Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Dec 2009 18:35 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Mozilla & Gecko clones The ripples caused by Google's Eric Schmidt's words are spreading further and further throughout the internet. Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, wrote on his blog, urging people to switch away from Google to Bing, which he claims has a better privacy policy. Dotzler points users to the Firefox Bing add-on.
Order by: Score:
Title is inaccurate
by JoeBuck on Fri 11th Dec 2009 18:40 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

Mozilla isn't urging users to switch to Bing. Rather, Mozilla's director of community development, writing on his own blog, is doing so. If Google threatens to cut off funding, we might see Mozilla looking for a new director of community development.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Title is inaccurate
by aesiamun on Sat 12th Dec 2009 17:59 UTC in reply to "Title is inaccurate"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

The title says "Mozilla's Asa Dotzler"...not Mozilla.

Title is accurate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Title is inaccurate
by sbergman27 on Sat 12th Dec 2009 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Title is inaccurate"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Title is accurate.

Maybe he means that Asa isn't really a representative for Mozilla? After all, only 93+% of Google hits for "Asa Dotzler" are related to Mozilla:

http://tinyurl.com/yb58avw (65,700 hits)

http://tinyurl.com/yb2g4wx (4880 hits)

And he's not exactly the most well known Mozilla personality. He's second to Mitchell Baker.

Edited 2009-12-12 18:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Title is inaccurate
by mightshade on Sun 13th Dec 2009 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Title is inaccurate"
mightshade Member since:
2008-11-20

The title says "Mozilla's Asa Dotzler"...not Mozilla.

Yes, after it has been corrected. The original title read "Mozilla Urges Users to Switch to Bing".

Reply Score: 2

rofl
by darknexus on Fri 11th Dec 2009 18:41 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Mozilla should just advocate using no search engine entirely if they have privacy concerns. Do they really think ms is going to be any more respectful of it than google?
Still, the irony of Mozilla telling people to switch to an ms product is unbelievable. As for me, I won't be switching to bing simply because, imho, its results are pure crap.

Reply Score: 14

RE: rofl
by google_ninja on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:31 UTC in reply to "rofl"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It's really not that bad anymore. Google is better, but I would use bing over anything else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: rofl
by ple_mono on Fri 11th Dec 2009 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: rofl"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

Bing "commercial".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaFY7hVxjek
If you ask me that's a little bit scary! LOL

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: rofl
by google_ninja on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I didn't say their marketing wasn't abrasive or moronic (this is microsoft we are talking about), but their results really aren't that bad. If I couldn't use google, I would use that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: rofl
by thjayo on Sat 12th Dec 2009 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rofl"
thjayo Member since:
2005-11-11

Not bad? The results are awful. I searched for SQL Server 2008 SP1, seeking the link to download it, and it was nowhere on the first three pages, while it was Google's first hit.

But unsurprisingly (is this a word?), every time I give Bing a try, 8 out of the first 10 results are related to some online shop... I suppose Microsoft receives a small cut of every sale made via Bing.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: rofl
by google_ninja on Sat 12th Dec 2009 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rofl"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I just tried it now, and the download link was the second result

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: rofl
by Googol on Sun 13th Dec 2009 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rofl"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Shame on you ;)

If you want to download ANYTHING, you simply add "download" to your query terms.

I just did that for you and the pack shows as the first hit at the official MS download site. It always helps a great deal if you actually know what you are searching for. Other than that, I am not too convinced by Bing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: rofl
by OSGuy on Sat 12th Dec 2009 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Haha! Good one ;) That is so funny ;) ;) Thanks for the link. That reminds me on that "YVAN EHT NIOJ" episode from the Simpsons hehe except that here MS is imagining an army of Bing users as they are pre-programming kids' minds so later on they'd think the world revolves around Bing. Kind of sad but they will soon discover there is a world out there outside Bing. Just a matter of time. Google is too powerful for MS to swallow.

As I said in the past, I don't mind MS but I certainly mind Bing, I simply do not trust its results and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Regardless the privacy, I'd continue to use Google search however I wouldn't even touch ChromeOS with a 10 foot pole. I like Google, I hate ChromeOS (for many reasons), I love the Android operating system. I love Windows 7, I hate Windows based cell phones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: rofl
by JrezIN on Sat 12th Dec 2009 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: rofl"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

maybe, but at least for me, I can't support (by using) a company's service that advocates the end of internet as we know it, advocating charges to index content and playing with content providers to block rivals.

The day internet can't be indexed by search engines, is the day internet has failed to be.

Reply Score: 2

Good
by strcpy on Fri 11th Dec 2009 18:53 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

I think he has a valid point, to some degree.

Basically my opinion is - very much like in operating systems - that diversity is a good thing.

It would be good for both business and users if there would be more than one "relevant" search engine. This would also help the hot topic of privacy; a single party couldn't correlate different data sets so easily.

And if Microsoft is forced to include a browser ballot, Firefox should be forced to include all relevant search engines by default.

Finally, I don't think Bing is that bad, actually.

Edited 2009-12-11 18:54 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Bing might not be better
by JoeBuck on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:00 UTC in reply to "Good"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

While Google's policies raise concerns, in the US, the Patriot Act requires both Bing and Google to retain way more information about searches than necessary, and both search engines have a strong incentive to make money off of search by targeting ads, which is most effectively done by tracking and building profiles on users. They don't need to know your name, but they'll want to know what user #23451247 is interested in, what his/her kinks are, how to persuade user #23451247 to buy stuff, and they'll want to sell that information to advertisers, who can then correlate that profile with profiles from elsewhere that will allow a name to be attached.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Good
by anomie on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:00 UTC in reply to "Good"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

Basically my opinion is - very much like in operating systems - that diversity is a good thing.


Exactly. I just switched my primary search engine to Bing today. The writing is on the wall (at least for me). I'm using way too many google services.

How strange that I actually find myself hoping for Microsoft to succeed in the search space.

[ disclosure: I am a Linux / FreeBSD / OSX user. Haven't run Windows since the year 2004. ]

Reply Score: 3

bings better anyway
by cchance on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:12 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

Come on with the website preview on the mouseover, with the visual search, with the pretty good results in regard to all my searches, with the cashback offers, and now even with bing maps getting photosynth support i still dont get why people arent flocking to bing, google is so lackluster of late.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bings better anyway
by cb88 on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:20 UTC in reply to "bings better anyway"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

I have never received the results I was searching for when using bing... it is in fact that bad

I wonder what yahoo's policies are ... and there is always dogpile...

Reply Score: 1

RE: bings better anyway
by sorpigal on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:15 UTC in reply to "bings better anyway"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Once upon a time I was an InfoSeek fan. Remember InfoSeek? If not, then I feel old.

I didn't much like Yahoo at the time, HotBot was bad, Lycos was OK (but didn't exist yet when I chose InfoSeek), WebCrawler was almost as bad as HotBot... InfoSeek was the best of the bad choices. AskJeeves was cool, but mostly useless.

No matter which one you chose searching was a kind of an art form. You had to know what boolean meant and you had to be able to figure out the right keywords and logical connections or you didn't get very good results. I was good at this and often assisted others with crafting queries.

At a certain point the search sites all started becoming "Portals"--starting with yahoo. Each page had a banner ad, or two or three, a bunch of unrelated content, and the front page loaded really slowly... and the search results always stayed about the same: awful.

Every time a new search engine came out I tried it and found no improvement over the other search engines. Then, one day, InfoSeek went away and was replaced by Go, which was much worse. I started using Yahoo and Lycos, the best of the remainder.

One day I heard about a new one called Google. I went to its front page which loaded over 28.8 like it was in my local cache. I tried some simple questions and--ready for it?--got good results, which also loaded like they were in my local cache. I tried complex queries and found that my results were *better* if I didn't try to use boolean logic... in fact, google seemed to be saying it was ignoring my AND, OR and parentheses!

Since that day I have tried every search contender to come along, just as I had before. In every case I repeat my usual tests: Simple queries, complex queries. I take it for a spin and I see what it can do. In every case every search engine since google has been one of:
1) Slower to load front page or results or both.
2) Provides less useful results.

Tried Yahoo lately? Every now and then I go there and try to use it as my search engine. Typically I spend 10 minutes being unable to find what I want, swap back to Google hand have it in seconds.

Google search is not king through some fickle chance, It's not like Windows where its parent company strong-armed the competition until their own product was number one. Google is on top because Google search is better.

I am not a Google fan boy, I'd drop then like a hot potato the minute there was something as good, nevermind better. So far nothing is as good. Bing is really, really not as good.

What's more, I don't care one bit for any of Bing's "extra" features. I don't want a shitload of javascript grinding in the background. I want a plain, empty page with a search box, a button, and a simple unordered list of results each with a link and maybe (*maybe*) a preview of some contents of the page. Adding other things is only acceptable of there is zero performance hit.

Reply Score: 17

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by google_ninja on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What's more, I don't care one bit for any of Bing's "extra" features. I don't want a shitload of javascript grinding in the background. I want a plain, empty page with a search box, a button, and a simple unordered list of results each with a link and maybe (*maybe*) a preview of some contents of the page. Adding other things is only acceptable of there is zero performance hit.


Agreed. I tried bing out for a few days, and I found while the results were pretty good, all the extra crap that had little to nothing to do with search is retarded.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by sorpigal on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

The results are as good as google for some kinds of searches and far worse for others. Maybe if I used it for longer I'd find some kind of searches where Bing beats Google, but I am not holding my breath; Bing would still have all of its other flaws.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by umccullough on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Once upon a time I was an InfoSeek fan. Remember InfoSeek? If not, then I feel old.

I didn't much like Yahoo at the time, HotBot was bad, Lycos was OK (but didn't exist yet when I chose InfoSeek), WebCrawler was almost as bad as HotBot... InfoSeek was the best of the bad choices. AskJeeves was cool, but mostly useless.


I remember when Altavista was my engine of choice!

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by chemical_scum on Sat 12th Dec 2009 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

"Once upon a time I was an InfoSeek fan. Remember InfoSeek? If not, then I feel old.

I didn't much like Yahoo at the time, HotBot was bad, Lycos was OK (but didn't exist yet when I chose InfoSeek), WebCrawler was almost as bad as HotBot... InfoSeek was the best of the bad choices. AskJeeves was cool, but mostly useless.


I remember when Altavista was my engine of choice!
"

Yes the good old days - my personal web page came up as the first response to a search on my (real) name. Now its hard to find me lost in all others in a recent google search. Still there weren't a lot of web pages back in '96.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by michaelz on Sat 12th Dec 2009 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
michaelz Member since:
2007-03-23

Jup, those where the days ;)
Especially since you could simply ask "How to use a hammer?" and it would actually give a reasonable result.

Google still won't advertise to ask questions in plain english/dutch or whatever language.

I switched from altavista to google when altavista had a lot of ads and google just had a few ads on the side. Altavista started adding ads like "search-results"... Hm, sounds familiar? That's the moment I start hating any searchengine.

Time to start an open source searchengine? ;)

WOW... THAT LOOKS CLEAN TO ME!

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=osnews&kgs=1&kls=0

Edited 2009-12-12 10:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: bings better anyway
by sbergman27 on Sat 12th Dec 2009 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bings better anyway"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The thing that pushed me from AltaVista to Google was that while AltaVista just maintained a FAQ entry explaining why it's impossible to show the search terms in context, Google was actually doing it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 13th Dec 2009 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I remember when Altavista was my engine of choice!


I still remember when the Yahoo homepage would fit on a 640x480 display without scrolling. For my money, they started going down the tubes when they ditched the old-school grey background (AKA the default that older Netscape versions used, if no bgcolor was specified).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by Mellin on Sun 13th Dec 2009 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

when i started using altavista it had the url altavista.digital.com

Edited 2009-12-13 01:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by Drumhellar on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Don't feel old. Infoseek was my favorite, until Google came out, and I'm still young.

EDIT: Remember when Yahoo had the simple default grey background? Oh, those were the days.

Edited 2009-12-11 21:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bings better anyway
by sorpigal on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Oh yes, it all went down hill when they started using white.

Of course those were also the days where I actually had to bookmark things to be able to find them again later.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 12th Dec 2009 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Hotbot was my engine of choice for a while (it was the only one that could find my former high school's page). I got bitter when Opera dropped Hotbot integration and I modded it back in. I finally broke down and tried their new default: Google. Needless to say I was sold.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by Hiev on Sat 12th Dec 2009 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

What?

No Altavista?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by tyrione on Sat 12th Dec 2009 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I've personally begun to use Cuil.com more and more.

Reply Score: 2

According to my weblogs...
by gfolkert on Sun 13th Dec 2009 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bings better anyway"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

According to my weblogs for the multiple websites the company I work for hosts...

CUIL does not respect robots.txt.

In fact, from those same logs, it appears that CUIL uses robots.txt as a roadmap as to use to scrape a site.

Good luck using CUIL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: bings better anyway
by uray on Sun 13th Dec 2009 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE: bings better anyway"
uray Member since:
2009-08-19

totally agree, i use search engine to search, not to load bunch of javascript and big image on its front page

Reply Score: 1

microsoft full privacy policy
by krom on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:14 UTC
krom
Member since:
2006-09-29

You should use this http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx instead of the short one.

And btw: "we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data." means that there can be authorized correlation of this data.

I think there can't be much difference between both, as they all want that information.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You should use this http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx instead of the short one.

And btw: "we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data." means that there can be authorized correlation of this data.

I think there can't be much difference between both, as they all want that information.


Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It means "we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data."

But feel free to spread the fear.

Reply Score: 2

bing in Chinese means..
by krom on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:17 UTC
krom
Member since:
2006-09-29

disease

Reply Score: 0

RE: bing in Chinese means..
by talaf on Sat 12th Dec 2009 00:43 UTC in reply to "bing in Chinese means.."
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

bing in chinese means alot of things, and I'm pretty sure you know that if you know that it can mean disease :o Anyway, that's pretty irrelevant to the conversation.

Reply Score: 3

Follow the money
by sbergman27 on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:38 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Apparently, Microsoft Corp has offered Mozilla Corp more money for less effort than has Google, Inc. Asa has always been a pretty reliable weather vane on that count.

Edited 2009-12-11 19:39 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Follow the money
by eksasol on Sat 12th Dec 2009 17:35 UTC in reply to "Follow the money"
eksasol Member since:
2009-04-05

" sbergman27 Apparently, Microsoft Corp has offered Mozilla Corp more money for less effort than has Google, Inc."
What a crock a crap.

Edited 2009-12-12 17:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Follow the money
by sbergman27 on Sat 12th Dec 2009 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Follow the money"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"Apparently, Microsoft Corp has offered Mozilla Corp more money for less effort than has Google, Inc."

What a crock a crap.

I'll betcha I'm right, though. There will be a carefully worded announcement pertaining to this sometime in the next month or so. :-)

It makes perfect sense for MS to offer. It would be surprising if they didn't now that they've kicked their search efforts into high gear. And if MS offered and Mozilla turned it down, Mozilla Corp would be playing that PR card all over the Internet. But they aren't. Instead, they have a well known Mozilla rep unofficially floating this trial balloon in his blog.

Microsoft has recently offered Mozilla a truck-load of money, and Mozilla Corp wants to accept it. Just watch.

Edited 2009-12-12 17:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Follow the money
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 12th Dec 2009 23:40 UTC in reply to "Follow the money"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Apparently, Microsoft Corp has offered Mozilla Corp more money for less effort than has Google, Inc. Asa has always been a pretty reliable weather vane on that count.


That seems fairly plausible. Microsoft has already offered to pay individual websites to list with Bing (and not Google) - and Mozilla gets paid by Google for searches done through the Firefox default homepage, the search field, etc. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that Microsoft has made a similar offer to Mozilla, or that Mozilla has "shopped around" with search providers.

IMO Microsoft is sufficiently pragmatic (or sufficiently mercenary, depending on how you look at it) to do something like that. I'm sure that they would prefer if everyone used IE on Windows, but they'll happily "settle" for the consolation prize of having people use Microsoft services with Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

Dutch law irrelevant
by jack_perry on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:46 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally, the most important reason why I find Schmidt's words upsetting is that for me, as a Dutch citizen, the Patriot Act bears absolutely no relevance. If this was really all about the Patriot Act, then at least Google could make sure that data on international users was handled differently...


It is irrelevant whether you are a Dutch citizen, just as it is irrelevant to be visiting a foreign country as a Dutch citizen. You still have to respect the local laws.

How does that matter? Since any Google service probably interacts with servers in the United States, all information passing through those servers must comply with United States Law. One of those laws is the Patriot Act.

For example: I don't think this is a Patriot Act provision, but one major change to FISA law after the attacks of 11 Sep 2001 was to make it easier the government to track terrorist communications (& other criminal activity) that transpire abroad and where information is routed through the United States. I recall cell phone communications being cited as a specific example here, but I don't know the mechanism so if that's bogus don't flame me; I'm just reporting what they said.

The point is: you're living in Holland under Dutch Law, but the people providing your services live in the United States, under US law. The fact that you are a Dutch citizen diminishes the relevance of the Patriot Act no less than if you were physically visiting the US.

Reply Score: 5

Search Privacy
by Lengsel on Fri 11th Dec 2009 19:54 UTC
Lengsel
Member since:
2006-04-19

If you want complete privacy with your searches try https://ssl.scroogle.org/ Google tracks your search as coming from Scroogle and Scroogle wipes the true IP of the person searching, and it is also encrypted between you and the Scroogle servers as it searches Google.

You can get the Firefox and IE plugin for Scroogle here http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle It also has it for other languages and can get the plugin for encrypted or not encrypted. Apparently on their home page scroogle.org the even have it for use encrypted or not encrypted for Chrome and Opera. Tell me that is not a sting, having encrypted anonymous searches in Chrome!

Reply Score: 16

RE: Search Privacy
by anomie on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "Search Privacy"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

If you want complete privacy with your searches try https://ssl.scroogle.org/ Google tracks your search as coming from Scroogle and Scroogle wipes the true IP of the person searching, and it is also encrypted between you and the Scroogle servers as it searches Google.


Thanks - nice service. (I'd vote you up but I already commented here.)

Reply Score: 3

What?
by viator on Fri 11th Dec 2009 20:07 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Privacy concerns aside i could NEVER use bing its utter garbage. Results are almost always some corporate producte i have no interest in and when i am searching for a "product" it still fails.. (anti microsoft bias aside lol) Like others have said just use scroogle if you have privacy concerns. Atleast google dashboard shows you what info they have collected if youd like to know. Unlike other providers.

Reply Score: 0

polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

Gotta get those clicks up, right?

Where do you get

"Mozilla Urges Users to Switch to Bing"

from

"And here's how you can easily switch Firefox's search from Google to Bing. (Yes, Bing does have a better privacy policy than Google.)"

Yeah, that sure sounds like the entire Mozilla Foundation telling people to switch. :/

I know the guy works for Mozilla. I get it. But it's a personal blog posting from one guy. Let's not exaggerate.

Reply Score: 8

The "ixquick" Search Engine...
by warrenweiss on Fri 11th Dec 2009 20:35 UTC
warrenweiss
Member since:
2005-07-07

...bills itself as the "world's most private search engine."

http://www.ixquick.com/

This search engine has come a long way since it started (it had quite a bit of ground to cover) and the results are only now starting to be useful for me. But, I assume it will get even better as time passes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The "ixquick" Search Engine...
by reez on Sat 12th Dec 2009 14:39 UTC in reply to "The "ixquick" Search Engine..."
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

Even better: Clusty

They don't advertise with privacy, because it's normal for them.

Instead they advertise with clustering!
Search engine: http://clusty.com/
Their POV: http://clusty.com/privacy
Their PP: http://clusty.com/privacypolicy

I have been using it for a long time and I've never seen a search engine, which allows you to find stuff that fast.

Oh and they are a metasearchengine, so the index is also big.

If you want googles search results in an anonymous way use Scroogle:
http://scroogle.org/

Edited 2009-12-12 14:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

About Schmidt's comment
by tails92 on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:10 UTC
tails92
Member since:
2007-10-07

I guess it doesn't come as a shock to many of you, but many American companies receive funding from the upper level of government (including the Army) so that's why Schmidt wants to make them happy and he obeys them, otherwise be sure we'd see something dirty about Google.

Microsoft's not less dirty unluckily and they paid this guy in my opinion. They have employed so much viral marketing that they can make an advertisement page look like genuine opinions. Also iirc they were helped my MS on some things.

Unfortunately the way search engines are done it's very difficult we will see some new player which doesn't suck as much as the current ones, that's why they have an even deeper interest in keeping you with them and they do email services and such.

Reply Score: 3

I urge...
by mgl.branco on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:16 UTC
mgl.branco
Member since:
2009-07-22

I urge people to move away from Mozilla!

I don't think that all the privacy debate should *just* focus on Google. I goes much further than that.

Reply Score: 2

No need for Anti-Google
by Envying1 on Fri 11th Dec 2009 21:36 UTC
Envying1
Member since:
2008-04-22

Thom, I think Google CEO just told you the truth. You don't have to be so irritated and think Microsoft will not do the same thing, as they disregarded the report of their cooperation with NSA during Win7 development.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No need for Anti-Google
by BluenoseJake on Sat 12th Dec 2009 14:21 UTC in reply to "No need for Anti-Google"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Thom, I think Google CEO just told you the truth. You don't have to be so irritated and think Microsoft will not do the same thing, as they disregarded the report of their cooperation with NSA during Win7 development.


They didn't disregard it, they denied it out right. That myth dates back to NT 4.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-7-nsa-backdoor,9...
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/

Edited 2009-12-12 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

johnboyholmes
Member since:
2005-11-16

Mozilla seems to have lost focus on their software how about a production browser that passes acid3 or process per tab or the fastest javascript or...

If they excelled at what should be their core focus, making software, they could more strategically influence people rather than well meaning but awkward statements like this.

Reply Score: 2

I urge users to use Forestle
by KugelKurt on Sat 12th Dec 2009 11:13 UTC
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

Save the rain forest by using http://www.forestle.org/ as search engine.
It's Yahoo-powered.

Its brother Znout http://www.znout.org is Google-powered, but only CO2-neutral, because Google denied to cooperate.

Neither Forestle nor Znout pass Yahoo's/Google's cookies to through the user, hence increasing the privacy as a byproduct.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I urge users to use Forestle
by Mellin on Sun 13th Dec 2009 01:55 UTC in reply to "I urge users to use Forestle"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

yahoo will soon be powered by bing

Reply Score: 2

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

So? Any indicator that Forestle will stop working then?

Reply Score: 2

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

i will never use anything from microsoft

Reply Score: 2

RE: I urge users to use Forestle
by sbergman27 on Sun 13th Dec 2009 14:41 UTC in reply to "I urge users to use Forestle"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Save the rain forest by using http://www.forestle.org/ as search engine.

I don't understand this. I read their "How it works" page in which they say that the advertising revenue generated from use of their site is donated to the Adopt an Acre program of the Nature Conservancy. And that each search generates roughly enough revenue to protect about a sqare foot. So I turned off my Epiphany AdBlocker extension because I highly approve of this use of ad revenue. But... they don't seem to have any ads.

Edited 2009-12-13 14:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe there are no ads for your territory yet.
I get ads when I enter a common term like "car".

Reply Score: 2

RE: I urge users to use Forestle
by ahmetaa on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:45 UTC in reply to "I urge users to use Forestle"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

All those rainforest saving web sites are light-scams (there are several of them). MS is behind them either through Bing or yahoo.

Reply Score: 2

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you proof that Forestle is a scam? Do you have proof that ad revenue is not donated to proper organizations?

Reply Score: 2

google noodle scroogle scrooge
by eksasol on Sat 12th Dec 2009 17:33 UTC
eksasol
Member since:
2009-04-05

Me, an unknown guy, urges users to switch to Scroogle.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12506
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle

A good search engine that rivaled Google is alltheweb.com, it was promising some good features, but then was bought by Yahoo. Didn't took off and even lost some features.

Edited 2009-12-12 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

Comparing Bing and Google based solely on their privacy policies reminds me a bit of a quote that was attributed to Winston Churchill:

"I may be drunk - but you, madame, are ugly. And in the morning, I shall be sober."

In other words, I suspect that it would be easier for Google to adjust their privacy policy than it would be for Microsoft to improve Bing to the point where it's as effective as Google.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"I may be drunk - but you, madame, are ugly. And in the morning, I shall be sober."

Yeah, that was a good one. Privacy policies can be ammended, at any time, in whatever direction the company issuing it feels is best for their business model at the time. And, of course, if the local law, somewhere in the world "compels" them to violate it... well... what can they do?

One thing's for certain. When you deal in information, you need talented folks in PR, to reassure the population.

Edited 2009-12-12 19:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing's for certain. When you deal in information, you need talented folks in PR, to reassure the population.


Incidentally that reminds of a beautiful newspaper photo I saw a few years back, of the Canadian privacy commissionaire standing ankle-deep in printed personal health records that had been dumped on a public street.

There was a film that was being shot in Toronto; it was set in New York, so the production company ordered some waste paper from a shredding company to litter-up a street and make it look more authentic. Due to a mix-up, the paper shredding company delivered print copies of the health records of several thousand individuals (which they were supposed to have destroyed), instead of the waste paper.

Reply Score: 2

Already switched
by Anon9 on Sun 13th Dec 2009 00:39 UTC
Anon9
Member since:
2008-06-30

After hearing about Schmitt's comment yesterday, I decided to switch away from Google. I tried Cuil, but it's results just weren't that great. Then I tried Bing and found it to be on par with Google; so I switched my default search engine to Bing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Already switched
by ahmetaa on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:46 UTC in reply to "Already switched"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Why? Because MS does not have the balls to say the same truth?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by dabeej
by dabeej on Sun 13th Dec 2009 03:17 UTC
dabeej
Member since:
2009-12-13

After looking at the entire segment. It's obvious the topic was about the Patriot Act. I'm sorry but the reality is that what he said is true. If you are searching something online and you don't want the authorities to know about it, then don't freaking search using a search engine. If you have an issue with a search engine keeping your search history for a period of time, then don't search. All search engines, including Bing, keeps data. It's required. People should read and make decisions for themselves before making decisions based off one person. As for Bing Privacy Policy. http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/bing.mspx <-- is a short version. As noted within that same link is the FULL notice. http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx. Use Bing because you like it, not because someone else rants.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by dabeej
by chrisfriberg on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by dabeej"
chrisfriberg Member since:
2009-04-08

Agreed. If you're concerned about privacy over your search results for angioplasty, too bad. If you're concerned about privacy because of identity theft, that's security not privacy. If you're concerned about privacy because you don't want the government to know what you are doing, then what are you doing!? Consider everything you do on the internet as being in public, then ask yourself, "Is that so awful?"

Reply Score: 1

lord_rob
Member since:
2005-08-06
IT is school yard anymore
by atari05 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 08:55 UTC
atari05
Member since:
2006-06-05

Its funny the "exodus" that has happened over this comment. Especially since his comment is true. The fact you think MS would have your back in a STATE or FEDERAL investigation is laughable.

Cause this type of act is what the CEO was talking about and the PA is the trump card.

Reply Score: 1

Privacy
by ChrisA on Mon 14th Dec 2009 12:50 UTC
ChrisA
Member since:
2006-05-06

He does have a valid point, do you want a company that could give a crap about your privacy. Then they want control of your OS and personal data.

Reply Score: 1