Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Mozilla and Firefox veteran, citing CEO Eric Schmidt's latest outburst, recommends Bing over Google
Coming from one of the original, founding members of the Mozilla Foundation, this is pretty serious business. Asa Dotzler, a veteran employee of Mozilla and cornerstone member of the Firefox community, just spoke out on his private blog regarding Eric Schmidt's recent oratory regarding your privacy -- or the lack thereof. "That was the CEO of Google telling you exactly what he thinks about your privacy. There is no ambiguity, no 'out of context' here," is Asa's (pictured right) damning response.Sure, it's only a private blog and certainly not the official sentiment of Mozilla or the Firefox developers, but the fact that it's coming from anyone related with Firefox is pretty big news. Google is Mozilla's primary revenue stream, you see -- they pay to have both that search box in the top right corner and the Google/Firefox default homepage. Dissension that against the hand that feeds you is usually pretty dangerous.
He even goes as far as recommending Bing over Google, citing a better privacy policy. Incidentally, if you want to switch default search engines, did you know there's a Bing search add-on for Firefox with almost a million downloads? The 'privacy thing' is almost certainly just a knee-jerk reaction from Asa though -- he's probably a privacy or freedom advocate, and Eric Schmidt's latest comments have left most or all of them up in arms. At the end of the day, Bing and Google would both have to hand over the same amount of information to the police, but the continued harrying of Microsoft by consumers and privacy lobby groups mean that their Bing privacy policy is actually better than Google's -- food for thought, eh?
Incidentally, that fateful 30 second video clip of Eric Schmidt's interview with CNBC finally turned up on YouTube, and is after the break.
Comments
14
Subscribe to commentsgameplace123Dec 11th 2009 8:35AM
after rereading yesterday's post, it's clear that whoever wrote it took what Schmidt said out of context. He didn't say, "only naughty people should be afraid of google". He said search engines retain info about you (including Bing), and are subject to the American Patriot Act.
Sebastian AnthonyDec 11th 2009 8:41AM
He said both of those things...!
And I assume Bing's 'better privacy policy' refers to data retention -- if Bing retains less, it can hand over less to the government, if such a situation arises.
brogers101Dec 11th 2009 10:01AM
Gameplace123. When is it ever okay to say in any form, "that if you want to hide something then you are doing something wrong." It's not the fact that he is "forced" to do it. It is that he supports the idea that if you don't want it seen don't do it.
The face google is atching your searches to your Gmail account ETC is terrible. In this case you aren't just a number, it matches YOU.
DavidDec 11th 2009 10:10AM
"but the continued harrying of Microsoft by consumers and privacy lobby groups mean that their Bing privacy policy is actually better than Google's"
It sounds like you're implying that Microsoft is hounded about privacy more than Google - what sources do you have to back that statement up?
From the news I read, Google's privacy policy has been in the media much more than Microsoft's over the last decade, and I attribute that mainly because of Google's much larger market share, and therefore much more significant impact on the general public (to the extent that "to google" is now apart of mainstream language).
Sebastian AnthonyDec 11th 2009 10:16AM
I mean that Microsoft, after 15 (20?) years of anti-trust lawsuits (and similar) are probably more conscientious about keeping the public happy than Google.
Google are still, to the vast majority, the golden boy. Microsoft doesn't have the huge amount of trust that Google seems to have -- because they are old, and haggard...! Microsoft are trying to REGAIN that trust, while Google aren't quite so worried I think... powerful position!
SHDec 11th 2009 12:43PM
so when searching for porn just use ASK....
SridharDec 11th 2009 12:52PM
Not really. Chrome has introduced incognito mode exactly for that.
PhoenixDec 11th 2009 2:23PM
Ummm... @Sridhar: The information is stored on GOOGLE SERVERS. That's the whole point that is being made. It has nothing to do with what is stored on your own computer. It is that Google is taking your searches and the results that come with it, INCLUDING every link you click on their pages, and storing that information on their servers, attaching them to your account if you have one. And when it's attached to your account, it's even MORE personally identifiable, because it's not just logging a number. That number, though, can identify you very easily simply by consulting your ISP.
der_tuxmanDec 11th 2009 1:59PM
He is right, Google is blah... and yep, even Bing has better (more worthy) results.
arashDec 12th 2009 5:47AM
i'm happily google free for the last couple of years,first live search and now bing. bing is really good guys.
RobDec 12th 2009 1:17PM
I know that I'm going to be labeled as "ignorant" by this statement but,.. I don't care. This whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion. It's not like this is some huge revelation. Google (and Yahoo, AOL, whoever) stores information about you and what you are interested in. Guess what,.. so does your grocery store. Hell, your own ISP will store information on your activities.
Google can store whatever they want about my browsing habits. I don't search for porn, look for bomb making supplies, or do anything illegal that I would be concerned Google is keeping tabs on. And quite frankly, I'd agree with Schmidt's statement, "If you don't want anyone to know what you are doing,.. maybe you shouldn't be doing it."
Fact of the matter is that this practice is just a fact of life when it comes with the internet. Deal with it. I'm actually kinda surprised to hear the support of Bing on here. So far I haven't been impressed and I thought that was the general consensus.
VotreDec 12th 2009 1:46PM
Deal with it?
Some of us are, as opposed to those who just roll over and play dead because they're too lazy to actually "deal with it."
Sorry to disappoint , but not all of us are willing to passively do as we're told and just drink the KoolAid.
(Do you work for Google BTW?)
RobDec 12th 2009 2:57PM
No, I don't work for Google (lol). Although, given the opportunity, I would at the drop of a hat, 'cuz I could use the money.
Roll over and play dead? Drink the KoolAid? What?!
(I don't even know what I should respond to that)
I'm not saying that we should tread blindly into the internet, but perhaps accept that a certain amount of data that we communicate on-line is recorded and stored. Whether that data is used for directed advertising, product improvement, or malicious purposes,.. it's just a record of your behavior. It can only be used against you if you give them something that can be used against you.
Of course there are methods of circumventing this data capture: Using TOR, public computers, etc., but really, it all comes down to "what do you really have to hide?"
VotreDec 13th 2009 12:50PM
@Rob-
Sorry for being unduly harsh with my earlier comments.
By "drink the KoolAid" I meant accepting that the lack of privacy on the web should be accepted as a given. I think you called it "a fact of life?" To my way of thinking it's not a "fact" at all. It's just another unchallenged company 'policy' running amok.
So if I barked, please excuse me. I just get tired of so many people assuming there's nothing anybody can do about this issue since they view what happens on the web as something akin to a 'force of nature' and hence uncontrollable.
It's not.
It's human behavior. And that *can* be controlled by public consensus and/or legislation.
So please don't automatically give companies like Google the benefit of the doubt, or give in to what they're doing without a challenge. Google is a company. And some companies, like some children, need to be taught that there are limits as to what is considered acceptable behavior.