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."
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
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?
my thought was, "Well, the check has cleared"
I hope that he is up on the IRS privacy policy when he reports it on his income tax...
-- Sig under construction...
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! ~~
Idk, do you really expect any internet service to hold to their stated privacy policy? Yes, they may, or when the feds come a knockin', they might have not and the logs are chock full of stuff. Without a paying customer relationship, it's my understanding that it's pretty hard to have any enforceable reconcilation if they breach their word.
Considering that most browsers have a search bar, it would be nice if the browser could somehow implement anonymizing techniques independent of the specific search engine. Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.
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...
I actually applaud Firefox for this change.
What change? They didn't change anything.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.
You know Microsoft's privacy policy isn't all that better. They still associate your search with your name and ip address for 18 months after you searched. 'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?
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?
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.
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.
A point the article makes is that Microsoft, as a corporation that has dealt heavily with many things outside of just search, is very much grounded in privacy concerns and legal matters related to it. They are likely to uphold their privacy policy very strictly on their internet services.
Sounds like fear of Chrome
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
Given how absurdly permissive their stated privacy policies usually are, they had damn well better hold to it.
I mean, it's a company. If they want to claim that there's some sort of legally binding contract that shows up just because I viewed their website, at the bare minimum they ought to be fulfilling their obligations. Does that mean they will? In many cases no, but those sites are guilty of a breach of contract, by a contract they unilaterally imposed.
Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.
What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future. Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information. I'm not sure I agree with this policy.
Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.
The problem with a pay-based anonymizing server is that they have to get money from you somehow. That alone leaves a bit-trail which can be traced by the government, and in many countries the governments are actually mandating that commercial service providers keep logs. So, for the truly paranoid, I don't see how a fee-based anonymizer is superior to Tor. With Tor, if you're willing to use multiple nodes (and accept the resulting huge performance hit) then it seems to me you get better security than using a single commercial anonymizer.
Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.
Great idea. Since I mostly use chrome, i'll go and ask google to run my requests throught an anonymizer before sending them to google.
I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.
I guess for the general public this type of statement makes sense. Most people probably have no fucking clue what Google stores about you and what they plan to store (e.g. Chrome has your browser history travel with you as well as extensions which means they have all that data on you on their servers too). But for the rest of us who know that they are doing this and really don't give a shit but really enjoy the phenomenal search results returned (simply stated: Bing blows goats compared to Google), it's fine.
I thank Mozilla for trying to sway me one way or the other but honestly, I can make up my own mind TYVM--and I'm a privacy freak. Clear your cookies and don't login to get customized search results if you're really that concerned.
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
Yes, I'm sure Google's traffic will nose dive immediately and they'll mend their ways once me(*) and thee switch to Bing.
* Disclaimer: me and thee excludes me.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You've prompted a switch, Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background
Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.
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
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.
Google certainly doesn't have a great track record for privacy, but is MS any better?
I'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt's statement, but I'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs.
I stole this Sig
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.
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.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.
Isn't that their job?
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.
Two items. One, Schmidt's quote was taken out of context. He was referring to "do"-ing a search something you'd rather not be known, because ALL the search engines keep records and ALL of them are subject to subpoena.
Two, "Firefox" isn't making a change - this is one person expressing an opinion. If the organization was that concerned, they'd drop Google as the default browser.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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.
ONE person on the Firefox team made a blog entry. Hardly a major policy statement from Mozilla.
On the issue of google tracking. If you're not logged in, they track you via a cookie. I set Firefox not to keep cookies from google. End of story. Privacy issues averted. I'll continue using google as a search engine, because Bing just really doesn't do as wholistic or as good a job. Full stop.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
i'm sorry but what the hell are you searching for that gives you viagra and porn?
Sure, theres that search everyone does once in a great while where they go "oops, definitely shouldn't have googled that", (my recent one was the audio/video app "g-spot")
but for the other 99% of the time the results are incredibly relevant. other spam sure, (like when i search for an electronic component and just get tons of keyword hits at greymarket sites), but viagra/porn?
Most Mozilla users use Google, but Mozilla has a revenue sharing agreement with several search engines. They get a tiny amount of money when you make a search from the search box with several browsers. They only get 97% of their income from Google because most of the people who use Google in the search box. They could get 97% of their money from Microsoft if most of their users switched to using Bing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
I'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt's statement, but I'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs.
What more do you want? Confirmation from Netcraft? These sort of PR slips aren't allowed very often, and for good reason.
If you don't agree with the CEO's attitude, why shouldn't you stop using their services?
I'd rather go by the actions of the company.
In Google's case their actions show they don't respect your privacy, but they're pretty open about their lack of respect.
For MS I honestly don't know a lot about their actions on privacy, but I doubt they'd be any better than Google and I don't want to reward them for hiding their intentions.
I stole this Sig
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
+ google search
+ ssl available
+ no cookies
- no personalization
http://www.scroogle.org/
No, Google does and always has taken user privacy seriously. But the fact is, and Schmidt is being quite frank, here, they don't have the right to deny requests from law enforcement agencies, and as long as that's true, no company will fail to communicate everything you've ever done to the feds whenever they want to know about it.
Look at it this way: would you expect Balmer to point out that giving Microsoft any information about you would ultimately lead to it being in the hands of the Federal government? No, of course not. Microsoft will quite happily hide that fact from you and make you feel more secure. Google will warn you about it up-front, but they ALREADY LOST THAT CASE IN COURT (yep, Google tried to refuse to hand over search histories).
So, you get to ask yourself: who do you want to do business with: the company that warns you about risks to your privacy so that you can moderate your behavior accordingly or the company that tells you that everything is just fine. Schmidt made me uncomfortable, and that's a good thing.
As a Microsoft shill I have a new found respect the maturity shown by the Mozilla foundation and in particular Mr Dotzler.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
I, for one, pay for high-quality Tor exit nodes. :-)
You mean when Microsoft rolled over and handed out private information when the Feds came knocking....
Google's CEO was point out that simple fact that when the government wants information, NO ONE is going to deny them. So your best course of action is not to engage in activities that can get you into trouble because businesses are not going to protect you.
twit!
'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.
No, marketing's job is to make you want it.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Your statement is true. however you miss the point entirely. Yes google would turn over the data and yes microsoft would turn over the data. The fact is that google is the one storing all of this data and microsoft is not. If google was not storing all of this data the government in this example could not force google to turn it over. Not because of "want" but because of "ability". If the government requested it google would simply not have it... and that would be the end of it(more or less)... But since google dose have it they will turn it over.....
> they don't have the right to deny requests from law enforcement agencies
This is true, if the government comes to them while they still have the information or before they gather it. The difference is, Google will keep your information around a lot longer than Microsoft will, and they put it to all kinds of marketing purposes that may be pushing the "don't-be-evil" envelope.
See http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2282232,00.asp
My guitar chord generator.
sopssa, with his fairly recent UID, is quickly parroting as a Microsoft/anti-open/anti-Google poster child... he was the first to post recently in an anti-Linux fashion and his obvious angst against open source principles in general... a quick look at history is revealing.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1473112&cid=30382128
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1474872&cid=30399306
Two things to consider:
1 - When Bush stated publicly that the federal government should have all search data tied to IP addresses, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft handed it over without any official government mandate or court order. They just volunteered your private information. Google refused.
2 - At the same time several of these issues were coming to a head at once (Bush's statement, Yahoo turning in a Chinese blogger, Google being forced by Brazil to give out details on a child pornography ring on Orkut) Google announced they were changing their policies and anonymizing logs sooner to protect people's privacy. They said their new anonymization policy was better than anyone else out there. I haven't read them all, so I can't say for certain.
So one company has shown they will fight to protect your privacy until they are absolutely forced (Google didn't even hand information over to Brazil when a judge ordered them to do so initially), and they anonymize their logs sooner.
So why in the world is Bing better for privacy?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
...and who listens to some exec when he says, "Use another company because I say so!" and doesn't think for themselves.
There are privacy concerns with Google. Understandable.
There are also privacy concerns with Bing.
Eric Schmidt's quote not only said, "perhaps you shouldn't be doing [bad things]" but also "privacy with search engines in general [is a farce]." This is nothing new! People just want to warhgrhable over it so they have something to talk about during the day. There really is nothing all that new here. Do you think you're not already tracked around the internet in the first place? Thinking anything different would only be fooling yourself.
For MS I honestly don't know a lot about their actions on privacy, but I doubt they'd be any better than Google and I don't want to reward them for hiding their intentions.
You don't know about Microsoft's actions on privacy and you have no idea what they say about it. Did you know that both Bing and Google have their (very extensive) privacy policies linked on the bottom of their search pages?
Microsoft have got quite good at listing privacy policies and asking for permission before having their Windows software call back to home base. Generally speaking you can opt out of sending info back to their servers with the obvious exceptions like Genuine Windows Advantage and the annoying exception of Microsoft Security Essentials - where you have to choose either basic or advanced membership of Microsoft SpyNet (which collects info about discovered malware). I'm sure that previously you could opt out of that system.
I've read some of Google's privacy policies, as for MS I haven't read their policies and don't use any of their products.
Using Windows as the basis for comparison isn't the best thing since it's a different business model. Google's ad based model relies on a certain lack of privacy, and unless MS plans to lose money on Bing they'll have to look at the same trade-offs.
I stole this Sig
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.
Or not use their service. I resent having to "make sure" I'm not doing anything illegal. Small comfort the guy I read about just yesterday who copied some pr0n (and like it or not, pornography is legal, at least here) from some site and mixed in with the media was some kiddie pr0n. Through the machinations of how he got fingered and all I won't get into, but of course his life was ruined. In *THIS* country, I guess innocent until proven guilty is just some kind of worthless slogan. I'm sorry but I have a problem with the guilty until you prove yourself innocent philosophy. Or put it another way, I like my privacy, I shouldn't need to bother with the vagaries of legality or illegality unless I'm doing something I know to be illegal (not wrong, just illegal, there is a distinction, and not its not always clear which is which, wnd the problem with your philosophy.) Either we live in a free society or we don't, which is it?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I find that Bing falls for marketing scams and SEO much worse than Firefox. Random download sites and outright scams show up in Bing first with lots of searches, while Google is much more successful at ignoring marketingese and just giving you the site you want.
For example, searching for Wii homebrew gives:
Google:
Bing:
So basically, people looking for Wii homebrew and using Bing are at a much higher chance of getting scammed. Seriously, Wiibrew isn't even in the first page of results.
Going the other way, searching for the name of the scam (homebreware) yields (antiscam = site that explains that homebreware is a scam): ...
Google: antiscam, antiscam, antiscam, scam, scam, antiscam, scam,
Bing: scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam...
Someone using Bing and doublechecking on what they're about to buy isn't going to remotely realize they're being scammed.
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
If they had an agreement with Microsoft . Which they don't. Which you'd know if you'd read the article. Which you didn't. Busted, punk.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Stop giving facts, no one cares about them.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Companies like Google may be legally required to retain logging data. It may not be by their own choice alone that they do it.
But I'm also sure the company will also try to squeeze any advantage they can get out of the data for themselves. In this regard, I find Schmidt's apparent lack of respect for users' privacy rather concerning. It may be that everyone knows governments will have access to the data, and that in that sense you perhaps shouldn't do (without some kind of external anonymization) what you don't want them to know, but Schmidt's statement also suggests that Google itself will be willing to do just about anything they can with your data (within the boundaries of law), and particularly that he thinks it's normal and acceptable for everybody else as well to gather all the data about you that they want and retain it for any purposes they see fit.
Google of course uses the data also to its users' benefit to some extent (improving search results), but certainly not all companies in all fields do. Think about insurance companies, for instance, where the benefit of the company and the customer are much more clearly at odds with each other (the optimal point where the customer pays the most and receives the least is pretty much just probability and statistics, and the companies use all available information to determine that optimal setting). Will Google eventually come to cooperate with them? "Oh, but you searched for this and that... it puts you in a risk group for foobar, so we can't give you anything."
Yes, I know that kind of thing is probably illegal. However, laws do change and when the data is out there and there's clearly the willingness to use it for anything (and the companies don't seem to need to worry that customers will leave them because of it), it almost becomes a matter of lobbying. And that's just an example -- the dynamics with that kind of a mineable mass of data are something that we can't even predict in the long run. We don't know who's going to want to use it and for what.
That makers the lack of respect for privacy more disturbing than stating the fact that the government is likely to get their hands on data if they want to.
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.
Wow - so you think privacy only applies to people you like? Or people not being accused of crimes you detest?
I agree that child pornographers are scum. I certainly approve of legal action against such despicable low-lifes. But privacy applies to everyone under the law otherwise child pornography becomes a convenient weapon to level against your enemy without any care for justice.
We don't.
I need a license to get married and a license to open a business. I need a license to drive on the roads I pay for and a license for my dog to keep his nuts in my county. I need a license for my gun and a license for my trailer. The list goes on. Free society? Where?
And anyone who really believes they live in a free society, please let me know so I can either remind you that you're a naive asshat or start working on expatriating if it turns out you do, indeed, know your ass from a hole in the ground.
informationweek.com...
searchenginewatch.com
Yeah... it happened.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Eh? I have nothing against open source. In fact I maintain linux servers on my daily job every day and think they're a lot better suited for the job than MS servers. But I do see and acknowledge both Windows and Linux problems and comment upon those - after all, that's what is going to fix the issues, not ignoring them and stamping "anti-open" on everyone that points out flaws in Linux.
Everything that aside, what does this has to do with Google? While Google does provide software open sourced for people while it's within their business goal, they're far from true open source culture. Just try to get any of their web services backends and you see why.
Or use scroogle.org which proxies your google searches so they have no idea whom you are.
Or startpage.com / ixquick.com which meta searches multiple search facilities and keeps no private information.
http://startpage.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
Startpage is powered by Ixquick. The only search engine that does not record your IP address. Your privacy is under attack ! Every time you use a regular search engine, your search data are recorded. Your search terms, the time of your visit, the links you choose, your IP address and your User ID cookies all get stored in a database. The identity profiles that can be constructed from this cloud of information represent modern day gold for marketers. But government officials, hackers and even criminals also have an interest in getting their hands on your personal search data. And sooner or later they will...
.
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.
I sense a disturbance in the force.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.
Responding to a Subpoena is not "volunteering".
Quite right, but while that fact makes Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft look less bad in that situation, it makes Google look better. From one of the cited articles:
"Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," Nicole Wong, Google associate general counsel, said in a statement. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."
I'd say fighting a government subpoena issued on dubious grounds is a lot more respectable than simply not volunteering information.