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 Urging Safari Users To Use Bing

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the you-tried-the-rest-now-try-the-best dept.

Google 266

New submitter SquarePixel writes "Microsoft is urging Safari users to switch to Bing after Google was fined $22.5 million for violating Safari privacy settings. 'Microsoft is keen to make sure that no-one forgets this, let alone Safari users, and the page summarizes the events that took place.' It tells users how Google promised not to track Safari users, but tracked them without their permission and used this data to serve them advertisement. Lastly, it tells how Google was fined $22.5 million for this and suggests users to try the more privacy oriented Bing search engine."

cancel ×

266 comments

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

more privacy oriented Bing search engine (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41406977)

Yeah, they haven't gotten caught yet

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (5, Insightful)

Maho Shoujo (2729697) | about 2 years ago | (#41407031)

Perhaps the same could be said of everyone.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (5, Insightful)

socceroos (1374367) | about 2 years ago | (#41407041)

It should be bleedingly obvious to all that noone other than yourself is going to protect your privacy.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407253)

Hey! I know Noone! How is the old rascal doing??

Tell him I said hi!

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 years ago | (#41407309)

Ask him how his android project is going.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (4, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41407357)

Still lurking [slashdot.org] . Maybe today he'll show up and post something.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#41407113)

They're completely altruistic. Bing doesn't want more users because it results in more profit. What do you think Microsoft is, a for-profit corporation?

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41407385)

Profit? Bing doesn't know what profit is. [businessinsider.com] They're like $16B in the red and have never ever seen what black ink looks like. You would have to explain black ink to them as if they were blind from birth.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41407177)

Yeah, they haven't gotten caught yet

Heh. Well, technically speaking, doesn't that mean that they really can claim it then?

(I apologize in advance if that's a whosh.)

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407193)

The scary thing is, Google is doing so many things that Microsoft starts to look like a nice company.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407889)

No, Microsoft doesn't start looking nice. There can be more than one bad company.

Having said that, so far I'd rate Google as a way better company than Microsoft as far as business ethics go.

Re:more privacy oriented Bing search engine (1, Interesting)

Cute and Cuddly (2646619) | about 2 years ago | (#41407571)

There are not enough people using bing to raise alarm bells. M$ is hopping that safari users will move accross so they can start.

MS DID get caught, sniffing peoples google search (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407743)

But MS *DID* get caught. Remember the IE Toolbar, it watched users Google searches, and sent the results and the queries back to Microsoft, where Microsoft use it to improve (i.e. copy) for their own search results?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/google-to-microsoft-search-gotcha/

Google added some fake searches, entered those into IE and it promptly sent that data back to Microsoft HQ where they put it in the Bing results.

Not only that, they denied it, then it turned out they'd denied only the 'copying part', then they claimed it was anonymous data and thus not snooping (it isn't they get the toolbar id, and search data often has addresses, medical conditions and names in it).

So yeh, they got caught. The only bizarre thing is why they weren't prosecuted. I think we're all kind of wary of Microsoft now, if you're using Microsoft products, more fool you.

DuckDuckGo is what I use now.

DuckDuckGo (5, Interesting)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about 2 years ago | (#41406993)

DuckDuckGo's entire advertising strategy is based off of privacy.

No ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407039)

No, DuckDuckGo's entire strategy is based off advertising privacy. You are still the product, being sold.

Re:No ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407433)

Please, do go on.

Re:No ... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407669)

startpage [slashdot.org] is way better for privacy and much better results since it uses google. why the hell do people keep using DuckDuckGo?

Re:DuckDuckGo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407049)

DuckDuckGo uses Bing.

Re:DuckDuckGo (1)

pegisys (1616521) | about 2 years ago | (#41407143)

I thought they used Yahoo! Boss

Re:DuckDuckGo (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41407415)

Yahoo!'s boss came from Google. She's not a Google tool, but she did used to date one: Larry Page. Depending on how that ended they may she may be more open to a mutually beneficial relationship than the old boss. Or she may want to kill Google. Or maybe both, depending on the lunar calendar. Who knows? She's knocked up right now and so not as susceptible to lunacy as young owners of her gender usually are.

Oh, God am I going to get hate for this post. It's humor folks. Laugh a little. If we can't enjoy the human condition and find it funny, what have we got?

Re:DuckDuckGo (3, Informative)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#41407173)

I started using DuckDuckGo exclusively just a couple days ago. So far I'm liking it a lot--search results seem just as good as Google's, if not better in some cases. With that said, I actually miss Google's Instant search in Chrome. On the other hand, the bang keywords are nice on those rare occasions I'm not using Chrome (for the uninitiated, adding "!amazon", for example, opens the Amazon.com search result page for your query).

Re:DuckDuckGo (5, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41407281)

Interesting i would have thought that with the ! symbol meaning "NOT" the rest of th universe that it would display shopping results for every but amazon.

Re:DuckDuckGo (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#41407301)

Yeah, it's kind of an odd choice, especially because I'm sure the average person who uses DDG is of a more tech-oriented nature. Maybe #amazon would be better?

Re:DuckDuckGo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407641)

You can easily configure DDG to be your default seatch engine in chrome. Then you can have direct searchs by taping in toolbar. Finally there is a lot of keywords usable in DDG. Personnaly I think it's a "must have".

Re:DuckDuckGo (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#41407809)

I started using DuckDuckGo exclusively just a couple days ago. So far I'm liking it a lot--search results seem just as good as Google's, if not better in some cases.

I wish I could say the same. I do everything to minimize google's tracking of me - no cookies, no other google services, no javascript, etc. So as best I can tell, I get google's searches without the filter bubble. [wikipedia.org] But I still found google to be significantly more effective than DDG. I consider myself to have some damn fine google-fu, so maybe I just don't "get" DDG but whatever the reason I found myself using the !g operator so often that I decided to save a step and just start my searches at google to begin with.

Re:DuckDuckGo (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41407181)

Thank you for the suggestion. Bing's app doesn't appear to work on Android tablets (which appears intentional), but DuckDuckGo's app works fine on my Nexus 7.

Re:DuckDuckGo (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41407467)

Bing's app doesn't appear to work on Android tablets (which appears intentional)

What's wrong with this picture?

Re:DuckDuckGo (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41407491)

Why would you need an app to use a web search engine?

(I mean, I know they exist and people use them... but why??)

Re:DuckDuckGo (2)

ppanon (16583) | about 2 years ago | (#41407881)

Well, if it's a widget that you use on your Android home page, it doesn't take up too much real estate and compresses multiple steps into one: open browser, open google bookmark or type URL, possibly scroll page to be able to select search entry field, enter search criteria. The Instant search results show up formatted for your phone better than using the Google home page. About the only drawback is that you don't get to see the funny custom google logos.

Re:DuckDuckGo (3, Informative)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 2 years ago | (#41407325)

I gave DDG a fair shake for a few months but ended up with a lot of spammy results a lot of times and didnt find what I wanted all the time. I do like their ! searches tho and I keep them in my browser search list specifically for !whois and a few other ! searches. I hate it as much as the next nerd, but google is king of search and gets me where I need to go. I do know and remember always that the almighty google is also all-tracking.

Re:DuckDuckGo (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41407549)

why yes, a bing based search aka duck duck go is based on privacy?

do tell! /facepalm

god I've grown old (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407005)

Google breaching user privacy and Microsoft advocating privacy

Re:god I've grown old (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41407469)

Google breaching user privacy and Microsoft advocating privacy

I have to keep a cheat-sheet to remind me who's the good guys and who's the bad guys these days.

Re:god I've grown old (5, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about 2 years ago | (#41407599)

simple... bad guys: everyone else
good guys: me ;)

Privacy? Bing? (5, Insightful)

lokedhs (672255) | about 2 years ago | (#41407011)

Bing, that integrates with Facebook, who are the champions of privacy, of course.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407053)

Google integrates with G+ where you _must_ use your real name according to their T&C, so what's your point? The fact you have to fight hard for privacy on the net, you can't trust anyone, even those with catchy mottos, like "Don't do evil"

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407073)

Google integrates with G+ where you _must_ use your real name according to their T&C, so what's your point? The fact you have to fight hard for privacy on the net, you can't trust anyone, even those with catchy mottos, like "Don't do evil"

Google's motto is only 3 words long. Is it really that hard to get right?

Re:Privacy? Bing? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407099)

Yeah, it's "fuck you peons".

Re:Privacy? Bing? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41407179)

Google's motto is only 3 words long. Is it really that hard to get right?

Apparently so.

Google seems to be having trouble with it, anyway.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407323)

Yep, it's "I are penis".

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407783)

ROFLMAO! You guys...:)))

Errrr..."do unto others"...?

Re:Privacy? Bing? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41407507)

It's not even their motto. It was just an internal memo with a personal company mantra that got leaked. It's not as though Google has ever publicly pushed that "motto". I'm sure they regret that it even got out given how often it's used as some sort of confirmation that they're twisted liars.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407147)

Google integrates with G+ where you _must_ use your real name according to their T&C, so what's your point?

Just because Google does stupid shit does not mean Microsoft does not also deserve to be called out for doing stupid shit. The equivalency that you are pushing (as valid as it is irrelevant) here reminds me of discourse in US politics now. "So-and-so did this, BUT THE OTHER SIDE DOES IT TOO!" Who gives a fuck? Perfect opportunity for a new player to step up and say "we don't do that".

Re:Privacy? Bing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407195)

Exactly what kind of stupid shit is involved in Facebook integration? It's completely optional.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407237)

as valid as it is irrelevant

So it's valid and irrelevant? Or invalid and relevant? The argument is use Bing because of Google's search privacy violations, a response to that was 'but Bing integrates with Facebook', this response was countered with 'but Google search integrates with Google+', so in terms of social network integration they are on par, but the Google privacy violations still stand.

Things can be relative (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41407265)

Just because Google does stupid shit does not mean Microsoft does not also deserve to be called out for doing stupid shit.

But we can note when Google is worse.

Google's G+ integration includes G+ results being promoted in the search stream.

Microsoft's Facebook integration does not alter your search results.

And G+ is sucking a lot more of your personal information (including search habits) into Google. At least with Microsoft there remains some division between what Facebook gets and what Microsoft gets.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407169)

So if anyone had a G+ account, Google might be a privacy problem.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about 2 years ago | (#41407817)

Now hang on just a cotton-pickin moment there sonny-boy! I heard the Goog-man tell us just the other day that G+ hit the 100 mill users - *active* monthly users mind you! Now, every one knows companies that do no evil can tell no lie, so take that! ;-p

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407061)

Brought to you by the same fine people who served you up through the world's most secure OS and IE, the original 0-day browser.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#41407223)

And this relates to privacy... how?

For all the bad things that Microsoft has done, abusing user expectations of privacy was not one. As far as I can remember, it have always been upfront about what it does with user information, and generally allow opt-out settings.

I always prefer other search engines because Google have its hooks in too many webpages with Analytics and advertising that it can track back to my gmail account.

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407283)

Not for the lack of trying. They do have their own web analytics and web ad business, surely bringing more people to Bing would make them more valuable.

Oh, and BTW, you can opt-out of Google ads tracking just fine. Did you ever try typing "google ads tracking opt out" into any search engine?

Re:Privacy? Bing? (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41407463)

Err, did you even read the summary...? How were you supposed to opt out on the iPhone, which is what got Google into trouble...

Re:Privacy? Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407101)

Because completely optional integration with Facebook is exactly the same as intentionally reneging on a promise and violating privacy rights of unknowing users.

PRC: Censor or go away (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41407607)

When China told Google to censor or get out, they got out - evacuating to Taiwan.

Eric Schmidt, the Chairman and CEO at the time was for pursuing the business opportunity through minimizing the damage. Larry Page was ambivalent. That day Sergey Brin became Google's moral compass and said something like: "Not just no, but Fuck no. My dad was a Russian dissident and came to America to avoid being sent to a Gulag for speaking his mind. If you do this not only will I take my share and leave, but I'll use it to do my best to defeat the monster you've become."

There was a big fight and Eric Schmidt gave up the CEO spot and his role as the world's best-paid babysitter. Larry Page took it (Sergey didn't want it). And Google moved out of China, abandoning the world's biggest growth market until it's ready to accept at least the human right of free speech. But the question about where Google stood on free speech was forever closed. That issue at least is resolved.

Bing and Yahoo crowed their triumph that day, that they had bested their adversary on at least one field - and an important one. For all of me this was one battle they needed to lose.

Recently there was press about some unnamed person from the White House asking YouTube to check a controversial video to see if it violated their terms of service. The reply: "No, it doesn't - thanks for asking." The implied unofficial implication was that it would be convenient if the video violated the terms. Certainly this didn't come from the President directly as he taught Constitutional Law, so it was a minor official inquiry that by some other company would have been taken as an opportunity to seek some advantage. But Google would have none of that. They don't do that. If pressed (they weren't pressed) the answer would certainly have been "not just no, but Fuck No! We don't do that." America doesn't have anything like the ability to enforce cooperation that China does, and if it happened to gain that power Google would just leave the US too now because organizationally the "free speech" question is completely and forever settled.

For all that some would paint Google as evil, maybe Google is in some aspect preserving our moral compass for when we regain our sanity and come to understand again what's really important. Until then I admire their determination to retain their moral compass and do the right thing.

Re:PRC: Censor or go away (1)

Keen Anthony (762006) | about 2 years ago | (#41407761)

Do you have any citations for any of this, especially for Brin's emotions in this? Everything I've ever found has been more tempered, or did you add emphasis?

Re:PRC: Censor or go away (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about 2 years ago | (#41407837)

POTM! (full disc: from an unapologetic G-fanboy :)

Startpage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407015)

They should just use startpage. Its still google searches just without being tracked by google.

DuckDuckGo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407017)

DuckDuckGo would be a safer bet... I personally have been using it for about 3 months and haven't felt the need to go back to Google.

LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407021)

MS should just quite, the faster the die the better. Read this Ballmer, NO ONE TRUSTS MS.

People are more inclined to trust facebook and apple, than they ever would MS.

Re:LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about 2 years ago | (#41407159)

Trust Facebook? Ha!

Re:LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41407397)

Scoff if you want, but he's right. Facebook wouldn't have the massive gold-mine of personal data that it does if everybody was skeptical of it.

Re:LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about 2 years ago | (#41407719)

You are implying that the average user knows or cares how much information is gathered. I posit they do not. I just recently stopped using Facebook on Chrome and switched Facebook (and only Facebook) to Firefox so that it can't track me.

Re:LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41407879)

You are implying that the average user knows or cares how much information is gathered.

They know what they're giving Facebook so... yeah they haveta trust them to a point, no matter how ignorant they are.

Re:LOL MS we've learned our lesson. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407261)

NO ONE TRUSTS MS.

People are more inclined to trust facebook and apple, than they ever would MS.

umm...yeah so 90% of desktop and laptop computers run...oh that's right Microsoft Windows, and the dominant office suite is...Microsoft Office! Clearly no one trusts MS! Now Microsoft are bad in business (or at least have been in the past), no question there, but they haven't had the sort of privacy violations that Facebook and Google have had.

6 and 1, half a dozen of the other (4, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41407047)

So either way, you're still getting your results from Google.

Re:6 and 1, half a dozen of the other (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407291)

Re:6 and 1, half a dozen of the other.

Six to one, half a dozen to another...

Re:6 and 1, half a dozen of the other (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407305)

where are you two from ?
six of one = half dozen of the other

Re:6 and 1, half a dozen of the other (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407347)

where are you two from ?
six of one = half dozen of the other

One is from planet 6 and the other from planet half a dozen.

Re:6 and 1, half a dozen of the other (1)

jimktrains (838227) | about 2 years ago | (#41407621)

6 OF 1 you mean? Or am i missing a joke?

Well that's a case of (1)

bsercombe72 (1822782) | about 2 years ago | (#41407051)

Pot - Kettle - Black.

Not Really (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407551)

Google has been way worse on privacy than Microsoft ever was.

Trust Microsoft. No, really. (4, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41407127)

After all, Microsoft is the one technology company that has demonstrated a consistently superior level of trustworthiness and sound ethics. Right? [zdnet.com]

Re:Trust Microsoft. No, really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407375)

Yeah that has nothing to do with violating individuals' privacy though, so you're either an idiot or you have an agenda...nice segue shill!

Re:Trust Microsoft. No, really. (2)

Pav (4298) | about 2 years ago | (#41407821)

Have it your way [computerworld.com] .

Microsoft competing with someone?! (4, Funny)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41407135)

Wow.. this is definitely news. A competitor of MS made a mistake, and they're attempting to gain an advantage from it.

It's like... they're competing or something.

More stories like this /.

This is groundbreaking stuff

Re:Microsoft competing with someone?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407877)

Slashdot is based on zealotry.

Choices, choices... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#41407141)

Is it November already?

Lesser of two evils, indeed.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407153)

Oh wait, they're serious. Allow me to laugh harder.

Say what? (4, Interesting)

UnifiedTechs (100743) | about 2 years ago | (#41407187)

Isn't this like Ford telling Toyota owners to buy a new Ford because a Chevron tanker ran aground?

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407331)

Isn't this like Ford telling Toyota owners to buy a new Ford because a Chevron tanker ran aground?

Heh. That's an elegant analogy.

and i suggest using (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407333)

your own search engine spider to heck with big business idiots chunking me ads....

Say what? (2)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#41407337)

Google was acting like Microsoft and as a result MS expects people to use a Microsoft product instead?

Re:Say what? (1)

Bremic (2703997) | about 2 years ago | (#41407541)

There is a subtle difference between what Google did and what Microsoft does...

Google probably gave the users being tracked the information they were after. Bing tends not to do that anywhere near as well.

There are no "good guys" out there right now.

Google is more evil than Microsoft ever was (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407349)

Clunk! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407361)

I don't use Safari, but I'm really sick of Microsoft always trying to stuff Bing! down my throat.

I don't like it and I will never use it.

Re:Clunk! (3, Interesting)

bsercombe72 (1822782) | about 2 years ago | (#41407461)

For this reason I avoid Bing like the plague and use IE for what it was meant for: a download tool for a real browser.

Google is still light years ahead of MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407383)

Like this one act suddenly makes Google less trustworthy then Microsoft. Even if Microsoft ended all of the bullshit, it would take 20 years of being squeaky clean for me to truth them, (I am, for some reason, a little jaded with them)...

notifications are not that bad (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 2 years ago | (#41407399)

I'm hoping they will not modify current notifications in a bad way. current ones are useful for regular desktop use. I'm sure they're not as useful for FB, twitter announces and that sort of crap and it seems to be what they want to fix.

The stuff nerds like me don't give a rat's ass about.

This could be huge. (4, Funny)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 2 years ago | (#41407477)

Safari Users. We could be talking as many as 2 dozen people here.

Re:This could be huge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407545)

They should be sure to have this communicated in Esperanto as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Re:This could be huge. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407547)

Converting those users would increase Bings userbase by a significant percent

If you have a smartphone... (1)

klingers48 (968406) | about 2 years ago | (#41407595)

Then you no longer have real privacy.

Disclaimer: I do indeed have a smartphone. I'm just not kidding myself.

Amazing. (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 2 years ago | (#41407633)

Microsoft are now the white-hat privacy advocates?

And what of Ixquick/Startpage?

Bing: 100% blocked on my networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407643)

POS wanabee crap

Safari Users. (1)

Hotelit (2725629) | about 2 years ago | (#41407671)

Is it faster then others...?

Wikipedia as a "search engine" (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#41407699)

If you're not looking for something only two people and their dogs care about, Wikipedia can provide enough information to get you up to speed. Even with the deletionists, trolls, and shills, I find Wikipedia to be more relevant, if not more accurate, than running a typical Google search which would point to a Wikipedia article anyway.

The reference/links section at the end of an article is often more valuable than the article itself, which is how I use Wikipedia as a "search" engine. Like any large web site, Wikipedia has a site search feature, which, as far as I can tell, has not been outsourced to the two or three search giants. The major browsers can also be configured to use Wikipedia as a search engine.

Of course what we really need is a true crowd-sourced search engine that isn't controlled by a single humongous corporation. But there's already more information in Wikipedia than when Google started indexing the web in the late 1990s. This trove of information can serve as the seed.

and more crap oriented (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#41407875)

yay great my search engine has a animated background, and shows me at least one page of kittens for an image search, just what I wanted when I pay out the ass per byte

I am all for my own privacy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407887)

But Bing also offers too much privacy to search results that I might be interested in.

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>