Scroogle Has Been Blocked 281
An anonymous reader writes "Scroogle, the secure third-party Google search interface, has been blocked by Google. Scroogle was an SSL-based search proxy that enabled one to search for and receive Google results over an SSL connection in a pseudo-anonymous manner."
Scroogle (Score:4, Informative)
While I would love to see a good rant towards Google and while I also myself use Scroogle, the summary isn't really being truthful. Google hasn't blocked anything, they just changed the page that Scroogle scrapes and they're throwing a hissy fit about it.
From the Scroogle announcement:
We regret to announce that our Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google.
That interface was at www.google.com/ie but on May 10, 2010 they took it down and inserted a redirect to /toolbar/ie8/sidebar.html. It used to have a search box, and the results it showed were generic during that entire time.
Now that interface is gone. It is not possible to continue Scroogle unless we have a simple interface that is stable. Google's main consumer-oriented interface that they want everyone to use is too complex, and changes too frequently, to make our scraping operation possible.
Google changing something isn't exactly "blocking" a third party service. Even more so, it's just a few lines of code to get the results from main Google search too. All the search results and links have approciate html ID's associated to them and it's been the same for years already.
I have no idea why Scroogle is bitching about this.
Oh well. I changed to use ixquick [ixquick.com], which also has the added benefit of being located in the Germany rather than US and a lot better and useful interface.
-sopssa
Re:Scroogle (Score:5, Informative)
From the FAQ [ixquick.com]:
European Privacy Seal
On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
You can find the press release here.
Since I am in EU, it also means US can't just randomly get data that doesn't belong to them, ie. for people from other countries. Frankly, EU and European countries take privacy a lot more seriously, for historical reasons too.
Re:Scroogle (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They didn't block it... (Score:1, Informative)
Google is a Public Corporation.
Re:Real API (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Optimize Google Firefox Extension (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure if they keep logs to subpoena
“We don’t use cookies, we don’t save search terms, and logs are deleted within 48 hours.” – graphic on their homepage [scroogle.org].
Re:I don't get it - why "scrape" at all? (Score:2, Informative)
Because they were too lazy/lacked the skill. I shed no tears for an operation called Screw-gle that can no longer suckle from the teat of Goo-gle.
Re:I don't get it - why "scrape" at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't that one require a key that only supports 1,000 searches per day?
That kind of thing would make Scroogle useless. And since Scroogle has no interest in paying Google for the results, they aren't going to purchase the kind of access they'd like to have.
Re:Distributed privacy? (Score:3, Informative)
That's pretty much what Tor does, only it can be used for any kind of traffic, not just searching.
Re:Scroogle (Score:3, Informative)
You could try following the links, dumbass
https://www.european-privacy-seal.eu/awarded-seals [european-privacy-seal.eu]
Now, it doesn't mean there will never be a data breach (by a disgruntled employee or whatever), but the fact that they have actually bothered to get a certification says to me that these guys are more committed to data privacy than your average website that collects and distribute personal information.
No, Google doesn't have a real search API. (Score:3, Informative)
Google once had a real search API. [google.com] It was SOAP-based. But they discontinued it years ago.
Google's AJAX search API [google.com] is, by design, very limited. All you can really do is create a little search widget, and perhaps add some fields of your own. The term [google.com] prohibits doing much beyond that. "You are allowed to use the API only to display, and to make such uses as are necessary for You to display, Google Search Results on your Property. The API does not provide You with the ability to access, and You are not allowed to access, other underlying Google Services or data. Subject to the limitations and conditions described below, " ... "You agree that You will not, and You will not permit your users or other third parties to: (a) modify or replace the text, images, or other content of the Google Search Results, including by (i) changing the order in which the Google Search Results appear, (ii) intermixing Search Results from sources other than Google, or (iii) intermixing other content such that it appears to be part of the Google Search Results; or (b) modify, replace, obscure, or otherwise hinder the functioning of links to Google or third party websites provided in the Google Search Results. " Given those restrictions, you can't write Scroogle using that API.
We have a SiteTruth search page which uses the Google AJAX API. [slashdot.org] We're prohibited from re-ordering the entries or removing any of them. Since the whole point of SiteTruth is to re-order search results by business legitimacy, and we don't do that for the Google results, the Google results are inferior to the ones from other search engines. So our primary search page uses Yahoo/Bing. [sitetruth.com]
Re:Scroogle (Score:2, Informative)
but it's a service that exists parasitically to Google proper. I'm not trying to imply anything unethical by using the word "parasite", but this really is a situation where Scroogle uses Google's capabilities/services without contributing anything back to Google.
The word you're looking for is commensalism [wikipedia.org]. Although I think in this case it is closer to parasitic since it does use some of Google's resources without giving back much or any value to Google itself.
Re:Scroogle (Score:5, Informative)
Because if they did that, they'd be forced to abide by the search Terms of Service [google.com]. And they appear to be violating Section 1.4.
By using the generic web robot approach, they're allowed to scrape Google based on the same concepts that allow Google to scrape third party web pages in the first place.
From Google's robots.txt [google.com]: /ie?
User-agent: *
[snip]
Disallow:
Well, OK, so they're not obeying robots.txt in the first place. But ignoring that one pesky fact, uh...
Re:Scroogle (Score:1, Informative)
Horseshit.
The US passed laws basically saying that any data which lands on a US server (or one controlled by a US company) is open to full inspection by them, regardless of the laws in the country of origin.
Also, in this [ibls.com] court case, they established that:
It covers how they might balance US wishes with foreign laws, but more or less leaves it open to interpretation. If they want it bad enough, they'll decide they have the right to compel it.
Expect this to get worse as the US continues to decide that its self interest trumps the sovereignty of other countries.
It's easy to see how a lot of anti-US sentiment can happen when your politicians act like bullying assholes to the rest of the world.
Re:Scroogle (Score:4, Informative)
The Data Protection Act [wikipedia.org] in the UK was as a result of the Data Protection Directive [wikipedia.org] from the EU. This severely limits what people and/or companies and/or governmental agencies (with some exceptions to the last) can do with information about you. I'm not aware of legislation as strong as this in the US, but I may be wrong.
I do agree that different countries treat privacy differently - I personally believe that anything I do in public is basically that - public. I won't ever carry papers in my own country, so if somehow the ID card in the UK goes through (looking very very unlikely at the moment), I'll just lose mine every time I get a new one, and reapply. Some people don't have a problem with such things, but I do. The EU is a very diverse place, but that data protection directive means that all EU countries have similar laws with regards to data protection AFAIK.
Re:They didn't block it... (Score:3, Informative)
Scroogle is owned by Public Information Research, Inc. Their board of directors is in Scroogle: http://www.scroogle.org/staffsc.html [scroogle.org]
Re:Scroogle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why should i trust scroogle more than google? (Score:3, Informative)
>Scroogle has access to the exact same information Google would have had you used Google
Wrong. The reason people that don't just walk around cluelessly believing everything people tell them are concerned about Google is that it continuously is trying to be the Panopticon. It's not just your search history, that's a tiny part of what they do now. It's Google Analytics, it's watching what you're watching on YouTube, their (pathetic) attempt to muscle into social networking with Buzz, the emails they have full access to via Gmail, etc. It's not because they want to "improve your search experience". They want a full profile on you so they can sell you as a package to advertisers.
Even setting aside concerns about oppressive governments getting their hands on this data, do you really want advertisers to have this data in detail? For example, Amazon already uses differential pricing. If a retailer knows you are super keen on a particular genre, they may provide you with *higher* pricing than other people because they are reasonably sure you'll pay. I don't want to hand over negotiating leverage to a party that already has way more information than I do.
Re:Scroogle (Score:1, Informative)
Applications like these do not have to follow robots.txt since they're powered by user action. robots.txt is for completely automated spiders.
Re:Scroogle (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright infringement is not theft. Please look up the definitions of the two.
Okay, I'll do that.
Theft: the act of stealing
Stealing: 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
Copyright infringement is taking something without permission. Equals stealing. Equals theft. And by the way, why does it make things ANY better when slashdotters self-righteously proclaim "it's not theft or stealing, it's copyright infringement"? Nice one, all you're doing is muddying the argument over semantics; as is frequently pointed out, it's still illegal.
Next time you decide to pontificate, make sure you know what you're getting into.