Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says IE8 Phoning Home Is "Pretty Innocuous"
CWmike writes "Microsoft has defended the IE8 tool that suggests sites based on URLs typed into its address bar, saying that the browser 'phones home' only a limited amount of information to Microsoft and that the company discards all user IP addresses almost immediately. Company managers also contrasted IE8 Beta 2's 'Suggested Sites' feature with the 'Suggest' feature used by Google Chrome, saying that Microsoft's requires the user's explicit permission before it's used. They did acknowledge a bug that prevents the request from reappearing when users reinstall the browser. Cyra Richardson, a Microsoft principal program manager on the IE team, said: 'Suggested Sites is connected to the browser's history, and it's not looking at each of the keystrokes. IE only captures the URL as it is navigated [to], when that URL goes into your history.' Nor does Suggested Sites log and transmit cookies to Microsoft's servers, as does Google Suggest, Richardson said. 'The data we log is actually pretty innocuous.'"
So, we see "targeted" ads and have "suggestive" sponsorship in other browsers in exchange for getting the browser for free.
Isn't IE a part of Windows, and don't we sort of pay for it already?
They will get the point. Until M$ buys the computer and pays the electric bill to run it, nothing absolutely nothing that happens on it is any of their business. They should be sued for electronic monitoring without a warrant!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
A big, powerful, arrogant company is telling me that their very iffy handling of my personal data is "OK" because some other big, powerful and arrogant company is already doing pretty much the same?
Oh, I feel much better now...
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Publishing the protocol is pointless. You'll still have to take their word on what they do with the data after they receive it.
Eh, privacy nuts get on Google about things like crazy nowadays. I seriously doubt either company is up to some nefarious plot to stealz mah dataz through my web browser, but I don't mind some of the more paranoid folks keeping them honest. If they have to explain to an angry person every time they collect a piece of info, I figure they'll be less likely to try and pull a fast one.
Game... blouses.
I am sick of hearing how XYZ is ok because "Look, foo does bar!". It annoys me in politics, and it annoys me in the disgusting race to the bottom that is our handling of the "consumer desktop". Yes, I know that google is injecting ads into my dreams, that doesn't mean I want microsoft pulling my url history. Yes, I know that EA prefers DRM that is draconian and incompetent, that doesn't make "fairplay" any fairer.
/rant
People need to stop hiding behind the even worse failings of others, and start justifying themselves in terms of why they don't suck rather than why the suck incrementally less than the other guy. FFS.
If it's opt-in then how is it a problem? They're not forcing you in any way.
"If Google does it, they do it because they "probably have to." Luckily, they said they "do no evil" so that means they're absolute good and thus immune to scrutiny."
It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain that google (and most other websites who are able to and have a clue) logs damn near everything. Many are just covert / quiet about it.
Technically makes privacy pretty moot unless we pass laws enforcing companies to build encryption into everything. The truth is the majority of people are not educated enough, nor even have an inkling of an idea of how computers work and that everything they do is recorded, that when you're on the internet you are totally naked.
The nature of networks themselves by having to communicate back and forth with one another in order to 'browse' (really in the ultimate sense sending and receiving files and bits of data). Means you are constantly broadcasting and receiving data, thereby leaving all those breadcrumbs for everyone who has a clue to read about you and compile on you.
The fact is though we have done this to ourselves by adopting technologies and caring more about content and what value it adds to our lives then any amount of the values in regards to privacy we claim to care about... the internet and our lack of encryption/laws, etc, enforcing security of information from the get go proves we don't give a fuck about privacy very much. Simply because it's too inconvenient.
The really hard core about privacy (tor, encryption, etc) are evidence of the common man, and probably common slashdotter's total lack of concern about his or her own privacy. Otherwise we'd be using them and demanding these services but no one wants to expend the political energy an/or the money to pay for them. Hence we don't really give as much of a fuck as we seem to since our actions do not match our words in regards to the amount of whining about privacy we output.
The difference, of course, is that Microsoft has been obviously evil for a long time, and google hasn't been sprung eviling it up yet (aside from bundling that toolbar, but as that doesn't affect me personally i don't care, but i digress). On past experience, i trust google a lot more than ms. Despite this google is definately not immune to nerd rage as everyone jumps on them as soon as they look like they're collecting data on anything, so i don't really see how this is unfair to microsoft, they've been bad and people *still* jump on google despite the fact that they've never really done anything wrong.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
My question is, what does "almost immediately" mean?
In my experience, PR/advertising/lawyer types are very careful what they say. They don't lie outright, but will frequently mislead with seemingly innocuous statements that seem to mean one thing, but when they are really looked at, mean something else entirely.
If they'd said that IP addresses were discarded immediately, that would mean that as soon as the information transaction is completed, the IP address is no longer needed, so it's discarded.
Saying "almost" immediately, means it is not discarded at this point. What does "almost" mean in this context, coming from a Microsoft PR person?
Is it discarded almost immediately, after a "small" amount of data analysis is done for marketing purposes?
Is it discarded almost immediately after a scheduled task to purge their server logs once a day?
Is it discarded almost immediately after the DOJ gets on their case about keeping it?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Um, in both cases, you, the consumer, are the product in that you're using a product/service that's ultimately for someone else's good. In Google's case, it's the advertisers. In Microsoft's case, it's themselves and with the introduction of Vista, it's also the media companies vis a vis the DRM built into it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Or could you choose another browser?
Now, can you remove IE from windows?
RATIONAL THOUGHT, PEOPLE!
In other words, no matter what Microsoft says or does, you'll condemn them, so what's the point? You've made up your mind to condemn Microsoft regardless while giving Google a pass for much worse.
You're logic is astonishing. Microsoft's Suggested Sites feature is much less intrusive than Google's yet you condemn Microsoft because they might become more intrusive in the future? Meanwhile you give Google a pass for being more intrusive than Microsoft in the present? Are you for real?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000