Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Says IE8 Phoning Home Is "Pretty Innocuous"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the unlike-that-other-browser dept.

Internet Explorer 194

CWmike writes "Microsoft has defended the IE8 tool that suggests sites based on URLs typed into its address bar, saying that the browser 'phones home' only a limited amount of information to Microsoft and that the company discards all user IP addresses almost immediately. Company managers also contrasted IE8 Beta 2's 'Suggested Sites' feature with the 'Suggest' feature used by Google Chrome, saying that Microsoft's requires the user's explicit permission before it's used. They did acknowledge a bug that prevents the request from reappearing when users reinstall the browser. Cyra Richardson, a Microsoft principal program manager on the IE team, said: 'Suggested Sites is connected to the browser's history, and it's not looking at each of the keystrokes. IE only captures the URL as it is navigated [to], when that URL goes into your history.' Nor does Suggested Sites log and transmit cookies to Microsoft's servers, as does Google Suggest, Richardson said. 'The data we log is actually pretty innocuous.'"

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What did you expect them to say? (5, Funny)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005111)

"We are going to use the data to sell you Zunes?"

Re:What did you expect them to say? (2, Funny)

methangel (191461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005181)

As long as it works with a Zune.

i didnt read the article but.... (-1, Redundant)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005119)

wtf are they on about? i gathered that ie8 phone homes with sites visited but then again im kinda drunk i could be wrong... i didnt get wehter it was able to be turned off but i gathered google chrome does it so wahts wrong i mean turn it off if possible if not get another browser ! simple easy and if you cared about it you probably already have

Re:i didnt read the article but.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005227)

jocks drunk dial
nerds drunk code
geeks drunk slashdot. ha ha, you're a geek

Just remember... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005121)

If Google does it, they do it because they "probably have to." Luckily, they said they "do no evil" so that means they're absolute good and thus immune to scrutiny.

If Microsoft does it, then they're obviously logging all the data on you and plan to sell it to the highest bidder, to use to pay for restrictive DRM technologies and run over old ladies in the street. Though you do not have facts to back up the last statement, you've always conceded that they are a luxury around here. Besides, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which somehow magically changes all the rules on logical arguments, or something.

Did I get it all right? I know there's nothing about Apple in here, but I'll try harder next time.

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005211)

Jeremy?

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005261)

yes... actually, it seems like you have a pretty good grasp of the situation

Re:Just remember... (4, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005297)

Eh, privacy nuts get on Google about things like crazy nowadays. I seriously doubt either company is up to some nefarious plot to stealz mah dataz through my web browser, but I don't mind some of the more paranoid folks keeping them honest. If they have to explain to an angry person every time they collect a piece of info, I figure they'll be less likely to try and pull a fast one.

Re:Just remember... (5, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005505)

My question is, what does "almost immediately" mean?

In my experience, PR/advertising/lawyer types are very careful what they say. They don't lie outright, but will frequently mislead with seemingly innocuous statements that seem to mean one thing, but when they are really looked at, mean something else entirely.
If they'd said that IP addresses were discarded immediately, that would mean that as soon as the information transaction is completed, the IP address is no longer needed, so it's discarded.

Saying "almost" immediately, means it is not discarded at this point. What does "almost" mean in this context, coming from a Microsoft PR person?
Is it discarded almost immediately, after a "small" amount of data analysis is done for marketing purposes?
Is it discarded almost immediately after a scheduled task to purge their server logs once a day?
Is it discarded almost immediately after the DOJ gets on their case about keeping it?

Re:Just remember... (5, Funny)

Screaming Cactus (1230848) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005961)

"Almost immediately" means it's discarded right after the URL is linked to your profile in their Global Database of Evil and forwarded to hundreds of Cheap Viagra internet companies and the NSA, all of which takes about a second, which IS almost immediately.

Re:Just remember... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006057)

Well if you'd just RTFA... you'd see that "PR/advertising/lawyer types" did not say "almost immediately", the journalist did.

What was said by Microsoft about the IP was quite clear:

"We capture as little uniquely identifiable information as possible," said Cyra Richardson, a Microsoft principal program manager on the IE team. "We capture the URL that the user is visiting, the version of the browser and general locale information."

To determine the latter, and to know where to send the suggested site results, Microsoft also captures the IP address of the user, said Richardson. But unlike Google, Microsoft tosses the IP address as soon as it delivers the recommendations. "We take the IP address, get all the information that we need from it and then throw out the address," said Andy Zeigler, a program manager with the IE group. Richardson confirmed that the Suggested Sites database contained no user IP addresses.

But I guess that's no good for your water-cooler soap-box look-at-me speech, is it?

Re:Just remember... (0, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006423)

The problem is this: How many times have we caught MSFT lying now? Hell I lost count ages ago. Don't forget,this is the same company that said "There is nothing wrong with the Xbox 360" HA HA. So MSFT expecting anyone to take them at their word considering how worthless that word has been in the past seems a little crazy to me. How does the old saying go? Fool me once,shame on you. Fool me twice,shame on me. Microsoft is got a long way to go to regain my trust,and just cause they say one thing doesn't mean they ain't doing something else. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Just remember... (0, Redundant)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005349)

I don't even know how to reply to this. I'm just going to assume you haven't read any Google related privacy stories here on Slashdot for a very long time

Re:Just remember... (2, Funny)

enoz (1181117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005673)

Whoosh!

Boom!

The Whoosh! was the humour in the OP apparently flying over your head.

The Boom! when the joke broke the humour barrier and put the mods into a case of shock, apparently causing them to mod you up.

Re:Just remember... (4, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005417)

"If Google does it, they do it because they "probably have to." Luckily, they said they "do no evil" so that means they're absolute good and thus immune to scrutiny."

It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain that google (and most other websites who are able to and have a clue) logs damn near everything. Many are just covert / quiet about it.

Technically makes privacy pretty moot unless we pass laws enforcing companies to build encryption into everything. The truth is the majority of people are not educated enough, nor even have an inkling of an idea of how computers work and that everything they do is recorded, that when you're on the internet you are totally naked.

The nature of networks themselves by having to communicate back and forth with one another in order to 'browse' (really in the ultimate sense sending and receiving files and bits of data). Means you are constantly broadcasting and receiving data, thereby leaving all those breadcrumbs for everyone who has a clue to read about you and compile on you.

The fact is though we have done this to ourselves by adopting technologies and caring more about content and what value it adds to our lives then any amount of the values in regards to privacy we claim to care about... the internet and our lack of encryption/laws, etc, enforcing security of information from the get go proves we don't give a fuck about privacy very much. Simply because it's too inconvenient.

The really hard core about privacy (tor, encryption, etc) are evidence of the common man, and probably common slashdotter's total lack of concern about his or her own privacy. Otherwise we'd be using them and demanding these services but no one wants to expend the political energy an/or the money to pay for them. Hence we don't really give as much of a fuck as we seem to since our actions do not match our words in regards to the amount of whining about privacy we output.

Re:Just remember... (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006371)

...that when you're on the internet you are totally naked.

Speak for yourself.

Re:Just remember... (2, Insightful)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005423)

The difference, of course, is that Microsoft has been obviously evil for a long time, and google hasn't been sprung eviling it up yet (aside from bundling that toolbar, but as that doesn't affect me personally i don't care, but i digress). On past experience, i trust google a lot more than ms. Despite this google is definately not immune to nerd rage as everyone jumps on them as soon as they look like they're collecting data on anything, so i don't really see how this is unfair to microsoft, they've been bad and people *still* jump on google despite the fact that they've never really done anything wrong.

Re:Just remember... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005707)

You trust Google more than Microsoft when it comes to your privacy? Now Microsoft has a pretty long history in the pc world. Can you cite me any truly egregious privacy violations commited by Microsoft, well besides their lack of focus on secutrity.

I think on the privacy front Microsoft has the better record, and to me Google is starting to look like the CiC [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just remember... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005807)

I believe there was an incident with NT 4.0(could have been 3.x) where it was revealed that they were allowing the NSA a backdoor. I seem to remember this being in some headers or source code but it's been a while. Maybe someone else has this info.

Re:Just remember... (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006349)

This is probably just my misanthropy talking, but I always figured Microsoft's egregious level of "security" was prima facie evidence of their collusion in some sort of conspiracy to provoke us to demand that our fearless leaders take action to protect us from internet freedom.

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006419)

Google's evil bit flipped when they bought doubleclick [google.com] .

Re:Just remember... (4, Interesting)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005463)

Though you do not have facts to back up the last statement, you've always conceded that they are a luxury around here.

Holy Jesus man, have you even been to any other web forum? Compared to the normal signal-to-noise ratio on the internet, Slashdot (if you browse at +3 or +4) is a cut or three above just about anything else, and almost exclusively so for unmoderated forums. But yeah, other than that, you hit the "groupthink" idea right on, except for that a lot of people, lately, have been getting annoyed at google's "collect data for everything" policy, among other things.

Re:Just remember... (2, Informative)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005487)

Its all about track record.

Microsoft has a track record for shady business practices.

Google does not.

Of course people are going to be quicker to bash Microsoft than Google.

Under oath? (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005815)

If Microsoft says they destroy any IP addresses and details when they receive it, will they sign a contract with all users confirming that? Will they repeat it under oath on penalty of perjury?
I will believe a corporate only when it is under oath.
Sorry.

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006769)

OK, OK, we get the point, when you get cozy with the People's Dictatorship of China with google.cn or the Pyramid Scheme of Scientology with Youtube, it's not shady at all - on the contrary, it's very obvious.

Because we've been where you are in terms of irrational love and trust for the new guy, the one who's going to make everything better. It happens to all of us in the first decade or so of our existence. See you in 20 years time when you'll be where we are now.

Sincerely,

Microsoft.

Monopoly (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005683)

> Besides, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which somehow magically changes all the rules on logical arguments, or something.

Just in case your sarcasm is a cover for ignorance: Having a monopoly in one area limits the amount of tying to other areas you are allowed. The idea is that you are not allowed to use your monopoly in one market, to get an unfair advantage in another market. Probably not relevant in this case.

Re:Just remember... (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005785)

Let me get this straight - so Chrome logs every keystroke? I'm reading [slashdot.org] that Google is hardly 'anonymizing' our data.

What's to stop a gov't subpoena from getting my exact letter-for-letter browsing history over the next 9-18 months? I don't understand how this works.

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005811)

I guess the Apple way of doing things would be to still sell your data, use the DRM and run over the ladies, BUT still claim you're doing no evil...

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006643)

LOL. Yeah, MS was so upfront and honest about what all WGA was doing that it really inspires trust in me.

One thing you can depend on: If a MS PR person's lips are moving they're lying. That MS will lie first and foremost been shown to be true over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, again. MS doesn't tell the truth about anything unless forced to by an overwhelming amount of data proving they are lying.

Remember their mantra about how much they liked developers? When the truth came out through their own internal email it was more like, "Yeah, we like to screw over developers. We think of them like a one night stand. Use 'em and lose 'em, but don't let them figure that out."

Trust MS to tell the truth? Yeah, right....

Suggestions? (5, Insightful)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005133)

So, we see "targeted" ads and have "suggestive" sponsorship in other browsers in exchange for getting the browser for free.

Isn't IE a part of Windows, and don't we sort of pay for it already?

Opt-in service (4, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005367)

If it's opt-in then how is it a problem? They're not forcing you in any way.

Re:Opt-in service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005849)

How many people do you think are actually making an informed decision?

The notification reads: "Do you want to discover Web sites you might like based on Web sites you've visited?"

Sure, to me that reads: "Do you want beam your browsing history back to Microsoft?" But we're talking about Windows users here, probably not the most technically literate bunch, and IE users at that.

How do you think the utilization rate for this "feature" would change if Microsoft re-worded the opt-in request to something along the lines of: "Would you like to transmit to Microsoft a record of each site you visit so that Microsoft can recommend sites you might like based on the one's you've visited?"

In short, it's a problem because people aren't being told what they're opting in to.

Remember the "Opt In Real Big" spammer? If Microsoft is doing nothing wrong, then it's no great leap to say he wasn't doing anything wrong either.

Re:Opt-in service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006833)

How do you think the utilization rate for this "feature" would change if Microsoft re-worded the opt-in request to something along the lines of: "Would you like to transmit to Microsoft a record of each site you visit so that Microsoft can recommend sites you might like based on the one's you've visited?"

I don't know, Jim. Do you think the utilization rate for Google would change if upon your first visit you were informed that data about every one of your searches ever would be recorded, along with your use of every other Google service, and that the data could be used to create a fairly accurate profile of your personal and professional life, and that an authorised agent of the government could demand that data and use it against you?

You would be warned, of course, that officially a warrant would be required unless you were a national security concern, but then examples of abuses of the "only for national security" policy would be given, along with bills that have passed or are being proposed/in motion relating to removal of requirement for a warrant.

Google could also give a link to its Chinese tech showing how effectively it is able to cooperate with authorities when it is in its interest, perhaps giving stats on the number of people under suspicion in China for whom the government has requested records on failed/successful attempts to use Google to search for naughty information.

After all, most Internet users are "ignorant" and I think they need a better picture of Google before they start using it.

Sound good to you?

Re:Opt-in service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25007137)

So are you advocating making decisions for other people because you believe you know what is in their best interests?

Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

Re:Suggestions? (1)

10bellies (978724) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006177)

Isn't IE a part of Windows, and don't we sort of pay for it already?

People pay for Windows?

Re:Suggestions? (5, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006529)

People pay for Windows?

Yes, almost every time I use it.

Ummmm ok (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005145)

Another reason to avoid MiCRO-CRaP IE8

damn right...almost (3, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005147)

Google bought youtube and has shown me videos related to ones I watched about a month after they bought them. Their horrible privacy standards need to be complained about a little louder. I think a big spyware browser that follows you around and reports back where you go is where we should draw the line. However, Microsoft doesn't seem to understand that just because google's browser is worse, that doesn't mean IE8 is okay.

pr0n (4, Funny)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005161)

I absolutely hate site suggestions when I mistype an URL. Why? Because if the url contains the phrase "kicks-ass", my ISP starts advertising porn.

Re:pr0n (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005271)

Whats your ISP? I'd like to use it to... erm... do "research".

Re:pr0n (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005291)

The same happens to me with URLs containing penisland, cummingfirst, and whorepresents.

Re:pr0n (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005295)

I absolutely hate site suggestions when I mistype an URL. Why? Because if the url contains the phrase "kicks-ass", my ISP starts advertising porn.

You don't even need a 'suggestions' feature for that. S[pc]ammers and pr0n site operators have bought up every conceivable typo/variation of any popular domains already.

Re:pr0n (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005555)

You don't even need a 'suggestions' feature for that. S[pc]ammers and pr0n site operators have bought up every conceivable typo/variation of any popular domains already.

True. But since I'm paying for the isp, I expect them to be a little bit more professional. Since I had gotten the search page, the url at least didn't exist in that type/variation. A default safe search filter would be the very conservative thing to do.

Re:pr0n (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005647)

Yes, it certainly seems unprofessional for an ISP to have unsafe anything (hosted by them obv. I'm not talking about filtering) by default.

Re:pr0n (1)

seventhc (636528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005439)

Yeah, I get porn suggested just b/c i type in 'tea-bag' but then I'm like..hmmm this looks interesting.

Re:pr0n (4, Funny)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005927)

I get porn suggested just b/c i type in 'tea-bag' but then I'm like..hmmm this looks interesting.

ProTip: Instead of searching, bookmark Bungie.net for when you want to see your Halo profile.

Re:pr0n (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006369)

I wonder if spam redirects and Rick Rolls count when advertisers tailor their ads towards your tastes.

Someday (1, Insightful)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005175)

They will get the point. Until M$ buys the computer and pays the electric bill to run it, nothing absolutely nothing that happens on it is any of their business. They should be sued for electronic monitoring without a warrant!

Re:Someday (1, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005379)

They should be sued for electronic monitoring without a warrant!

They explicitly ask you if you like to get suggestions or not. You can say NO.

Re:Someday (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005713)

Considering their track record on software, I sincerely do hope they coded an 'else' to the 'if reply=y' in that block of code.

Re:Someday (2, Insightful)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005989)

do they also explain how suggestions works? something like: 'if you choose to allow suggestions, we will gather the addresses of all the pages you look at for analysis'.

Let me get this straight... (3, Insightful)

kclittle (625128) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005179)

A big, powerful, arrogant company is telling me that their very iffy handling of my personal data is "OK" because some other big, powerful and arrogant company is already doing pretty much the same?

Oh, I feel much better now...

Re:Let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005405)

A big, powerful, arrogant company is telling me that their very iffy handling of my personal data is "OK" because some other big, powerful and arrogant company is already doing pretty much the same?

Spinning things against Microsoft/Google even if there's no basis for your statements, is just as bad as Microsoft/Google spinning things in their favor when there IS basis.

In both cases, it's disinformation which promotes acting on "gut feelings" and ignorance.

The feature is quite innocent and handy, as it's apparent that anything less would be torn apart from the community.

Last couple of years Microsoft is showing some signs of listening to their customers and they're well on track repairing their IE/Vista fiascos. If all they get in return is the same overly negative responses, they'll just stop trying.

Re:Let me get this straight... (-1, Flamebait)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005557)

Microsoft has lied to us for 13 years, at least.

Windows 95 was going to be the operating system that ended security, reliability and performance problems.
So was Windows 98.
And 98 SE.
And Me.
And 2000.
And XP.
And Vista.

And how has all that turned out? Vista is marginally better, security-wise, but it's performance is terrible....I don't care what the Mojave experiment came out with. I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's just nasty.

There were previous lies and shenanigans before Windows 95, also. This is a company with at least 15 years of shady dealings.

And you expect us to consider them a changed company when they make a single statement that turns out to be relatively close to the truth?

Boy, are you ever naive. When they've gone at least 5 years without trying to pull something stupid, then, maybe, I'll start to trust them a little. But we're a long way from that, yet.

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005587)

Far out, using Windows 95 in 1995 to prove an innocent IE8 feature in 2008 somehow sucks by osmosis.

You need to get out more.

P.S.: For the record, Windows 95 was an amazing OS for the time, but like anything, it become obsolete. I still have it on a VMWare machine somewhere, stocked with old games and software in case I need it.

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005769)

"In both cases, it's disinformation which promotes acting on "gut feelings" and ignorance."

So... they're all Republicans?

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005879)

Ignorance, maybe. The Dems have got the "gut feeling" bit down.

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006093)

Brace yourself for this...

The dems are going to lose this November, like it or not.

Why? Obama doesn't attack. He just sits there and tries to defend against two sharks who are ripping his hide, McCain and Palin. Palin is now the media darling because for males, she is a cute MILF. For females, she is the ultimate soccer mom. Of course, Obama is doing nothing to counteract this before this image becomes ingrained in the American psyche, swaying votes in November. Already, more Dems are crossing the line to vote for Republicans than the other way around.

Unless Obama and Biden get out and start swinging (which neither has been doing), they will end up in the ditch just like Dukakis and Kerrey. Then the US and the rest of the world can "enjoy" 4-8 more years of the same.

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006845)

no they haven't...

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005469)

Do you live in the US? You'd have to be used to this by now, if you follow politics at all. One big, powerful, arrogant party tells you that, yes, what they're doing might be wrong, but it's "OK" because the other big, powerful, and arrogant party already does it.

Re:Let me get this straight... (2, Insightful)

Tarmas (954439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005779)

A big, powerful, arrogant company is telling me that their very iffy handling of my personal data is "OK" because some other big, powerful and arrogant company is already doing pretty much the same?

No, they're telling you that you can *explicitly* turn on an option to share *some* information about your browsing habits. I know this is Slashdot, but some people get overparanoid.

Open up the protocol (4, Interesting)

henrypijames (669281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005193)

Microsoft and Google should just publish the exact data exchange protocol used by their respective "smart search" features -- and keeps those documentations up to date, of course.

The protocols are gonna get out, anyway -- someone will snoop them out soon enough. Better have an official documentation than endless wild rumors, and the whole thing would hardly cost any resources.

Re:Open up the protocol (2, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005287)

Publishing the protocol is pointless. You'll still have to take their word on what they do with the data after they receive it.

Re:Open up the protocol (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005313)

And an opt-out option, FFS (if not making the tool opt-in). And I mean that across all browsers, not just MSIE8 and Chrome.

I hope it would be safe to assume that when you've got porn mode enabled (err, I mean private browsing) that this data transfer wouldn't happen regardless of whether you've opted-in/out.

Whew! (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005231)

Nor does Suggested Sites log and transmit cookies to Microsoft's servers, as does Google Suggest, Richardson said. 'The data we log is actually pretty innocuous.'"

Well, as long as it's "pretty" innocuous, I guess it's OK. /sarcasm

As for that annoying Google Suggest, I killed that by having my proxy add the "SG=0" item to the PREF cookie. Dear Google (and Ask), Traffic for every keystroke is messed up.

ok.. as I see it. (1)

houbou (1097327) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005283)

If Microsoft wants to log data back to the home base for IE 8, it should do one of 2 things, since it's a beta. 1) before install, clearly acknowledge that they WILL be collecting data, and more precisely, describe exactly what the data will be or 2) ask users if they wish to let Microsoft receive data and again, a description of what that data will be.

Would one not think that it would be just common courtesy to do that?

Danger Signs (5, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005293)

1) After installing IE8, webcam tracks your movements around the room.

2) Strange giggling from PC speakers when you Agree to the EULA.

3) When you start Spybot Search & Destroy you get a phone call from someone sounding an awful lot like Jerry Seinfeld threatening your pets.

4) Paperclip is back, and now its mad.

5) The next time you hear the phrase "actually pretty innocuous" is in President Palin's speech about what happens in Loyal Citizens' Youth Brigade moral rectification camps.

6) You printer puts job sheets at the beginning of each document. Job sheets with coupons for Brawndo.

7) Activity gadget in upper right hand corner of browser is a Total Information Awareness icon.

8) Entering URL for Chrome download page redirects to gay furry bondage snuff porn site.

9) After refusing to upgrade to IE8 you wake up to find the Firefox's severed head on your bed.

10) Ghost of grandmother appears to you in dream, begging you to install Ubuntu. Which is just plain weird because she was a Slackware fan!

Re:Danger Signs (0)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005483)

4) Paperclip is back, and now its mad.

His name is Clippy. And yes, I do feel bad for knowing that.

8) Entering URL for Chrome download page redirects to gay furry bondage snuff porn site.

And some would consider that a feature, you know.

Re:Danger Signs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005575)

Great, now people are going to be slowing down my connection. Time to find a new fetish :(

A dollar says someone googles it, looking to see if it exists. I know I did when looking for albino porn. Know what I found? A bunch of people saying they too were looking for albino porn.

LF1M Albino female.

Re:Danger Signs (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005757)

NSFW : All your fetishes are there, AT THE SAME TIME! http://rule34.paheal.net/ [paheal.net]

Re:Danger Signs (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005829)

8) Entering URL for Chrome download page redirects to gay furry bondage snuff porn site.

And some would consider that a feature, you know.

Now that's entertainment!

Somebody once said there's a website for anything you can think of and anything you'd rather not think of. This might be one of those cases.

Re:Danger Signs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005931)

8) Entering URL for Chrome download page redirects to gay furry bondage snuff porn site.

And some would consider that a feature, you know.

Best feature of all time.

Re:Danger Signs (1)

eille-la (600064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005897)

so funny
the best one is the slackware fan one
--
anyways, ms sucks.

Re:Danger Signs (1)

Refenestrator (1060918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006261)

8) Entering URL for Chrome download page redirects to gay furry bondage snuff porn site.

Do you have a link? I, uh, need it for research purposes.

Gay Furry Bondage Snuff Porn! WHEE! (5, Funny)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006365)

Wow, I'm impressed. Googling for "gay furry bondage snuff porn" [google.com] produces your post here as the top hit only a couple hours after you posted.

Aside from being impressed, I'm also somehow disappointed... ;)

Cheers,

Re:Gay Furry Bondage Snuff Porn! WHEE! (5, Funny)

PrinceOfStorms (568367) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006993)

A quick check of this revealed that you are now number one! Congratulations...I think.

Time for some absolutism. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005361)

I am sick of hearing how XYZ is ok because "Look, foo does bar!". It annoys me in politics, and it annoys me in the disgusting race to the bottom that is our handling of the "consumer desktop". Yes, I know that google is injecting ads into my dreams, that doesn't mean I want microsoft pulling my url history. Yes, I know that EA prefers DRM that is draconian and incompetent, that doesn't make "fairplay" any fairer.

People need to stop hiding behind the even worse failings of others, and start justifying themselves in terms of why they don't suck rather than why the suck incrementally less than the other guy. FFS.

/rant

Re:Time for some absolutism. (4, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005419)

Wow... an intelligent post!!! Someone mod this -1 Overrated or -1 Offtopic, or some other minus moderation quickly! ;-)

Or... maybe someone with mod points can mod it up, since it is one of the most insightful posts in this topic so far. Fuzzy is right on the mark... Microsoft's (and too many other companies who are starting to play the same game) answer sounds like my brother and I when we were little kids... "But he did that!!!"

This isn't elementary school. These are supposed to be businesses.

Re:Time for some absolutism. (0)

AlexCGilliland (1287054) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005581)

bump

Re:Time for some absolutism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005741)

People need to stop hiding behind the even worse failings of others, and start justifying themselves in terms of why they don't suck rather than why the suck incrementally less than the other guy.

This might be an opportune time to remind everybody that the US could be worse: it could be Iran!

What Are You Trying To Hide!?? (1)

mrSteveBallmer (1345863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005395)

If you are not trying to steal anything, you have nothing to worry about people! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:What Are You Trying To Hide!?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005461)

how does it feel to be a dull stupid bitch?

To defend Microsoft. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005595)

Let's keep in mind what kind of a data these 2 companies collect and how they see you. To microsoft you are the end-user, the client, the customer(sorry, I know something is supposed to go here, but I suck at punctuation) and thats how they accumulate data, about your buying habits and how they relate to their products.

Google?
You're the product.
They are the leaders in targeted marketing and probably data mining, I mean thay collect a fuck ton of info, they must have several research teams focused on the most efficient way to wring out profitable information. Really, do you think Google is correctly valued at 437.66 from selling ads alone? They are an information warehouse. I would not be suprised if they employed psychologists and sociologists.

and you gladly go along because they said 3 words.

Talk about a silver tongue.

Re:To defend Microsoft. (3, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005855)

Um, in both cases, you, the consumer, are the product in that you're using a product/service that's ultimately for someone else's good. In Google's case, it's the advertisers. In Microsoft's case, it's themselves and with the introduction of Vista, it's also the media companies vis a vis the DRM built into it.

Who might be looking at the data stream? (1)

gznork26 (1195943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005627)

The fact that Microsoft tosses the IP info shortly after getting it does not negate the fact that the data is all being shipped to them. That sounds like a very nice setup for any covert agency who wanted to set up a place to monitor browsing behavior and map it back to users. It doesn't matter whether Microsoft doesn't keep the info if someone else does. Could this be happening? How would we know?

P. Orin Zack

---
I write pointed political and business short stories at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

Re:Who might be looking at the data stream? (1)

mach1980 (1114097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005827)

meh. In Soviet^LSweden the covert agency is shipped to you!

phone home (0, Flamebait)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005659)

there is a reason why when i boot into my little used xp install i have things like " mshearts " ( all preinstalled MS games) and media player, and crash report form calling home they do not need to call MS and give them "who knows what".Except i do know what it is when excel crashes my tax info and like

Re:phone home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005919)

Well, I don't have problems with IE...because I do not use it. I do have a dual boot setup here. Windows XP is used only for a few games. I have high speed internet, but I have assigned a static IP address in XP, and my router does not allow any internet access to/from that IP. Even if I did go online in Windows, IE (any version) is just not worth the hastle it causes.

Users say piracy is pretty innocuous (4, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005671)

After all most users who pirate Microsoft products discard most of them almost immediately.

Yeah that works doesn't it? If you violate someone's right's it's not okay just because you do it for a short time! Cuts both ways.

Very simple to test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005715)

Here's how to find if they respect your privacy. Use IE8 to view CP sites. If the party van shows up at your place, they don't. Simple, huh?

Re:Very simple to test (1)

AstronomicUID (929210) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006283)

Nope, nothing yet... [wikipedia.org]

Wait (0, Troll)

malkir (1031750) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005801)

Let me get this straight - so Chrome logs every keystroke? I'm reading [slashdot.org] that Google is hardly 'anonymizing' our data.

What's to stop a gov't subpoena from getting my exact letter-for-letter browsing history over the next 9-18 months?

I don't understand how this works.

Re:Wait (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006315)

I don't understand how this works.

It's easy: Google pwns you

pieces of a puzzle (1)

dbcowboy (162210) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005817)

little bit here. little bit there. pretty soon its aggregated and sold to others who do more combining. privacy, once lost is never regainable. And those who collect the pieces don't care if they get some pieces wrong. Microsoft sold its soul long ago. Never trust or believe Microsoft words or products. At least Google doesn't own the OS. And thank goodness for Mozilla and Opera.

Does 'URL' include the GET arguments ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005955)

IE only captures the URL as it is navigated [to], when that URL goes into your history.

There can be sensitive data in the GET arguments, much more than just which site you have visited.

Can someone post the urls or ip addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005991)

Can someone post the urls or ip addresses that need to be stubbed out in my hosts file? Thanks!

Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006065)

Comparing to Google with regard to privacy is like comparing to Microsoft with regard to ethics. You almost always look good.

evil (3, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006263)

"We're not evil [today.com] ," said Google. "We just want to know your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information, personal preferences in pornography and DNA code. Microsoft ... they want to make you use Windows Live Search."

I'm pretty concerned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25006405)

A kdawson story that wasn't a complete piece of sensationalistic tripe. I suppose it was bound to happen just based on random chance. But I'm still slightly worried. Good thing I'm not into the rapture, or I might be concerned about being taken u

A better feature (4, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25006619)

would be for browsers to have auto correction feature in the address bar. I've typed a comma many times into the bar by accident and no website uses them but why does the browser insist on searching first before telling me the address is incorrect. It should note the error and replace it with the full stop.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>