Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Claims Google Chrome Steals Your Privacy

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is going on the offensive against Google, accusing the search giant of creating a browser that does not respect user privacy. The company posted a video, embedded below, on TechNet Edge with the following description: 'Watch a demo on how Google Chrome collects every keystroke you make and how Internet Explorer 8 keeps your information private through two address bars and In Private browsing.' Microsoft's first criticism is Chrome's combining the address bar and the search box into a single entry box; IE8 keeps those fields separate. 'By keeping these boxes separate, your privacy is better protected and the addresses of the sites you're visiting aren't automatically shared with Microsoft, or anyone else,' says IE product manager Pete LePage."

522 comments

  1. Correct by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pete LePage is spot on with this. The privacy intrusion by Chrome is outstanding. Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google. Your Chrome installation has an personal UI number to track where you downloaded Chrome from, wherever you use it and how you use it.

    I am still surprised how many people (even here on our geeky slashdot group who should know better) choose something based on it being offered for free, no matter what happens to their privacy. The same people who complain about casual people using Facebook and how much information they're putting there, and not realizing how much privacy they are losing by using Google's free products and search engine.

    It's a known fact that every software needs to be funded in some way. Personally I rather choose a paid solution where I know my privacy wont be lost and I can save documents, emails, etc on my own hard drive instead of relying on cloud computing and all the marketing and privacy intrusion to make it possible. After all Google is a marketing company while Microsoft is an software company. The fact they're doing business by selling me a product instead of whoring to advertisers kind of shows that.

    1. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you didn't actually read the article because you wanted to look like a jackass.

    2. Re:Correct by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I rather choose a paid solution where I know my privacy wont be lost and I can save documents, emails, etc on my own hard drive instead of relying on cloud computing and all the marketing and privacy intrusion to make it possible.

      You do that. I'll stick with Firefox, thanks.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope so, they might be able to start recommending some better, hotter, stuff for my pleasuring!

    4. Re:Correct by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between posting information in public where everyone can freely access and share it whenever they want, and revealing the information to a service provider in the context of a private transaction, which the SP is not supposed to reveal to third parties.

      By this logic, your ISP is the biggest privacy invader there is -- every bit of data you send passes through their routers.

      Also, they can aggregate scan it, and apply all sorts of alerts (or traffic rate control) rules based on whatever it contains.

      Posting private info on Facebook and having access wide open to the public or even lots of friends, is still a bigger compromise of personal info.

      Even if your searches actually contain more sensitive info about you. The difference is Google isn't publishing your details for arbitrary members of the public to see.

    5. Re:Correct by sopssa · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm assuming you didn't actually read the article because you wanted to look like a jackass.

      And what did you wanted me to read about it? This?

      We downloaded Fiddler to make some comparisons of our own. As we suspected, Chrome can be set to send information on every keystroke to Bing (or any other search engine that supports Search Suggestions) instead of Google. The same behavior occurs in IE8, but only in the search bar. LePage is only correct in his assertion that IE8 does not send information to anyone when the user types into the address bar.

      The last sentence is a major point.

    6. Re:Correct by Lux · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why people who wouldn't buy a television that was designed, built, or sold by an advertizing company so commonly choose to use a web browser that was designed, built, and given away for free by an advertizing company.

    7. Re:Correct by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually you are spot on, but for other reasons.

      With Facebook you choose what information you put or post there.

      With Google you do not - they have what you have typed to address bar, what you have searched for, what your emails contain, what sites you visit, how you're there, what you do (analytics) and so on..

      Actually both Google and Microsoft are worried about this - see my subscription here for a request to change relating laws.

    8. Re:Correct by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      username:password@www.whatever.net is something you might type into the url bar that would pose a very real security threat when shared. Google search terms are automatically published and your login information would be accessible to anyone.

    9. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, you should have noted that the behavior is entirely CONFIGURABLE by the end user. That would have been a nice detail to pick up. It also would have been nice if you noted that IE8 does exactly the same thing when you type in it's search bar. So IE8 doesn't send the URLs you're typing to a suggestion service. Do you really care that much? If so, turn off the suggestion service. Wrench menu -> Options -> "Use suggestion service to help complete search and URLs typed in the address bar". Was that so hard? You can uncheck the other things under the Privacy heading too.

      Also, if you read the article, you'd get the point that this Microsoft spokesperson just glossed over the fact that IE8's search bar uses the same kind of suggestion service. You're naive if you think Microsoft doesn't mine the data gathered from Bing.

      Finally, Chrome may be free, but if you actually took the time to understand how it is built and engineered, you'd understand it is a high quality piece of software. It wasn't just thrown together in order to steal people's private lives.

    10. Re:Correct by Handlarn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that they filter out any user data and passwords when they publish the search terms. Any other situation would have generated a huge outcry by now. Try finding any login information this way yourself and you'll notice it can't be found.

    11. Re:Correct by red456 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      do you not think that Firefox is becoming the new IE? If I can remember correctly through my drunken history of the last 8 years, Firefox was first promoted as an alternative the bloated Mozilla - and quite rightly so. Recently though, despite all the releases and the announcements on brand new 10x-faster JavaScript interpreters I find it's bogging down to an almost unusable level.
      Once upon a time there used to be configuration to permit or deny javascript to run - now this is split into 12 different parameters, 7 of which are hidden behind the about:config screen. The default is now for pages to be able to open windows hiding the menu and status bar. WTF?
      Once upon a time there used to an option to open new pages as a tab or in a new window - now this is split into 2 different parameters (browser.link.open_newwindow and browser.link.open_newwindow_restriction) which make no sense to anybody.
      Do you expect 'backspace' to go 'backwards' in your browsing history? Everybody does - on all browsers, except for the Linux release of Firefox - for no understandable reason they decided that the Linux Firefox should do nothing upon pressing backspace, but all other versions should continue the convention.
      Do you actively use the overly complicated features of the re-written Bookmarks functionality on Firefox 3.x? I don't, nobody in my office (20 people) does. Everybody hate it.
      And lastly... privacy. Firefox 3.x made a real big push for 'privacy'. They said 'you can toggle private browsing on and off' - and 'you can delete browsing history over the last hour, day, month etc..". SUPER LIE. Try deleting your history (everything!) then go to your .mozilla/firefox/{UID}.profile directory. Now...try running 'strings' on your places.sqlite file and try running strings on the files in the bookmarkbackups directory. Yeh, privacy, HUH?

    12. Re:Correct by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Except that they filter out any user data and passwords when they publish the search terms.

      So you are safe with Chrome as long as you search with Google? If you use Chrome to search with Bing, or SuperPornFinder, you arent?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:Correct by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      . Recently though, despite all the releases and the announcements on brand new 10x-faster JavaScript interpreters I find it's bogging down to an almost unusable level.

      Wait, what browser do you use that seems so much faster? Certainly not Opera, what with its awful JS performance (tho the beta is slick). Try using an old version of firefox sometime and tell me whether its faster, or whether it just crawls on modern JS heavy pages.

      Any chance its the fault of A) your background apps, B) your plugins (ie flash), C) the webpages you visit, or D) a faulty memory?

      Once upon a time there used to be configuration to permit or deny javascript to run - now this is split into 12 different parameters, 7 of which are hidden behind the about:config screen

      Actually, the multiple javascript options were there back in Firefox 1.0, and were later stripped out, and after public outcry, re-added.

      Do you expect 'backspace' to go 'backwards' in your browsing history? .... for no understandable reason they decided that the Linux Firefox should do nothing upon pressing backspace,

      Has it occured to you this is an Ubuntu setting, not linux in general? A quick google (and my memory) tells me that fedora for example has no such issue.

      Yeh, privacy, HUH?

      Are you implying firefox sends that data somewhere? Try doing the same thing with IE, and then running strings on index.dat (all 8 of them). Have you done similar testing on chrome, or opera? Or do you just assume theyre all perfect on removing all traces of history from every file they own?

    14. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some of us agree with Google's CEO in his statement on privacy?

      I honestly couldn't care less if some random tech who looks at a log file sees I visited slashdot, digg, redtube, youtube, and then my bank.

      What are they going to do, send me an email saying "hey that porn video sucks, heres a better one"?
      That would be a plus in many peoples eyes >_> Free porn recommendations from google!

    15. Re:Correct by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Hasnt it LONG been recommended you NOT do that because of the major security issues with that? Im no JS whiz, but cant JS on a page sniff the address bar? Wouldnt that mean an ad on the page could sniff that data out?

    16. Re:Correct by Aikar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong For one, google only saves QUERIES as the "trends" etc for auto complete. When you type http://slashdot.com/ the browser realizes this is a real address and goes straight to it... now if you type plain 'slashdot' into the url bar, it will then query google, I hate to tell you guys a little secret, Firefox does the EXACT SAME THING!

    17. Re:Correct by edumacator · · Score: 1

      So Google knows which words you mistyped? You know, once you hit enter with text in MS's search box, they know what you searched for too.

      You can have an issue with Google and privacy, but come on. The fact that they send keystrokes back instead of the whole search query is not the issue.

    18. Re:Correct by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0, Interesting

      you nailed it; microsoft is a software company and they make their money on sales of product.

      google makes all their money from sales of YOUR EYEBALLS as 'product'.

      huge difference.

      as a hardcore unix geek, I have a hard time saying this, but: microsoft is almost more preferred than google when it comes to trusting my privacy. //hell just froze over

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now...try running 'strings' on your places.sqlite file and try running strings on the files in the bookmarkbackups directory. Yeh, privacy, HUH?

      You have to compact a database before it actually removes the data. That takes time, so many databases only do it periodically or when requested by the user. They have little reason to do it right away (who are you trying to hide this data from, anyhow, if they have access to your local machine to search through free space in your databases or on your filesystem?)

    20. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can turn the feature OFF !!! Get all the facts straight before complaining. I have no problem with ppl who don't know a lot about stuff, but can't stand ppl who's dump and think they knew everything!!!

    21. Re:Correct by AaxelB · · Score: 1

      Wait, what browser do you use that seems so much faster? Certainly not Opera, what with its awful JS performance (tho the beta is slick).

      On Windows it's not a beta anymore; Opera 10.5 is out, and coming (quote) "soon" on Linux. I mostly use a development build of 10.5 for linux, and it runs quite briskly -- though it doesn't seem *quite* as fast as the Chrome Linux beta. Certainly faster than Firefox or any other browser I've tried. And the ridiculous number of features are all solid, useful, unmatched, and don't slow it down even a bit.

    22. Re:Correct by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      The problem is that firefox is awesome, but not stand alone. Firefox+Addons = Awesome. Things like better privacy, Noscript, Adblock, etc may take a bit of tooling around with and getting used to, but thats the only way to be semi safe. From my totally no citation experience, If you did a test bed PC and just started browsing random websites on FF, Chrome, IE, and Opera (on a windows system I'm assuming) the vanilla FF would probably be infected just about as quickly now. In my view security and usability generally have a do a X graph. You just need to pick where you fit at. If we really want to start making browsers secure we need whitelist type systems as opposed to blacklist type systems. Like a good access list on a firewall, IF (X) = Whitelist allow, else deny. (obviously im not programmer so forgive whatever I just did there.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    23. Re:Correct by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really.

      username:password@www.whatever.net is something you might type into the url bar that would pose a very real security threat when shared. Google search terms are automatically published and your login information would be accessible to anyone.

      Considering that Internet explorer stopped supporting that method of sending credentials in 2004, I don't think its an issue.
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/834489.

    24. Re:Correct by oztiks · · Score: 1

      This is just another example of Google playing the good guy meanwhile getting a free pass by the nerd community because its Google. Any other business would be classed as evil doers and participating in unethical practices.

      Face it, Google's a big company and collecting your data, yes you can switch if off if you can be bothered looking for it but 90% of its user base wont know the data is being mind or how, they are not asked upfront (which they should be) if they want their data to be collected upfront so Google is magically receiving more of peoples search sensitive information.

      Web history, Google Desktop, Analytics, they might asewll release The Google Keylogger the "I'm not evil" edition and people would think its okay.

      I hope the EU starts clipping their wings i really do. Enough is enough. Its cool they have legitimate reasons for doing what they are doing now, what happens in the future is unpredictable and in the hands of a very select few, if they choose to become evil you and I have simply shown them to door and given them the keys.

    25. Re:Correct by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I am still surprised how many people (even here on our geeky slashdot group who should know better) choose something based on it being offered for free, no matter what happens to their privacy. The same people who complain about casual people using Facebook and how much information they're putting there, and not realizing how much privacy they are losing by using Google's free products and search engine.

      There *is* a non-trivial difference between having certain behaviours attached to an essentially anonymous number, and throwing your whole life out on a website saying "this is me".

      I can certainly see why people might have different opinions on these two things.

    26. Re:Correct by quadelirus · · Score: 1

      I think it is good to have this pointed out so people know exactly what they are doing when they do it, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the lowered privacy in return for having a single bar. Plus I use facebook, and anyone who uses facebook (as you point out) has no leg to stand on to complain about privacy concerns. I like having the unified search bar/address bar. I really missed it when I switched from some old version of firefox (which had it, at least I think it was firefox) to other browsers.

      I also wouldn't be feel quite so secure about MS keeping my privacy safe as you do. First, remember that MS itself is in the search-and-serve-ads business, and is trying to move more, not less, into that space. Second, remember that both are publicly traded companies, and that the reason for existence for a publicly traded company (regardless of their corporate mission statement) is to maximize shareholder value. If MS has any data on you, then your privacy is no more or less safe than the same data is with Google. You could check TOSes with the services you use from each company to compare (though I bet they are pretty much the same, and don't reserve you that much privacy in either case), and that might give you some level of comparison and/or peace of mind, but these companies aren't in existence to serve you and your privacy concerns they are in business to make money, so if you are really worried about your privacy, you shouldn't trust either of them (and definitely not facebook, if you have a facebook then your privacy is screwed anyway).

      The only real computer privacy is the same as the only real computer security--unplug your machine from the internet, or better yet, never use it. Even then you won't have complete privacy since so many public records are online, and your friends and workplace may put information about you online as well.

    27. Re:Correct by Trinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've accidentally gone back while filling out a major form (that won't remember its state on a click of forward) enough times to want to simply remove the backspace key from my keyboard. I am happy to hear someone's getting rid of this asinine default. cmd/alt-left/right are fine. backspace has a specific meaning that has nothing to do with history navigation.

    28. Re:Correct by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      do you not think that Firefox is becoming the new IE?

      Well, seeing as Firefox supports HTML5 and web standards well enough for me to create pages that work as well in Firefox as they do in Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc... ...and said pages break in IE, and only in IE...

      When Firefox starts breaking the fucking Internet, it will be the new IE, and not before.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    29. Re:Correct by quadelirus · · Score: 1

      Just curious, why would you type your password into a browser's address bar? Is there some trick I'm missing to auto-login to a web-based email client?

    30. Re:Correct by notaprguy · · Score: 0

      Um...wrong. IE does not log keystrokes on the address bar AT ALL and also doesn't log keystrokes on the search bar unless the user hit 'enter.' So if you type 'How to kill my wife' in Chrome and think better of it and hit backspace...Google knows anyway. If you do the same in the search box in IE, Microsoft knows nothing.

    31. Re:Correct by notaprguy · · Score: 0

      Insightful my ass. There is a big difference: IE DOES NOT log your keystrokes. Chrome does. Whether or not they suggest search results is irrelevant. If you think Microsoft is lying about their privacy policy then you're in tinfoil hat land. Microsoft may be many things but they're not dumb. They made major mistakes 10 years ago and are still paying for it. You think they'd risk lying in their privacy policy? They'd get caught eventually.

    32. Re:Correct by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It is part of the specification for urls in ftp, http, http and a few others IIRC. Some servers allow username/password authentication encoded in the url before an @ symbol.

    33. Re:Correct by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      actually, i like the fact that google knows so much about me. it really helps when news results are auto suggested and really relevant adverts reach me. adverts are not bad, you know. they are bad only when they are irrelevant/useless for you. google is changing that. you see ads of only those things you are interested in. and its not that google is sharing info with any third party.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    34. Re:Correct by tokul · · Score: 1

      Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google.

      By default every key you type in IE8 search box is sent to Microsoft. Even if you change search provider to Google, your searches are still send to Bing. Changing search provider does not disable suggestions from other providers.

    35. Re:Correct by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Actually you are spot on, but for other reasons.

      With Facebook you choose what information you put or post there.

      With Google you do not - they have what you have typed to address bar, what you have searched for, what your emails contain, what sites you visit, how you're there, what you do (analytics) and so on..

      Actually both Google and Microsoft are worried about this - see my subscription here for a request to change relating laws.

      you CHOSE to use google, didn't you? and didn't you CHOOSE to use gmail? how is this any different from facebook?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    36. Re:Correct by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      You, sir, just made my day! Either you know my ex-manager or you're him!

      PS: Mods, go ahead and mod this redundant. I really needed to say it.

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    37. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same people who complain about casual people using Facebook and how much information they're putting there, and not realizing how much privacy they are losing by using Google's free products and search engine.

      What makes you think those two groups contain the same people?

    38. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only partially correct. If searching from the address bar is enabled then Bing will be searched if the address does not correspond to an existing website. Searching from the address bar is by default enabled in MSIE.

    39. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot and did not even read the summary carefully.

      Let me summarize TFA for you. Chrome does not have a search box, only a single box that is used to type URLs as well as queries. Therefore, even if you don't do a query and type a simple URL, the entry is sent to Google. Whereas in IE, only characters entered in the search box are sent to the search engine and the URLs entered in the address box are not sent to a search engine.

      That is the issue.

    40. Re:Correct by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot and did not even read the summary carefully.

      Let me summarize TFA for you. Chrome does not have a search box, only a single box that is used to type URLs as well as queries. Therefore, even if you don't do a query and type a simple URL, the entry is sent to Google. Whereas in IE, only characters entered in the search box are sent to the search engine and the URLs entered in the address box are not sent to a search engine.

      That is the issue.

    41. Re:Correct by Locutus · · Score: 1

      And MS IE doesn't do search completion and Windows nor MS Office have unique IDs and have you every read the Microsoft Windows EULA?

      BTW, your anti-open source stance is showing through your Microsoft badge.

      And if you don't like Chrome, don't use it. Try to do that with your Microsoft software and you have to drop all their software because it only runs on Windows.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    42. Re:Correct by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Lets see, I choose a browser that has never made it through the first day of Pwn2own and known for its tremendous bugs, drivebys and and had the EU force its parent company create a way to remove from the OS it also builds and sells. Or I can choose a browser that no one wants to attack at the same conference (not because of unhackabitity but because of the length of time required that yea has a combined bar that can be turned off and is free. Mind you your info has been on the internet since '97 and Privacy as your father knew it is an illusion. I think I will opt for the second one. IE is a old, rusting screen door. Horrible for everything but tropical summers. Chrome is a metal door with a peephole drilled through. It has issues of its own but when its ten outside it still functions to keep out the cold, the weather and anything else you don't want in. Yes the key is easy to make. But that requires skill and time to get through. IE requires a box knife.

    43. Re:Correct by tokul · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot

      Glad we have sorted this out. Now how do you call person who argues with idiot?

    44. Re:Correct by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      People use it for speed for browsing general sites. I don't do any serious surfing on it.

      Let's not forget please that DNS resolvers already know a hell of a lot about us. Just using the net makes it easy to track data. Not to mention the kind of power ISP's have. Google is the LEAST of people's problems. ISP's are where the underhanded shit is going down.

    45. Re:Correct by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Try deleting your history (everything!) then go to your .mozilla/firefox/{UID}.profile directory. Now...try running 'strings' on your places.sqlite file and try running strings on the files in the bookmarkbackups directory. Yeh, privacy, HUH?

      So? let's see... I can do better than strings, that's a sqlite3 file after all. It has a bunch of tables in it, namely moz_anno_attributes, moz_annos, moz_bookmarks, moz_bookmarks_roots, moz_favicons, moz_historyvisits, moz_inputhistory, moz_items_annos, moz_keywords, moz_places.

      Of course, some of those are not empty - bookmarks, for instance, if you have any set up, or places, if you have any rss feeds (which you do by default). But do check moz_historyvisits, moz_inputhistory, moz_keywords - empty. So tell me again, where is your problem? And next time please use a coherent argument - having a problem with firefox remembering your bookmarks (bookmarkbackups, ring a bell?) is moronic.

    46. Re:Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      by using Google's free products

      They are very far from free. All that surveillance has a worth. And you paying with it. Or else they wouldn’t do it. After all they are a profit-oriented company.
      I have no problem with companies offering such deals. And if people take it, that’s their thing, even if I find it stupid.

      But the thing is: They are deliberately not open about all the tracking. Sure, they “mention” it. Somewhere on a sheet of paper, in a safe, in a basement somewhere. (Or rather the digital equivalent.) It’s plainly obvious that we and they know that this is a important thing that you want to have in large red letters on the main page, saying “WARNING: Larch’s vomit!”
      And it’s also plainly obvious that they deliberately hide it away, to trick you. They know it, you know it, we know it. But of course they will make up some fake reasoning like “It’s only to offer you this shiny glass bead of functionality”.
      And that is not OK. Not at all! It is deceitful, sneaky and crooked. It is definitively evil.

      But they are of course far from the exception. Because you so rarely see a company not act like that, that it catches your eye. Or even a politician. Even though it should get the guy trying to trick you, into jail.

      As I always say: “Marketing“ has gone from informing people about your cool new products, to being the word for professional lying and deception.

      I think we should have an overlay over every page (trough a browser extension) and advertisement out there (trough augmented reality), that allows people, to show the contrast to reality, and make them feel the pain for their lies!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    47. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. What an idiot. Firefox is the new IE...

      You should try Opera. It's Chrome with more features and without the Privacy problems...

    48. Re:Correct by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Pete LePage is spot on with this. The privacy intrusion by Chrome is outstanding. Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google. Your Chrome installation has an personal UI number to track where you downloaded Chrome from, wherever you use it and how you use it.

      WTF is this all about. Microsoft is doing the same thing with their search suggestion feature in IE 8. What was it called again? AutoSuggest(tm)? Anyway, yeah, something like that: http://www.ghacks.net/2008/09/05/take-back-your-privacy-by-disabling-auto-suggest-in-ie8/

      And both can be turned off!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    49. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I shout angrily at Microsoft software, I switched from Google to Bing awhile ago for privacy reasons and haven't looked back. Privacy is an area that Microsoft can excel in if they choose. That said, I wouldn't touch either IE or Chrome with a ten foot pole. Don't like Opera, either. Firefox for me, thanks.
      I know that ixquick.com touts themselves as a very private search engine, but it has a mediocre look and feel and search results and no detection of mobile web browsers.

    50. Re:Correct by Admiral+Spock · · Score: 1

      Wow, this comment seems to have started a nerd-war.

    51. Re:Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha.. I love to see nerd rage. Just for that I modded sopssa up because he/she makes some interesting points.

    52. Re:Correct by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      I never argue with idiots. I sympathize with them and explain things to them at their level of understanding.

    53. Re:Correct by red456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      don't think you understand the issue. if you have history turned on, Firefox save your history to your places.sqlite file. if you subsequenty decide to 'remove your history' it might delete rows from the db, but the data is still available in the file - until sqlite overwrite it - which may be 'never' if you turn off history completely if i have a bookmark setup and then decide to remove the bookmark some time later, why can everybody still see what i've chosen to remove in the bookmarkbackups directory? you seem to have a problem with what the word 'remove' means

    54. Re:Correct by sopssa · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about their services. Obviously you chose to use them if you do. But browser bar sending everything you type to it to a third party service is in no way obvious for users. It's not only when you hit enter either - its all the characters you type to it or if you accidentally paste something to it. What happens when that list gets out someway? Just see this AOL search data scandal.

    55. Re:Correct by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      So the information only goes to Google and any governments that ask them for it, and not to everyone in the world. That's reassuring.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Correct by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      If I can remember correctly through my drunken history of the last 8 years, Firefox was first promoted as an alternative the bloated Mozilla - and quite rightly so.

      Not rightly so. Mozilla was never bloated; they just wanted you to believe so. Firefox was actually promoted as the IE-killer that everyone was waiting for. To this end, it was basically an IE clone in terms of UI. It went even further and treated its users as clueless idiots. This is why downloaded files are saved to the desktop by default without a prompt.

      Once upon a time there used to an option to open new pages as a tab or in a new window - now this is split into 2 different parameters (browser.link.open_newwindow and browser.link.open_newwindow_restriction) which make no sense to anybody.

      The second preference restricts JavaScript-created windows. For example, you could choose to let JavaScript open a new regardless of the first setting and let it control the window's dimensions or not. This was useful for new windows meant to be small pop-ups to show additional information or make a quick choice.

      They said 'you can toggle private browsing on and off' - and 'you can delete browsing history over the last hour, day, month etc..". SUPER LIE. Try deleting your history (everything!) then go to your .mozilla/firefox/{UID}.profile directory. Now...try running 'strings' on your places.sqlite file and try running strings on the files in the bookmarkbackups directory. Yeh, privacy, HUH?

      Yeah, SQLite sucks.

      For the record, I use SeaMonkey. Too bad that since the release of 2.0 they're slowly starting to make bad choices as well. And I'm not talking about the lack of a forms manager, for which there's a valid excuse (and it will be back).

    57. Re:Correct by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      From my totally no citation experience, If you did a test bed PC and just started browsing random websites on FF, Chrome, IE, and Opera (on a windows system I'm assuming) the vanilla FF would probably be infected just about as quickly now.

      Bullshit. Back that up or GTFO with this FUD. This is no IE5.

    58. Re:Correct by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Apologies. Now that is actually a good point. Of course, you can install an extension to vacuum places.sqlite (or do it manually) and remove residual data from the file. It's still going to be on disk until overwritten, but then the question is where does your need for privacy stop. As far as the browser is concerned, deleting the rows is enough, as nothing running in the browser will have access to the residual data left in the file (hence no css snooping on the history and so on). I would say that deleting should be followed by a VACUUM call anyway (since it's really a good place for it) but that's the devs' call to make. OTOH, if you're worried about someone grepping strings in the file, then you've bigger problems than just the history - it means someone has either local access or at least remote shell access. That's 'slightly' beyond normal expectations of privacy from a mere browser. Regardless, I agree that a vacuum should take place, if only to speed up normal queries to the history.

      As far as the bookmarks history goes, it looks like a convenience feature to avoid data loss if the system crashes. Feel free to set browser.bookmarks.max_backups to 0 in about:config. Obscure, yes, but if you need this level of forgetfulness from the browser then you have to dig a little deeper anyway.

      However, these problems are not what a regular user would care about, and it's always a fine line to balance between security and usability. The fact that you can take care of them, even though it's far from the most common user scenario, is a plus in my book.

    59. Re:Correct by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      >Pete LePage is spot on with this. The privacy intrusion by Chrome is outstanding. Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google.

      I use Bing as my default search provider. What now Pete LePage?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    60. Re:Correct by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Ok, but you have many options here.

      1. You could get/write an addon that makes firefox always clean the database. Might make it slow, but could be worth it for you. Documentation sufficient to create addons is quite good for firefox. On filesystems like ext3, this might make it unusably slow.

      2. Fork the browser using the source code. Maybe you could even convince an existing fork (say IceWeasel) to include the feature you require.

      3. Run a script that cleans up the sqlite database whenever you quit/start firefox. Could even do it periodically when browser is running, but not sure how well it will work.

      All software have to make tradeoffs. Here the tradeoff is between performance and privacy (that too, privacy of the kind where the user is shy of his own hard disk, pretty rare requirement). Some don't provide a way to override the decisions the developers make. Some do. Firefox is most undoubtedly in the latter category.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    61. Re:Correct by Handlarn · · Score: 1

      What type of dumbass moderators are at work here? I got moderated down as Troll when I obviously just answered the parent's post with accurate info.

  2. Look.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if Chrome -was- violating your privacy, why switch to IE? Especially when there is Firefox... Myself I don't like using Chrome because it is not customizable the way Firefox is. You can't even change history settings on Chrome!

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Look.... by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that and your keystrokes are sent to Google...

    2. Re:Look.... by sopssa · · Score: 1

      They aren't really saying you should switch to IE. They're just pointing out how Chrome steals your privacy to further Google's datamining and pleasuring their advertisers.

      Personally I use Opera.

    3. Re:Look.... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Have you even used Firefox lately? It's a bloated piece of crap now.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    4. Re:Look.... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Chrome IS a privacy nightmare.

      IE 6 is shit. IE 7 wasn't too bad. IE 8 is fine.
      FF is good. Opera is where it's at.

    5. Re:Look.... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Use it daily, does everything I need. In fact, I doubt I could get along without it anymore due to the awesome extensions. As for bloat, nothing as trivial as a browser is bloated when you have more than 2 GB of RAM.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't like chrome because:

      A. It's incredibly god damn slow, like the "I'm sure this must be broken, it's so amazingly slow". I was having a problem earlier with a page in firefox, so I loaded up chrome to see if the page had issues there. It was so slow that I gave up, loaded up my 10.04 beta VM, loaded up firefox in that, and checked the page there. It was faster to do that. really. REALLY. I'm not kidding.

      B. "Adblock" in chrome is trash. The ads are still there, they're just not flashing at you. If I mis-click on an "empty" part of the page, all of a sudden I'm looking at god knows what, and who the hell knows what I "accepted" by clicking that ad. Thank god I'm in linux.

    7. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if Chrome -was- violating your privacy, why switch to IE? Especially when there is Firefox.

      This may come as a huge shock, but not everyone likes nor enjoys using Firefox.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not real sure if taking up 900+MB of RAM and 1+GB of VM can really be considered "trivial". I was playing Crysis once and alt-tabbed out of it to figure out why everything was so choppy, and Firefox was using more resources than Crysis.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Look.... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Apparently stating the truth is trolling now :(

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    10. Re:Look.... by zegota · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you kidding? That first comment surprises me. Speed is the reason I switched to Chrome. It's so much faster than Firefox, it's not even funny. It sounds like the single page you tested your speed premise on had some issues. You might want to expand your sample.

    11. Re:Look.... by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bu not Opera Mini, which routes all your traffic through their proxys. http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/#security (third question).

    12. Re:Look.... by 16384 · · Score: 1

      And besides, who sponsors firefox? Various google "features" creep into the browser, and it takes some effort to disable them. I still use firefox though (what else is there, really?).

    13. Re:Look.... by jo42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And when you looked closer, you saw that Flash was taking up 99% of those resources in Firefox.

    14. Re:Look.... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      They're just pointing out how Chrome steals your privacy to further Google's datamining and pleasuring their advertisers.

      While also saying that IE has better security and suggesting that you should use IE instead. How is that not saying you should switch to IE?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Look.... by AaronW · · Score: 2, Informative

      I love Chrome because it's so fast and doesn't have all the bloat that's crept into Firefox. It's more stable than Firefox and I like the single search bar. Granted, I still think it could use improvement in a number of areas, but Firefox also has a lot of really annoying quirks to it.

      On my netbook I will only use Chrome. It's far more efficient with the limited screen real estate than Firefox, plus with the slower processor the difference is night and day.

      Something is really wrong if Chrome is so slow on your setup. For me, it's much much faster than Firefox, especially when I have a lot of tabs open.

      The difference is even more apparent on my I7 desktop. Firefox seems to be single threaded whereas Chrome will make use of all of the cores and threads.

      -Aaron

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    16. Re:Look.... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Speed is the main reason I switched to Chrome. Speed is the main reason why everyone I know who has switched to Chrome decided to switch.

    17. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trust me, it's slow as balls EVERYWHERE. It sits there at "resolving host" for anywhere from 2-3 seconds to 60 seconds or more before I give up. Sometimes the page loads, sometimes I close the browser in disgust.. and when the page DOES load, it's so slow loading that I want to claw my brains out. here's the background color. wait for it... Here's an ad at the top. wait some more... Here's the left frame. wait a little bit more, ah here is the page text.

      I'm running this on a 3.8ghz multi-core cpu with 4gb of ram under a modern 64bit OS, but chrome makes me feel like I've got dialup in 1998 again.

      Facebook
      Wikipedia
      CNN
      Slashdot
      Google(!!!)

      I'm not hitting obscure sites here.

      I just went and got a stopwatch (ok, I used my Droid's stopwatch app) to time it here. Chrome took 42.837 seconds to load facebook's login page. not my home page with tons of updates, graphics etc. the LOGIN page. Firefox loaded the same page in 1.112 seconds. Bit of a difference there.

      Even reloading forum pages I've got open (i.e. 90% of the page is cached, and the rest is simple text) is an exercise in frustration.

      I don't know what Chrome's problem is, but I don't care to ever find out because I've got FF handy which works wonderfully.

    18. Re:Look.... by victorhooi · · Score: 2, Informative
      heya,

      I think there must be something funky in your setup. Like, really...lol. Chrome is blazing fast where I am - on work computers, on my laptop (under both Windows 7 and Arch Linux). Firefox, on the other hand, feature-packed as it can be, is a bloated nightmare, chewing up RAM, and lagging like molasses. It's fine when your number of tabs is low (I think I'm not the only one, popular consensus with me is on this, pretty much everybody that tries it finds Chrome to be faster - feature-lacking yeah, but synthetic benchmarks as well as user experiences all show it to be meaningfully more performant.

      Cheers, Victor

    19. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was playing Crysis once and alt-tabbed out of it to figure out why everything was so choppy, and Firefox was using more resources than Crysis.

      I don't think you quite grasp the concept of an OS making such a wild statement like that.

    20. Re:Look.... by westlake · · Score: 1
      And when you looked closer, you saw that Flash was taking up 99% of those resources in Firefox.

      and your proof for this is to be found - where?

    21. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      firefox is a pig. It takes for ever to load and is very slow. Chrome is awesome. What is IE? I've never heard of it or seen it.

    22. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, actually I didn't look closer, because it doesn't really matter specifically which part of the application or which plugin is causing the problems, does it? The end result is the same. If Flash was such a problem then I would expect the same memory usage in every browser using Flash. In fact, considering the fact that other browsers use the exact same plugin which Firefox does for Flash, but don't exhibit the same problems, doesn't that sort of rule out Flash alone as the culprit? Wouldn't it be more likely that the problem is a combination between Firefox and something else? The common denominator is Firefox, not Flash.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    23. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you mean by that, I'm not quite grasping your comment. The OS isn't "making a statement", it's reporting a fact.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    24. Re:Look.... by johncandale · · Score: 1

      Ram exists to be used. I don't tend to think of graphic engines using graphic cards as using a whole lot of system ram. I find firefox uses a lot of memory but handles it fairly well and releases it fine. ALso good chane you have a run away plug in in firefox

    25. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that something must be wrong. I can't imagine anybody in the world would use chrome if it was as slow as mine (see the chrome vs firefox page load benchmark I did above).

      Again, I just don't care to troubleshoot it because:
      A. Firefox works fine for me. It's not slow at all.
      B. Chrome doesn't do anything for me above and beyond what FF does.

      I kind of like chrome's interface, but the rest of the browser frustrates me to no end so I don't feel like trying to troubleshoot any issues because it doesn't do anything else I really like that much better.

    26. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Ram exists to be used.

      Yeah I know, I was trying to use it to play Crysis, not use half my memory idling a browser.

      I don't tend to think of graphic engines using graphic cards as using a whole lot of system ram.

      Neither do I, I have no clue how to even measure VRAM usage. I do know how to measure system memory usage though, and Firefox was definitely in a battle with Crysis over it.

      ALso good chane you have a run away plug in in firefox

      Maybe so, but in reality it doesn't really matter if the problem is Firefox or a plugin, it's still a problem with using Firefox that I don't get from other browsers.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that because you were running Crysis in Flash in Firefox aAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.

    28. Re:Look.... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I actually put IE and FF on about the same level - I did have a couple of addons I liked but most of FF's behavior I found more annoying than IE's. They sort of even each other out.

      Chrome is gold though, love that thing.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    29. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      BTW, do a search on the string:
      chrome slow "resolving host"

      Seems like this happens to a LOT of people.

    30. Re:Look.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Quiet you, people are busy hating on firefox for no reason except that its cool now. Dont spoil the fun.

    31. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try SRWare Iron (a fork of Chrome) then, admitedly has all pros and non of the privacy cons.

    32. Re:Look.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You tried switching search providers in IE? Compare that to firefox, where its quite literally 4 clicks to change it (think its like 9 or 10 in IE).

    33. Re:Look.... by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      ... or switch to Safari or Opera

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    34. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Firebug is definitely handy, but you can have my Opera mouse gestures when you pry them from my cold, dead right hand.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    35. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Now you're talking. My knee-jerk reaction when people bring up Firefox as the alternative to IE is to mention that some people do place Firefox and IE about on equal ground in terms of "enjoy using". On my list of top 5 browsers, Firefox pulls in third or fourth, depending on my opinion of Safari that day.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    36. Re:Look.... by Interoperable · · Score: 1

      I like this bit of advice from Opera Software:

      If you do not trust Opera Software, make sure you do not use our application to enter any kind of sensitive information.

      They're upfront about what they have access to.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    37. Re:Look.... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's fast and slick, but if a toolbar came out for another browser that did what Chrome does, we'd all label it spyware and piss on it from a great height.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    38. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something Must seriously be wrong with ur set up i am running it on all of my system one of which is a crappy old server running at 870 MHz P3 and the speed of Chrome vs. Firefox is holy smokes also Adblock work amazing in chrome haven't hand a single problem

    39. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a networking issue; you should check your Windows proxy settings. Chrome uses the OS's proxy settings.

      Do you really think all these people would be claiming Chrome is super fast if it was actually 40 times as slow as Firefox? Certainly you realize your experience is abnormal.

    40. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's why i'm using opera ;)

    41. Re:Look.... by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Trust me, it's slow as balls EVERYWHERE. It sits there at "resolving host" for anywhere from 2-3 seconds to 60 seconds or more before I give up.

      Well there's your problem, and it has nothing to do with Chrome. You've got a configuration issue, and it's probably related to ipv6. There's nothing Chrome can do if your DNS resolver is not acting correctly. In such cases, subtle differences between applications determine whether or not the particular problem you have is detectable or not. For everyone who doesn't have configuration problems, Chrome is faster than Firefox in just about every case. Sorry, that's just a fact. I love Firefox, too, but it really is quite bloated and slow. Step one in solving a problem is recognition of the problem.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    42. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Don't use Windows, I use ubuntu 9.04, and it's not the OS. If it were the OS, why would Firefox work fine? it -is- chrome with the problem.

      And as I said above, do a search on the string:
      chrome slow "resolving host"

      it isn't just me.

    43. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      there's nothing wrong with my setup. I'm hardly the only person with this problem. as I've said several times now, do a web search on it. It's a chrome issue that's been around for several versions now.

      I stand by my stance that adblock in chrome is horrible. the ads most certainly are still there, they're just not blinking at me. I don't want them loading at all. I don't want to be able to accidentally click on them. Not to mention that adblock in chrome doesn't even block everything, I still see some.

    44. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      it most certainly DOES have to do with chrome. I've said it like 10 times now, do a websearch on the issue. it's not just me. Google doesn't have a single damn suggestion for the issue other than to turn off dns pre-fetching which of -course- I've already tried.

      My DNS is not problematic. Firefox works. synaptic works. thunderbird works. empathy works. boinc works. WoW works. hell poping open a terminal window and typing ping works. everything BUT chrome works just fine.

      Here, here you go, here's GOOGLE'S OWN SUPPORT FORUM topic on this issue:

      http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=1bb0e9b089013d95&hl=en

      I told you it wasn't me.

    45. Re:Look.... by vosester · · Score: 1

      Can we now stop with this over the top propaganda that Firefox is somehow the most bloated slowest memory hungry browser.

      I admit that Firefox 2 was little bit naff, But version three pulled it together and is on par with other browsers.

      Factor in the extendability of Firefox and the cost aren’t really that bad are they?

      Safari.

      Pros:
      Good speed, Nice clean UI.

      Cons:
      Mostly proprietary, Little to no extendability, Over the top OpenGL effects (could be considered a pro, I’d like a web browser not a flight simulator)

      Opera

      Pros:
      Lot of features, I mean lots.

      Cons:
      Crap JS engine but is been slowly fixed, Proprietary. (I like Opera and have tried to switch many times but something just rubs me the wrong way and I back to Firefox after a day, Anyone else do this form time to time?)

      Chrome

      Pros:Fast a hell, brillant UI,FOSS.

      Cons:
      Well they are been hashed out here so I am not going to repeat what’s been said many times before.

      IE is well it’s IE, I am not even going to try with this one.

      The main problem that Firefox has is it’s a bit of a monolithic turd at the moment.

      Version four will address this problem.

      The monolithic approach has been show to use less memory compared to the modular approach that other browsers use.

    46. Re:Look.... by quadelirus · · Score: 1

      I agree, why switch to IE? A Trojan is much more of a privacy concern than Chrome is. Is this simply an attempt by MS to spread some FUD about Chrome since it was top dog at Pwn2Own?

    47. Re:Look.... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      just to prove a point, I tried going directly to the IP of a few sites.

      facebook (69.63.118.11): still said "resolving host" ?!? until I gave up

      google (209.86.226.99): said "Waiting for 209.86.226.99" until I gave up

      cnn (157.166.224.25): didn't actually say anything at all for a long time, it sat there for a good damn long time before it loaded anything, then it loaded most of the page and "resolving host" popped back up.

      told you it wasn't my dns.

    48. Re:Look.... by seyyah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone reading who has never used Chrome, let me tell you that you are begging the question when you write:

      Something is really wrong if Chrome is so slow on your setup. For me, it's much much faster than Firefox, especially when I have a lot of tabs open.

      Maybe something is wrong with your system if Firefox is running slow on it.

    49. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that would be a lot more insidious if it wasn't broadly advertised, and just about the only way to get any sort of decent speed out of a browser in 2.5G.

    50. Re:Look.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      you know what? firefox is slow as shit on ubuntu. i don't know why but even ie6 inside wine runs faster than firefox native. this is why i avoid chrome on win7 but use it anyway in ubuntu.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    51. Re:Look.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      thanks. i really did not know about this.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    52. Re:Look.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't use Windows, I use ubuntu 9.04

      The most likely explanation for your troubles is the problem that recent Ubuntu releases have with IPv6 with some non-conformant (but very common) home routers. Here is the Launchpad bug for this.

      If so, the reason why Firefox works fine for you in the meantime may be that you have network.dns.disableIPv6 option enabled in it (check in about:config).

    53. Re:Look.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Have you even used Firefox lately? It's a bloated piece of crap now.

      especially on ubuntu.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    54. Re:Look.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      chrome is atleast 5x faster than firefox on linux. though its only about 2x faster on windows. i thought firefox people might have been optimizing for linux but seems like they don't give a shit about oss.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    55. Re:Look.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      safari is THE worst thing. behind even ie. it installs a truckload of crap alongside with itself (quicktime, itunes even) and it reinstalls them if you manually remove them. additionally, there is no personalization/customization possible with it.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    56. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is where it's at.

      You had me up until this point. However, I might be convinced to switch to Opera, if I can have the great secret to just one thing: How do I make it so that Opera isn't ugly as sin? It might have the sweetest feature set and it might be ahead of its time and it might cure cancer or something, but why can't it look good while doing all this?

    57. Re:Look.... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with my system. It's a 3.4GHz quad core I7 with 12GB of RAM running 64-bit Linux. The problem is that much of Firefox is single threaded and when I have a lot of tabs open some have active Javascript which will slow down Firefox to a crawl. This is especially apparent on my Atom-based netbook. Chrome, on the other hand, does not seem to suffer nearly as much. Also, by using separate processes for different tabs, Chrome is much better about reclaiming memory. It's easy to see Firefox consuming all of one thread of the CPU when it gets slow. If I can find the tab that's causing it, it will settle down and be useable again. By using separate processes for different tabs, Chrome does not suffer from this. Also, Chrome includes tools to show CPU and memory usage by tab.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    58. Re:Look.... by the_womble · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of other alternatives. I have seven web browsers installed, and user thre (Firefox fo its plugins, Opera for important sites I login to (Google Adsense, banking etc.), and Epiphany because its the only one Iplayer works in.

    59. Re:Look.... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but in reality it doesn't really matter if the problem is Firefox or a plugin, it's still a problem with using Firefox that I don't get from other browsers.

      Because you don't install the problem plugin on other browsers. If you want to do a fair comparison, only use plugins that offer features available in other browsers (either natively or in plugins for those browsers).

    60. Re:Look.... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Who runs a game like Crysis with any other apps running at the same time? That's just dumb...

    61. Re:Look.... by Caetel · · Score: 1

      Opera Desktop does the same thing if you have Opera Turbo enabled. I don't remember if it's on by default or not though.

    62. Re:Look.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If I use Google search inside Internet Explorer then Google gets the exact same info, right?

      (And let's face it, I"m not using Bing...)

      --
      No sig today...
    63. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What planet are you from? Go back to you Gates the overlord then.

    64. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you've added some plugins that are having issues. Dont' blame the browser unless you have facts to back it up. I've only had mine go past 200K one time, and that was due to a plugin that had issues. I removed it and since then I find that I haven't had any problems with FireFox.

    65. Re:Look.... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Until you install AVG ...

    66. Re:Look.... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Given that most people rave about how fast Chrome is, I'm going to have to say that something is fucked up wrong with your machine. Your anecdotes aren't proving anything other than that you have a shitty computer.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    67. Re:Look.... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      It might not be your DNS, but it IS something with your system. I just installed Chrome on a fresh Ubuntu installation and it worked perfectly. Facebook pulled up in about 2 seconds. Check your proxy settings (System > Preferences > Network Proxy) and make sure it's set to Direct Connection.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    68. Re:Look.... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the searchbox in Firefox do the same thing?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    69. Re:Look.... by orngjce223 · · Score: 1

      I love my mouse gestures, too!

      (There are loads of mouse gesture addons that one can find with a simple search. I just like this particular one better.)

      --
      Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
    70. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I have Flash installed on all browsers.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    71. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I don't want to have to shut down my entire workspace when I want to play a game, I normally have enough resources that I can launch a game, play it for a while, quit out, and I've still got my work open. Granted, there's going to be a lot of swapping, but at least I don't have to start all of the applications and open all the documents again.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    72. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I can appreciate the addons, I just prefer to install one piece of software on my various machines, where everything updates at once. I'm sure there's something that I could customize to match Opera's gestures, but I just don't really like needing to do that on all of my computers if I want to use that feature, I'd rather just install only Opera and be done with it. The only addon I do install everywhere is Firebug. I would probably install more if Firefox was my default browser.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    73. Re:Look.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I'm from the same planet you are, and my overlord is Opera Software, not Bill Gates.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    74. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why do you use firefox? There are plenty of other browsers available.

    75. Re:Look.... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I say they were hiding it, but like with Chrome, you're trading privacy for features.

      In the first page of Google Chrome, there's a link called "Privacy Policy". In the first item of that page, there's this text:

      When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for.

      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

      They don't hide it either.

    76. Re:Look.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Safari is just -great- if you are using OS X. If you are using Windows though... You more or less have to install half of OS X before you can get that to run...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. Hello, Mr. Pot? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    Let me introduce you to Mr Kettle. But, you two should be very well acquainted by now anyway.

    If this is the best MS can do then they need to work on their game. I expect the whole MS/Apple/Google wars to get ugly.

    1. Re:Hello, Mr. Pot? by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Funny

      The unfortunate thing here is that when it comes to google, they really don't have much else.

    2. Re:Hello, Mr. Pot? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      Exactly. While it's not nearly so explicit, MS has been able to collect the web addresses you enter into the address bar. Ever fat finger an address? Ever get sent to a MS search page instead? Enough data on typos can give you some good data on the addresses you meant to type in.

      Google went the next step and does the search on all addresses, not just bad ones. People also enter addresses into the search field, too. It's just that Google made the relationship between the address bar and search bar more explicit.

      For once, however, it's nice to see MS point out the problem, instead of copying the feature. Kudos to them on that.

    3. Re:Hello, Mr. Pot? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I expect the whole MS/Apple/Google wars to get ugly.

      If they all succeed in killing one another and only BSD and Linux remain, I won't be disappointed.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:Hello, Mr. Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE8 only runs a search on unfound things you entered into the address bar if they weren't actually addresses. If you enter an address into it and it doesn't exist, you'll get a standard 404 page.

      And it runs the search on your currently set search provider, it isn't hardset to Bing.

  4. this is news? by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google wants to know everything you do. from the user opinions i've read about the Nexus One it sounds like Google is doing the same thing there. Along with Google Wave. they want to know everything you type in and keep a record of it

    1. Re:this is news? by kronosopher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google Wave uses AJAX to show other users in your wave what you're typing as you type it. This does not mean "they want to know everything you type". It's a feature, and a tool. Like any tool it can be used for both benevolent and malevolent purposes, but itself is not inherently either.

    2. Re:this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I guaran-dang-tee you that it IS being used for benevolent purposes.

  5. Bogus argument by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "By keeping these boxes separate, your privacy is better protected"

    Umm, the boxes are all controlled by the same program, so whether or not there is physical separation between them (does that have any meaning in a user interface?) has nothing to do with whether or not the data is collected or not.

    This guy is a product manager?

    1. Re:Bogus argument by sopssa · · Score: 0

      You have put your tinfoil hat too strictly now.

      His point is that whatever you type to the address is not being send to anywhere. There is no auto-completion. When you want to search for something you go the other box and type a few letters, which upon the browser sends a request for auto-suggestions (and obviously whatever you've typed in).

      Separating these two is a huge thing. As it is with Chrome, Google knows everything you've typed in and what websites you have visited. With other browsers (with separated address and search bars) they only know what you're typing to the search query box. Major difference.

    2. Re:Bogus argument by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Umm, the boxes are all controlled by the same program, so whether or not there is physical separation between them (does that have any meaning in a user interface?) has nothing to do with whether or not the data is collected or not.

      And you don't understand the problem. This isn't a trust issue with the Chrome application. If it was, you would have lost the battle as soon as you installed it on your computer. This is a privacy problem (a recurring theme with Google's applications).

      The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.

      In IE, the search box is a separate entity, and you can turn search suggestions on or off for each search provider. Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.

      Honestly though, I still struggle to figure out what the point of search suggestions are. I suppose they're helpful for people who don't know what they're looking for, but when I go to Google, I already know what I'm going to search for -- that's why I'm there! That said, I suppose it does provide some entertainment.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Bogus argument by sexconker · · Score: 0

      You're joking, right?

      User put X into URL BAR.
      User put X into SEARCH BAR.

      vs

      User put X into BAR.

      By separating the bars you can only grab search suggestions from the search bar. To grab search suggestions, you have to submit what you've typed in to the search provider. With one bar, everything you type gets thrown at the beast. Searches, IP addresses, local domain names and paths, favorites you bring up using autocomplete/history, etc.

      Yes, you have to trust the program to respect it. But I'd rather trust a program with distinct fields (with distinct functions) than a autonomous algorithm that is supposed to analyze all my input, guess at what I wanted to do, and then perform actions.

    4. Re:Bogus argument by amicusNYCL · · Score: 0

      OK so I guess this protects you from Google seeing your typos.

      Everything you type in the address bar is sent to a search engine, it doesn't wait for you to enter a typo first. Each keystroke sends a request to do a search for what you've entered so far, which means that as you type a URL in whatever your search engine is gets that information.

      Hint: Your ISP (or whoever's endpoint your VPN tunnel comes out on) sees all this stuff anyway.

      Is your ISP a data-collecting advertising company, or are they an ISP?

      Hint 2: You aren't important enough for anyone to care.

      Speak for yourself, that doesn't apply to everyone (and is that really an excuse?)

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Bogus argument by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Combining them is a brilliant design decision. Microsoft has to provide people a 'reason' that their clunky two-box design is better.

      And to joe average this 'seems' like it could be true.

      If MS combined them right away, it would look like they were trying to copy Google. They'll have to wait until IE9 or 10, or when Firefox does it to do that.

    6. Re:Bogus argument by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Just as a side point- there's some browsers such as seamonkey which use a single edit box, but don't do search hints, and thus don't send the per keystroke data to google. This is my preference- less UI clutter with total privacy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'd agree, claiming "2 boxes" is an invalid argument...

      The concern I have is google running browsers, youtube, blogspot, knowing all the ad-words sites you visit, apps, your telephone and, oh, by the way... a search engine.

      Google is simply too involved in to many parts of our lives, I don't trust anyone, regardless of a "don't be evil" slogan, that much.

      The irony is that you can make some of the same complaints about microsoft.

    8. Re:Bogus argument by CrashandDie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Separating these two is a huge thing. As it is with Chrome, Google knows everything you've typed in and what websites you have visited. With other browsers (with separated address and search bars) they only know what you're typing to the search query box. Major difference.

      No, it's not. Any developer knows that you could very well have both inputs being sent continuously to whomever they want. Also, you'd be amazed at the number of people who type the URL in the search box anyway. You'd be even more amazed at the sheer number of people who type their URLs in the search box of their Google homepage.

      People don't like URLs. Google has become the new DNS.

    9. Re:Bogus argument by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.

      Or, so Microsoft says. They could still be sending data behind the scenes and just not showing you that they're doing that. (And, I realize you are saying this is a privacy vs. trust issue - to me it's sort of the same thing.) Not being visible in the user interface != not happening at all.

    10. Re:Bogus argument by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hint: Your ISP (or whoever's endpoint your VPN tunnel comes out on) sees all this stuff anyway.

      They have a direct legitimate need to see it. That is precisely the service I am paying them to provide. And while I suppose my ISP *could* be using the information to build a profile on me, where i go, what email i send, who i send it to, etc, etc... I'm actually quite confident they aren't actually doing this. I know people who work for the ISP. I know a great deal about how they are setup. So... yes... they could... but they don't. I could be wrong but then a lot of people I know who should know are ignorant and / or lying. Occam's razor....

      Google on the other hand... is doing this. That's their business model. That's what they do. That's all they do.

      Hint 2: You aren't important enough for anyone to care.

      Really? Trotting that one out?

      Your wrong. Build a profile on the average person... and people will check it out. Someone *always* cares. Friends, class mates, fellow employees, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, employers, insurance companies...

      Remember the bit of scandal when it came to light that facebook employees could and did (and probably still do) read so-called 'private data'. Build a database of this stuff, and sooner or later it will be abused by someone.

    11. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is why I do all my pr0n surfing on Lynx.

    12. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "And Saved. Forever." is FUD. Google has a 9 month retention policy for search data: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-step-to-protect-user-privacy.html

    13. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.

      From Google's Privacy Blog (in 2008):

      That's what occurs on the surface of Google Suggest. Here's what happens under the hood. To provide its recommendations Google Suggest needs to know what you've already typed, so these partial queries are sent to Google. For 98% of these requests, we don't log any data at all and simply return the suggestions. For the remaining 2% of cases (which we select randomly), we do log data, like IP addresses, in order to monitor and improve the service.


      However, given the concerns that have been raised about Google storing this information -- and its limited potential use -- we decided that we will anonymize it within about 24 hours (basically, as soon as we practically can) in the 2% of Google Suggest requests we use. This will take a little time to implement, but we expect it to be in place before the end of the month.

    14. Re:Bogus argument by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Any developer knows that you could very well have both inputs being sent continuously to whomever they want.

      You are missing it.

      The search box *is* sent continuously, in both browsers.

      Whereas with an address bar, you are right, "it could be sent continuously"

      One of these things is not like the other.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >This guy is a product manager?

      He's smart, just hoping his audience are computer illiterate.. Which most IE users are, of course.

    16. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is your ISP a data-collecting advertising company, or are they an ISP?

      By law, your ISP is a data collecting company. You risk your freedom by assuming otherwise.

    17. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> In IE, the search box is a separate entity

      That makes no difference whatsoever.

      >> and you can turn search suggestions on or off

      You can turn them off in chrome too.

      >> You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.

      Same in chrome if you turn the search suggestions off. Or, if you'd rather have them on, and want to visit ilovecrossdressing.com then you can open a new incognito window, in which search suggestions are automatically off.
      MS's whole argument is complete bullshit. In both browsers you can have control over your privacy to any extent.

    18. Re:Bogus argument by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      Yes, it *is* a big difference. And I think you fail to appreciate the significance here. Under default settings, Chrome is effectively sending your entire browsing history to Google. I don't like this.

      You'd be even more amazed at the sheer number of people who type their URLs in the search box of their Google homepage.

      These people aren't the ones using Chrome, are they?

    19. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Believe it or not a lot of us here run browsers behind proper firewalls and have some capability to inspect traffic. NO MS are not sending data behind the scenes. Do you honestly think with the amount of technical knowledge out there that they could get away with that. Take off your tin foil hat for a second and step into the real world, if they did what you say they would be blasted by every blog/article/tech person in the world for it.

    20. Re:Bogus argument by windex82 · · Score: 1

      don't forget most people still think computers run on magic.

    21. Re:Bogus argument by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Meh, auto-suggestion is the issue here, not the number of input boxes. Microsoft, Google and Mozilla support auto-suggestion by default, and they all offer the option to disable it.

      I must say the quality of Microsoft FUD seems to have diminished over the years.

    22. Re:Bogus argument by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      You can nitpick the phrasing all you want, but it's irrelevant. I'd never have guessed that typing something into the address bar would start sending everything I type to Google. That's the privacy issue here. A search bar it's quite obvious that you're sending something to some search company. But in all other browsers I've ever seen that isn't the case with the address bar.

      If Microsoft had done the same thing, there's be howls of protest (with good reason). But for some reason people trust Google.

      --
      AccountKiller
    23. Re:Bogus argument by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      By default Google's address bar behaves as an address bar unless a website is not found, in which case it will connect to Google and perform a search.

      It is certainly possible this function is structured such that the address always gets sent to Google, but at the very least all of your misspelled or incomplete addresses will be sent to Google.

      Frankly, I don't have a problem with it either way. I think too many people are paranoid about others stealing their trivial information. What the hell do any of these geeks on here have that anybody would want to dig through their Google searches or address history to find? I mean, seriously, it's the digital equivalent of rummaging through your trash, what could you possibly have that would motivate someone to do that? If it does happen, though, you probably already know the person that did it, you just don't know they did it yet.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    24. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, from the company that integrated their browser into the OS? And created (and still uses) ActiveX? Where tabs are not run in separate processes? Where they coughed up user information to the DOJ and Chinese government while Google took the DOJ to court and faced off against the Chinese government?

      I think I'll trust my data to a company that's shown a little testicular fortitude.

      Once MS balances their two decades of being the sleaziest of major software companies, I'll consider using their products again.

    25. Re:Bogus argument by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      "And you don't understand the problem. "

      I never said I did. What I am saying is that what this guy says is of no help to me in understanding the program.

    26. Re:Bogus argument by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      > when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor

      Why would you want midgets in your hot oatmeal porridge?

    27. Re:Bogus argument by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      You have put your tinfoil hat too strictly now.

      His point is that whatever you type to the address is not being send to anywhere. There is no auto-completion. When you want to search for something you go the other box and type a few letters, which upon the browser sends a request for auto-suggestions (and obviously whatever you've typed in).

      Separating these two is a huge thing. As it is with Chrome, Google knows everything you've typed in and what websites you have visited. With other browsers (with separated address and search bars) they only know what you're typing to the search query box. Major difference.

      I (like many other people) couldn't give a damn what they know. How many websites do you visit where you didn't first come across the website on google anyway? I mean, if you do a google search on another browser, they already have your search terms, and then if you click on any of the results - bingo, they know you went there.

      Google has been around for a long time and not once has there been any privacy abuse by Google this whole time. Sure, people complain that google is collecting data, but until this day (and to my knowledge) they haven't done any of the things with it that people are so scared of. They cant legally sell that data to any 3rd party anyway, so basically they can only use it to help improve their products, which is exactly what they claim they are doing.

      The only issue I can remember is with the launch of Buzz, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a mistake if not a bug and that it was quickly corrected once the issue was raised.

      There is a growing number of people with a hate for Google purely over what they COULD do even though they haven't done a single thing yet. How much paranoia is too much?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    28. Re:Bogus argument by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Any developer knows that you could very well have both inputs being sent continuously to whomever they want.

      You are missing it.

      The search box *is* sent continuously, in both browsers.

      Whereas with an address bar, you are right, "it could be sent continuously"

      One of these things is not like the other.

      Well lets put it in perspective...

      The data that is sent to google, you are right, it could be used for malicious purposes.

      But here's the thing: it *isn't* being used for malicious purposes. Sure you can add "yet" on the end of that, but it doesn't change the facts as they stand right now.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    29. Re:Bogus argument by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Yes, it *is* a big difference. And I think you fail to appreciate the significance here. Under default settings, Chrome is effectively sending your entire browsing history to Google.

      oh no, they know I visit slashdot, and a car forum, and my own websites, and even www.google.com.au - wow. So scary. They basically know about all of my personal interests. I wonder what they'll do with all that personal info.

      I was about to include a whole lot more but then I realised I came across almost all other websites ON GOOGLE's own search results. In other words, the difference chrome makes compared to what already happens is so minor.

      Better switch to Bing while you're switching browsers, or maybe write your own crawler bot and your own search engine...but not in an invasive way of course.

      Oh, and put yet another bar and padlock across the door to your basement.

      You dont want any of that privacy invading sunlight getting in - that lets people see what you look like. People might even take your photo in the street. Or you could brush past someone and then they have your ENTIRE DNA.

      How far do you go before (1) you look like a total idiot to the rest of society and (2) your life is so badly impacted by your paranoia that you are barely even alive any more.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    30. Re:Bogus argument by AJWM · · Score: 1

      don't forget most people still think computers run on magic.

      Wait, what? You mean they don't?. Then explain this.

      --
      -- Alastair
    31. Re:Bogus argument by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      That's what occurs on the surface of Google Suggest. Here's what happens under the hood. To provide its recommendations Google Suggest needs to know what you've already typed, so these partial queries are sent to Google. For 98% of these requests, we don't log any data at all and simply return the suggestions. For the remaining 2% of cases (which we select randomly), we do log data, like IP addresses, in order to monitor and improve the service.

      However, given the concerns that have been raised about Google storing this information -- and its limited potential use -- we decided that we will anonymize it within about 24 hours (basically, as soon as we practically can) in the 2% of Google Suggest requests we use. This will take a little time to implement, but we expect it to be in place before the end of the month.

      Emphasis mine.

      Its annoying that they said this because it kind of ruins all our conspiracy theories...

      Maybe they're just lying. Thats it. They're lying....keep the theories going folks...it makes for an interesting read...and its easy to spot the vitamin-D deficient folks too...

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    32. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I use Google, it's usually to look up something I may not be able to word as perfectly as the possible thousands of people googling before me. It's nice to have a series of similar options that may be more applicable than my current query. I like search suggestions, even for the lulz.

      To counteract the privacy issue, I use TrackMeNot to wank up my search data and render it as useless as possible.

    33. Re:Bogus argument by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And while I suppose my ISP *could* be using the information to build a profile on me, where i go, what email i send, who i send it to, etc, etc... I'm actually quite confident they aren't actually doing this. I know people who work for the ISP. I know a great deal about how they are setup. So... yes... they could...

      And, wasn't there quite a fuss recently about AT&T (in their role as ISP) allowing certain government agencies to set up a lot of mysterious equipment in the switching office, tapped into the internet data streams they were carrying?

      I am quite confident that anything typed and transmitted on the internet is more accessible than if it were transmitted via radio - at least the radio signals are transient and limited in the geography they transverse - every e-mail I send and receive crosses national borders, how many I'm not sure, but since my ISP is in another country from my access points, at least one. Most traffic is transient and erased within seconds at most points it crosses, except those "special closets" that sniff and/or record everything that passes through them.

      If you're interested in sending anything "privately" across the 'net, you'd better be adding a layer of homebrew cryptography, since all the common "proven" algorithms will have been hammered on and shattered by the people who care, at least if you're making it up yourself they'll have to focus on you specifically for a few hours to get through your layer, less likely you'll be caught in a wide range sniffing operation.

      The real solution is to wake up, realize you live in a glass house and deal with it. Not everybody can see through your walls, but the number of people who can is so large that the notion of privacy is long dead.

    34. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.

      False. Read http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/09/463204.aspx, and see for yourself. Many of the URLs you visit in Internet Explorer are sent to Microsoft, regardless of whether you typed it manually or not.

    35. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it is with Chrome, Google knows everything you've typed in and what websites you have visited. With other browsers (with separated address and search bars) they only know what you're typing to the search query box.

      False. Read http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/09/463204.aspx and see for yourself. Internet Explorer sends many of the URLs you visit to Microsoft, regardless of whether you typed it manually or not.

      Also, you're conflating "everything you've typed in" and "websites you have visited". They are two different things, and I'd wager you *visit* a lot more websites than you manually *type* in. Chrome doesn't track websites you visit; that's just you being paranoid.

    36. Re:Bogus argument by spitzak · · Score: 1

      It certainly does send to Google first, it would not work if it had to wait for a web server to say that a page does not exist or for DNS to say a site does not exist.

      An easy fix would be for it to stop sending data once there is a single or no matches for what is typed already. It might also make sense to not send any data if what has been typed matches something in a local history. Both of these would make it better than IE because far too many users type URLs into IE's search box.

    37. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... yes... they could... but they don't... yet.

      Fixed that for you.

    38. Re:Bogus argument by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      At least until you actually open that URL, at which point IE happily sends it to Microsoft to make sure it's not spyware.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    39. Re:Bogus argument by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      But in all other browsers I've ever seen that isn't the case with the address bar.

      *facepalm*

      You've seen Firefox, haven't you?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    40. Re:Bogus argument by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      It isn't that difficult to verify that no, they really aren't doing that. Check your network traffic, and if you're really paranoid also check and track what's written to disk to make sure it isn't just encrypted and sent later as part of some other unrelated data burst. I'm sure plenty of slashdotters have tried, if only to try to catch Microsoft in a legally-binding lie and take them to court.

    41. Re:Bogus argument by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't think Microsoft is doing this (or, at least not that blatantly). But, I was trying to point out (and apparently unsuccessfully so) that just because the two toolbars are separate does not mean a damn thing.

      Basically, the OP seemed like he/she didn't understand how programming works. That's all.

    42. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, the boxes are all controlled by the same program, so whether or not there is physical separation between them (does that have any meaning in a user interface?) has nothing to do with whether or not the data is collected or not.

      And you don't understand the problem. This isn't a trust issue with the Chrome application. If it was, you would have lost the battle as soon as you installed it on your computer. This is a privacy problem (a recurring theme with Google's applications).

      The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.

      In IE, the search box is a separate entity, and you can turn search suggestions on or off for each search provider. Because of this, the only information sent to MS (or whatever search provider you use) is what you type in the search box. You can visit whatever URLs you want to and Bing/Yahoo/Google will never know about them.

      Honestly though, I still struggle to figure out what the point of search suggestions are. I suppose they're helpful for people who don't know what they're looking for, but when I go to Google, I already know what I'm going to search for -- that's why I'm there! That said, I suppose it does provide some entertainment.

      you can also turn off the search suggestions...

      but even further... what browser did the Chinese hackers use to hack Google?? thats right... Internet Explorer..

    43. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under default settings, Chrome is effectively sending your entire browsing history to Google.

      Huh? Where are you getting this from?

      Since when does "the stuff you type in the address bar" == "your entire browsing history"?

      Tell me, how many webpages have you visited today? 50? 100? A few hundred?

      And how many times did you manually type something into the address bar?

    44. Re:Bogus argument by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      You've seen Firefox, haven't you?

      Firefox sends every character I type in the address bar to firefox? News to me. Reference?

      --
      AccountKiller
    45. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defend Google to death!

      Even if they had a dick up your ass and MS didn't, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

    46. Re:Bogus argument by the_womble · · Score: 1

      In lots of countries, including the EU they store it so the government can use it to build a profile of you.

    47. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but you are wrong, wether using IE or Chrome there is now way you and I can determine whatever happens to any keystroke typed in any textfield. Period. If MS has choosen to split search and url fields, how the hell do you know the're not logging any url or any search criteria you type anyway? Jeeez, how naive ... but you have got one thing right it's more likely that ms would do the nasty snooping in the os and not the browser ...

    48. Re:Bogus argument by mathfeel · · Score: 1

      Honestly though, I still struggle to figure out what the point of search suggestions are. I suppose they're helpful for people who don't know what they're looking for, but when I go to Google, I already know what I'm going to search for -- that's why I'm there! That said, I suppose it does provide some entertainment.

      One of many uses I found for suggestion is spelling. One time I wasn't sure about the spelling for "pandemonium". I typed in "pandom" (I thought it was "pandomonium"), the correct spelling is in one of the top suggestions. If I were also looking for definition, I can also use the entry with "definition" or "dictionary" or "thesaurus", and wallah (btw, I just looked up the spelling of wallah this way, wasn't sure about the ending h).

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    49. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without a clear definition of anonimity, it's hard to know what they exactly mean. From their point of view, removing the last byte of an IP and keeping the cookie is sometime enough to anonymize server logs.

      Plus, the number of requests to Google Suggest is so huge that even 2% could tell a lot about sites you visit.

    50. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Google has historically seen fit to periodically change their stance on issues such as this.

      How long until they feel this information will be 'valuable to improving their search engine experience' and start storing absolutely everything?

      My guess is right about the time that Chrome saturation and user dependence has occurred!

    51. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it *is* a big difference. And I think you fail to appreciate the significance here. Under default settings, Chrome is effectively sending your entire browsing history to Google.

      Entire history? So, you never click on links and instead type everything into the address bar manually?

    52. Re:Bogus argument by GORby_ · · Score: 1

      The issue that MS is pointing out is that because Chrome combines the address bar and the search box, when you start typing hotmidgetoatmealpor, that information is sent directly to Google so they can do auto-completion/auto-searching. Where it is associated with you. And saved. Forever.

      When you go to the privacy options in Chrome, there's a link to more information about privacy options. There they state that the information that's transmitted for the suggest feature is anonymized within 24 hours. I have no reason not to believe Google, since they haven't betrayed my trust so far. See: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-suggest.html Apparently, the concern was raised, and Google responded by implementing changes to protect your privacy.

    53. Re:Bogus argument by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

      Well, except the correct spelling is voilà — it's French :)

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    54. Re:Bogus argument by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Nope, it sends them to Google...

      Oh, I see. In the search box. Apparently the Awesome Bar doesn't do search suggestions.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    55. Re:Bogus argument by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "And, wasn't there quite a fuss recently about AT&T (in their role as ISP) allowing certain government agencies to set up a lot of mysterious equipment in the switching office, tapped into the internet data streams they were carrying?"

      Yes, there was.

      Most people think this sort of thing shouldn't be the norm...that's why there was a fuss.

      You apparently have long since given up.

    56. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do some searching, there are companies marketing to ISPs to start building consumer profiles. The software injects packets, similar to the deep packet inspection the ad injecting companies Phorm and Nebuad were doing. Someone, somewhere is building a profile on you. Read up on DPI, even though Nebuad bit the dust, other companies (and the US government) are turning to it. http://epic.org/privacy/dpi/

    57. Re:Bogus argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the bit of scandal when it came to light that facebook employees could and did (and probably still do) read so-called 'private data'. Build a database of this stuff, and sooner or later it will be abused by someone.

      Tin hat much? Google at mosts sees an IP and GUID associated with Chrome... completely incomparible to the data on Facebook.

    58. Re:Bogus argument by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      "And, wasn't there quite a fuss recently about AT&T (in their role as ISP) allowing certain government agencies to set up a lot of mysterious equipment in the switching office, tapped into the internet data streams they were carrying?"

      Yes, there was.

      Most people think this sort of thing shouldn't be the norm...that's why there was a fuss.

      You apparently have long since given up.

      I've got lots of battles in my life, some of which I actually make a difference in. Howling at my congressman about how terrible it is that my country is spying on its own citizens (as it has since its formation) doesn't seem like a battle I'll personally make much headway in.

    59. Re:Bogus argument by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Lets put this in perspective...

      ...you trust an advertising company.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    60. Re:Bogus argument by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      ever heard of targetted advertising? Its not new, and Google is certainly not the only player in this field. Only the naive think they can avoid this by avoiding Google.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    61. Re:Bogus argument by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Well, thank you, first of all, for that rather lewd comment.

      And, if you noticed, I didn't defend Google one iota. I never said a word in defense of Google. I just pointed out how software *actually* works based on what Microsoft is saying about how UI's work. Graphical separation does not mean separation underneath the surface.

      In addition (to the comment about my tin foil hat), I don't really think that MS is doing that. As another AC pointed out, people would find out pretty quick. (As a side note, it seemed obvious to me that Google was doing this already...) I'm, again, just pointing out the incorrect parts of Microsoft's statement.

  6. Re:Not Correct by parallel_prankster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you not read TFA at all ? You can not only choose which search provider to use the search suggestions, you can also turn off search suggestions in chrome !!

  7. Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

    The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

    And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

    My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

    1. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by mysidia · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The cloud is not inherently secure in and of itself. A cloud deployment can have more security issues than a non-cloud deployment, very easily.

      "Security Is Not a Product; It's a Process"

      ...

      "No security product acts as magical security dust; they all require time and expertise to make work properly. You have to baby-sit them, every day. "

      ...

      "If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
      --Bruce Schneier

    2. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, say WHAT?!

    3. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion on Web 2.0 cloud services and my pitch...

      If you looking for a technology also offers inherent On-Demand Federated Data capabilities that allow data integration to cross-organizational boundaries wherever business processes require it. Business users can combine, transform, and filter structured and unstructured data from a wide breadth of formats and sources. Leveraging this technology, pre-purposed BI data sources, such as data warehouses, operational data stores, and OLAP data sources, can be combined with transactional data. On-Demand Federated Data enables business managers to make quicker, better-informed business decisions and process enhancements without IT resource support.
      We just deployed a technology that combines a secure and scalable data engine with an intuitive data-worksheet user interface, so business users can access, assemble, analyze, and collaborate on vital information in real time.

      This software, built on a 100% Java Web-based platform, offers a versatile data layer that facilitates business process collaboration on both dynamic and static data. Its presentation layer enables both professionally designed production reports and user-created ad-hoc reports. Advanced business intelligence functions include OLAP analysis and interactive dashboards integrated with alert notification capabilities. The industry-standard J2EE application server is optimized to ensure a secure, high-performance, and scalable platform for global enterprise needs.

      To support its product sales, this company has also established a separate business unit and Professional Consulting Services. The company's consulting staff assists users of its business intelligence solutions with custom training and report design, data access, data modeling, data management, project management, and implementation needs.

    4. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got it, and I LOL'd. Nicely done.

    5. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      You must be smart. I think you're on the wrong news aggregator.

    6. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by feepness · · Score: 1

      But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

      Cloud 2.0 has an actual gold lining, instead of silver.

    7. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention synergies.

    8. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by BillX · · Score: 1

      Webcast? Webcast?

      Get with the times man, the uncool kids are calling them 'webinars' now.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    9. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...does management really talk like this?!

      I think I'm gonna stay in college forever

    10. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dude, you're one day early!

    11. Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to synergize your core competencies after leveraging those verticals.

  8. Non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

    1. Re:Non-story by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 0

      IT was slashdotted, but here's a copy of the text:

      YOU HAVE NONE!

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  9. Let me be the first to say... by kaffiene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meh!

    I don't care. I know the deal with Google. Everyone knows the deal with Google - they mine your data so they can target ads, you get useful software.

    I don't mind Google's targeted ads so I feel no need for a tinfoil hat over this one.

    If Google were trying to break into my bank account, I'd be worried, but I don't fear non-obtrusive advertising.

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be, but it's still kind of disturbing to think that Google knows all about my fondness for videos of lesbian midgets wrestling koala bears.

      Crap, I mean my friend's fondness for lesbian midgets wrestling koala bears...

    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Rivalz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm with you and to be honest it is more about perception of the company than anything else really.

      When I upgraded to IE 8, their questioneer about what I want IE to do. Everything microsoft related was disabled.
      If google wants to collect data I could care less because I have a fuzzy warm trust feeling when I use their software.
      Microsoft on the other hand I feel like I have to keep them at bay.

      Same with other companies even ones I trust to provide antivirus software, handle my accounting ect. I just don't put as much blind faith in them. Maybe it is because they have all let me down in the past where in ways that matter to me. New companies have to earn my trust.

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have Google get my information that all the malware using the frequent IE exploits. That may eventually change, but currently ... I'd stick with Chrome over IE.

    4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If google wants to collect data I could care less because I have a fuzzy warm trust feeling when I use their software."

      What happens when they burn your trust? Bit late to take all your information back. Oops.

      That warm fuzzy trust feeling...its called good will. They are trading on that. Its an entry on their balance sheet. Its valuable to them. But they'll sell it tomorrow for the right price.

      What if they're hacked (again)?

      And who knows what direction the next CEO will go? What if their advertising revenues collapses? Or they pull an Enron? For all we know the ultimate fate of google will be to be bought out by Microsoft.. the very company you feel has to be "kept at bay". And suddenly Microsoft has all your information... that you so willingly handed over to Google. Oops.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't fear it either. I abhor it.

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This so hard.

      Only crazy privacy freaks or self-obsessed total gits of people actually care.
      You aren't special amongst the billions of other humans.
      Unless you are browsing for 1) child porn or 2) terrorism or any other nasties, i'm extremely sure nobody really gives a shit about your fetishes for midget clown porn or realdolls.
      And if you share computer, it has a privacy mode for that too! How lovely that he forgot to mention this!

      Not to mention that ALL but one of those things he is crying about are options that can be disabled.
      The only one that can't is RLZ, which is essentially useless anyway!

      This WHOLE thing is just some more FUD Microsoft are trying to spread, the same crap they done way back when Chrome was in public beta since it has died down a little.
      Microsoft have been doing the same crap for years. And not only that, they deliberately screwed up dialogs in newer Windows to confuse people. Yeah because confusing your users is a FANTASTIC idea.
      If people are too stupid to disable some options, they deserve having their computer broken, period.
      This is just more proof that there needs to be a damn Computer Licence, having to deal with peoples stupidity is annoying.

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Sot32 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone here still believe that there is such a thing as privacy? Change your browser settings, use a different browser, use an anonymous proxy, use your neighbor's wireless....somewhere somehow your activity is logged. Deal with it or turn it off.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has ads?! Oh, I think I recall something about that before I moved to firefox with adblock and a few more addons installed.

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say... by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      I don't mind Google's targeted ads so I feel no need for a tinfoil hat over this one.

      I have a feeling that you'll change your tune once Adwords starts sending you porn ads based on your browsing history. I don't think I should be lumped in with the tinfoil-hat crowed simply because I don't want to share every single keystroke that I type into the address bar.

      (p.s. The url in your sig is unintentionally hilarious. By the time I got to "67. Superior 2D Drawing" I fell out of my chair.)

    10. Re:Let me be the first to say... by khchung · · Score: 1

      I don't care. I know the deal with Google. Everyone knows the deal with Google - they mine your data so they can target ads, you get useful software.

      You know the deal now, but do you know the deal 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years? How about in the unlikely event that Google went bankrupt and the new owner decide to sell all the data collected?

      The issue with data privacy is the same with the government or with a private company, the only way to keep you data save is not to let them have it. Once they got your data, you lose control over it.

      --
      Oliver.
    11. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I love the single bar and lets face it Google already knows *everything* about me anyway. Besides... I 3 Google ever since they gave the finger to China.

    12. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      What happens when they burn your trust?

      I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, thanks. There is too little trust in the world as it is, a little reciprocity to encourage other businesses to rely on their customers' trust is a great thing to do in my book.

      As you said, they trade on trust, and it has made them one of the fastest growing, most profitable companies in history. Right now there is an extremely small number of companies that could potentially afford to buy Google, and it shrinks every day. I seriously doubt there is anybody who could actually afford to make Google turn their back on their principles and sell out their customers. Doing so would also make Google worth a fraction of what it is worth before such a thing took place. They'd get the data, sure, but the image would be destroyed.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    13. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Vellmont · · Score: 1, Insightful


      I don't care. I know the deal with Google. Everyone knows the deal with Google - they mine your data so they can target ads, you get useful software.

      Greetings from 2030! Your post happened to fall through a wormhole in the space-time continuum, and we just can't stop laughing here about it. In 2030 Google is the new Microsoft, and Microsoft is the new IBM. Microsoft finally turned out to be a decent company, though it took some hard knocks to get there. Their stock price was in free-fall during much of the teens as they lost market share to just about everyone.

      Google on the other hand mined everyone's data, and now if you type the "wrong" thing into the address bar you might wind up on a no fly+no drive list. This was a response to the terrorist attack of 2017 under President Palin (yes she's still an idiot) where ten Scientologists drove Mack trucks filled with gelignite into the psychology departments of 10 of the large Universities. Even if you manage to stay off the no fly+drive lists there's still the "targeted ads" that come up on your TV based on your Internet usage and buying patterns. It's pretty embarrassing having friends over and seeing targeted ads for "Nailin' Palin 25". or for the boomers "Depends". But hey, on the plus side since Microsoft turned off evil there's actual software compatibility and standards.

      --
      AccountKiller
    14. Re:Let me be the first to say... by mibe · · Score: 1

      What are they going to sell? I don't understand, but maybe I have different internet habits than (apparently?) everyone else here. I don't give a damn about any of the information I type into my Chrome address box, and I don't see how any of it can be used to harm me later. Are they going to sell my search history to my mom, and show her all the times I looked at naked ladies? Honestly, in what scenario does it matter?

    15. Re:Let me be the first to say... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      +9999999 agree.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    16. Re:Let me be the first to say... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      so they know...big deal. so does your mum. which one do you think cares more?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    17. Re:Let me be the first to say... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      "If google wants to collect data I could care less because I have a fuzzy warm trust feeling when I use their software."

      What happens when they burn your trust? Bit late to take all your information back. Oops.

      What happens? They get sued, and they also suffer a huge downturn in their business because the media would jump on it and there'd be an uproar. Their business depends on people's trust. What YOU are doing is called FUD.

      That warm fuzzy trust feeling...its called good will. They are trading on that. Its an entry on their balance sheet. Its valuable to them. But they'll sell it tomorrow for the right price.

      No because that would be illegal. Its against pretty much all privacy laws. What could they possibly gain by breaking a law that could very well mean their business crumbles?

      What if they're hacked (again)?

      And who knows what direction the next CEO will go? What if their advertising revenues collapses? Or they pull an Enron? For all we know the ultimate fate of google will be to be bought out by Microsoft.. the very company you feel has to be "kept at bay". And suddenly Microsoft has all your information... that you so willingly handed over to Google. Oops.

      Lets get something straight - they dont have "all" anyone's information. They just know what sites you visit (using chrome) and what you searched for. There's a HUGE difference.

      If you read what they actually use it for, and what they do with it (they tell you quite plainly), you'll find that its anonymized within 24 hours and 98% of the time its not even stored to begin with.

      If you're still worried, then you need to seek help.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    18. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right you are, but Chrome with Adblock is faster than Firefox. Way faster.

    19. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for a comment like this, because I think the same way. Whatever google is doing, I don't really care. It works. Maybe more companies should do it too and we wouldn't end up with so much bad movies/music/games/TV shows etc.

      Heck, the guy who mentioned hotmidgetoatmealpr0n - oh well. Google can see some random pervs have an interest in that and help them find hotmidgetpr0n better - isn't that..what..they're supposed to do? As long as google isn't going around saying to X person's friends/family or going to the law and saying "HEY look at what this person searches for!" then I don't really see the big deal.

    20. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      therefore you're a moron.

    21. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What alternate universe is this?

    22. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Yeah some of us do know the deal, and that's why we don't use Chrome. Some of us actually don't want targeted advertising, or advertising at all for that matter.

    23. Re:Let me be the first to say... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "What happens? They get sued, and they also suffer a huge downturn in their business because the media would jump on it and there'd be an uproar. Their business depends on people's trust. What YOU are doing is called FUD."

      Don't be naive. A healthy dose of uncertainty and doubt is appropriate.

      Enron wouldn't cook the books ... they'd get sued and suffer a huge downturn!! HP wouldn't spy on its employees. Bre-X wouldn't lie about their gold exploration results. Exxon wouldn't under report oil reserves. Southwest airlines wouldn't violate safety regulations. Xerox wouldn't falsify financial results. Microsoft wouldn't illegally abuse a monopoly position. SCO wouldn't sue IBM or Novell over patents and copyrights that it doesn't own over infringements that didn't happen. Chinese manufacturers wouldn't put banned substances like lead in childrens toys to save a buck... they'd get sued, they'd even lose contracts!!11

      "Its against pretty much all privacy laws."

      Yeah, good luck with that. You have to have an expectation of privacy in the first place. Agreeing to submit all your queries to google rather negates that. And as for what they say they'll do with it. That's not a contract. Its a description of current policy. They have no obligation to obtain your permission if they change it... hell... they don't even have to notify you.

      "Lets get something straight - they dont have "all" anyone's information. They just know what sites you visit (using chrome) and what you searched for. There's a HUGE difference."

      I am quite cogent of what information I make about me available to google. (wither its with their search suggestions, their google analytics tracking my movement across the web, geolocation of my ip, ad clicks/tracking cookies, automated inspection of any mail sent to gmail users, potential for modeling social networks based on which gmail accounts have me as a contact and/or have sent/received mail from me and how frequently. Google groups use. Google Docs use. Youtube use. Places you go using google maps. Easily your home address if you use maps for directions, etc, etc.

      More than you seem to give them credit for. They get a lot of that regardless of what browser I use, with no agreement with them whatsoever. All that data is pretty worthless if it was broken up piecemeal between 20 companies... but taken all together, its pretty amazing what you can do by linking all that information together.

      You can infer social networks, infer income, race, sex, age, interests, medical history, hobbies, career...

      Yeah, I'm sure nobody will ever do that to someone, because that would be 'wrong'.

    24. Re:Let me be the first to say... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      You can infer social networks, infer income, race, sex, age, interests, medical history, hobbies, career...

      Yeah, I'm sure nobody will ever do that to someone, because that would be 'wrong'.

      I disagree.

      For 99% of that stuff, anyone in the street can work it out just by looking at me, and the rest I'd more than likely tell them if they asked me. I'm not going to hand over my bank details, but then Google has no clue as to what those are anyway.

      I keep private things private, and I do know a little about online security, but this is about freaking website addresses. who really cares what they do with those?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    25. Re:Let me be the first to say... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "For 99% of that stuff, anyone in the street can work it out just by looking at me"

      So? "Anyone on the street" isn't systematically creating a database of that information.

      Some random person seeing me on the street and making some passing observations about me before forgetting I exist simply isn't the same thing as systematically creating a database about everyone.

      And its idiotic to even compare them.

      "but this is about freaking website addresses. who really cares what they do with those"

      Insurance companies. Employers. People litigating against you. Political opponents. Exes. Some future government agency on a witch-hunt...

      What you search for and where you go can say a lot about you. Especially when combined with everything else google collects.

    26. Re:Let me be the first to say... by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      So... that tinfoil hat is working out well for ya, huh?

    27. Re:Let me be the first to say... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      "For 99% of that stuff, anyone in the street can work it out just by looking at me"

      So? "Anyone on the street" isn't systematically creating a database of that information.

      Some random person seeing me on the street and making some passing observations about me before forgetting I exist simply isn't the same thing as google seeing my web history and making some observations about me before forgetting who I am

      There, fixed it for you.
      Have a read of Google's blog / T&C's sometime. They only take a very small RANDOM sample every now and then, meaning most of this data isn't even collected in the first place. The comparatively little bit of data they do collect is anonymized very soon after they collect it and is often deleted within a few months (maybe earlier). Pretty sure I have that right...if not I apologize...

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  10. Even satan can be true sometimes by camcorder · · Score: 0

    Even though I don't like Microsoft as many as I do like my sins, their employee is right. Google as in 'do no evil' is just an imagination.

    1. Re:Even satan can be true sometimes by powerspike · · Score: 0

      They still are "do no evil", it's just when they floated, it was shifted from customers to shareholders...

    2. Re:Even satan can be true sometimes by rolfwind · · Score: 0

      Even though many bitch about Apple here or on Digg, it's just ultimately a gadget company with some distribution for content.

      Google is the one that has a real chance into a evil skynet. Consider that they're expanding constantly. Soon, they'll power GPSes people use, and with the work from 1-800-Goog, google translate, google voice, they'll take on Dragon Naturally Speaking in the voice recognition game... and that is just one avenue of their expanding reach. They also want to provide high speed internet, etcetera in their trial programs. Consider how gmail and all their other services, what it will look like in 10 years if they succeed in all these endeavors being your provider to internet, search, email, phone, etcetera - a digital hub for everything. Perhaps even the OS.

      Wonderful and scary stuff at the same time if they ever decide to stop being not evil (or something simpler like the original founders dying and greedy, short-sighted shareholders taking over). Perhaps someone would like to see if the GNU project wants to start some competition in these areas -- but that would require ungodly amount of resources.

    3. Re:Even satan can be true sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google needs to have an anti-trust court put a boot in their ass.

    4. Re:Even satan can be true sometimes by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Just because you have what you think are sins, doesn't mean Google is going to judge you, that's not profitable after all.

      For some purposes there's nothing more evil than someone who intends to 'do good', by shaming people who sin according to their definition.

      Now if you were contemplating something illegal, yeah, there might be some reasons to worry.... in theory Google could be ordered by the courts to report all information to law enforcement, then you would be at a disadvantage, since they have every keystroke.

    5. Re:Even satan can be true sometimes by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Could you be so kind as to articulate WHY this makes Google evil? I doubt you've thought about at all and this is your knee-jerk reaction.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  11. Re:Not Correct by sopssa · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you not read TFA at all ?
    You can not only choose which search provider to use the search suggestions, you can also turn off search suggestions in chrome !!

    Yes, and have looked over Chrome (and used some) personally. All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog, and how many users you think are going to check those just to know their privacy isn't violated? That is exactly what Google also counts for. The fact is, Chrome is the most privacy intrusive browser for everyone and I'm quite sure most of their reasoning to create it was to datamine. That's their business after all.

  12. Microsoft privacy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Has anyone ever tried to implment the Microsoft privacy policy? Here is one guy who did.

    1. Re:Microsoft privacy policy by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Actually it sounds like he's a moron who's running high-volume mail servers off of a residential account and rightly got them blacklisted. He should try reading the terms of use for his Comcast account before filing meritless lawsuits.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  13. Predictive Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The predictive feature in Google's search box could probably be considered to be sending "every keystroke"

  14. Chrome under Linux. by headkase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use Chrome under Linux simply because the fonts look beautiful. I also never type stuff into the address bar - that's what all my bookmarks are for. When I actually am looking for something I use, tada, Google anyway. I am fully connected to a whole wack of Google services so I'm sure they know everything I do. So what. Google is benevolent and any information that could actually be used against you will be gathered anyway by someone with the motivation and resources no matter what browser you use. Now if I get a shiver up my spine I go into the tools menu and choose: "Incognito Window" and for every keystroke being entered into the address bar you can turn that off as well by turning off the suggestion service. So, if you don't use it correctly when privacy matters to you then there are privacy concerns. If you change the convenient settings the privacy concerns go away. Harping on Chrome for its suggestion features is a straw-man, if you want to talk real privacy issues then you talk about Cloud services themselves and laws about whether or not warrants are needed for them and also under privacy you talk about how easily compromised the browser is to leak your information. The address bar and suggestion services are just cross-camp sniping: they are easily changed to what you value if you have half a brain cell. Marketing.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Chrome under Linux. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      So far, I consider the services I get from Google to be a fair trade for the information they get from me.

    2. Re:Chrome under Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Chrome under Linux simply because the fonts look beautiful. I also never type stuff into the address bar - that's what all my bookmarks are for.

      Ummm... I think they were referring to the fact that to do a search in Chrome you type the search terms IN THE ADDRESS BAR.

    3. Re:Chrome under Linux. by headkase · · Score: 1

      I'm ignorant ;) I press my home button and my home page is Google!

      --
      Shh.
    4. Re:Chrome under Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... or go to google.com :)

  15. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just URL bar keystrokes, which can instead be sent to Microsoft or Yahoo depending on your preferred search engine.

  16. Long time lurker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't help but notice that the embedded video wouldn't load properly in my browser of choice... Chrome.

    One of the first times I've seen an embedded video not load in chrome, that loads in any other browser I've got installed.

    Irony

  17. Chrome variant Iron is one solution by howardcohen · · Score: 1

    http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

    Iron's makers claim to block the Chrome privacy issues without sacrificing speed. I've been using it since a windows upgrade killed Firefox on all my machines.

    Iron seems to work fine, but I'm not privacy savvy enough to claim it solves the issues raised here.

    1. Re:Chrome variant Iron is one solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Iron is a chromium-fork by someone who wants to display ads on his download page.
      http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html

      1 Someone with the nick of "Iron" joins the channel and announces they're making a fork of Chrome.
      2 They ask some semi-legal questions about how to advertise it, which we can't answer.
      3 They ask some technical questions, like how to change the name of the browser that shows up in the executable, which kuchhal nicely helps them with.
      4 Then there's this exchange (reformatted to remove timestamps and add line wrapping):

    2. Re:Chrome variant Iron is one solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. Big deal by nashv · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Oh, so you mean the morons who are typing "My bank account number is 223344" or "My credit card is visa 2303232300022000 from citibank with cvv 100" into the address bar of their browser have a serious problem ?

    Gosh, who knew.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    1. Re:Big deal by Sarten-X · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I once searched for my social security number. I found a florist in Texas. It was run by someone with the same first name as me, and their surname is also my middle name. That was a bit creepy.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Big deal by macshit · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you mean the morons who are typing "My bank account number is 223344" or "My credit card is visa 2303232300022000 from citibank with cvv 100" into the address bar of their browser

      Er, well, you know Microsoft product managers...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
  19. Re:Not Correct by ChinggisK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog

    Bullshit. The search provider option is right on the first options tab. The search suggestions option is at the very top on the last tab (there are only 3 tabs), under the big blue "Privacy" label. Don't damage your own case by exaggerating the facts.

  20. Privacy by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    If you search for everything with google anyways this shouldn't worry you. If you send data to your ISP unencrypted which almost everyone does you shouldn't be too worried. If you allow cookies this shouldn't really bug you. If you use facebook/myspace or some regular social media you shouldn't care at all. I'm sure there is a long list of other crap invading your privacy as well. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I agree with MS. Just, there is lots of crap data mining you, live with it or become a hermit. Not a ton of other options.

  21. Re:Not Correct by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chrome actually has a bunch of fine-grain privacy controls they added in the last release.

    http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/privacy.html

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  22. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As somebody who personally knows people working on Chrome, I can assure you that data mining was not the goal of Chrome. Most engineers at Google are sincerely trying to make the Web a better place. That this actually helps Google is just a bonus for them.

  23. A Koan by arielCo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If a joke is told and no one gets it, does it WHOOSH?

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:A Koan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's a joke? I've worked for several managers who sound just like that. And they're 100% serious.

    2. Re:A Koan by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd venture and say yes it does WHOOSH, but nobody hears it. Unfortunately, I can't confirm that result as there was no observer attuned to the frequency of WHOOSH...

    3. Re:A Koan by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is the bar has fallen so low nowadays, it's no joke.

      It's reality. It's common. In fact, I dare say pervasive.

      Maybe it's an even bigger joke that it's real as in easily believable that many managers would say something like that at many companies?

    4. Re:A Koan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone stopped reading after "I'm a manager"

    5. Re:A Koan by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you sure it's a joke? I've worked for several managers who sound just like that. And they're 100% serious.

      And would those same managers be posting on slashdot? Even if they were to somehow find their way here, they wouldn't be posting as an anonymous coward. They'd post under a username like PowerBoss2000. At least that's the impression I get from watching The Office. Maybe I should get back to searching for a job.

    6. Re:A Koan by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      First, I've seen the same post in other "cloud computing" discussions, so it's a joke.
      Second, this appears to be an extension of Poe's law: No matter how stupid a statement may seem to be someone will believe it to be real.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  24. Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is with Chrome's automatic URL suggestion service. As you type the URL into the search/URL bar, it sends it off to Google to auto-complete it for your benefit. It does this regardless of whether what you have typed is a url or search query. Therefore, Google gets access to your entire browsing history, including URLs you went to directly on sites that may not be serving Google ads (which would mean Google knows you went there anyway if you have accepted their cookie).

    This particular privacy problem does not exist if the search bar and URL bar are separated OR if you turn off "Use a suggestion service to help complete searches and URLs typed into the address bar" in the Chrome preferences.

  25. Redeeculous distinction by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    Let's try to think clearly here.

    Microsoft seems to be saying that you have more privacy when you type a URL into their address bar.

    But that just means that your DNS server is now the "evil" thing that knows every place you've visited.

    And of course your ISP can trap every URL you access.

    So if you use Microsoft's model, you've just hidden from Google, but still exposed to your perhaps Ma and Pa ISP and DNS providers.

    another web page.

    1. Re:Redeeculous distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do "Ma and Pa ISP and DNS providers" have terabytes of disk space to store all those data, and the business motivation and resources to massage it that Google does? I think not.

      RO

    2. Re:Redeeculous distinction by notaprguy · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother to read anything? Google logs keystrokes even if you don't hit enter. That's different than your DNS server knowing when you hit 'enter' on a search term or go to a Web site.

    3. Re:Redeeculous distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, instead of "slashdot.org", they've got "s l a s s <backspace> h d o t . o r g". Holy shit.

  26. Re:Not Correct by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've read the title of the summary, and dismissed it as an especially smelly load of swine shit. Every browser has it's own issues, and the user should be familiar with them. Yeah, all the browsers tend to keep records that are unnecessary. All the browsers tend to report data that is unnecessary, to websites, to developers, to the authors, if left on default settings.

    But, for MICROSOFT to point fingers is just preposterous.

    Maybe they can try again in 10 years, after they've created a clearly superior browser. I mean, CLEARLY superior to anything else on the market. When those of us who really dislike and/or hate microsoft HAVE to admit that their browser is at least as good as any of the competition, THEN MS can find fault with the competition.

    Wait - did I say "10 years"? Hmmmmmm. More than likely, browsers will be obsolete before Microsoft makes the browser that is clearly superior to any competition that can be found.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  27. So it doesn't respect user privacy by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

    So, if I get this right... when you use Chrome, you're in risk that it will track your every Google search, your every Gmail mail, your every YouTube video, your every Blogger comment, your every Google Groups post, your every Picasa picture, your every visit on sites using Google Analytics, and while we're at it, they also have a deal with Twitter to get your every tweet and they crawled your every website page.

    In short, Google got you long before you started using Chrome. Using any other browser. You may as well relax and enjoy it.

    Raising awareness of Chrome's issues is a good thing, but I think those of us who deal with security, corporate secrets and so on knew that long before someone else had to tell us, and have procedures in place on how to securely query and exchange information. The mainstream web was never exactly a very "privacy minded" medium. I use Chrome for casual browsing and install it for friends and relatives. There's nothing Chrome would give away for those people that Google didn't already have from their other sources.

  28. The scary thing is... by Vellmont · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is starting to make sense.

    I've never tried Google Chrome, but now I never will unless they take this "feature" out. I won't use IE either of course. Microsoft may have more respect for my privacy, but they don't have any respect for my security.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:The scary thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never tried Google Chrome, but now I never will unless they take this "feature" out.

      This feature is configurable. You can turn it off if it scares you.

      Furthermore, how are you geeky enough to post on /. if you haven't even tried Google Chrome?

    2. Re:The scary thing is... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never tried Google Chrome, but now I never will unless they take this "feature" out.

      They've already given you the option to disable it, good night.

      Don't you do your searches with Google? You can't tell me you use Bing... This is trivial compared to your search history.

      You also trust your ISP with everything you do on the net, I don't see you disconnecting your internet for that "invasion" of your privacy.

      Seriously, you people need to get a grip. There isn't one person in ten thousand who's address bar history is so important that they'd actually care to dig it up and link it to you directly. You just aren't that important. The only reason Google uses it at all is to target unobtrusive advertisements at you - which makes ads less annoying and more relevant to you anyway.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:The scary thing is... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      They've already given you the option to disable it, good night.

      So what? It should be disabled by default and you have to turn it on. If I hadn't read this article would I have even known they were doing this?

      Don't you do your searches with Google?

      It's quite obvious you're sending information to Google when you do a search.

      You also trust your ISP with everything you do on the net

      I've never actually heard of an ISP that does the deep packet inspection necessary to do this kind of spying. Anyway, the point here is Google is actually sending and very likely recording your information. If you'd like to point our ISPs that do deep packet inspection and keep track of what website I visit, I'll gladly not use them either.

      Seriously, you people need to get a grip. There isn't one person in ten thousand who's address bar history is so important that they'd actually care to dig it up and link it to you directly. You just aren't that important.

      Important to who? You seem to think people are only important as individuals. How much do you think an insurance company would pay to find out what foods you eat? How much do you think employers would pay for a list of what internet sites you frequent? You need to stop being so naive. Do you really learn nothing from history?

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:The scary thing is... by macshit · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is starting to make sense.

      I've never tried Google Chrome, but now I never will unless they take this "feature" out. I won't use IE either of course. Microsoft may have more respect for my privacy, but they don't have any respect for my security.

      Of course Microsoft doesn't have any more respect for your privacy. This particular problem seems pretty much an inadvertent consequence of the (otherwise very nice) combining of the address and search boxes in chrome; the fact that IE doesn't do the same thing is only due to its clunkier interface.

      The fact that MS is trumpeting it this way smacks more of a desperate swat at a competitor than anything else...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    5. Re:The scary thing is... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Of course Microsoft doesn't have any more respect for your privacy.

      Microsoft doesn't make it's money by selling or mining data, Google does. From a simple business standpoint Microsoft really had little to gain from giving users more privacy. Google of course does stand to lose more if they had stricter privacy policies and less data collection.

      This particular problem seems pretty much an inadvertent consequence of the (otherwise very nice) combining of the address and search boxes in chrome;

      You really think it was inadvertent? I think it's quite obvious that a search company wants to position its search technology in the most obvious place. People that WORK in a search company think search is the most important thing, and think of their service as being integral to the software. This was not just an "inadvertent consequence", it was a very obvious design decision. Many of these kinds of decisions are so ingrained in a culture that it doesn't even seem like a decision.

      the fact that IE doesn't do the same thing is only due to its clunkier interface.

      I doubt it, but we'll never know. Microsoft isn't that bad when it comes to privacy policies. The only notable thing I can recall about Microsoft and privacy was putting ethernet addresses in Word docs.

      The fact that MS is trumpeting it this way smacks more of a desperate swat at a competitor than anything else...

      Obviously. Microsoft doesn't care about promoting privacy of course.

      --
      AccountKiller
  29. Re:Not Correct by repka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's so hard to understand about this problem? Most users want to use suggestions only for their searches, not URLs they enter. Chrome only allows toggling suggestions for both.

  30. Re:Not Correct by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To add to that, what is to stop a software vendor (MS) from simply gathering the information typed into ANY field in a browser. Whether they are in a combo field or not is irrelevant. What a ridiculous argument.

  31. Obnoxious Motherfuckers by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just when you think you've seen everything from Microsoft they go and outdo themselves. They really are a bunch of obnoxious motherfuckers, who wouldn't know quality or taste if it slapped them in their monkey-dancing faces.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Obnoxious Motherfuckers by Rantastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What this really means is that Microsoft is scared shitless. Anyone who really cares about security and privacy left Windows and Microsoft behind a long time ago.

      --
      Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
    2. Re:Obnoxious Motherfuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true. Soo true.

    3. Re:Obnoxious Motherfuckers by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      And you're a clueless, naive idiot. You have no idea how software is actually designed. Each of these feature has strategy behind it. Another example is that Chrome Adblock just hides ads, so that it still appears to be a 'hit' to the ad.

  32. YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless you go to Preferences->Advanced and turn off the appropriate option in the Privacy category.

    Or am I missing something major here? Is it possible that most people on /. didn't see that option? I saw only a comment or two mentioning that.

    1. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by tftp · · Score: 1

      Unless you go to Preferences->Advanced and turn off the appropriate option in the Privacy category.

      It would help if you were a bit more specific what browser you are talking about, and what the "appropriate option" is called. There is nothing like that in Chrome; no "Preferences" in FF; and IE has "Tools | Internet Options | Advanced" and there are 50 options; which one is appropriate is anyone's guess (and none of the categories is called "Privacy".) If you name it then it's possible to debate its value.

    2. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      My post's parent talked about Chrome, obviously, and therefore so did mine.

      Here's a screenshot of Chrome 5.0.342.7 beta, on Mac. It's in Croatian, but the option I'm talking about is the second visible checkbox, the one unchecked and which reads "Koristite uslugu prijedloga kao pomoc pri popunjavanju pretrazivanja i URL-ova unesenih u traci adrese". When translated, this is approximately "Use the suggestion service as help when typing searches and URLs in the address bar". Sorry, but it's a bit late and I couldn't be bothered to find language switch.

      So, by unchecking this single checkbox I don't seem to be getting any more suggestions. The firewall seems to agree -- and when I turn that option back on, there's definitely some traffic to a server that's reverse-DNS-resolving to something in .google.com.

    3. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by tftp · · Score: 1

      Here is the English version. Thanks for the clarification, and hopefully this will be of use to everyone with Chrome.

      By the way, most of these items are removed from Iron.

    4. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the versions packaged with Ubuntu Server 8,04 and Mint 7 or 8 (that I can find - definitely not where you suggest). M$ has gotten my attention...too bad I would have to run Windoze (even in a VM) to use IE 8.

      RO

    5. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      See my other post.

    6. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      You can still press ctrl+shift+n and use incognito mode which doesn't track your keystrokes.

      It's typical microsoft fud...

      1) Whine that chrome tracks your keystrokes
      2) show everyone that IE has a new privacy feature that you can turn on
      3) ignore chromes own privacy mode making the whole point irrelevant

    7. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're missing something and are prolly a Chrome apologist. Why should you need to turn OFF the feature completely. If they implemented it like FF or IE8, you could have it both ways.

    8. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible that most people on /. didn't see that option?

      There wasn't a terminal command for it. The gui exists to open the terminal

    9. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by trifish · · Score: 1

      Or am I missing something major here?

      Yes, sir you are. You're missing the major fact that the default settings is what the vast majority of uneducated masses use.

      I guess that's why Microsoft is trying to educate them (and, believe it or not, by doing that, they actually help protect their privacy).

    10. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      I see Omnibox as a feature, not a bug. But, I use Safari nowadays, anyway, so I don't care.

    11. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      So nice of them :-)

      It's sad that today people have to choose between usefulness (current defaults) and better privacy (what-should-be-default), and they don't know either way. Perhaps the option should be moved somewhere into the installation. Would that help? Methinksnot. But...

    12. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Many parts are sweet:
      * Dalmatia and Istria, our seaside regions, are pretty sweet, with some islands forbidding cars. For example, on Silba, the only ground vehicle you may hear in a few weeks (provided you stay so long) are boats, tractors (for tourist-luggage-to-apartment and grocery-to-shop delivery) and occasionally a motorbike (for mail delivery).
      * In Dalmatia and Istria, some cities are pretty ancient: Split, Zadar, Pula feature Roman ruins. Older parts of many Dalmatian/Istrian cities feature typical mediterranean "small streets" which are simply too small to fit a car -- therefore you walk without fear, and look around. Split also features a nicely decorated seashore called "riva". Something similar is in Trogir, too.
      * Mountainous regions Lika and Gorski kotar are just beautiful. Lots of green, very little human messing around, and lots of fresh water. If you're American though, you probably have similar regions so don't bother traveling so far, except perhaps for Plitvice :-)
      * Farming regions are probably just different than what you're used to. Mostly small, family farms. Some accept guests ("village tourism")

      So the country is pretty sweet if you know where to go. In our capital (where I live) there is very little to see, almost nowhere to "truly rest" as a tourist (that is, somewhere peaceful), and it's mostly just a noisy, smelly, modern city.

      It's nice you bothered looking it up; it's somewhat fascinating that Croatia, a country in Europe, a "forefront of Christianity" (a long-time-frontier against Turkish conquests) and therefore an important part of European history, is so unknown to many.

      Not posting AC -- will probably blow some karma, but I want notification if you reply :-)

    13. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll tell you what would help: Don't spread a f****** browser that is SPYWARE by default and behaves so without explicit consent of the user.

    14. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Meh, in case of Google I don't care, they know almost all about me already and it's probably the same about most of the Chrome users, too. You do the searches anyway. "Keystrokes, aargh." Keystrokes that you don't end up confirming by pressing enter are mistakes and therefore useless to them.

      Meh. Tinfoil.

    15. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy should be maintained in a default configuration. Sending all keystrokes by default is insidious.

    16. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Insidious? "Now witness the full power of this fully operational Google Privacy Extermination station."?

      Seriously, just adding option during installation would not be enough, eh? And making the browser less useful post-install would be good?

    17. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      Tell me a browser that doesn't do this?

      • Chrome: Auto Suggests from the url/search box
      • Firefox: Auto suggest from the search box, phishing check from the address bar
      • IE: Same as Firefox

      Does Opera not do these? (I don't have it installed here so can't check)

      I don't get the whole Google panic thing... I know they know a lot of assorted pieces of information about from various different things, so does my ISP, the DNS I use (not my ISPs crappy one), McAfee (at work) and an assorted bunch of advertising sites (again at work due to lack of AdBlock).

      As far as I'm concerned the vast majority of the data Google have on the account I have with them is to help them better serve me as a customer (just as I'm better served as a customer at my local shops because they know who I am and what I like). The rest of that data I actually ASKED them store (emails and some collaborative documents).

    18. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by trifish · · Score: 1

      You're missing a very important difference. The address bar and the search bar are unified in Chrome (not in any other browser). They are a single text field.

      The consequence is that when the user types a domain name or URL in Chrome, Google sees everything he types there. Any site he visits is logged on Google servers by default. That's spying by default.

      Firefox and IE only send search queries, which are sent to search engines when you hit Enter anyway (there is very little negative impact to privacy here).

    19. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      No, Firefox and IE both have autosuggest on the search field (exactly as Chrome has it, except IE sends to Bing by default). The only difference is Google/Microsoft only receive the URL on submit in IE or Firefox, not key by key (because Firefox still checks Google's phishing list and IE checks Microsoft's).

    20. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read the parent post to which you replied and then read TFA. Then come back and look at your post. You'll find how ignorant you are.

    21. Re:YOU CAN TURN IT OFF. by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      I've reread your post and the article as requested by Anon and I still don't see any difference other than the amount of entries Google/Microsoft gets.

      As an example, Visiting Slashdot in Google Chrome would produce a series of entries like this:

      • s
      • sl
      • sla
      • slah
      • sla
      • slas
      • slash
      • slashd
      • slashdo
      • slashdot
      • slashdot.
      • slashdot.o
      • slashdot.og
      • slashdot.o
      • slashdot.or
      • slashdot.org
      • http://slashdot.org Final submission for phishing check

      Firefox and IE would produce the following entry on Google or Microsoft's servers respectively when they check against their phishing filters:

      • http://slashdot.org

      So the only difference is that Chrome tells Google I make the occasional typo.

  33. omg by ProfessorKaos64 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What a bunch of morons you all are. Does this impact your daily life? Does it steal your real private data? Bank accounts, purchase numbers!?? NO, stop being a bunch of f'ing whiners, sheesh. They are collecting browsing habit data, like EVERY company does to a degree, if we didn't have that, advertising would shrival up, and the web would actually kind of suck with no steady stream of money to fund all those FREE sites you visit. What a bunch of friggen morons.

  34. Re:Not Correct by Kugrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog

    They aren't hidden, they're quite visible. 3 clicks show you them.

  35. Spin by vikstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Earlier that day at Microsoft...
    "Hey Pete, we can't get the combined search and address bar to work properly"
    "Hmm. Ok, don't worry, we'll just spin it as a security feature".

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  36. Easy Fix by kemushi88 · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least on the OS X version...

    Preferences -> Under the Hood -> Uncheck "Use a suggestion service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar"

  37. Gee! Thanks Microsoft.. by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Chrome is a keylogger. Most of the new commercial stuff probably is. Nobody seems to care enough to do some deep checking...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  38. Yeah right - f**k you Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you install Windows on your machine it automagicaly (modulo EU) gets the Internet Expolorer browser as default. Then when you open it it hangs for a second an displays MSN.COM website (or compatible). Next with this default browser if you mistype some URL address it redirects you to Microsoft search engine etc.

    I mean - come on - people install Google stuff because THEY WANT TO - and it is the basic difference vs. MS web offering (nobody wants it and it is installed by default) vs. Google - everybody loves.

    Fuck you Microsoft.

    1. Re:Yeah right - f**k you Microsoft by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      You have some serious mental issues.

      Are you really shocked that Windows has a default browser? Same as every other OS? And they all take you to some default web page? And it has a default behaviour? And most of all, are you shocked about the fact that its default action for a mistyped URL is taking you to their website?

      Lets see. Chrome and Mozilla by default take you to Google. (Mozilla takes you to their google formatted page). How dare they!!??!! Next thing you'll tell me that when you mistype something in Chrome, it takes you to a google search engine?

  39. Re:Not Correct by repka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They (M$) do collect this information locally if you have form auto-completion. But they don't send anywhere, unlike google.

  40. Re:Not Correct by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's useless. Most Slashdotters have their heads so far up Google's ass, nothing you say will reach their ears. This is a company that indexes everything forever, including your email and IM conversations. It gets praised as some "open source company" when its main product--its search engine and advertising platform--is as closed as Windows. It only uses open source products to get people onto its proprietary advertising platform.

  41. Re:Not Correct by repka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not true, if they wanted to keep it anonymous, they wouldn't send session cookie with each request. Yet they do. Session id is not required for auto-suggestions.

    Once again they don't just receive everything you type in address bar, they also associate it with your session.

  42. Suggestion service can be disabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can un-check the option to use the auto-completion suggestion service for anything you type in the omnibox. Its under Options->Under the hood. At least, that's the case for the latest beta releases. I just started using Chrome and have only used the latest beta software, which is extremely stable.

  43. Exactly why do people trust google by nibbles2004 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    actually as someone who has researched this , Microsoft are actually correct, and Google are the bad guys here, sorry to break it to you, but whats the difference between a company worth $billions and $slightly less Billions, so exactly why do you trust Google more than Microsoft, did Ms rob your house last and torture your kitten, I see nothing but sheep here at slashdot, i fear google far more than MS,IBM or Apple (last one open to debate). time for a new search engine as that's all they really do and it been crap since 2002.btw i do respect there stance on China

    1. Re:Exactly why do people trust google by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Exactly why do people trust google

      Easy, because they've never betrayed that trust.

      If you fear people who have consistently treated you well, and never given you any reason to distrust them, you've got a serious problem.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Exactly why do people trust google by droopycom · · Score: 1

      I dont think thats the reason why.

      I think the real reason is that the (perceived) risk for using Google is still very very very low. And the cost of doing something else is too high.

      There is real risk that data collected by Google can be leaked or misused, but they collect so much data that the risk of the data being leaked would affect you personally is probably insignificant. (thats my own perception)

      I mean there have been many cases of credit cards numbers and other personal data being lost by banks, retailers or other organization, but people still use these...

    3. Re:Exactly why do people trust google by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      The reason are i dont really feal threatened by Google having my private data. They have so far proven to be a very benovolent company with high moral fiber, as opposed to the courtroom jockey Microsoft have proven to be.

      If i want autocomplete, synced bookmarks, search in the adressbar and other functions i really like some way or another that information has to pass through google for it to work. I can take that without much fuss because i trust Google.

      On the other hand i wouldnt even dream of doing the same exakt thing with Microsoft because boy dont i trust those people.

      And thats the problem for Microsoft but their solution is wrong. Instead of trying to wage a PR war against Google Microsoft should focus on getting a better rep by their own actions. Right now all they do is make me despise them for being whiny loosers.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
  44. Re:Not Correct by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean via the same mechanism where you type information into 'Bing', and then 'Bing' responds with your search results?

    Most people don't type in 100 character URL's (I don't know of any) they either have it bookmarked, or they search for it via, you guess it, the search engine like Google, Bing, or whatnot.

  45. Re:Not Correct by repka · · Score: 0, Troll

    You mean via the same mechanism where you type information into 'Bing', and then 'Bing' responds with your search results?

    No, I meant web forms, not Bing.

    Most people don't type in 100 character URL's (I don't know of any) they either have it bookmarked, or they search for it via, you guess it, the search engine like Google, Bing, or whatnot.

    Yeah and most of they use AOL keywords anyway...

  46. Is there a flash or HTML5 version of that video? by mysidia · · Score: 1

    I refuse to taint my shiny computer with that invasive Microsoft crap.

    Seeing as Silverlight is noted for its unsafe privacy-compromising characteristics.

  47. TechNet spreading this FUD via search engine too by E-Prime · · Score: 1

    Looks like Microsoft is serious about pushing this FUD. If you search for Chrome on TechNet it'll list a bunch of results tagged with "Google Chrome steals your privacy", but when you click through on the links there is no mention of Chrome. See for yourself at http://edge.technet.com/Search/Default.aspx?Term=chrome

  48. Re:Not Correct by ChinggisK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's a fine, legitimate argument. It becomes bullshit when you start suggesting that the options are "hidden in the advanced settings dialog" instead of just right there in the options menu. I'm just protesting the exaggeration.

  49. Google are they the Stepford Wives by nibbles2004 · · Score: 1

    also Chrome crashes more than IE, how on earth is that possible, lucky i don't want a job with google, ive met them they like the stepford wive's, scary. BTW that what we called google people when they used to visit my previous company

  50. Yes by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Yes, bYOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTEDecause Internet Explorer 8 is so g34 OBJECTS FOUNDreat with privacy and seWARNING YOUR COMPUTER IS SENDING OUT SPAMcurity. It privaUNREGISTERED VERSION $35.59 TO REGISTERtely and seWARNING VISITING THIS SITE MAY HARM YOUR COMPUTERcurely lets any old pTHE FILE SLASHDOT.ORG IS INFECTED WITH A VIRUSrogram install itself on your comXP TOTALLY-REAL-ANTIVIRUS 2011 HAS FOUND PROBLEMSputer, as an admin, no matter what security settREGISTRY CLEANING IN PROGRESS, YO MOMMAings or domain policies you have installed. Chrome doeGIVEUSYOURCREDITCARD.RU.EXE SAYS YOU OWE US MONEY, KEKEKEsn't! In fact, the Pwn2Own guys couldn't even hack Chrome! How disgraceful!

  51. In other news... by choongiri · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...choongiri is going on the offensive against Microsoft, accusing the convicted monopolist of creating a browser that just SUCKS ASS!

  52. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful. Sadly that seems to be ongoing trend here.

  53. Re:Not Correct by nobodyman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude, if it's in an "Options" dialog we already know that 90% of users will not bother to touch it.

    Also, while the first options tab controls *who* you send every single keystroke to, it isn't until you go to the "Under the Hood" tab that you can actually turn the feature off. So don't give me this "but but it isn't an advanced setting" crap just because the tab isn't named "Advanced".

  54. Heh... by MikShapi · · Score: 1

    >> Microsoft Claims Google Chrome Steals Your Privacy ... ... ... From Microsoft; who firmly believe they rightly own it.

    --
    -
  55. it's really true by glebovitz · · Score: 1

    Google steals your privacy and the health care bill kills old people.

  56. Re:Not Correct by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how many users you think are going to check those just to know their privacy isn't violated?

    All of them that are that anal about their privacy will.

    Most of us, frankly, don't care if Google knows what addresses we've been putting into the address bar. It's not that big a deal. I could see terrorists or industrial spies not wanting to use chrome, but really, for most people this is not the kind of "privacy issue" that has them concerned. I use Google exclusively for my searches, so what difference is the address bar going to make? Get a grip, I and most others already trust them with far greater than the address bar, it is a non-issue.

    Now, if you want to argue that Google should not be trusted, I'm all ears. So far they've done right by me and everybody else though, so you'd better have something pretty damning to make me change my mind.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  57. Re:Not Correct by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 4, Funny

    They (M$) do collect this information locally if you have form auto-completion

    Yes, and my MS Outlook 2007 collects my emails and stores them locally too! Bastards!

  58. Proof by jobst · · Score: 1

    All this means that the computer the guy was working on had a key logger Trojan installed.

    Now if the guy is working in the department that creates code for office or the Win7 that would be a worry ;-)

    --
    to code or not to code, that is the question.
  59. SRWare Iron = Chrome without the privacy issues by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want to use Chrome without Google spying on you then use SRWare Iron instead. This page details the major differences between the two Chromium sourced browsers: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php Download SRWare Iron here: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php

  60. Re:Not Correct by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog

    They aren't hidden, they're quite visible. 3 clicks show you them.

    I seem to recall it is 4 clicks to disable UAC in Windows, but remember how much of a stink that put up when it came out? It's all about the DEFAULT behaviour of a program that determines the software company's evil or not evil motives.

  61. So then what do you recommend? by Tromad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So then what is a good browser? I do value privacy so I don't use Chrome (I figure google can have either my search history or web browsing history but not both, and adblock for Chrome really sucks). I hate ads so I don't use Opera (the adblock solution also sucks). I don't care about bloat, but I do care about speed, and firefox is the slowest of the main browsers I use (I do not use IE8). The four things I care about are security, ad-blocking, speed, and privacy. It looks like this is another case of "choose 3 out of 4".

    1. Re:So then what do you recommend? by c-reus · · Score: 1

      try links then.
      Speed: it doesn't run javascript or display images. That's a huge boost in rendering a page.
      Ad-blocking: you only see the text-only ads that are included when the page loads.
      Security: when's the last time there was a security bug found in links? Also, no security advisories listed by Secunia.
      Privacy: there's no direct connection made from Links to Google, Microsoft or any other search provider, unless you type in their respective URLs and open their respective search pages. AFAIK, page history is only kept until you close the browser.

      How about adding usability to the things you care about? A nice GUI perhaps, or the ability to display (or use) key elements in today's popular web pages?

    2. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Spewns · · Score: 3, Informative

      So then what is a good browser? I do value privacy so I don't use Chrome (I figure google can have either my search history or web browsing history but not both, and adblock for Chrome really sucks). I hate ads so I don't use Opera (the adblock solution also sucks). I don't care about bloat, but I do care about speed, and firefox is the slowest of the main browsers I use (I do not use IE8). The four things I care about are security, ad-blocking, speed, and privacy. It looks like this is another case of "choose 3 out of 4".

      1. Take off the tin foil hat and spend 5 seconds disabling whatever it is that offends you in the clearly labeled and displayed Privacy settings in Chrome.
      2. Download a good hosts adblocking file.
      3. Download a good extension that'll hide the blocked elements and text ads.
      4. Enjoy using a blazingly fast and responsive, free browser.

      Or if you're still paranoid that Google is using Chrome to hijack your life, you could even do this:
      1. Download Opera.
      2. Use this guy's stuff.

    3. Re:So then what do you recommend? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      if you use ie8 you will notice (apart from its bugginess) that it ias atleast twice as fast as firefox.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    4. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      I already said I don't want to edit my hosts file (doesn't do anything to prevent new rogue drive-by malware). If this solution is similar to all the other adblock solutions for Chrome it still downloads all the ads and associated drive-by rogue malware, it just hides it so you don't see it.

    5. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestion. I don't care about usability, IMO all the major browsers are horrible in this regard.

    6. Re:So then what do you recommend? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Or you could just use SRWare Iron, which is Google Chrome without all the crap and (I think) some extras.

    7. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Spewns · · Score: 1

      But it is based on an older version of Chrome (which might not be a huge deal), and last time I checked the adblocker only worked on Windows.

    8. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Spewns · · Score: 1

      If this solution is similar to all the other adblock solutions for Chrome it still downloads all the ads and associated drive-by rogue malware, it just hides it so you don't see it.

      That's correct (and unfortunate) with regard to the extension alone, which is why an adblocking hosts file is needed.

    9. Re:So then what do you recommend? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      Taking part of your suggestion I went back to Opera (for the 5th time) and now while it is no longer the fastest browser it seems like the most usable, and it renders much better than it did several years ago.

  62. Re:Not Correct by Gerzel · · Score: 1

    It smells like sandalwood up here!

  63. Re:Not Correct by Simon80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, Firefox's default behavior is to serve up your keystrokes to google as well, so I think the main point is that all three browsers' defaults aren't privacy friendly.

  64. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am sorry, I can't put this any more politely. You just might be an idiot.

    Chrome Options pane

    It doesn't get any easier than that. Stop implying that Chrome's advanced page is akin to the other browsers.

  65. Re:Not Correct by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    The percentage of Chrome users who will adjust the settings is much higher than the percentage of non-Chrome users. Most of the people who accept the defaults won't bother to install an alternative browser.

  66. Re:Not Correct by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

    Still doesn't have the level of cookie control that I an using with Firefox. Get prompted for all cookies, session only, easy to add permissions with out manually typing URLs. I also did a search on google add-ons for cookie tools. There were none. Still a fail for me.

    However, I did install it for my mother in law. No idea if she will use it though. Should be better for her since she is running on old hardware and she doesn't care about privacy.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  67. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually 7 for UAC, although that's a bad comparison, as 1) only idiots disable it on home PCs, and 2) finding the UAC page is a hell of a lot harder. In Chrome, you can't not find the privacy page; it leads you directly to it.

  68. Re:Not Correct by Al+Dimond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, lots of engineers want to make the world a better place in some way.

    They are paid by people with money in order to make them more of it. The "bonus" for the workers is that they keep their jobs.

  69. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to IE, which requires you to download toolbars to have your privacy stolen...

    Incidentally, every time you use Google suggest, they see what you're typing... it's how they know what the hell you're searching for. No news here. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't type things I don't want Google to see into a Google search window. And at least I know they delete the logs after some period of time. I'm not sure what Microsoft does with Bing.

  70. Life imitating art by wasabu · · Score: 1

    Could they have picked a more stereotypical "Revenge of the Nerds" character to read the autocue? hehe I felt like cream-pieing him in the first 10 seconds.

  71. Hypocrisy Anyone? by ktippetts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...any claim about protecting privacy from the one company that has been the direct or indirect cause of so much private data being lost or compromised is really rich. I'd have to think that it's a red herring, really, to divert attention away from the privacy/security problems IE 6/7/8, Windows XP/Vista/7 have already....

  72. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    People might not go into the "Options" screen, but anyone doing something they want private has a fair chance of using the "incognito" feature which has all of that type of stuff disabled.

    Personally, I think the URL suggestion thing is helpful and will continue to use it.

  73. I R O N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

  74. Re:Not Correct by shimage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming you didn't just pull that "90%" figure out of your ass, who cares? They obviously don't, and it's not my privacy they're dicking with. Besides, it's not like Google and every other search engine out there doesn't already store and analyze search queries (indexed by IP address). Is it that big a problem that Google or Bing or whatever knows what you are about to search for before you hit the enter key?

  75. MS "fuzzing" Pwn2Own results? by elijahu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is Microsoft's response here not them trying desperately to spin their way past the latest Pwn2Own results from CanSecWest? Safari, Firefox and IE8 all went down pretty quickly. Chrome wasn't even attempted. Nobody there had a way to take it down. Money was left on the table.
    ( http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2010/02/15/pwn2own-2010 )

    Microsoft's response?

    First claim that Windows 7 isn't really meant to prevent you from hacking into it.
    ( http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174309/Microsoft_defends_Windows_7_security_after_Pwn2Own_hacks )

    Then try to convince people Chrome is somehow worse.

    Seem's like that makes your choice to either accept that a company like Google knows what information you're looking for [turn off the option, heck even use a different browser. I'm sure they can figure it out anyway.] or letting random anyhacker access ALL the data on your system.

    I'll take option A thanks.

  76. From TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "LePage makes an important mistake in his accusation against Google: his statement should not be "Chrome sends a request back to Google" but it should be "Chrome sends a request back to the search provider." He makes this distinction with IE8 but does not with Chrome. The information is being sent so that the search provider can help the user choose a query right in their browser."

    Interesting how changing a couple of words can put a totally different spin on a statement.

    And, I know, shame on me for actually reading TFA.

  77. Dumb fucks by LordThyGod · · Score: 1

    You and them.

  78. If only Microsoft learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Microsoft build something as fast as Chrome I will think of switch back to IE in the mean time I stick with Chrome...

  79. Re:Not Correct by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares? I think everyones missing the real reason Chrome fails and that's it's sole purpose is to entice people away from firefox and adblock+ I can control what I see in my browser, Google should know better than anyone that once this kind of Genie is out of it's bottle there's no putting it back in.

  80. *source code* by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Informative

    What a lame attempt, microsoft ...

    1) - If you use explorer, you are using windows. The chances of someone exploiting your browser and getting access to all your files is 90%
              - You can use Chrome in Mac or GNU/Linux. Both Chrome and your OS keep your data secure

    2) - I have the source code for Chrome (Chromium) and I can study it, make sure it's safe, or change whatever I want. Also, I know the community has reviewed it, and the company is not trying to hid anything behind a binary
              - I don't have the source of explorer, and microsoft has a huge history of phoning home and spying on users

    3 - Chrome is standards compliant, so there's no vendor tie-in. If I find something I don't like, I can move on to another browser
              - Explorer is platform specific, and non compliant with standards. That means, if I develop anything for it, it'll probably be incompatible with other browsers and moving away will be hard.

    Sorry microsoft, Google published the source code for their browser, it's well developed, multi-platform, they'll take my patches and if they are good implement them on their source, and they are open and transparent about everything the browser does. They are doing all the right things, and I just love this browser.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:*source code* by notaprguy · · Score: 1

      Your post is such total BS I can barely contain myself. So, you've actually checked out the source code for Chrome? I didn't think so. Whether or not Chrome is standards compliant is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Your trust in the 'community' is laughable. The facts are actually not disputed. Chrome logs keystrokes when you type anything into the address/search bar. That's it. Whether they anonymize them after 24 hours or not does not change that fact. IE does not do that. That's not disputed. Wake up.

    2. Re:*source code* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice trolling. 3/10. Better luck next time.

    3. Re:*source code* by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      I have the source code for Chrome (Chromium) and I can study it, make sure it's safe, or change whatever I want. Also, I know the community has reviewed it, and the company is not trying to hid anything behind a binary

      How do you know the community has reviewed it? Have you actually studied it yourself? Personally, I'd be too lazy to do so, but then again, so would be many others.

    4. Re:*source code* by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

      yeah standards compliance is irrelevant... maybe to a nursery child - but in the real world, thousands of companies can't move away from IE6, because they wrote business apps in ActiveX and they are incompatible to anything else than IE6 (not even compatible to IE7)

      and the fun didn't even start yet - imagine when newer hardware doesn't support XP anymore - then they can start running their apps in IE6 on XP on virtual machines.... someday on a virtual machine in a virtual machine etc.

      staying away from standards violators like MS is the only way to create LASTING solutions, they just cause more and more expenses for developing the same things over and over again...

      --
      The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    5. Re:*source code* by EnglishTim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you even read the article? Did you even read the summary?

      Yes, you may be able to get the source of Chrome, but you don't have the source of the search provider that it connects to. Microsoft's point is that if you're using Chrome, any URL you type in is sent to Google (by default, anyway) and you don't know what happens to information when it gets there.

    6. Re:*source code* by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      How do you know the community has reviewed it?

      This wouldn't exist if the code hadn't been reviewed. Next stupid ass questiion?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    7. Re:*source code* by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      You have clearly missed the point you moron. Most people always rely on the fact that someone else would have reviewed the code, and that they should be trusted, very few do it themselves.

      Question is spelled with one "i" by the way, in case you missed that in school today.

    8. Re:*source code* by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Really? Really, motherfucker? It took you that long to come shit out that pathetic response? You got schooled, bitch. Sometimes the only thing to do is accept it.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    9. Re:*source code* by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it did, see I actually had things to do, I don't sit in my mamma's basement trolling slashdot like you seem to.

      Go back to class before I call your principal.

  81. RTFA first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone actually read the actual article??/

    #1
    "It's worth taking a closer look at LePage's first accusation. Even though he didn't really elaborate, the reason for the striking difference for IE8's and Chrome's behaviors is really that simple: IE8 has two boxes and Chrome has one. LePage makes an important mistake in his accusation against Google: his statement should not be "Chrome sends a request back to Google" but it should be "Chrome sends a request back to the search provider." He makes this distinction with IE8 but does not with Chrome. The information is being sent so that the search provider can help the user choose a query right in their browser.

    We downloaded Fiddler to make some comparisons of our own. As we suspected, Chrome can be set to send information on every keystroke to Bing (or any other search engine that supports Search Suggestions) instead of Google. The same behavior occurs in IE8, but only in the search bar. LePage is only correct in his assertion that IE8 does not send information to anyone when the user types into the address bar.

    See for yourself: download Fiddler and type something into the address bar on Chrome and watch how Fiddler reacts when you have Search Suggestions on and off. Then do the same in both IE8 fields."

    #2
    "In the second part of the video, LePage demonstrates how Internet Explorer 8 has a privacy feature called InPrivate, a privacy mode to allow browsing without leaving a trace. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge the existence of Google Chrome's Incognito, which disables history tracking, which undercuts his argument."

  82. So...Use Iron by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Informative

    Use SRWare's Iron.

    It's google Chrome without the reporting bits (and actually with newer rendering java, so it's actually faster).

    It's screamingly fast, and emulates IE-dedicated pages (including nasties like MS Webmail) far better than Firefox. I love it.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:So...Use Iron by rennerik · · Score: 1

      ... emulates IE-dedicated pages (including nasties like MS Webmail) far better than Firefox. I love it.

      If you mean Exchange webmail (aka Outlook Web App), the new version of Exchange (2010) supports Chrome on Windows (and it's trivial to make it support Chrome on Mac OS X; just insert one line into the web.config of OWA). You get the full experience that IE gets. Exchange also supports Safari and Firefox 3.0+ now as well.

  83. Not an excuse for two boxes by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is some rather lame marketing by Microsoft because Chrome's user experience with one magic box for address and search is so spot on and IE's dual boxes seems so lame and dated. Particularly in Windows, it is just as easy to get at keystroke messages for all windows as it is to get them in one, you can go in your main message loop:

    while (GetMessage(msg)) {
          if( msg.something == WM_KEYDOWN)
              log(msg);
    }

    I think would work for just about everything.

    So yes, Microsoft might have a point about Chrome invading your privacy, but, at the same time, trying to bundle it in with a critique of chrome's single window is just marketese and really undermines the rest of their own point. It's such a stretch of reality, that you have to wonder how much the rest of their message is true.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your code will not get keyboard input for any application other than the one it runs in.

    2. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Your code will not get keyboard input for any application other than the one it runs in

      For a web browser, that's all you need, and that's the issue under discussion.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you imply that a plugin running in a browser can keylog?

      I'm not sure how much plugins are sandboxed in IE, but in Chrome (ironically), very much so - they wouldn't have access to the message queue where input for the address bar goes.

    4. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the issue. It's not whether you technically can manage it -- they have code running at user privileges on your machine, if they were malicious you're already pwned (as a user, not necessarily as an admin).

      It's technically can they NOT send it and still have the feature work.

      You start typing disgustingfetish.com, and they can't distinguish that you were typing a URL so they send "disgustingfetish" to Google as a search term. This is a privacy problem. They had to send it because they couldn't know a priori that you were not doing a search. If they had a separate box, they could know that this is not a search and thus not send the embarrassing info back to Google HQ.

    5. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by tjstork · · Score: 1

      They had to send it because they couldn't know a priori that you were not doing a search. If they had a separate box,

      Again, this is not a problem. Forget about Google's implementation. You can try various combinations of nslookup locally and offer autocomplete that. If you don't get a hit, then send the search request. Since most users tend to visit the same sites over and over again, you can even cache those. You can have a super box.

      --
      This is my sig.
    6. Re:Not an excuse for two boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: I *like* having two boxes. If I make a typo in a URL I want a chance to easily correct it, not have to retype it because it got converted to a 5000-byte search URL.

  84. Re:Not Correct by supremebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That said, most of that 90% of users who wouldn't bother changing the default options in Chrome probably wouldn't have Chrome to begin with. Most of those users would be using whatever browser came pre-installed on the PC that they ordered from Dell or picked up at Sam's Club, and many of them probably haven't even heard of Chrome yet.

    My point is that Chrome already has a pretty advanced user base (advanced enough to know how to download and install a web browser, anyway), and they would know how to edit privacy options if they wanted to do so.

  85. For example... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Open this in Firefox and see what happens in the Task Manager:
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world-news.aspx

    If the browser doesn't hog a full processor straight away, then try opening a couple of news articles in tabs.

    1. Re:For example... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      i opened four tabs of news articles. cpu usage remained 4-5% on both cores. memory usage jumped ~4mb. what ancient set up are you using?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    2. Re:For example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox 3.6.2

  86. Get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you guys really thing Google is stealing your data to use against you, put your tin foil back on your head and go back under your rock.

  87. Video can't be viewed by Chrome users by h0tr0d · · Score: 1

    This is great. Microsoft may or may not have done a good job of providing valuable information to users of Chrome. Except users of Chrome can't view the video so what's the point? To convince someone using IE to not use Chrome. Do they hope that that using Chrome will switch to IE because they can't view the video? No, those users will simply disregard the video as typical Microsoft propaganda attempting to scare users into using Microsoft products. What a waste and proof of how stupid and arrogant large corporations have become.

  88. The truth is... by Cjstone · · Score: 1

    Microsoft just wishes that they had thought of it first.

  89. Re:Not Correct by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

    Well, Firefox's default behavior is to serve up your keystrokes to google as well, so I think the main point is that all three browsers' defaults aren't privacy friendly.

    No, it isn't, unless you're typing in the search bar and not the location bar.

  90. Re:Not Correct by quadelirus · · Score: 1

    But those same 90% have already given out all their details to facebook, so who cares if the browser also collects information on them. It's not like they have that much less privacy with a browser that knows what URLs they went to.

    And besides, I really think 90% is a huge leap. As with Android, Geeks use Chrome, regular people use IE.

    Another thing, if we are going to keep talking FUD, your ISP knows who you are and can parse/sniff/store all the HTTP traffic you send, and even for encrypted traffic they know where it is going. Google is not that big of a worry.

  91. Re:Not Correct by Simon80 · · Score: 1

    No it isn't, except when it is. You do raise a valid point, but I meant the search bar. Sure, we can say that Chrome is worse for pulling in URLs as collateral damage, but my point is that all three browsers are sending keystroke, and I don't like this either. It's not that much worse than uploading search terms each time a search is made, but at least I have to hit enter before the terms are uploaded.

  92. Re:Not Correct by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact is, Chrome is the most privacy intrusive browser

    Firefox's Awesome Bar does the exact same thing, by default. IE's anti-phishing sends every URL you visit to Microsoft.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  93. Re:Not Correct by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

    There are ad blocking extensions for Chrome, for what it's worth. Not sure about Java Script control though..

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  94. Re:Not Correct by BobPaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's so hard to understand about this problem? Most users want to use suggestions only for their searches, not URLs they enter.

    Bullshit. Most users only use the search bars on Firefox and IE, anyway. And they frequently type URLs into them. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone type "google" into the search bar, click the first result from MSN and then type a search...

    Usage studies is how Google came to their cleaner interface. Your concerns about privacy are valid, and I wouldn't doubt that factored into their design decisions, but I wouldn't be surprised if the other browsers combined their bars eventually, too. We're already moving that way with FX's awesome-bar.

  95. News? by quadelirus · · Score: 1

    How is this news? All of the information is clearly spelled out in black and white at: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

  96. Re:Not Correct by Aranykai · · Score: 1

    Because opening control panel and typing "UAC" in the search field is really hard.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
  97. Re:Not Correct by Aranykai · · Score: 1

    Ironic then that there is also an adblock+(flashblock too) for google chrome.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
  98. Re:Not Correct by ncy · · Score: 1

    most of the engineers might be sincere, but whoever's managing the project or heading the company might not be.

  99. Re:Not Correct by Spewns · · Score: 1

    Did you not read TFA at all ? You can not only choose which search provider to use the search suggestions, you can also turn off search suggestions in chrome !!

    All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog

    Blast them for hiding the Settings in the Settings menu!

  100. Re:Not Correct by yuhong · · Score: 1

    Plus, most of that 90% of users are not likely to care that much about their privacy. Those advanced users who do will easily be able to find the option.

  101. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm---I would HOPE that my browser sent every keystroke I typed into it to the seach engine--that's kind of the IDEA!!! Are you sure you guys aren't in the airplane glue again on this one?

  102. shamefull Microsoft talking shamelessly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shamefull Microsoft talking shamelessly

  103. Re:Not Correct by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    also, i was surprised to find bing as an option in chrome.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  104. Re:Not Correct by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    no, i don't want to make a choice between searching or entering a url. i want it done automatically. what chrome does is what the future of browsing will be like.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  105. Re:Not Correct by yuhong · · Score: 1

    This was discussed before:
    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads
    And it reminds me of one of my AskReddit submissions where I mentioned a Slashdot comment about ad-blocking that mentioned that "(I work at Google, hence posting as AC.)":
    http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bk093/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_really/

  106. Re:Not Correct by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    It's useless. some people refuse to realize that ads are not inherently bad. they are obnoxious/annoying only when they are irrelevant for you. google is trying to change that. by tracking your activities google can show you ads that are actually useful to you. i just can't see any problem with that. and google, unlikw m$, won't share your data with the government of china.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  107. Re:Not Correct by net28573 · · Score: 1

    As someone who "has his head so far up Google's ass" id like to present you with some encriminating information about ms. Due to spam i had changed my email several times while with hotmail (ms) and the last one i made before i switched to gmail. i hadn't done anything with the hotmail account. It was empty. No subscriptions made.... then as i come back from my calming conversion to Gmail weeks later. I SEE SPAM!!!!!! AT LEAST 5 DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH I DID NOT SUBSCRIBE ON THE FIRST PAGE OF MY INBOX!!!!!!!!! microsoft's main goal was always and has always been to make a profit. how else would all those glitches still be in the operating system. they are not trying to make it better they are trying to slow down the process so that they can have all the good stuff saved for when they have competitors. we all know that microsoft is holding out on us. either that or they have lost their game.

    --
    RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
  108. The rest of Google knows even more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dear MS,

    Most of the sites have Google Analytics, in case you don't know what it is, it brings some very interesting statistics for your site. Google also have Adsense, with ads based in content of the site and the user profile.

    So, with Google chrome, or without it, Google already knows everything, or almost!

    And, security is also about privacy, privacy against hackers! And hackers love IE, and MS of course.

    So, dear MS, if you want to beat Google Chrome or FireFox, please, do a better job on IE, that is VERY SLOW. Google Chrome is new, and is a good browser, so IE could be a good browser if you want.

  109. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Firefox have URL (malware) tracking? Or is that list stored in a local database?

  110. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, you don't know the type of users that use Windows. They don't use search, not in the start menu, on a webpage, or in the control panel. It is a concept not explainable even in person.

  111. This data stays on Google for 24h only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Google keeps this informations only for 24h and only for 2% of the data:

    http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=114836&hl=pt-BR

    So, MS, stop to be a cry baby, and start to work on IE!

  112. Re:Not Correct by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


    As somebody who personally knows people working on Chrome, I can assure you that data mining was not the goal of Chrome. Most engineers at Google are sincerely trying to make the Web a better place. That this actually helps Google is just a bonus for them.

    What, and the engineers working at Microsoft all cackle evilly muttering about sharks and laser beams as they plot to take over the software industry? The people working on a product are essentially never the ones with ill intent.

    The intent of the people working on the project is quite irrelevant. What matters is the company itself, and what they can do with what they've developed. Everyone wants to believe that Google is some benevolent savior, but the realities of large business suggest otherwise. Let's say they are at this moment. How long do you think that attitude can last?

    --
    AccountKiller
  113. Re:Not Correct by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2, Informative

    I still prefer the way Opera does it, which is if I want to search I can type "g " or "y " to search google or yahoo. I use this all the time. This way if I want to search using the bar it is explicit. On the other hand most people wouldn't bother to figure out such a feature even exists...

  114. Role based Web Browers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I only use Chrome for surfing porn, because it helps to have all the cookies, etc, enabled and safe from IE exploits. Because I only use it for porn, I'm not worried about cookie crossover from porn sites to email/banking/slashdot/etc.

    I use Firefox for all of my serious browsing - i.e. anything that isn't porn and requires a password - because I can use "Request Policy" and "NoScript."

    For casual browsing, I use IE but I have everything disabled (no javascript, no active x, etc.)

    I encourage others to do the same... let chrome be the default browser for all your porn and return to firefox (with all of those lovely addons to give real security) for your serious stuff.

  115. QQ CS asks for your pswd by googlerox · · Score: 1

    What about QQ-the prominant IM software in China, which has 500 buddy limit for basic account? Today I fail to add buddy any more with a diagbox reads "Your buddy count reachs up-limit", while I did Excel, I have 471 guys,14 groups.So,I called CS,after 5min 56sec queuing,a girl answered,astonishing enough,she asked me for my account pswd "Is it ok we login your account to check the problem?"

  116. Re:Not Correct by Torodung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, Firefox's address bar searches your local bookmarks and history. The "suggestions" are from your own locally stored browsing habits, which you can burn to the ground with every exit if you like.

    --
    Toro

  117. Blurring the line between URL and search by Quila · · Score: 1

    We've been promised that for a while, typing in a term being equal to the site you want to go to.

    I start typing "news for nerds" and I end up with an item for Slashdot right there.

    Now it's close to being here thanks to technology like this.

  118. youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they want anyone to listen to their arguments they'll have to drop that icky silverlight link and upload their video to youtube.

  119. Maybe it's time I finally try Chrome... by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's time I finally try Chrome... It must be good, when Microsoft starts making PR against it...

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  120. Re:Not Correct by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Most users want to use suggestions only for their searches, not URLs they enter.

    Since huge numbers of average people use Google to search for facebook.com, then click on the link in the search results, I'm going to say that you're wrong about "most people." In fact, I bet they love suggestions for URLs.

  121. Re:Not Correct by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Ahem ... it uses Google Safe Browsing Tool. O_o

  122. Re:Not Correct by Benaiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

  123. Re:Not Correct by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    You can delete all cookies or history on exit automatically in Chrome, too. Firefox's anti-phishing, though, sends information to "Mozilla's partners" (a.k.a. Google). I don't really see the difference.

  124. Re:Not Correct by deathguppie · · Score: 1

    Google, gives me search results tailored to my experience. Without learning from my search habits there is no way they can do that. I don't need to use their engine, but I do. Part of that reason is because it does remember my search patterns and tailors my results to them.

    --
    once more into the breach
  125. Re:Not Correct by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Most users want to use suggestions only for their searches, not URLs they enter.

    You're mistaken. I don't want that shit for searches either. I even set a proxy rule to ensure the Google browser cookie for it is set to off so I don't have to worry about it should I clear my cookies.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  126. Re:Not Correct by Shihar · · Score: 1

    The issue with Google, and the reason why people shove their heads so far up their asses, is that Google hasn't done anything bad with the info they are collecting. They have had gaffs like Buzz default settings, but the fact that Google knows what adverts to toss your way really isn't all that disconcerting. So I get an ad I might click on instead of OMFG HOME LOANS 4 FREE!!!11!! ads really doesn't cause much lost sleep.

    The big reason why everyone has their lips firmly planted on Google's ass is because Google's business model is to increase connectivity. That is good for Google, but also good for me. Google plowing into the smart phone market with an alternative to the closed loop Apple products is a good thing. Google tossing Chrome into the wind to show how to REALLY do a browser is a good thing. If Google pulls the trigger on offering ultra high bandwidth broadband at rates to make the cable companies weep, that is a freaking awesome thing. Does it all serve Google's bottom line? Sure. It also serves my happiness.

    All that is wrong with Google is its potential do something horrible. If Google wanted to do something truly evil, they could. They have a scary amount of information and power they are sitting on, but it is just a potential they have thus far refrained from trying to use.

  127. how much is your privacy worth ? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how much I'd (and you'd) be willing to pay for more privacy. It shouldn't be too hard to modify a browser to go through some kind of anonymizing proxy, to change IP adress, user-agent footprint, control cookies... But that service does have a running cost. Opera for example already has a 'turbo' mode that uses their servers as proxies to speed things up on low-bandwidth links (image compression...).

    As a side benefit, that service could include at least basic malware/scam protection (on the fly antivirus, server/IP blacklists...)

    To me, at $1/month it would be a no-brainer. but at $10/month it would be too expensive.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  128. Good one coming from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a good one coming from the company that states in their licence agreement that if you so much as move your mouse pointer over one of their "Accelerators" it can send all kinds of information to where ever it feels like.

    Apart from the fact that if IE can't find find the host you typed in the address bar it forwards it as a search to Bing! anyway.

    Good one Microsoft!

  129. Sad for Pete LePage. by Phoe6 · · Score: 1

    He wont get a job at Google, when he tries to apply there few years down.

    --
    Senthil
  130. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing the point, they're apparently also collecting the URLs you visit, even when you're not searching for anything.

  131. Google's stand on privacy has always been fishy by $criptah · · Score: 1

    I am with MSFT on this one -- Google's stand on privacy have always been questionable at best because Mountain View jockeys need your personal data to make money. Google may release an OS, a browser and a phone but most of the company's revenue is generated by ads. And quality ads require data about users: Your queries, e-mails, locations, etc. can be used for targeted advertising.

    Also, let's not forget the privacy terms. For every query log Google keeps a cookie and an IP address along with the query. The cookie will become anonymous within 9 months. The last octet of the IP will be removed while leaving the first three in place. MSFT removes the full IP from the logs after several months. Google has stated that you can remove the cookie yourself but how many non-geeks know how to do it?

  132. Netscape works that way too... by Nomaxxx · · Score: 1

    As does Mozilla and SeaMonkey. One field for address bar and search is more convenient than having to click in another area to perform search. This just is a design choice and doesn't affect privacy in any way. Except if your direct url requests are sent to Goggle. I never used Chrome so I don't know know but I don't think it's the case. 90% of Microsoft announcements are meaningless at best and spread false information at worse. They don't care as long as we talk about their products. That's free advertising. Result: everybody heard at least once about "Microsoft".

  133. Nerdrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a lot of people here are getting pissed off as they realize that Microsoft is RIGHT.

  134. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Boss types google docs as a search term in google and clicks on the link......... URL's are harder to remember than just asking a question

  135. Re:Not Correct by mikestew · · Score: 1

    On top of the fact that Hotmail must have some deal where a spammer pays enough money, and no amount of marking as spam will keep their mail out of your inbox. I gave The Ladders my "oh, you need an email address, do you?" Hotmail address. Saw what a scam that was, and started marking their mail as spam. Months went by, kept marking, and their stuff still made its way into my inbox. I'd blow it off as a broken feature if it didn't work for other domains.

    I guess The Ladders didn't pay their bill, as I notice in the past week that their stuff in the Junk folder now.

  136. what could be more important for people by shnull · · Score: 1

    with a mind of their own is that you can actually choose yourself what browser to use (this is a revolutionary idea, i know) without any lawmaker having to tell you which one you can not use. I prefer chrome cos its light and fast and very handy whereas ie8 is a resource gobbler. When it comes to morals and privacy i think microsoft is probably the last one who should start a flamewar with anyone ...

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  137. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh NoEs My PrIvAcY iS bEiNg ViOlAtEd!!!

    won't somebody think of teh childrens?!!!!

    captcha= parents, ironic because I am one.

  138. Re:Not Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Then why the fuck is something, that in-your-face obviously nobody wants, since it is a crooked criminal privacy invasion, ON BY DEFAULT?

    Are you really trying to tell me, that this is not completely intentional? That it is not the point of the whole browser?
    Because then you are seriously delusional!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  139. Re:Not Correct by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Dude, if it's in an "Options" dialog we already know that 90% of users will not bother to touch it.

    But maybe they read the news? It's been mentioned, it caused a stir, it was evil. But maybe these mysterious users neither read news or look at options despite caring about their privacy a lot. Or maybe they don't care about their privacy much, which turns this into a non-issue for them. <--- MOST LIKELY REASON

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  140. Re:Not Correct by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    It's all about the DEFAULT behaviour of a program that determines the software company's evil or not evil motives.

    If convenient options are turned off by default, Google Chrome instead becomes annoying in the press.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  141. Re:Not Correct by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Meh, so let's turn to the savior of the web - Firefox. The browser we Slashdotters can cum on and feel good about. Who do they cooperate with by sending everything you type into the address bar, every search you visit, to check where you go? OH FUCK, GOOGLE! But maybe this is more acceptable, after all it's about the phishing site filter this time, it's about security. Then they can gladly let Google track your browser habits, which they of course do behind the scenes of their phishing filter, logging all queries there, because they're evil.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  142. Re:Not Correct by gullevek · · Score: 1

    Actually this is what I did with ff. I search with the normal URL bar.

    --
    "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
  143. Re:Not Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Wait, let me try that:

    I invite you to my home. For free! I will pay girls that will fulfill your every wish! Come here or hate yourself for the rest of your life! *
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    * Official terms and conditions as stated on my site, apply.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  144. Re:Not Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    P.S.: I fear that without pointing out the second gray item on the terms page, the point I’m trying to make, would be lost.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  145. Re:Not Correct by GORby_ · · Score: 1

    Well, in the EU, MS offers you a nice 'browser choice' window, which lets you choose an alternative browser. That's sure to make quite a few less techie people install Chrome (and other browsers too of course). But didn't google's browser ask you whether you wanted to enable some of those features upon using it for the first time?

  146. not with silverlight... by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

    How amusing. I clicked through to watch Microsoft's video on how bad Google are.

    But the video requires silverlight.

    I'll just have to carry on in ignorance...

  147. Re:Not Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    P.P.S.: Oh great. I linked to my staging server, which you can never reach. Try this one instead: http://navid.radiantempire.com/pub/tnc.html

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  148. Re:Not Correct by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Not in the address bar. Which is why i disabled the useless space-taking separate search field, and am using this layout: http://navid.radiantempire.com/pub/my-firefox.png (No, I don’t have to black out anything. I made sure to kill the session and you can get the e-mail anyway. ^^)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  149. Malware by dugeen · · Score: 1

    The real issue with Chrome is all the malware that comes with it - GoogleUpdate and the THREE scheduled tasks it secretly installs to replicate itself. Being eviller by the day it seems.

  150. anonim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this combined address and search field is the feature that i would like to see in Firefox ;)
    This is a very cool feature indeed, no privacy problems here, lol

  151. Re:Not Correct by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the first thing Chrome asks you after being installed is whether you want to keep Google as the search engine in the address bar or change it.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  152. Re:Not Correct by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    It used to give you the option between live URL checking and a downloaded list, but now the option is missing and a quick look in about:config suggests they're indeed checking each URL now.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  153. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're concerned about it, it would seem more appropriate to tell those supposed 90% users about it.

  154. Re:Not Correct by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    I still prefer the way Opera does it, which is if I want to search I can type "g " or "y " to search google or yahoo. I use this all the time. This way if I want to search using the bar it is explicit.

    Firefox also does it this way & has done for a while.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  155. Re:Not Correct by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1

    There is a big difference. IE8 checks URLs against Microsoft's phishing database as you visit them, telling Microsoft which sites you visit in the process.
    Firefox periodically downloads a file of known phishing sites and searches it locally.

    Source

  156. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because unlike the other evil giants, someone still has to prove that Google actually is evil.

  157. Re:Not Correct by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

    I personally only ever type 2 urls. My internet banking site(6 symbols) and google. That's one awesome dataset...

  158. Why the hell is this news? by WarlockD · · Score: 1

    Fine. Microsoft is bashing Goggle again. Har. Har. Oh they have a point? ooooooh.

    Dammit, Firefox has done this for years. The god damn Google HOME PAGE is like this. Look at the damn script. Hell, just look on how it "suggests" stuff. Its not comming from your hard drive:P

    I bet if you dig in the scripts on MSN you will find the same kind of "feature'

    This gets me worked up. The only people who care about privacy is ONLY people who care about privacy. This article is only posted to piss off the slashdoters.

    Sadly, it works on to many fronts.

  159. Re:Not Correct by Macka · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. Most users only use the search bars on Firefox and IE, anyway. And they frequently type URLs into them. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone type "google" into the search bar, click the first result from MSN and then type a search

    Agreed. My wife does this all the time, despite me pointing out the site she's after is cached in URL bar because she goes there every day. So for her a combined URL and search bar is a blessing. In fact, I've even got used to it myself and discovered I really like it. Chrome over all is just a better browser than IE, Firefox or Safari, IMO. And having made the switch I have no intention of switching back.

  160. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False. The anti-phishing compares each URL to a daily downloaded blacklist.
    It does not transmit the individual URL to Microsoft.

  161. Re:Not Correct by Narishma · · Score: 1

    Chrome also does it, but if you don't use any prefix keyword or whatever they are called it uses Google by default.

    --
    Mada mada dane.
  162. How is this different than... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    How is this different than using Google search inside Internet Explorer?

    --
    No sig today...
  163. Re:Not Correct by Emilis · · Score: 1

    Dude, if it's in an "Options" dialog we already know that 90% of users will not bother to touch it.

    just to add something...when you install google chrome for the first time it actually asks to choose search provider right on the first tab with a big and obvious popup. So those 90% users are at least forced to choose who to send the data to.

  164. Re:Not Correct by sopssa · · Score: 1

    Then why do people bitch when IE does the same? In every discussion people say that MS has specifically made it "hard" for people to change their search provider because it's in the options, just the same way that Chrome has it.

  165. Re:Not Correct by sopssa · · Score: 1

    IE8 does the same actually.

  166. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cat claims Dogs eat birds !!! Details at 7:00 !

  167. A serious attitude problem. by WoollyMittens · · Score: 1

    Somehow Microsoft always come across as socially awkward dorks, especially by lashing out so randomly.

  168. Re:Not Correct by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1
    Only for very high volume sites, the rest are tracked in real time.

    SmartScreen Filter is designed to help warn you about unsafe websites that are impersonating trusted websites (phishing) or contain threats to your computer. If you opt in to SmartScreen Filter, it first checks the address of the website you are visiting against a list of high traffic website addresses stored on your computer that are believed by Microsoft to be legitimate. Addresses that are not on the local list and the addresses of files you are downloading will be sent to Microsoft and checked against a frequently updated list of websites and downloads that have been reported to Microsoft as unsafe or suspicious. You may also choose to use SmartScreen Filter manually to verify individual sites with Microsoft. When you use SmartScreen Filter to check websites automatically or manually, the address of the website you are visiting will be sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information and the SmartScreen Filter version number. To help protect your privacy, the information sent to Microsoft is encrypted.

    Emphasis mine.
    Source here

  169. How does searching work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does searching work? If you type into google search (the search bar) a phrase, either they send those keystrokes to Google (which is then your "except when it is" bit) and you get a search result OR they don't and you don't get a search result.

    Unless you want a local cache of Google...

  170. NSA helping Microsoft on Windows 7 security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA Is Giving Microsoft Some Help On Windows 7 Security

    The National Security Agency has been working with Microsoft Corp. to help improve security measures for its new Windows 7 operating system, a senior NSA official said on Tuesday

    1. Re:NSA helping Microsoft on Windows 7 security by conureman · · Score: 1

      {"The FBI considers the cyber threat against our nation to be one of the greatest concerns of the 21st century," Steven Chabinksy, the deputy assistant director of the FBI's cyber division, told the same congressional committee.}
      Nice link for a tin-hatted AC. Somehow, inadvertant to their primary function as Agents Of Repression, sometimes the FBI and NSA do manage to provide some useful protections for the average Citizen.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  171. you fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APRIL FOOLS

  172. Re:Not Correct by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    So does offline GMail... M$ 1 - 1 Google

  173. FUD machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS is really cranking up the ol' FUD machine, first it was an attack on PS3 and Blu-ray, now it's Chrome. Who's next?

  174. Be afraid! Be very afraid! by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

    While I am wary of Chrome, there's a very simple reason this warning is coming from Microsoft.

    This post brought to you by Captain Obvious

  175. LMAO... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Isn't that like the giant black hole calling the kettle black, please.....
    M$ should tidy their backyard first, before talking about anyone else being doing evil...
    especially against someone like google who has been all about doing no evil....and has proven an excellent track record.

  176. Re:Not Correct by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    "Awesome bar". It's a plugin that integrates the search box into your address bar. I'm running it, because I like the convenience.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  177. Re:Not Correct by galego · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly ... and as for suggestions ... they may be sending requests with keystrokes, but I would imagine they are not 'storing' them along with their order and identifiable data (They could be, but I doubt it). I would think that would be too unreliable and risky in terms of performance. Firefox does essentially the same thing via it's search box when Google and/or Yahoo are selected.

    I bet they do store *queries*. A Request does not automatically equate to storing something in a database. Do MSN/BING/Yahoo!/[INSERTSEARCHPROVIDER] not store the queries (along with environmental info. about those queries) and the subsequent clicks and look at that data?

    And there's things like this from the article:
    ---
    In the second part of the video, LePage demonstrates how Internet Explorer 8 has a privacy feature called InPrivate, a privacy mode to allow browsing without leaving a trace. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge the existence of Google Chrome's Incognito, which disables history tracking, which undercuts his argument.
    ---

    And there's the question of how IE does it's Anti-phishing ... I'm sure it send all your URL's through M$'s network. Does he address whether or not those are stored? M$ is just mad that Google beat them to the idea ... Look for it in a future version of IE. Move along folks ... nothing new to see here.

    Just check your browser's privacy options and set them to level you are comfortable using them.

    --

    Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

    [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

  178. No, the cat does not, in fact, "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Ya know, the dividing line between when Big Bad changed from Big Blue to Microsoft was never clear, and was not evident until it was well over.

    We could be in a similar situation now. Microsoft is certainly recognizing Google as a significant player, anyway.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  179. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these settings are hidden in the advanced settings dialog

    They aren't hidden, they're quite visible. 3 clicks show you them.

    But in Firefox, about:config shows all of the options on the first page! That's ZERO clicks, so this proves that Opera IS hiding privacy settings behind multiple clicks. :)

  180. IE does worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't IE the one that would automatically route your typos to MSN search? Sure, MS is pretty jealous of any usage info that is routed to google, but this is pathetic...

  181. Re:Not Correct by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Citation?

    What I found, the last time I looked, is that it keeps a local whitelist, and sends URLs not on that whitelist to the server-side blacklist.

    There are legitimate reasons for keeping the blacklist server-side, but it does have pretty much the same privacy issues.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  182. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

    Google has earned a lot of trust and good will, and have not yet done anything amazingly asinine or evil to destroy it.

    You know, like propping up SCO with millions of dollars, bundling every app possible as a "free addon" to their monopoly operating system, doing everything possible to keep data format proprietary to prevent users from using competing software, etc.

  183. Re:Not Correct by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    MS is going to out do Chrome by adding precise controls to allow users to decide which malware IE runs. When will Chrome offer the user such freedom and control?

  184. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which IE version is this? IE8 AFAIK asks you on the initial setup. And to change it later, it's on the first option pane.

    As for changing anything else in IE, I think I can answer this. It's the signal:noise ratio. Chrome purposely limits the amount of options, resulting in a very 'clean' look. IE has a bazillion configurable option choices, resulting in a major clusterfuck appearance. It takes minutes just to find one option in particular.

    Compare these.

    Google Chrome: 1 2 3 4 5

    Internet Explorer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    Chrome is a good example of why less is more when it comes to UI creation. Microsoft could still learn a thing or two from Apple, it seems.

  185. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My point is that Chrome already has a pretty advanced user base (advanced enough to know how to download and install a web browser, anyway), and they would know how to edit privacy options if they wanted to do so.

    Most users are capable of putting a simple address in an address bar and clicking the download link, that is not advanced computer usage. Combine that with the fact that Google has been advertising Chrome for a while now (in the real world even, not just online), you'll get a fair proportion of the Chrome user-base being your average non-advanced user.

  186. Re:Not Correct by quadelirus · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn it was 89.3472%

  187. Re:Not Correct by BobPaul · · Score: 1

    Unless you change your default to one of the other providers.

  188. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you solicited mail from The Ladders and then incessantly marked it as unsolicited, and now you're whining that it took forever for this fraud to get it onto a preemptively marked unsolicited list?

  189. Re:Not Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe you are correct. I love it when people simply dismiss fact based on unbridled prejudice. This one guy said "when you(MS) make a better product then you can point out chrome's fault". This is like saying "I was building a tree house for my son, but noticed that the contractor on your house was hiding little camera's in your bathroom" and being met with "Hey, shut up! When you build a house as good as mine, then you can point out the fact that there are camera's hidden in my bathroom". Gotta love stupid, yet arrogance people.