actually use the Netscape search function, and not notice the fact that your information is being redirected to the parent company before it actually goes where you intended it.
It falls under the same category as the Ameritech/SBC debacle here in MI. People who don't read all the way through their phone bill may not have noticed the "SBC/Ameritech intends to sell it's customer data to a 3rd party marketing firm, if you don't want your information to be included, be sure to call 800-xxx-xxxx to be removed from the list." in very fine print in an obscure section of the bill.
Hardline marketing strikes again.
Randal Graves says: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class... Especially since I rule.
Show me the "average" user who even knows what Mozilla is!
I'm not knocking the browser, its the browser of choice on my Lin box, but lets face facts: its a geek browser. Joe user has no idea what it is.
I hope so because that is what any privacy suit would turn on. Does the user expect AOL to intercept searches and log the results?
The Windows XP 'powertool' has a very useful feature that allows you to enter a shortcut for a search engine. So if I type 'g privacy' it sends off a search to Google for 'privacy'.
I just hope that the Slashdot community will have the guts to go after AOL for this in the same way they would Microsoft. As it is I suspect the response will be a bit like the response in Congress to administration stonewalling or the like. Outrage at the actions if it is the other party, appologism if it is their own party, or even outrage that people would even complain.
Netscape has never been pro-privacy. They invented cookies so that advertisers could track readers and now they are tracking them directly themselves.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I don't think so. First of all, most people don't understand the idea of spyware at all, or simply don't care. For those who do, you now have a really simple answer to what is Mozilla: "It's Netscape without the Spyware and other corporate crap."
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
With the unique identifier, and having every search query you ever enter pass through a netscape.com redirector, yeah, he's got a right to bitch.
What's anonymous about this? It's one cookie (from a bank, or a broker, or some other site to which he's given real data) and one SQL join away from having his entire search history linked to him.
A redirector is transparently intercepting and logging the user's search queries.
Whether it's www.netscape.com, www.fbi.gov, or www.doubleclick.net doing the intercept and redirect isn't the point. My search queries are transactions between me and Google. I can log 'em. Google can log 'em. They're nobody else's fsckin' business.
Unfortunately for people like the person who made this general statement, privacy is probably unattainable.
Web privacy is possible. Open source encryption programs i.e. OpenSSH (Secure SHell) allow users to pore over the code for security holes. I download all of my mail with SSH connections to the individual mail servers (even my yahoo.com address). This is obvoiusly not a total security solution but it does keep employers, coffee shops, etc... from reading bits of my mail.
I just wanted to give an example of how your privacy fate is in your own hands...While this argument does tend to be extremely one-sided at times on good ol' Slashdot, your implication that it should be a non-issue to people is preposterous.
What you're basically saying is that AOL can do anything it wants with their browser, and anyone who thinks otherwise should either
A. Stuff it
B. Write a browser
While just about anyone could choose (A), I believe you have greatly overestimated/exaggerated the amount of people who are capable of (B). Perhaps there are quite a few on Slashdot; certainly there would be a greater concentration of such people here than in the average American suburb; however, reacting to every argument over the ethics of data gathering in application software with "WRITE IT YUORSLEF!!!!!" might not be the most intelligent way to join the discussion. No one is going to listen to you in a debate if you act as if there is no debate and your point is totally obvious. Not everyone can write a browser; and most people are just going to use what's on their computer when they buy it. Arguing that spying on people who don't know any better and have no way to protect themselves *might* just be a little shady certainly is valid and does not warrant your instant dismissal.
It seems to me that it might just be that AOL/Netscape sends the search info "home" to make sure the search is correct. This way if Google (or any of the other possible search engines) decides to change how searches work, then you browser doesn't break.
Also, all we know is what is sent, not what AOL collects.
And finally, the search in Netscape is NOT sending the IP address of your computer, this is how HTTP connections work. The packet's origin is always included. Netscape 6 is also sending your IP address to every site you visit. As is IE, Opera, Mozilla, etc.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
In some countries there are laws against collecting data that can be related to individuals without the individuals permission. Also in most countries, upholding a "click to agree" license in court would be tricky at best.
These two combined probably makes netscape's actions illegal in some countries. Why are people making a fuss about it? After all netscape's intentions are probably pretty harmless.
However, there's no way of knowing for sure and would you really want your queries for porn of a very dubious nature logged by AOL? What if you're a chinese and you enter "falung gong" in the search field? In China that information about you is likely to get you some very special attention of the local authority.
In short, privacy matters. You own your data and stealing it (i.e. taking it without your knowledge) violates your privacy since you are not in control of what is stored and who has access to it.
Suppose you want to apply for a job at AOL (ok that's a bit extreme, I know) and the nice guy who does the interviews does a query on the netscape DB to see what kind of searches you've been doing and subsequently shows you the door. So, first they invade your privacy and then they use that information against you.
This kind of scenario's is of course not very likely but Murphy's law tells us that if it can happen it will happen. Allowing companies to secretely log privacy sensitive data will at some point have negative consequences. All that data will just be sitting there waiting to be used by whomever has access to it. The data is valuable (that's why it's being collected) and customers of that data will want to use that data for whatever is in their interest.
That's why you don't want any spyware on your computer.
Now probably Netscape's intentions are pretty harmless. Probably netscape's programmers are just as clueless about privacy as most other computer users.
Jilles
So yeah, when people come up to me and ask "How can I stop all these E-mail viruses," I give them an honest answer: don't open E-mail attachments you're not expecting, update your virus scanner manually when you hear about a new worm (fortunately the copies of NAV our school gives out is pre-configured to automatically update itself every couple of weeks), and stop using Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. Their options are basically Netscape and Opera -- and most college students (myself included) are reluctant to cough up the registration fee for Opera, so that leaves one option.
I'm not going to go into the debate of whether the IE/OE combination is so dangerous because of Microsoft being incompetent or simply because 80something percent of the world uses it (it's been argued way too many times). But either way, switching to Netscape works, and so far nobody's complained. I've even gotten a couple of "ooh, pretty" comments once people saw Netscape's Modern theme.
> What follows is my commentary as I tried to get this post under the lameness filter -- resulting in the useless shit post you see above.
:)
Ugh, yeah, the lameness filter truely is the most evil bit of code Mr Taco ever made/approved. Probably.
At the very least it should be turned off (or tuned down significantly) for users with lots of karma; if I get to post at +2 I think it's also reasonable to expect I'm not going to post ASCII penis birds etc.
A few weeks ago I wrote a nice little comment that was mostly a list of points; obviously liking to get proper formatting I threw in the required HTML and was instantly hit by the lameness filter, basically making the HTML formatted mode entirely useless.
And yes, I admit, my train of thought wasn't entirely different from yours
(said HTML mode also removes a lot of useful HTML I like to use; titles for links in order to describe what I'm linking to better, <abbr> and <acronym> which are nice when using a lot of TLA's and ETLA's, <small> which is useful for notes and something I might even have used for this piece of text, etc. Yet I'm allowed to use elements like <div> that have pretty much zero use? Blegh)
Wow. Comparing Microsoft to a rapist. Let me guess: you're a guy, and you probably don't even *know* any women.
Am I right?
I *knew* it!
Here's a tip: If you want to make clever analogies, avoid glib references to crimes of sexual violence that destroy lives. Half the population will appreciate your effort.
And maybe chicks will finally talk to you.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill