Slashdot Mirror
Scroogle Has Been Blocked
An anonymous reader writes "Scroogle, the secure third-party Google search interface, has been blocked by Google. Scroogle was an SSL-based search proxy that enabled one to search for and receive Google results over an SSL connection in a pseudo-anonymous manner."
If you RTFA you'll notice that Google didn't block Scroogle, they just upgraded without consideration to its functionality. As soon as someone can explain why Google WOULD have Scroogle on a dependency chart we can all put our conspiracy hats back on.
What a horrible summary. Google didn't block anything, they just changed the page that Scroogle scrapes off of. Scroogle claims that they need a "simple" interface to scrape off of. Sounds to me like they are too lazy to adjust their service.
The point isn't that Google or Scroogle can see what you're searching for, with SSL no one in between can see.
Say you search for "How to kill your wife and hide the body". With Google, every ISP that transfers packets between you and them has a record of it. With Scroogle only Scroogle knows what you searched for. (Not sure if they keep logs to subpoena).
They are being Evil. They have a perpetual obligation to keep every single feature in a time-freeze so that third parties can use them as they see fit!
Ah, wait, no they don't.
There is an assload of meta-search engines out there. Scroogle seems to be the only one that has been affected. That's because they were saving bandwidth, processor usage, and programmer's time by using the same fucking simple interface for the last 5 years. So, they've been using an old interface that existed for the SOLE PURPOSE of being compatible with shitty old IE versions .... now that google pulls it out, they bitch about it? Come on ...
Here is what I hate: Everyone is complaining about the privacy concerns with many services, but nobody stops using them! Everyone feels they have the right for every service to work they way they want it to. Guess what, you don't. You don't like google? Stop using it!. I don't like microsoft. I Don't like anything from them. So, I don't use ANYTHING FROM THEM. Not their software, nor their services, nothing. On the other hand, we have people cracking their software and complaining when they are evil. They ARE evil? stay the hell away from it.
I'm really tired of this privacy-concerns constant circle-jerking. Stop using the shit you don't like. Simple, huh?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Is this the same company that started anonymizing search logs sooner and refused to hand over search data to the US?
Is there a reason why you NEED a more anonymous search engine? And can you trust the other party you're going through isn't logging your search inquiries?
Ultimately it comes down to who you trust more. I just don't understand why no one trusts Google when they have the cleanest track record out there.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You sir are absolutely correct. Anyone who writes an application based on screen scraping should expect changes to happen and not act surprised when they do. Besides doesn't Google have a freaking search API? http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxsearch/
This is exactly why Apple doesn't want third-party UI systems on the iPad. They make their own business decision to improve their UI (something Google has needed for some time and something Google needs in order to survive against the likes of Bing) and now they are getting bad press because some lazy programmer can't figure out how to scrape their search results.
Intermediation is not a right. Businesses should have the right to engage with their customers without third-parties trying to intervene.
No other comment - this is simply factually wrong. Let me know when Scroogle can't even resolve Google servers, then they are truly blocked.
I don't get it - why "scrape" at all? Google has a real search API, do they not?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I too have been trying Duck Duck Go (link to encrypted version) for the last several weeks and have been impressed.
Furthermore, check out their privacy policy, as well as a recent blog post about search privacy that explains why it "might be the most private place to search the Internet". No IPs logged, no cookies, no contractors.
There are also a large set of convenient "bang commands" such as searching "!slashdot foo".
And finally, searching over (encrypted) HTTPS just works "out of the box".
Give it a try for a few weeks!
Indeed. Scroogle sounds like a good idea... but it's a service that exists parasitically to Google proper. I'm not trying to imply anything unethical by using the word "parasite", but this really is a situation where Scroogle uses Google's capabilities/services without contributing anything back to Google. This is fine to the extent that Google tolerates it. But they are under no obligation to make accommodations to keep these third-party services running smoothly. TFA says "It's not as if Google needs the money" which seems rather uncharitable given that Google has put up with Scroogle's operations for many years now without any complaints or blocking attempts (that I'm aware of). And Google does need some money (they would have to shut down if everyone used their services through Scroogle...).
Scroogle needs to either adjust their service to keep up with Google's changes, or make a business case to Google for why it is in their best interest to provide a stable interface/API for third-party redistributors like them. The implication in TFA that they are somehow entitled to this interface/API/access is really silly.
......by using a different search engine.
Oh wait - you're weren't generating any revenue for them and were actually costing them bandwidth.
That will really show them!
The linked article does use the title "Scroogle has been blocked" when, really, they haven't been blocked at all. They're free to change their code to work with the various other methods of accessing Google - like perhaps using the publicly available API that Google provides. Since I've never used the API I'm not sure exactly what technical limitations it imposes that make screen scraping a better alternative to the API for privacy concerns. Anyone have an idea why they would need to use a screen scraper to anonymize connections instead of using the API?
If the connection was performed by sockets between Scroogle’s own servers and Google’s (which is what they were doing with their SSL searches to screen-scrape the results from the old /ie interface previously) it would be the same level of anonymity as before. AJAX is just a Javascript interface to open sockets and make HTTP/HTTPS requests.
It’s just a matter of server side vs. client side. The primary reason that an AJAX search is done by your browser rather than your own webpage is because it saves your server the bandwidth and time (and saves the visitor the time too) that would have been required if it was done server-side. It could be done using server-side scripting.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I'm legally blind (but not to the extent that I require a screen-reader) and certainly I advocate for accessability features. But, just like the /ie interface wasn't intended to be a stable screen-scraping interface for Scroogle, it wasn't intended to be an accessability feature. That's the problem with using things in unsupported ways. Sure, they may work now - but you have no assurances going forward.
I'd suggest your wife, and anyone else who finds Google's support for low-vision users lacking, contact them and start lobbying for a proper solution that they will then have proper knowledge of and reason to support.
Not sure which US you live in, but here in the US I'm a citizen of, the government has unfettered access to communications, digital and otherwise. The patriot act took the last of American privacy, and with a hearty chuckle, wiped its ass with the remainder of the fourth amendment.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Trusting any government is a bad idea.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
What's the benefit of being in Germany?
I may be mistaken but I believe they have stronger privacy laws.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Except each search query Scroogle did cost some cents to Google, while a filesharer copying a song/album/movie to another person costs the record companies exactly zero.
They may had no right to copy it, and maybe they shouldn't have done it, but claiming each P2P copy costs real money to the companies is ludicrous. All the costs (bandwidth and electricity) are paid by the two sharers.
Dilbert RSS feed
As in they don't have a leg to stand on, yeah.
"Hey we're scraping a page you told us not to scrape as a robot and you moved it" - "We have a public API" - "We don't wanna follow your licensing terms"
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Nice. How's the weather there? The rest of us are stuck here in the United States of Reality.
It’s not a fully-automated tool, therefore not a robot. It scrapes the page only once at a real user’s direct request.
As such it is no different from a browser (which also scrapes – downloads, parses, and translates into useful format – a page once at a user’s direct request)...
or, for that matter, any different from the IE search interface that the /ie path was meant to support!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Since I am in EU, it also means US can't just randomly get data that doesn't belong to them, ie. for people from other countries. Frankly, EU and European countries take privacy a lot more seriously, for historical reasons too.
I'm pretty sure that the NSA doesn't much care about the European Privacy Seal.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
Why is everyone so willfully ignorant to theft? By downloading media without paying for it, there is no tangible product that costs anyone any money except for bandwidth, but that is not what pisses off record companies. What pisses them off is that they release a product for sale with a value attached to it. This value factors in attempts at profits and attempts at covering the cost of production/paying the artist/etc. When music is illegally downloaded, the company loses money because someone now owns the song without paying for it. Now maybe that person wouldn't have paid in the first place and unlike shoplifting, there was no physical loss or diminishing of goods. However, the fact is that the person downloading the song is still taking something of value without purchasing it. This is theft. And media can have intrinsic value..it costs money to make good music and songs, money spent with the expectation of high returns in sales. If everyone downloads music, then the free market will indeed win as many Slashdotters smugly wish for, hoping to prove the things people make for them that they like aren't actually worth anything. However this free market win will be a ceasing of production for movies and songs..no one can profit so no need to fill the void.
It sure is convenient forgetting that the Patriot Act had expiration dates, and all of the bad parts of it have since expired or been repealed.
The parts that remain are the parts that fixed what Clinton broke when he blocked the different agencies from being able to talk to each other.
You do know that one of marijuana's side effects is paranoia, right?
Yup -- not turning on JavsScript for that--no reason it should need it.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Let's look at what I was replying to:
I mean when you can take time away from being on public video, told what you can and can not say, carrying papers
Now, how am I taking the current AZ situation out of context? Is racial profiling not occurring, with people being told to show papers? In fact, that's exactly what is occurring. Which means, it is no longer valid to use Europe's habit of asking for papers as an indication that we have more liberties here - since that is now occurring here.
Note also that I didn't really indicate how I felt about the new law, either - I just said that it makes it silly to say we're different in that regard, since we're no longer different.
Thoreau, after being jailed for refusing to pay taxes due to his stance against the Mexican war (oddly appropriate...), wrote a dialogue containing these lines:
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,--the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor.
So a person with dark skin is walking along, and a police officer spots them and asks them for their papers. Note that can be the primary cause for the contact; the person doesn't have to have been doing anything wrong, they merely need to be a victim of racism. If the person doesn't have paperwork on them, they are jailed, and have to prove they are allowed to be here. Would I run that risk, being white? Nope. And thus, the issue that many people have with the new law.