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!

Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-about-flimpy-and-torgo? dept.

Google 527

Andorin writes "Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues. Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo, Dotzler asserts that Bing's privacy policy is better than Google's. Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time...' Ars Technica also covers the story."

cancel ×

527 comments

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

Google (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400506)

And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...

I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

Re:Google (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400592)

Idk, do you really expect any internet service to hold to their stated privacy policy? Yes, they may, or when the feds come a knockin', they might have not and the logs are chock full of stuff. Without a paying customer relationship, it's my understanding that it's pretty hard to have any enforceable reconcilation if they breach their word.

Considering that most browsers have a search bar, it would be nice if the browser could somehow implement anonymizing techniques independent of the specific search engine. Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.

Re:Google (5, Interesting)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400684)

A point the article makes is that Microsoft, as a corporation that has dealt heavily with many things outside of just search, is very much grounded in privacy concerns and legal matters related to it. They are likely to uphold their privacy policy very strictly on their internet services.

Re:Google (3, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400724)

Given how absurdly permissive their stated privacy policies usually are, they had damn well better hold to it.

I mean, it's a company. If they want to claim that there's some sort of legally binding contract that shows up just because I viewed their website, at the bare minimum they ought to be fulfilling their obligations. Does that mean they will? In many cases no, but those sites are guilty of a breach of contract, by a contract they unilaterally imposed.

Re:Google (4, Insightful)

onionman (975962) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400746)

Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.

The problem with a pay-based anonymizing server is that they have to get money from you somehow. That alone leaves a bit-trail which can be traced by the government, and in many countries the governments are actually mandating that commercial service providers keep logs. So, for the truly paranoid, I don't see how a fee-based anonymizer is superior to Tor. With Tor, if you're willing to use multiple nodes (and accept the resulting huge performance hit) then it seems to me you get better security than using a single commercial anonymizer.

Re:Google (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400774)

Hell, charge money for it as a value-added service to route the search requests through their anonymizing server, which they promise not to log, for the paranoid user. I'd feel a lot better doing that than using some dubious Tor node.

Great idea. Since I mostly use chrome, i'll go and ask google to run my requests throught an anonymizer before sending them to google.

Make privacy easy (2, Insightful)

Gaxx (76064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400836)

Indeed - privacy is possible but not easy (for the average user at least) currently. Until it becomes easy, and obvious, most users will continue to find it all too bothersome to worry about. Now - it's easy to say "that's their lookout" but life gets a fair bit more private for everyone at the point where those who would be snooping on private communications if there is so much that they can't just cherry-pick the stuff that looks suspiciously protected.

Re:Google (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400602)

I actually applaud Firefox for this change.

What change? They didn't change anything.

Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

You know Microsoft's privacy policy isn't all that better. They still associate your search with your name and ip address for 18 months after you searched. 'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?

Re:Google (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400628)

I actually applaud Firefox for this change.

You're applauding code? Hint: Firefox is a software application. TFA is one person's opinion.

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400678)

I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

Correct. They should do it for their own pleasure.

Re:Google (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400786)

I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

I guess for the general public this type of statement makes sense. Most people probably have no fucking clue what Google stores about you and what they plan to store (e.g. Chrome has your browser history travel with you as well as extensions which means they have all that data on you on their servers too). But for the rest of us who know that they are doing this and really don't give a shit but really enjoy the phenomenal search results returned (simply stated: Bing blows goats compared to Google), it's fine.

I thank Mozilla for trying to sway me one way or the other but honestly, I can make up my own mind TYVM--and I'm a privacy freak. Clear your cookies and don't login to get customized search results if you're really that concerned.

Re:Google (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400840)

Yes, I'm sure Google's traffic will nose dive immediately and they'll mend their ways once me(*) and thee switch to Bing.

* Disclaimer: me and thee excludes me.

Re:Google (2, Interesting)

quantaman (517394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400900)

And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...

I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

Google certainly doesn't have a great track record for privacy, but is MS any better?

I'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt's statement, but I'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs.

Bing (1, Interesting)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400928)

I switched to bing a while back. I'd say about 85% of the time, I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.

Re:Google (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400932)

Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.

Isn't that their job?

Re:Google (4, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401010)

Two items. One, Schmidt's quote was taken out of context. He was referring to "do"-ing a search something you'd rather not be known, because ALL the search engines keep records and ALL of them are subject to subpoena.

Two, "Firefox" isn't making a change - this is one person expressing an opinion. If the organization was that concerned, they'd drop Google as the default browser.

Re:Google (2, Insightful)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401050)

ONE person on the Firefox team made a blog entry. Hardly a major policy statement from Mozilla.

On the issue of google tracking. If you're not logged in, they track you via a cookie. I set Firefox not to keep cookies from google. End of story. Privacy issues averted. I'll continue using google as a search engine, because Bing just really doesn't do as wholistic or as good a job. Full stop.

Privacy fears (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400520)

The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy. They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy. It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.

Re:Privacy fears (5, Insightful)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400806)

lolll...right up until you find out that you weren't employed by Company "A" because their personnel director - a devout Baptist - ran a background check and stumbled across the number of searches that you do for cheerleader-specific porn.

Re:Privacy fears (3, Interesting)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400862)

Because Google will give your search history to every two-bit company director out there. Sure, they may not withhold information from the feds (be that a good or bad thing) but as long as they don't publish my search history publicly (not that I actually have anything to hide apart from a few torrent searches) I really could care less.

Re:Privacy fears (1)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400832)

This is what all those Anonymous Cowards will have you believe.

Re:Privacy fears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30401072)

The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy. They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy. It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.

More likely Myspace, Facebook, whatever,.. experience will leave a paranoid generation of compulsive liars.

Choices (5, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400522)

Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?

Re:Choices (2, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400646)

Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?

My tip would be to take some personal responsibility for what you tell others about yourself.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400858)

"Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?"

I don't know about Beelzebub, but Ba'al was pretty nasty, even as far as G'oulds go.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400972)

random trivia:

Baal and beelzebub are quite related words:

Baal baal-zebub

Baal was "god" and Zebub means "flies" in Hebrew and Arabic. -> Baal-zebub = god of the flies = lord of the flies :)

Re:Choices (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401046)

Definitely Ba'al. Best villain on SG by far... or at least most annoying for sticking around.

$1,000,000 anyone? (1)

DutchMasterKiller (1003736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400526)

Thats the first to receive $1,000,000,-

Re:$1,000,000 anyone? (2, Interesting)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400572)

my thought was, "Well, the check has cleared"
I hope that he is up on the IRS privacy policy when he reports it on his income tax...

IRS privacy policy? (2, Insightful)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401038)

Lousy reference, there. The IRS takes privacy more seriously than just about anybody. [irs.gov]

After Richard Nixon misused the agency, Congress slapped the IRS with certain restrictions. To de-politicize the agency, the executive structure was purged of political appointees. All other agencies have a myriad (literally dozens, even at small agencies) of political appointees floating around whose jobs they got because they kissed some politicians ass. The IRS has only two.

There is a "Taxpayer Advocate" office that watches over the agency and is quite effective in getting the word out to Congress and the public when the agency starts being in the least bit abusive. There's a Privacy Office. There's extensive yearly training in on privacy matters. Beyond that, a privacy breach at the IRS gets you hauled away in handcuffs by officers of the Treasury Inspector Generals Office. The union for IRS workers, in fact, complains loud and long that employees are too closely monitored, sometimes being investigated, for example, for unauthorized disclosure of information just because the customer they helped happened to live near them.

If the guy got a bribe, he can report it to the IRS without the slightest worry.

Re:$1,000,000 anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400656)

Haha, great joke. This guy MUST have received a huge bribe, there's no other plausible explanation! Get over yourself, seriously. People are allowed to recommend Bing if they want to.

Re:$1,000,000 anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400816)

Yes, because if he had put actual thought into the recommendation, he would have suggested people use Ask.com with AskEraser [ask.com] turned on. It has by far the best privacy policy of the options provided by search companies.

Bing's policy is no better than Google's, and the sole decision process here seems to have been that Googe's CEO said something stupid (though factually true given currrent laws) this week, but Microsoft's CEO didn't.

Re:$1,000,000 anyone? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401008)

I dunno, from RTFA, he sounds pretty principled. I hope that's a comfort to him when Mozilla sack his ass for recommending that users cut off 97% of Mozilla's revenue [bit-tech.net] .

How about AltaVista instead of Bing? (1)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400538)

OTOH, maybe AltaVista's results are still crap compared to Google.

Re:How about AltaVista instead of Bing? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400854)

In that case, AltaVista is perfect for a search about scatology! [wikipedia.org]

What is bing? (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400544)

Google search: [Bing]

Re:What is bing? (1)

GPSguy (62002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400722)

A product-based search engine that has yet to produce a single useful search result for me.

Re:What is bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400842)

Chandler Bing? [bing.com]

Re:What is bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400866)

Don't do it...you'll "break" the Internet!

Not going to happen (2, Insightful)

Kranerian (1427183) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400552)

Even with this, there's still too much of a stigma associated with Microsoft and Bing for many internet users to take them seriously. Leave Bing to the uncaring and the uninformed.

Re:Not going to happen (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400748)

I'm puzzled, doesn't Mozilla owe its existence to Google's cash?

Better response would have been... (5, Insightful)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400586)

A full comparison of alternate search engines instead of recommending just Bing would have been a better statement. He could have lined up Google, Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc and compared privacy policies side by side for the people he's speaking too.

Re:Better response would have been... (3, Informative)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400658)

Google has been pissing me off recently with their toolbar updates that change the behaviour of the browser. If I wanted the new window/tab functionality of Firefox to behave like Safari, I'd be using Safari. Why do I want the sidewiki thing, or whatever it's called? Etc, etc. Piss off: I got the google toolbar as better way of searching for things, along with find in page option when I have the results. So it gets uninstalled.

Toolbar the official spyware from good guys. (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400930)

Every feature you hate somehow leaks your personal data to Google if you aren't careful. Interesting co-incidence eh?

Also does Adobe and Apple really need couple of cents from Google? Adobe Flash which has way bigger market share than Google comes with toolbar option selected by DEFAULT. You know the deal with impossible to change Google search on Safari/OS X.

so turn it off (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401076)

Why do I want the sidewiki thing, or whatever it's called?

Options >> Tools >> uncheck Sidewiki box

done.

Re:Better response would have been... (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400950)

RTFA. He's interested in a search that actually works, with better privacy terms. Yahoo! == Bing, or very soon will, so that's redundant. Ask sucks. What's "etc"? Yeah, AltaVista. Dream on: searching it for "mozilla recommends bing" gets 0 hits. Fail.

The Blog Page (5, Interesting)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400600)

Whoa, that page has some crazy background. Reminds me of something out of the 1990s.

Anyway, before all the conspiracy theorist posts pop up, this looks like it's just a post on his personal blog, which includes posts about his beard and other random things. Even if Mozilla was officially endorsing and getting paid for Bing searches, Google already has the same deal so there's no issue there.

Of course, this could just be a member of the Mozilla community jumping at the first chance to get back at Google for making Chrome... hmm...

One word: LOL (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400606)

Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?

Re:Three words: LOL (3, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400660)

Fixed.

Re:One word: LOL (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400784)

Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?

I would like to point out, that Microsoft has come under horrendous fire because of their business practices and privacy and other things as you all know. Now because they realize that they are in fact losing (although slowly) market share to F/OSS because of these issues - the EU has been really hammering Microsoft, MS has been becoming more sensitive to the privacy issue. It seems like whenever I do anything with a MS product these days message boxes pop up stating what data and where they are sending it and whether I would like to opt out, decrease certain parts of the data, or just send it all. Why even with my Visual Studio Beta 2, there were all these statements regarding what they'll be collecting.

What I'm saying is, when it come to my privacy, I'd trust Microsoft before Google - but that's as far as I trust any organization.

I would also like to point out that while all of you are fretting about your searching habits and what porn site you guys re visiting may be tracked by Google or whoever, the credit bureaus and your bank is sending your: SSN, dob, name, address, past addresses, spouse's name, mother's maiden name and other very sensitive information all over the World. I had an issue with a credit report and I settled it with a very nice woman in India - I think - her accent was muddled. She refused to give me her location because of "security reasons". That was Trans Union. Banks offshore quite a bit of their back office processing.

MS and Google are far far off of my radar as far as privacy issues and for "evil" business practices.

Respecting Your Privacy (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400616)

Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that Microsoft will respect your privacy _more_ than Google is a fool. I'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google's policy's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable.

Re:Respecting Your Privacy (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400838)

Exactly. Google's opinions are not as relevant as their actions. So far, so good.

Image is nothing (2, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400968)

Stop "thinking" with company images. Look to what they actually do. Please stop this "they aren't evil" BS. Enough really... We got a information monopoly in hand who tries to get every bit of your personal information if you aren't careful.

Switch from Google? (2, Interesting)

DarkTitan_X (905442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400618)

If I had any real reason to switch from Google, it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google's search results.

Swimming in a gold sea.... (2, Funny)

firesyde424 (1127527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400622)

I don't suppose the blog was accompanied by a short video of Asa Dotzler and Steve Balmer making Ducktales-like swan dives from a diving board into a swimming pool filled with cash?

creators urge all to switch to newclear power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400640)

it's the inevitable conclusion to the search/engine deficit replacement that will take us to the point we were always meant to be at/be going to.

it's way user friendly, & as always, absolutely free, as in any notion of the word.

Uh... why does it read like (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400648)

Dear customers. We noticed that it's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic. Please switch to hydrogen cyanide.

Re:Uh... why does it read like (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400848)

Dear Mozilla: Been there, done that. Frankly speaking, it sucks, and tastes like chicken. YMMV. We're all screwed anyway.

Lame suggestion (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400650)

Google is taking steps to get more information as possible, and this is bad. But also use that data in a anonymous way, so don't really care that YOU like Pink Flamingos pages. Is probably collecting more information that the guys on Bing can even dream.
But the Bing guys work for Microsoft, Microsoft don't lack the stimulus to take that much information, lack the skill. And have proven that have not problem doing more than we like (and critice). Microsoft will probably share with others your information, and use it for nefarius things.

So, what you want? more information in good hands (Google), but litte information in the wrong hands (Microsoft).
I know what I want.

Re:Lame suggestion (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400708)

How do you know Google counts as "good hands"?

Re:Lame suggestion (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400942)

Is a good question. You dont know if google counts as "good hands". In fact, you can put that in doubt for every search engine. But what you definately know is that Microsoft have "dirty hands" basically since it was funded.

Re:Lame suggestion (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400730)

Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.

What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future. Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information. I'm not sure I agree with this policy.

Clusty (3, Informative)

LeepII (946831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400654)

Clusty is by far the best search engine. I don't understand why more people are not using it.

Re:Clusty (3, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400986)

Well, for one thing, searching for mozilla recommends bing [clusty.com] doesn't return any hits relevant to this story. Unlike Google. And Bing.

clusty, hmmm (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401022)

I don't understand why more people are not using it.

I, for one, haven't heard of it 'till you mentioned it.

Is this a joke? (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400696)

If there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Google in the trustworthiness department, you are not going to figure that out by listening to statements from their executive officers.

It's like choosing a car based on the amount of mica they put in the paint.

It is a wake up call for Google (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401002)

If someone like Asa suggests using a Microsoft technology because your company currently looks more evil than "satan himself" (remember?), you should look to mirror and ask what is wrong.

something shiny here (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400700)

Sounds like fear of Chrome

Re:something shiny here (4, Insightful)

toppavak (943659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401018)

Indeed, privacy concerns are an interesting straw man here. The fact of the matter is that pretty much nothing on the internet is truly private. Even if Bing has a better written privacy policy it doesn't really follow that they'll actually be more respectful of their customers privacy than Google. If you have sensitive information that you don't want a 3rd party to have access to on the internet, then don't put it on the internet- the very act of doing that means the information won't be private anymore. 99.9999% of users don't care if Google knows they enjoy watching the Wire or what words people didn't know because they searched for its wiki page or what journal articles I look up on Scholar or what companies I've recently read about and decided to look up on finance. In fact most of the people I know that use Google services heavily are more than happy to share that kind of irrelevant information if Google sees some value in it and can use revenue indirectly generated from that to provide us with amazing products like Reader, Groups, Gmail, Android, Code, Scholar, Finance, Books, etc etc etc. In conclusion, information on the internet is not going to private regardless of whose search engine you use or how kitten-friendly their privacy policy is. At least Google has a decent track record [dataliberation.org] of being respectful about your 'private' data while working towards as close to an ideal privacy scenario as it would be possible to get online.

'G' as in 'Information Garbage' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400704)

If the internet was a tuned instrument it would be tuned to 'A' as in 'Information Asset' not 'G' as in 'Information Garbage'

Google is Information garbage for information retards --> fact

Is it April 1st Already? (3, Funny)

Kostya (1146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400710)

I seriously had to stop and read this twice. Apparently hell froze over.

Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well. I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.

Re:Is it April 1st Already? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400978)

i wonder if this is a kind of smack talk. Moz guy might be wagging his finger at Google with a bit of a threat implied.

i doubt Moz would get in bed with M$, they're pseudo rivals with supposedly opposing views on what to charge for software. Sorta.

If MS had a paradigm shift (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401078)

If MS could get rid of old fashion thinking, they would be pushing Bing to Mozilla and even Apple (Safari) right now. Of course, you would get a chair to your head if you could dare to propose it to Balmer before getting fired.

Allthough there is a change (it doesn't suggest IE), MS still can't think like a company who ships a search engine. If I were them, I would ship "bing search" to devices down to J2ME dumb ones, detect browser and suggest "click here to use Bing as search engine in Firefox", use the technologies present in the competing browsers...

Anyway, they are MS, they won't do it and Google can keep leeching personal information from people.

Idea for a Firefox plugin - GoogleFreeTornet (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400716)

Basically, everyone that downloads the extension would become part of a distributed network. This network would then handle Google queries semi-anonymously. Like Freenet, queries could be passed around within a few nodes, so you wouldn't know if the queries your copy of the plugin was working on were from the next node, or from a node several away. It'd slow things down a little bit, but since you're just passing around queries and results, and not the actual destination content, it wouldn't be too terrible.

Uh, what? (1, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400720)

I would trust Google more with an AUP that says "We will steal your children and sell them to the Martians" than I do Microsoft with any AUP, privacy policy, et cetera. Remember, Microsoft the company has been convicted of various crimes on repeated occasions. Many people say you can't treat a company as a single entity, but they demand that we do right up until the company is convicted of wrongdoing... I think it's only fair to apply the same standard at all times. It's long past time to invoke the corporate death penalty against Microsoft.

Re:Uh, what? (0, Redundant)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400762)

> ...Microsoft the company has been convicted of various crimes...

Citations, please.

Re:Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400996)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Trial

Now we see (0, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400728)

why Schmidt of Google made the general statement that only miscreants are concerned with on-line privacy. He knew Mozilla was taking this position against them. Though I think this is a black eye for Mozilla but probably good for their pocket book. Why else would Mozilla take this position? Does Mozilla really think that Microsoft/Bing would be better? Either this Mozilla directory is a real tard, or BillyG has slipped Mozilla a little something in the Christmas stocking.

Re:Now we see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400770)

"Why else would Mozilla take this position?"

Maybe they think that Bing has a better privacy policy, like the blog post says? INCONCEIVABLE, I know.

Re:Now we see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400812)

Care to cite any reason that *you* think that Bing's policies are any worse than Google's? Instead of running your little anti-MS gambit again maybe for once you can back it up with something more tangible than your own ranting.

Or maybe you're a shill being paid by Google?

How about Cuil (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400814)

It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy, Cuil never seems to be mentioned. Or at least I do not see it.

On Cuil's privacy page it says:
"When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period. Your search history is your business."

So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more? Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about. Or perhaps it is just not well known.

problems with bing (3, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400826)

i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:

  • The changing background image... i really don't want to be surprised every time i open up the search engine. It is very distracting.
  • The main page contains the word "shopping". I don't know exactly what it is, but it drives me away.
  • The links to other microsoft sites, like "msn", "hotmail", etc. Since i don't like those, i also don't like those links on my search page.
  • The fonts used, especially on the search results page, are too large. But perhaps i am too much accustomed to google already.
  • Lack of options on the search results page (similar pages, add comment, promote, remove)
  • No direct linking to pdf files in search results

Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.
Why can't they just get it right?

Re:problems with bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400910)

So you want Bing to be exactly like Google, only then you would use it?
Or do you just want Google to stop gathering your data?

I already know the answers.
Because I have your details. I work at Google!

Chrome extensions? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400828)

This coming in the same week as Google's Chrome launches extensions? No surprise. There's going to be an exodus of users from FF to Chrome I'm afraid.

Okay! (2)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400844)

You've prompted a switch, Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background

Bitter (5, Insightful)

TheJabberwocky (876055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400846)

Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.

OH NO, GOOGLE POSTED MY SEARCH QUERIES.. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400860)

C++ templates parsing
boost spirit employee example
C++ memberwise assignment
AHO Dragon book on Google Books
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Linux
x86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITA
the feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channel
computer simulations of comet impacts
kinetic energy equations
how do photons work in heat propagation
multithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulation
how radioactive dating works
how to solve exponential equations
how did they do this with a slide rule
a history of exponents who discovered e
the girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure|
---censored---

Yahoo doesn't do their own searches (2, Insightful)

dxk3355 (987361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400880)

Not sure if it was worth including Yahoo as an alternate since they are going to be powered by Bing eventually. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Don't you think.. (1)

henrik.falk (912694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400902)

..that this is Mozilla trying to diversify their support base? Now that Google have their own browser, maybe Mozilla doesn't like that most of their users use their product exclusively with Google? I think Mozilla is a bit unsure about the future support from Google now that Google have their own browser, and would like at least some of their users to use Bing, so they might get some money from Bing in the future.

Schmidt is just being honest (3, Insightful)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400906)

Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.

ixquick? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400934)

http://www.ixquick.com/

Self-billed as "the world's most private search engine"...

The difference between Google and Bing (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400936)

Eric Schmidt was honest about what their search engine does with privacy data. MS/Ballmer won't say.

May I Point Out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30400946)

May I just remind those who are saying "but Microsoft's privacy policies is worse than Google's policies," please keep in mind that Google's business model is dependent on advertising, and accurate customer data funnels the need to deliver relevant advertising in order that they maximize profits.

Microsoft, despite having their hands in many cookie jars, is still a company that sells software to generate revenue.

a critical distinction.

I wonder how much money M$ gave for this (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400958)

I know like my own name, that M$ contacted this guy, and told him a cheque would be sent to an unmarked cayman islands account in his name, when he would write a review stating choose bing not google. I have to say, I am not surprised if this was the case, M$ have been found guilty of such practice in the past, paying for write ups by vip types in the field.

I know google finds what I need, what else could bing offer me...other then more secret downloaded windows validator, then all of a sudden, I can't use my pc anymore, it's prated...remember windows live...???

Re:I wonder how much money M$ gave for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30401052)

I thought Mozilla got a load of cash from Google every year for routing web searches from the browser?

Bing vs Google (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30400974)

As they say around these parts, 6 of one, and a half-dozen of the other.

Been Predicting This For A Long Time - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30401020)

Anyone who thought that Google wouldn't become the next Microsoft and worse is running with blinders on. The heads of the company are arrogant idealists (just like Bill Gates, love 'em or hate 'em all) operating in an environment with essentially zero competition; and they love money, they just absolutely adore it. Nothing that Google does is for your benefit or the world's benefit, it's for the benefit of the company's corporate leadership. Just look at their attitude toward Open Source. They only buddied up with the Open Source community because they knew you tards would work for them for free. Now they don't need you anymore!

It should be common knowledge by now that 'consumer' means 'cattle' in the corporate world, and when you're as big as Google, all the world is a feedlot.

The whole Google brand was founded on this ridiculous notion that because they were 'Open Source' and former underdogs, they were morally superior to Microsoft. (Typical progressive posturing and other bullshit.) The ruse was convincing enough; when the ever-paranoid, fanatical Linux herd actually laid down for Google, that should have been a colossal red flag. You fags got duped (yes, you, at this site, you group-thinking OSS cheerleaders) and now Google is so big and has so much momentum that it'll take at least ten years (just like with Microsoft) to get all of their tentacles out of your data and the rest of the industry. And guess what? You can't believe a damn thing that they say, either. Do you actually think that some of those billions aren't coming from selling your data to other corporations and government agencies? Do you think that 'don't be evil' is anything but a marketing slogan, or is the average Linux Lummox really that fucking dumb?

And attitudes are changing at Google, and they're changing fast. The guys at the top are hardening up, they're getting even more 'corporate' with time, and with time the abuses are going to become even more brazen and more blatant. Just like Microsoft. They're also going to expand into even more industries, just like Microsoft, and the products that they offer, you'll find, will be even more intractably woven into the Google monolith. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they try to pull the rug out from under the American telcos. You guys will probably cheer, until they lock North America into a new monopoly that makes Bell 2.0 look modest. Then, who knows. Maybe you'll start getting ads relevant to your phone calls.

Google's vision is a world without privacy and without competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all. They can knock over anyone they like by providing services for 'free' and selling the user data they glean from use of that service, and they're going to give Microsoft a real run for their money when it comes to robber barony. These guys are vultures, and while they provided an outstanding service, there's no such thing as a free lunch!

Anti-trust legislature: not just for Microsoft.

Switch to CUIL (2, Informative)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401034)

Or you can use CUIL (http://www.cuil.com). It's a great search engine
As they say: Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users

Missing step? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30401054)

I think there's a step involved between "doing something" and "everybody finding it on google", namely "making it available on the Internet".
If there's something you wouldn't like everybody to know, don't brag about it on Facebook, and you should be fine.

Also, it should be clear that Google, by its very nature & size, isn't to trust with any private information.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?