Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing
Andorin writes "Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues. Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo, Dotzler asserts that Bing's privacy policy is better than Google's. Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time...' Ars Technica also covers the story."
And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...
I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.
The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy. They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy. It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.
Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?
The Long Now Foundation
Thats the first to receive $1,000,000,-
OTOH, maybe AltaVista's results are still crap compared to Google.
Google search: [Bing]
Even with this, there's still too much of a stigma associated with Microsoft and Bing for many internet users to take them seriously. Leave Bing to the uncaring and the uninformed.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to dig graves for twenty-three oak trees?
A full comparison of alternate search engines instead of recommending just Bing would have been a better statement. He could have lined up Google, Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc and compared privacy policies side by side for the people he's speaking too.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Whoa, that page has some crazy background. Reminds me of something out of the 1990s.
Anyway, before all the conspiracy theorist posts pop up, this looks like it's just a post on his personal blog, which includes posts about his beard and other random things. Even if Mozilla was officially endorsing and getting paid for Bing searches, Google already has the same deal so there's no issue there.
Of course, this could just be a member of the Mozilla community jumping at the first chance to get back at Google for making Chrome... hmm...
Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that Microsoft will respect your privacy _more_ than Google is a fool. I'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google's policy's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable.
If I had any real reason to switch from Google, it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google's search results.
~Mike (Titan_X)
I don't suppose the blog was accompanied by a short video of Asa Dotzler and Steve Balmer making Ducktales-like swan dives from a diving board into a swimming pool filled with cash?
it's the inevitable conclusion to the search/engine deficit replacement that will take us to the point we were always meant to be at/be going to.
it's way user friendly, & as always, absolutely free, as in any notion of the word.
Dear customers. We noticed that it's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic. Please switch to hydrogen cyanide.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Google is taking steps to get more information as possible, and this is bad. But also use that data in a anonymous way, so don't really care that YOU like Pink Flamingos pages. Is probably collecting more information that the guys on Bing can even dream.
But the Bing guys work for Microsoft, Microsoft don't lack the stimulus to take that much information, lack the skill. And have proven that have not problem doing more than we like (and critice). Microsoft will probably share with others your information, and use it for nefarius things.
So, what you want? more information in good hands (Google), but litte information in the wrong hands (Microsoft).
I know what I want.
-Woof woof woof!
Clusty is by far the best search engine. I don't understand why more people are not using it.
Fixed.
Ice Cream has no bones.
If there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Google in the trustworthiness department, you are not going to figure that out by listening to statements from their executive officers.
It's like choosing a car based on the amount of mica they put in the paint.
Sounds like fear of Chrome
If the internet was a tuned instrument it would be tuned to 'A' as in 'Information Asset' not 'G' as in 'Information Garbage'
Google is Information garbage for information retards --> fact
I seriously had to stop and read this twice. Apparently hell froze over.
Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well. I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Basically, everyone that downloads the extension would become part of a distributed network. This network would then handle Google queries semi-anonymously. Like Freenet, queries could be passed around within a few nodes, so you wouldn't know if the queries your copy of the plugin was working on were from the next node, or from a node several away. It'd slow things down a little bit, but since you're just passing around queries and results, and not the actual destination content, it wouldn't be too terrible.
I would trust Google more with an AUP that says "We will steal your children and sell them to the Martians" than I do Microsoft with any AUP, privacy policy, et cetera. Remember, Microsoft the company has been convicted of various crimes on repeated occasions. Many people say you can't treat a company as a single entity, but they demand that we do right up until the company is convicted of wrongdoing... I think it's only fair to apply the same standard at all times. It's long past time to invoke the corporate death penalty against Microsoft.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
why Schmidt of Google made the general statement that only miscreants are concerned with on-line privacy. He knew Mozilla was taking this position against them. Though I think this is a black eye for Mozilla but probably good for their pocket book. Why else would Mozilla take this position? Does Mozilla really think that Microsoft/Bing would be better? Either this Mozilla directory is a real tard, or BillyG has slipped Mozilla a little something in the Christmas stocking.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy, Cuil never seems to be mentioned. Or at least I do not see it.
On Cuil's privacy page it says:
"When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period. Your search history is your business."
So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more? Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about. Or perhaps it is just not well known.
i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:
Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.
Why can't they just get it right?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
This coming in the same week as Google's Chrome launches extensions? No surprise. There's going to be an exodus of users from FF to Chrome I'm afraid.
Indeed - privacy is possible but not easy (for the average user at least) currently. Until it becomes easy, and obvious, most users will continue to find it all too bothersome to worry about. Now - it's easy to say "that's their lookout" but life gets a fair bit more private for everyone at the point where those who would be snooping on private communications if there is so much that they can't just cherry-pick the stuff that looks suspiciously protected.
-- Gaxx
You've prompted a switch, Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background
Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.
C++ templates parsing
boost spirit employee example
C++ memberwise assignment
AHO Dragon book on Google Books
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Linux
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITA
the feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channel
computer simulations of comet impacts
kinetic energy equations
how do photons work in heat propagation
multithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulation
how radioactive dating works
how to solve exponential equations
how did they do this with a slide rule
a history of exponents who discovered e
the girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure|
---censored---
This is my sig.
Not sure if it was worth including Yahoo as an alternate since they are going to be powered by Bing eventually. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm
..that this is Mozilla trying to diversify their support base? Now that Google have their own browser, maybe Mozilla doesn't like that most of their users use their product exclusively with Google? I think Mozilla is a bit unsure about the future support from Google now that Google have their own browser, and would like at least some of their users to use Bing, so they might get some money from Bing in the future.
Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.
I switched to bing a while back. I'd say about 85% of the time, I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.
Every feature you hate somehow leaks your personal data to Google if you aren't careful. Interesting co-incidence eh?
Also does Adobe and Apple really need couple of cents from Google? Adobe Flash which has way bigger market share than Google comes with toolbar option selected by DEFAULT. You know the deal with impossible to change Google search on Safari/OS X.
http://www.ixquick.com/
Self-billed as "the world's most private search engine"...
Eric Schmidt was honest about what their search engine does with privacy data. MS/Ballmer won't say.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
May I just remind those who are saying "but Microsoft's privacy policies is worse than Google's policies," please keep in mind that Google's business model is dependent on advertising, and accurate customer data funnels the need to deliver relevant advertising in order that they maximize profits.
Microsoft, despite having their hands in many cookie jars, is still a company that sells software to generate revenue.
a critical distinction.
I know like my own name, that M$ contacted this guy, and told him a cheque would be sent to an unmarked cayman islands account in his name, when he would write a review stating choose bing not google. I have to say, I am not surprised if this was the case, M$ have been found guilty of such practice in the past, paying for write ups by vip types in the field.
I know google finds what I need, what else could bing offer me...other then more secret downloaded windows validator, then all of a sudden, I can't use my pc anymore, it's prated...remember windows live...???
Stop "thinking" with company images. Look to what they actually do. Please stop this "they aren't evil" BS. Enough really... We got a information monopoly in hand who tries to get every bit of your personal information if you aren't careful.
As they say around these parts, 6 of one, and a half-dozen of the other.
Reply to That ||
If someone like Asa suggests using a Microsoft technology because your company currently looks more evil than "satan himself" (remember?), you should look to mirror and ask what is wrong.
Anyone who thought that Google wouldn't become the next Microsoft and worse is running with blinders on. The heads of the company are arrogant idealists (just like Bill Gates, love 'em or hate 'em all) operating in an environment with essentially zero competition; and they love money, they just absolutely adore it. Nothing that Google does is for your benefit or the world's benefit, it's for the benefit of the company's corporate leadership. Just look at their attitude toward Open Source. They only buddied up with the Open Source community because they knew you tards would work for them for free. Now they don't need you anymore!
It should be common knowledge by now that 'consumer' means 'cattle' in the corporate world, and when you're as big as Google, all the world is a feedlot.
The whole Google brand was founded on this ridiculous notion that because they were 'Open Source' and former underdogs, they were morally superior to Microsoft. (Typical progressive posturing and other bullshit.) The ruse was convincing enough; when the ever-paranoid, fanatical Linux herd actually laid down for Google, that should have been a colossal red flag. You fags got duped (yes, you, at this site, you group-thinking OSS cheerleaders) and now Google is so big and has so much momentum that it'll take at least ten years (just like with Microsoft) to get all of their tentacles out of your data and the rest of the industry. And guess what? You can't believe a damn thing that they say, either. Do you actually think that some of those billions aren't coming from selling your data to other corporations and government agencies? Do you think that 'don't be evil' is anything but a marketing slogan, or is the average Linux Lummox really that fucking dumb?
And attitudes are changing at Google, and they're changing fast. The guys at the top are hardening up, they're getting even more 'corporate' with time, and with time the abuses are going to become even more brazen and more blatant. Just like Microsoft. They're also going to expand into even more industries, just like Microsoft, and the products that they offer, you'll find, will be even more intractably woven into the Google monolith. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they try to pull the rug out from under the American telcos. You guys will probably cheer, until they lock North America into a new monopoly that makes Bell 2.0 look modest. Then, who knows. Maybe you'll start getting ads relevant to your phone calls.
Google's vision is a world without privacy and without competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all. They can knock over anyone they like by providing services for 'free' and selling the user data they glean from use of that service, and they're going to give Microsoft a real run for their money when it comes to robber barony. These guys are vultures, and while they provided an outstanding service, there's no such thing as a free lunch!
Anti-trust legislature: not just for Microsoft.
I don't understand why more people are not using it.
I, for one, haven't heard of it 'till you mentioned it.
Reply to That ||
Or you can use CUIL (http://www.cuil.com). It's a great search engine
As they say: Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users
Lousy reference, there. The IRS takes privacy more seriously than just about anybody.
After Richard Nixon misused the agency, Congress slapped the IRS with certain restrictions. To de-politicize the agency, the executive structure was purged of political appointees. All other agencies have a myriad (literally dozens, even at small agencies) of political appointees floating around whose jobs they got because they kissed some politicians ass. The IRS has only two.
There is a "Taxpayer Advocate" office that watches over the agency and is quite effective in getting the word out to Congress and the public when the agency starts being in the least bit abusive. There's a Privacy Office. There's extensive yearly training in on privacy matters. Beyond that, a privacy breach at the IRS gets you hauled away in handcuffs by officers of the Treasury Inspector Generals Office. The union for IRS workers, in fact, complains loud and long that employees are too closely monitored, sometimes being investigated, for example, for unauthorized disclosure of information just because the customer they helped happened to live near them.
If the guy got a bribe, he can report it to the IRS without the slightest worry.
I think there's a step involved between "doing something" and "everybody finding it on google", namely "making it available on the Internet".
If there's something you wouldn't like everybody to know, don't brag about it on Facebook, and you should be fine.
Also, it should be clear that Google, by its very nature & size, isn't to trust with any private information.
Why do I want the sidewiki thing, or whatever it's called?
Options >> Tools >> uncheck Sidewiki box
done.
Reply to That ||
If MS could get rid of old fashion thinking, they would be pushing Bing to Mozilla and even Apple (Safari) right now. Of course, you would get a chair to your head if you could dare to propose it to Balmer before getting fired.
Allthough there is a change (it doesn't suggest IE), MS still can't think like a company who ships a search engine. If I were them, I would ship "bing search" to devices down to J2ME dumb ones, detect browser and suggest "click here to use Bing as search engine in Firefox", use the technologies present in the competing browsers...
Anyway, they are MS, they won't do it and Google can keep leeching personal information from people.
Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.
So instead of punching myself in the teabag, I should stick needles in my eyes? I guess I can see how that is an improvement.
What are the other alternatives? I have a long history of loving Google, but frankly I see where this guy is coming from. But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing? At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I hope my jetpack will be green.
Google's has everyone's searches and is taking over DNS now. Microsoft has likely inserted backdoors for the NSA. Undoubtedly open-source developers are recruited by the NSA (and other governments) to implement backdoors in Linux. In the USA the combination of sure money and government strong-arming is just too convincing. How could you say no?
Can we say it is time for a new company to emerge that takes the End User seriously and doesn't stick it to them whenever they can? I am sick and tired of worrying about Google stealing my ideas. From disappearing docs on Google Docs, to strange ads showing up on Google Ads while viewing Gmail (my companies top competitors), to Google Chrome's Browser recording my every move, to my YouTube videos featuring advertisements from my company's competitors, to Google Search recording my every search. Where the hell is it going to end with this company? You do not have my permission to take all of my personal info and stuff it into a database somewhere and then threaten to send it to the American Government if asked for! I don't live in your country and you Google are not abiding my countries laws and not respecting your users globally. I have no guarantees that my information is protected in shape or form and this isn't hearsay, we have a Google Exec telling us they provide a cloud for everyone so if you use the cloud your info is not safe with us. For the average Joes to chatter about Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton all day this isn't a big a deal for them. The odd picture emailed of their kids 3rd b-day party is not really worth worrying about because when hes four he will be posting them on Facebook himself but for everyone else that is involved in things deeper than that they should GET OFF GOOGLE NOW! International Google Boycott for professionals that want to keep their data private, anyone?
Schmidt was warning users about the risks inherit in using ANY search engine "including Google" and that governments can access data kept by search engines in the future. Dotzler's reaction is truly cringe worthy.
He then goes on to say "There is no ambiguity, no "out of context" here." right after COMPLETELY taking the quote out of context. This is ugly.
http://www.vandale.nl/vandale/opzoeken/woordenboek/?zoekwoord=lol
For the dutch it's a actual word. Meaning something like "fun" "joy".
It's been already said in a somewhat different form here. I made the stupid mistake of trusting MS two times and both times I got screwed badly.
Third time? Don't think so. When push comes to shove I'll switch to some other provider. Bing is something like a women that, should she be the last remaining on the planet, would make me turn gay. (Or man that would turn gays into hetero. Or two other combinations. What ever your preference in wording is.)
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Google is at least open minded towards OS.
I will switch to chrome if that happens.
Most of the Mozilla Corporation's profit comes from Google. In 2006 they made 66.8 million dollars, 85% of which was from Google.[Citation given]
And now they're telling people to abandon Google and go with Bing -- which is owned by a competing that would gladly kill Firefox if given the chance.
I really think Dotzler is a bit off the mark here.
Since Mozilla removed the session cookie option, I'm notsure I trust Mozilla.
What about a well thought review of search engines privacy policies?
As it stands for me, with the feeble justification of a taken-out-of-context quote (we have already discussed this quote on Slashdot), the credibility of the Mozilla Foundation just went down a notch, and will not go up again until this Asa Dotzler has resigned.
Nothing less. No apologies, no further explanation.
Resign.
This post puts words in Mozilla's mouth. While this was a high-profile Mozilla figure (Asa Dotzler), it is his personal blog, so keep in mind it's just what he thinks, not any recommendation on behalf of Mozilla.
In any case, his exact words were, "And here's how you can easily switch Firefox's search from Google to Bing. (Yes, Bing does have a better privacy policy than Google.)" That's not exactly a whole-hearted recommendation; it's saying, "Here's something bad, but this is how you can switch it to something better." And again, of course, it's just his opinion based on the respective privacy policies--but, if someone appeals to the PATRIOT Act like Google was talking about, I'm not convinced it matters either way. (Just because it's not tied to your account doesn't mean they can't figure it out.)
R.Mo
They'll get it right eventually. You just have to give their marketing department time to convince everybody in the new target market that their version of wrong is the new right. They'll get by with a little help from their new friend ;-)
Don't forget to consider this before marking me as a troll and taking the hit at Metamod time: Weblog of Asa Dotzler, community coordinator for Firefox marketing projects.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So how much did Schmidt get paid to say that? We all know that Bing has been actively trying very hard to be a big competitor with Google, and then a big company during this tells everybody that your privacy is better protected through Microsoft. I don't know, maybe I did not sleep enough yesterday, but the timing of this is just too good for me to not ponder why the statement happened when it did. Besides, I am getting tired of the Bing advertisements in my 360 games. It makes me not want to use Bing since I am staring at it while I try to play DJ Hero
The world is how you make it
Unless Microsoft is going to pay Mozilla millions to be the default search engine in Firefox like Google does, he is just pissing in the wind. What exactly are the Mozilla Foundation's sources of funding other than Google?
That's funny, because I'm in the process of switching from Firefox to Chrome. I've used Firefox almost exclusively on Linux, OSX, and Windows for a few years now. But for many months it has gotten more and more sluggish on every machine, routinely locking up for seconds at a time doing who know's what. I'm sick of it. I miss the extensions on Chrome but I do not miss the stutter-step browsing.
Evil is the money of root.
A simpler explanation is that Mozilla will probably get a bigger kickback from Bing. We all know MS is buying their way into search.
+ google search
+ ssl available
+ no cookies
- no personalization
http://www.scroogle.org/
I simply do not care is someone knows what I am searching, they would get very very bored very quickly. Bing impressed me once on a search, still not enough for me to jump ship. The fact is I have grown up with it and it has saved me too much time for me to decide that there a need for anything different.
I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.
I thought searching for porn was where Bing shined.
As long as Google doesn't leak my pr0n search keywords to my wife or my employer, I'm fine...
This has nothing to do with security, he has a hidden agenda.
1. Mozilla is probably still pissed at Google for the blindsided release of Chrome
2. Microsoft probably paid him off to say this.
3. Microsoft has agreed to pay Mozilla a larger sum to promote Bing instead of Google. (most reasonable)
the whole "security" issue is the same as saying "its for the children" when ridiculous laws are passed, but instead of targeting the moral majority, they are targeting the ..paranoid majority.
If you run NoScript and AdBlock in Firefox, check it out when you visit MozillaZine.
NoScript: Blocked scripts from: google-analytics.com, statcounter.com.
AdBlock: Blockable items list included a one-pixel image from c.statcounter
A "privacy sky is falling" article published on a web site that uses a far more insidious tracking service from the SAME COMPANY THEY ARE CRITICIZING.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Remember the days when Microsoft was "evil" and Google everyone's darling?
;-)
Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity, Microsoft's domination looked for a while like it really was slipping, and Google simply became too big.
Google has simply become everybody's competitor.
Example: the Chrome browser competes directly with Mozilla's Firefox. Not that this was the reason for that blog post, of course
Another example: Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).
Another example: the publishing industry has set its sights on Google, for the crime of taking away too much of their Ad revenue. They are contemplating de-indexing Google.
So Microsoft, once the "evil empire", is now champion of Liberty. Well, that is good; because they never were that evil, so some redress is in order.
And Bill Gates did contribute $40bn to the world. When Sergei Brin, Larry page and Eric Schmidt do the same with their personal fortunes, we can all go back to normal.
Bottom line: businesses are for-profit affairs. The best restraint on them is competition. We the people should keep Microsoft and Google both on their toes, for our own best interest.
And we should remember that people like Gates, Brin, Schmidt & Page are good good people at heart. They are creative. They contribute. Just like everyone, we need to set them straight from time to time.
Some days/weeks ago they implemented a totally white background that fades-in when you move the mouse ... I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone really comment on that yet.
What freaks me out about this is that I no longer see if I'm "signed-in" on Google or not (because I use gmail). I really, really don't like having my searches directly associated with my gmail account (having a signed-in account for searches bound to your mail account is the most evil/brilliant idea in decades! I don't understand how people can side with Google on this one!)
Even if I don't check "stay signed-in" when using Gmail I'm still signed-in in Google when I open it with a different browser in Firefox. I guess if I close all my browsers and then go back it will work (cannot test because I'm currently writing this). Is there a setting to stop this madness? I never verify that I have no gmail account opened somewhere in the background ...
Even though they can probably make all the associations with my real identity and my searches without displaying explicitly that I'm logged-in... it's kindof scary. Like when the ATM machines greet you by name once you enter your card ...
Why not just use scroogle?
Actually, the feds are the least of my worries. If they want to come over and see what I've been looking at, they're more than welcome to come type stuff in my Mozilla's "awesome bar". Let's just say that if you start with "ana", you'll get "anandtech"... in about the 100'th position in the list, but hey ;)
I'm more concerned with Google basically having a huge mass of Curly, Larry and Moes who seem to have full access to the production data, if they think looking through it will help squeeze 1ms off the search or push a better targetted ad. I remember reading about how someone tracked a user's session through the search, including exactly what they searched for, and the pages on the topic they read on Google Books. That to me opens a far greater possibility of abuse than the feds coming and demanding your data.
The feds need a warrant, for a start, meaning that they had to convince a judge that there is a good reason. Johnny Nerdrage trying to find some dirt on his ex-girlfriend's (*) new boyfriend, or Jack Mole just tying to help his best buddy pick a good employee, don't have any such safeguards.
The feds have rules for what they can use that data for, and what data they can use. If they find out you have some chronic medical condition, they're not exactly going to call your employer and go "guess which of your employees is gonna have a lot of sick days soon!" Some John Doe just looking for some dirt, might not follow anything even remotely similar.
So, yes, I don't care if the feds get my search data or my emaisl with a warrant. But 10,000 nerds browsing and mining it as they see fit, now that gets me a lot more uncomfortable.
(*) ... actually she's just a girl who lived next door and never pulled the blinds before undressing ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time.
"Hey if you got nuthin' to hide you won't mind if we violate your rights!"
I would love to see a privacy war, competition at its finest...
Bing might just get a new user today.
To mention Bing as a better alternative to Google in this case might not be an improvement at all - sure Bing might currently have a better privacy policy than Google, but certainly must follow the same governmental regulations as long as they are based in USA. What might be much smarter is to start looking for a search engine that is outside of reach for the Patriot Act, meaning looking for a search engine outside of US boarder.
I live in Canada where the Patriot Act does not exist, however, Google and Bing and the other big ones most likely still will hide themselves behind the Patriot Act for information gathering purposes. I would love to know good search engine alternatives existing in Canada or Europe that also got good privacy policies. Or maybe there are ok search engine(s) in Freenet???
Stupid or malicious?
Yes, the privacy policy may be better. But - especially with Microsoft - what is actually happening is a whole lot more important, wouldn't you think?
Now, if history is worth anything, we know how MS plays in markets where it doesn't dominate: Nice on the outside, underhanded on the inside, and ready for the bait-and-switch as soon as they've risen to dominance.
Don't you remember the comments on this very site when the browser of the day was still Netscape and MS was struggling? How many good features and standards compatability they had over Netscape? Look where all that went once they had crushed Netscape. Look how they're slowly turning around to that approach again now that their dominance is threatened.
Make no mistake. MS only ever competes on features, quality or privacy as long as it helps them grow. There's no reason to trust them any further than you can throw the Eifeltower.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich?
Fuck 'em bunch of hypocritical bastards!
I have been making more use of Bing recently, because the quality of Googles search results have really been bad recently.
In the many cases, the terms I search for do not even appear in the pages returned. I am not sure if it is due to bogus search items inserted into the
web pages or what. Bing has been better at returning relevant search results for me.
https://ixquick.com/
https://startpage.com/
Read about their privacy policy and their award.
There are only two problems there.
1. Exactly who is "your generation"? You make it sound like it's some uniform Borg collective, where everyone does the same things and realizes the same things. In reality, for every suburban white kid who grew with Facebook and with doing this or that thing, there'll be at least two who grew with fundamentally different experiences. The guy judging you may not be the guy who grew up with porn, college toga parties, and SW like you did, but some guy who grew up sleeping with his arms crossed out of fear that otherwise he might touch himself accidentally at night and JESUS SEES HIM. And who thinks that SW is the work of the devil because it teaches people a different religion. (As opposed to, of course, those of us who think only the prequels and the wookies are the work of the devil because they ruin the whole setup and moral underpinnings of the original trilogy;)
2. Don't underestimate hypocrisy and group-think. People who grew up doing X, and even people who do X every night, might want to see you hanged, drawn and quartered for doing X too.
Preachers who watch gay porn at night (or in a few cases even got caught actually having gay sex), didn't go, "meh, I did it too, and it doesn't affect my work." They then went to the pullpit and preached that gays are an abomination, and the Lord sent us aids as punishment.
Communities who buy far kinkier porn, asked that some porn producer or sex shop owner be jailed for it. They didn't go, "meh, I watch worse stuff at home and it hasn't affected my work or relationships yet", they went more like, "OMG, lock him up for spreading that sin and corruption."
People who did pot in college, and sometimes a long time after it too, push to have others drug tested and fired if they as much as ever were within a mile of someone smoking pot. Or push for tougher drug laws if they're politicians.
Basically the way people react to X has _very_ little to do with "I did X too and didn't affect me", and a lot more with "do I want to be seen as supporting X, or as the guy who's tough on X?" The same guy who might actually chug more beer in a week than you do in a month, may well fire you for appearing on Facebook or youtube drunk in a pool of your vomit once, because that's the company image he wants, and/or that's the kind of guy he wants to be seen as.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
Google knows when you've been bad or good,
So "don't be evil."
Merry Christmas everyone.
--
Toro
Where would Mozilla be without Google today? Answer: right where it's heading at full speed right now.
Last time it was Microsoft's fault that they went down. Now Google is about to take the blame. And it's always Netscape... I mean, Mozilla, that are wronged by some big entity that wants their untimely doom. Poor folks.
The bias and fanboi fanatacism is oozing from these posts like sweat from a pig. Seriously people if your worried about your privacy online then DONT USE ONLINE SERVICES!!!! It couldnt possible be more obvious. An online mail service must retain your mail, for the service to work. A search provider must log searches to provide accurate searches in the first place. So what if they log your IP? Every time you connect to your ISP your IP gets logged, hell it probably gets logged in about 100 different locations before you even get to the website you want. Thats just the nature of the internet. The way I see it is, you cant rely on any company to maintain your privacy. If it really matters that much to you, set up your own email/dns/whatever and run everything yourself, leech of of somebody elses free wifi or something, and basically live off the grid. You can have absolutely no reasonable expectation of total privacy when you are using somebody elses services for free.
You all can mod me down all you want, but somebody has to state the obvious.
I just yesterday switched from Firefox to Chrome .. on Linux, of course. I love my privacy, but I hate also crappy technology.
As a more serious note, I fail to see why Asa (or anyone else) believes that MS could be able to withhold some data from authorities that have law in their side any more than Google. The law is bad, and no single company will change that. Schmidt's remarks are just a statement of facts as they are at the moment, no more, no less. I think the furore that has risen from them is a classical example of shooting the messenger.
i find that a trite stereotype.
:P
The evil intolerant baptist who imposes his morals on everyone muhuhahahahaha!
Read verse 9 then verse 10
I find many more other scenarios far more likely. What if you had searched about how to launder money? Or commit some sort of corporate fraud? Or about some medical condition which you may have which would ultimately become a huge expense to the company's productivity if it progresses?
Anyhoo, if you were just throwing something out there I apologize for being all uptight
If they have concerns about privacy, why not switch to ixquick or scroogle?
https://www.us.ixquick.com/eng
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
I use scroogle.org .. it's a proxy between me and google.. and they claim to erase all logs within 48 hours. (I understand it's just a claim.. still it's another entity sitting between me and google). I've always hated the way when search results in google make you think they go straight to link (the hover URL is the site abc.com), but when you click on the item, some javascript converts it to google.com?redirectsomething=abc.com. That is just plain devious in my eyes.
You can also find the search addon at http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle which adds scroogle as default to the firefox search bar.
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ixquick is a search engine whose MAIN purpose is to protect your privacy. http://ixquick.com/
Schmidt is right. Anonymity is not an unmitigated good. It can be used to protect legitimate expression from oppressive authority, true. It can also be used to cover things like character assassination and rumor mongering.
The problem is such statements can be self-serving. It's easy to choose between "Good" and "Evil". The hard situations are choosing between greater and lesser goods, or greater and lesser evils.
It's all to easy to cherry pick examples of how anonymity is good, or evil if that suits what you'd like to do. Morality is considering the full range of consequences of one's actions, both the intended and unintended consequences. Where you *want* to do something, that is the time to be most skeptical of the ethical arguments in its favor.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whatever the written policy says, who do you trust to do the right thing.
Microsoft who still violates provisions of it anti-trust settlement
or Google ?
If you read behind the lines and replace 9 words (capitalised) from this scentence you get...
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you SHOULD BE USING ANONYMITY LIKE TOR AND FREENET
If you really need reality is that ALL search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time
and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.
Sounds like its using your power to "market" more people to use better anonymity - in short being evil for a greater good.
the average internet user has no fucking clue that google is storing anything about them, let alone that they are 'logged in'. the average internet use types 'yahoo.com' into the google search bar so they can get to their yahoo email. they dont know the difference between mozilla, 'the internet', internet explorer, or windows. they know what a 'computer' is and that's about it.
Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.
Schmidt blacklisted CNET for publishing information about him found through Google searches. He wants to keep his own privacy while profiting from diminishing yours.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why recommend people go into the jaws of likely an even more untrustable giant corporation? Why not use a search engine actually dedicated to privacy, like ixquick? See: http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
Why don't we just use an add-on to the browser that keeps making random requests to these search engines? this should work so that our manual searches display the stuff we want, while the rest of the traffic is meant to make all searches look random
ASA is doing this because he is worried about Chrome. Sadly, he is not thinking. MS has a long history similar to a neo-con; says one thing, but does the opposite. I have little doubt that MS's written policy has nothing to do with their active policy.
When you look at it, this is a PERFECT way to mine data...give people a way to store and move data FOR FREE, and they will. You tell them that you will mine and retain that data, but most (99.9999999999%) never read the EULA or TOS docs and don't care. But what the NSA, er Google is doing is slowly building up Big Brother. With automatic facial recognition now working with Picasa and Google where (take a cellphone picture of a thing, like a bridge, and submit it to a Google search and it will identify the site and return info on it, while tracking that you were there!), soon your every move and relationship will be known by BB.
When you look at it, there is NO WAY that Google could be generating the revenue they claim just from 50-cent click ads. I so rarely select one so there must either be some people out there who are madly clicking on all these ads in life, or it is a scam to cover the billions of dollars poured in to this company by the NSA as a way to know all, see all and be everywhere. Don't do it too fast, or you'll raise suspicions, but keep on marching forward. The NSA has always worked its best black ops when run under the cover of legitimate business.
wow that's scary - pretty much what i suspected google's postition on privacy was, but to hear it out loud is amazing nonetheless. i've a feeling he's gonna regret that comment but its good to know where we stand.
for the last few years i've been using http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html and would recommend it to anyone.
i've been accused of tilting at windmills in the past, but i guess i can live with that, especially now that he's made his position quite clear.
Mozilla isn't getting a christmas bonus this year originating from Mountain View.
i'll just stand here, and that envelope full of money can just "fall" into my pocket, thank you very much...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
C U IL == See you ill...
If that's not a red flag....
Someone needs to check this guy's bank statement - because they ONLY way I would recommend -switching- to a Microsoft product, is if I were getting paid for it....
Use StartPage.com for your privacy. No tracking or logging. It might not be as good as Google or Bing on finding newest but I've found it to be very good on finding most (80%) of what I want.
After being in this industry since the 80's I don't believe in "Internet Privacy". I also have serious doubts in PC privacy if you are even hooked up to a network or the internet. It may go against the grain here, but I believe if you are on the web, you better be ready for all the data on your pc to be fully visible to someone somewhere. Imho, the only secure data is the data sitting on the pc in the corner not connected to the network.
Search google anonymously: http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html
The thing is, when you get older you will realize that there is only so much opportunity in the world and only so much of your time left to take advantage of it. When people start to compete over those opportunities, "irrelevant" details come into play.
ABLE TO GET THE JOB DONE is not enough. We have 10% unemployment! There is a surplus of people who able to get the vast majority of jobs done.
You act like your generation is going to abolish prudishness and hypocrisy. Good luck with that.
Because they're now in direct competition, MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else.
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble.
This is a problem with "Privacy Policies" in the US.
They are weak, and kept that way by lobbyists lobbying congress.
Witness that you get by US mail a multiple page fine print privacy policy from each of your banks, credit card companies, etc. with the requirement that if you don't want them to essentially use your information as they like you have to take steps to opt-out, usually by mailing a letter or calling on the phone.
How can anyone be expected to take affirmative steps to opt out of 15 or 20 privacy policies?
Whereas the way it should be is you should have privacy unless you opt out of that.
I think it's essentially like that in the EU with the EU privacy practices. Anyone who can elaborate and compare the US with the EU in this area please jump in.
If the US were to establish laws requiring privacy rather that requiring essentially none, things would be better for us all.
.
Possible fraud? Be VERY careful about such statements from anyone connected with the Mozilla Foundation. The foundation has been getting more than $68,000,000 each year to make Google the default search engine in Firefox. See this article, for example: Google Deal Produces 91% of Mozilla's Revenue.
Google has said it will stop paying that money, eventually. Or maybe Microsoft has offered more. Any statements from anyone at Mozilla about search engines must be considered to be possibly about money.
Eric Schmidt's choice of words showed an amazing lack of social awareness. However, remember that he also has a point. The U.S. government has decided it can force executives to give information, and can also force them to keep silent about giving that information. The U.S. government calling the law the "Patriot Act" was an attempt to intimidate by implying that someone who is against the complete loss of privacy in the U.S. is not a patriot. That's not correct, of course.
Maybe the underlying point of Mr. Schmidt's statement was that the U.S. government has been forcing Google to help conduct surveillance, and he feels uncomfortable about that. However, it was a foolish choice of words.
Guess what. I think I left Firefox back in the dust when I jumped onto the Google Chrome bandwagon.
There is not a doubt in my mind that Asa Dotzler just had his entire holiday season paid for by Microsoft. In regards to privacy - Google is going to continue doing a great job of aggregating all of our information and there's nothing that's going to stop them... Oh and Microsoft - going to run into a cash flow problem in about another ~10 years - the Gates/XP era bank account won't continue to support this blitzkrieg of commercial endorsements for technology that is under performing and can be replaced by something that's free...
I sense a disturbance in the force.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The only joke that could be considered any worse is "Homeland Security". You have to be quite the fool to fall for any of it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining. I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market. Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.
I will not use Bing, (nor Yahoo now that M$ has corrupted it) because of the way search results are twisted to try to always portray M$ in a positive way. To my knowlege Google does not twist its search results in the same wayt that Bing and Yahoo results are twisted.
The way to do anonymous browsing online is simple. Just do automated queries for random lists of keywords all the time. That way, even if they do have your data it won't be useful.
or else!
Call me old fashioned but after figuring Apple's stance against input managers (most of them) and knowing how they really don't care about things plugging into their apps (they never test), I gave up trying to "hack" Safari by any reason. There is one, single input manager in my OS and it is 1 Password. I keep it since it is professionally managed, updated, tested etc. I am not saying "input managers" are evil like some trolls do. I think it is a great technology which is becoming victim of abusers and the wrong way it was implemented.
Another option is hacking the "resource" of Safari so it will point to different URL while searching. I guess JWZ did it once. Sadly, Leopard/Post Leopard Safari is very strictly signed (including resources/icons) and Apple's firewall is a kind of black box which hates a signed application becoming unsigned.
I hate the idea of paying to OS X, Apple devices coming with it and not having any other option than Google on default browser of OS X which I also finance by using Apple OS/Products. Windows/iPhone Safari coming with Yahoo option adds more to the issue. Why does Windows users have choice and we don't? Why does Apple try to make money with that engine while MS at least provides some sort of "wizard" to make your own choices, even a http mail service?
I personally use Opera which is a tiny company compared to anything and they happily provide the option to change search engine while their only income is from Google/Yahoo. In fact, browser could be free thanks to those deals. They provide the option, Apple, a multi billion gigantic company doesn't. That is the issue.
ps: If you like Webkit engine, Omniweb is also free and lots of ideas on Safari 4 comes from it in fact.
No one mentioned http://ixquick.com/ as an alternative from there page : Ixquick Protects Your Privacy ! The only search engine that does not record your IP address. http://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html running mozilla recommends bing as a search brings up http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/11/mozilla-and-firefox-veteran-citing-ceo-eric-schmidts-latest-ou/ as the first hit and this Slashdot story a the fourth hit .
Google have also been getting very aggressive lately about algorithmically delisting sites that fail some minor "spam" metric or other, which, according to many of the "SEO" types discussing the subject*, may include splogged copies of your content hosted in obscure countries and *incoming* links from suspect sites. I found just how rampant this is becoming only when the algorithm decided I was a spammer too. From what I can now tell it was a simple misclassification, and at the time of this writing, the site appears to be indexed again (with throwing a couple 'NOINDEX's around on the pages that confused them), but it did give me a firsthand taste of how easily they are now throwing babies out with the bathwater, and how many other legitimate sites I may be missing out on by using Google. I've since changed away from Google for most of my search needs.
More details, for anyone who finds themselves in the same situation:
First off, the preferred method of getting a classification issue looked into by a live human seems to be knowing someone who is Facebook friends with Matt Cutts. Otherwise, try for a media frenzy (if you're suitably popular or controversial), or don't waste your time.
From what I can now tell (or rather guess), it tripped on a detailed dossier we published of a back-in-the-day malware, which included a full list of URLS and keywords that it triggered on. This being the usual popup-spawning unkillable background process, you can probably guess the kinds of sites and keywords it triggered on (or just read the 'Sections' page). Some while after the site was delisted, an automated "we're removing your site" message showed up in the Google Webmaster Tools listing a sampling of the keywords on that page and suggesting it was placed there by an exploit.
A reasonably popular site (it's been slashdotted a few times), together with one of the oldest continuously-running malware help forums in existence, silently delisted from Google for ONE FILE. Legitimate, at that.
* "SEO" = likely banned for more legitimate reasons, although OTOH, determining how Google's ranking algorithms work is their fulltime job.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I really remember IE always had that "Wizard", way before Opera ASA heroically (no sarcasm) sued them. It must be a pro-active move but regardless, it exists.
Google is just being open about what they collect. Do you really think MS would admit that? Given the choice of trust between MS and Google, I'll take Google any day.
Yup, I post as anonymous, because I am truly paranoid. Not so much because I live in America, but the thought that some day, Amerika may become more like China, or Iran and those that post openly will find out what dungeons truly are
Anyhow, I digress. If you want to be safe, I say use Scroogle instead of Google and avoid Bing, because after all is said and done, that is the product of MR BILL and he has never been a supporter of the little guy.
FWIW.