Mozilla Director Derides Google, Promotes Bing

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does this mean that the next FireFox update will have Bing as the Home Page?
 
Interesting. Mozilla condemns Microsoft on one hand for its inclusion of IE with Windows, and now they go just short of praising them for their efforts in protecting your privacy. Perhaps Mozilla is just telling it how it is, or perhaps there's a behind the scenes motive.... Perhaps Google Chrome is threat than IE and this is their way of combating that threat.
 
[citation][nom]Renegade_Warrior[/nom]Does this mean that the next FireFox update will have Bing as the Home Page?[/citation]
I was think that exact same thing.
 
Google search engine: keeps records about you!
Other search engines: don't keep records.

Is your online privacy important? For me, not really, I don't do things that I'm shouldn't do in the first place, but I still feel uncomfortable with Google's politics.

Let's say I follow some links on some political blogs, and do some research to debate some sensitive topics, then I accidentally open some legally ambiguous sites. Does that mean the authorities could knock on my door just by looking at some Google logs, without having any context information on how I ended up on those sites ? I doubt this will ever happen to me, but someone innocent will get screwed sooner or later ... As for those that are suspected by authorities, they deserve to be tracked, but I don't see the point in tracking "everyone" online.



 
His answer seemed truthful and as if it applied to all companies operating in the U.S. So am I missing something or should he simply have been more political and lied?
 
[citation][nom]Besch[/nom]His answer seemed truthful and as if it applied to all companies operating in the U.S. So am I missing something or should he simply have been more political and lied?[/citation]
Agree. Just because Bing has better written policy does not mean that if Feds knock on their doors they will not help them track you. Just like AT&T and Verizon assisted US government in warrant-less spying on all Americans. When people try to sue them they got nice protection from Washington by law that granted them an immunity.
http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
 
[citation][nom]Besch[/nom]His answer seemed truthful and as if it applied to all companies operating in the U.S. So am I missing something or should he simply have been more political and lied?[/citation]
AFAIK - you're right. He simply stated the unpleasant (for some) truth. Maybe he hasn't stressed enough that your information will be ONLY shared with the authorities and ONLY when you commit a crime. As such - I don't see it as a big deal. If you commit a crime IRL, you don't usually expect people to simply pretend nothing happened, right ?

tl;dr: I trust Google.
 
It just occurred to me - since today, Chrome has its own ADBlock or two... This was probably the only thing that made me hesitate to switch from Firefox.
Perhaps the guys and gals at Mozilla are simply afraid that people might be curious enough to switch to Chrome with extensions... and never come back ]:> ?
 
I don't see how this is anything new. Googles cost of free is they own your information and can do what the please with it. They don't deny this it's written clearly in their policy's.
 
I like Google as a search engine (who doesn't?).

But I despise Google bigwig policies and intrusive measures.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Click to expand...
BS!! I bet he wouldn't be saying that if it were him or his family.
 
Like Microsoft is in the business of protecting users data, hope they aren't using their clouds that had to be rebuilt carefully 1 drive at a time LMAO!
 
Unless you send all your web traffic through an onion skin routerthen he is absolutely right. Sorry it wasn't sugarcoated for all the people who don't understand how the internet works. The only information that you can reasonably expect to keep hidden is the stuff that is sent encrypted, this typically does not include searches or most web browsing. Even when accessing encrypted sites (banks, shopping) the addresses or sites visited are still fairly easy to determine even if the information shared (card numbers, passwords, emails) is not. This has nothing to do with search engines or specific browsers or sites, it is a byproduct of how the internet works. I guess if people want to get away with their kiddie porn they'll just have to do it off the internet or run the risk of getting caught. I'm all for them getting caught.
 
Google and Microsoft both refused repeatedly when the government wanted their index data, so in terms of privacy they're doing the best they can (however, Microsoft's recent cloud crash doesn't help their case much).

It seems people always criticize Google for privacy because they're all too aware of what information they're submitting to Google, and Google is open on what information it collects. Yet, we don't realize how much information is gathered about us without our knowing. Web servers always keep logs of IPs that visit. The NSA can snoop on your internet communications if it wants to. The FBI can packet sniff email. Those warranty cards or other forms you submit with your personal information often end up in the hands of data miners, where it is sold to anyone who wants the information.

Eric Schmidt is right. Unless you do have something to hide, stop worrying about your privacy. Google couldn't care less what your favorite song is or that you don't know how to spell something.
 
Don't see a problem with any of it. Nothing is free. If you hit my servers I do keep track of it. If I could figure out how to profit from it I would.
 
It is quite clear that this article - and indeed the Mozilla director - missed the point of Eric Schmidt's comments. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place", and references to the USA PATRIOT act and authorities, should make it clear to anyone who values intelligence over scare-mongering that he is referring to illegal activity that would be relevant to these authorities. Perhaps I should expand the USA PATRIOT act, 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001'. Key Word: Terrorism. Now, Eric Schmidt has quite clearly said in this clip that if you make information available online that is relevant to the USA PATRIOT act then this may be retained by Google and passed to the authorities, and yet Asa Dotzler - and this article - and indeed some of the subsequent comment posters - have someone come to conclusion that this is somehow an affront to the privacy of every day google users. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. As far as I'm concerned, search engines should have a responsibility to collate information of this nature. If you're doing nothing wrong, then Eric's comments, and googles policy, should be completely irrelevant to you.
 
Sooo... Iranians shouldn't rebel, Moroccans shouldn't be gay and I shouldn't masturbate to a picture of Elisha Cuthbert.

Thank you Google, what a wonderful world.
 
Microsoft is now the person you trust to guard your activities from big brother. To think it was only a few years ago when they were the evil empire; now Google has taken the crown.
 
[citation][nom]vestin[/nom]AFAIK - you're right. He simply stated the unpleasant (for some) truth. Maybe he hasn't stressed enough that your information will be ONLY shared with the authorities and ONLY when you commit a crime. As such - I don't see it as a big deal. If you commit a crime IRL, you don't usually expect people to simply pretend nothing happened, right ?tl;dr: I trust Google.[/citation]
Don't be that naive. Yes, in theory if you're clean you have nothing to fear. The reality is people with power abuse it. It's been like that forever and it won't change. The solution is control the amount of power we, the citizens, give the authorities. You only have to be a suspect of something for the authorities to request the information. Under that umbrella EVERYONE can be a suspect. I agree with other commentators that Google may not be worse than the rest but an explicit privacy policy helps make things clear.
 
I got fed up with Google's policies. My friend could trace his search queries from Grade 7, including porn. The fact that Google keeps records for that long (6 years) concerns me.

Bing's results are just as Google's 90% of the time, so I have no need to have Google even on my IE's search engine list.
 
BING is a great search engine, has so many more features and interactivity than Google. MS has caught up on many fronts and passwing the competition.

1) XBOX 360 rocks like no other, dethroned Playstation years ago
2) .NET programming language is putting JAVA in the grave
3) Win7 does almost everything right as an OS (except for start menu)
4) BING is very, very good
5) ZUNE HD is much better than any iPod, more features, more formats, etc

Those are just a few emerging fronts MS already owns with Visual Studio, SQL Server and all their staple products.

I sound like MS fanboy but not true, I just believe they have the experience, history, cash and talent to quickly excel and something "if" they choose to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom