Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft Safari

Microsoft Urging Safari Users To Use Bing 266

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-tried-the-rest-now-try-the-best dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Urging Safari Users To Use Bing

Comments Filter:
  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:05PM (#41406977) Journal

    Yeah, they haven't gotten caught yet

  • Privacy? Bing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lokedhs (672255) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:09PM (#41407011)
    Bing, that integrates with Facebook, who are the champions of privacy, of course.
  • by Maho Shoujo (2729697) <mahoshoujo@hellokitty.com> on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:12PM (#41407031)

    Perhaps the same could be said of everyone.

  • by socceroos (1374367) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:13PM (#41407041)
    It should be bleedingly obvious to all that noone other than yourself is going to protect your privacy.
  • by Revotron (1115029) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:14PM (#41407047)
    So either way, you're still getting your results from Google.
  • Re:Privacy? Bing? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:14PM (#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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:29PM (#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:DuckDuckGo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @10:50PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @11:47PM (#41407491) Journal

    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Friday September 21, 2012 @12:00AM (#41407549) Journal

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

    do tell! /facepalm

  • by green1 (322787) on Friday September 21, 2012 @12:11AM (#41407599)

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

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Friday September 21, 2012 @12:12AM (#41407607) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 21, 2012 @01:20AM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 21, 2012 @01:47AM (#41408023)

    Who gives a shit if that content is in your search results if it's relevant? I don't care where their data comes from, as long as it's related to what I'm looking for.

    If I search for "taco recipe" and one of my friends has recently posted one to G+, shouldn't I want to see that?

  • by Maow (620678) on Friday September 21, 2012 @03:06AM (#41408279) Journal

    That linked-to blog is rather full of shit.

    I avoid using Google for searching 99% of the time, block AdSense, Google Analytics, and usually Google APIs, but this is over the top:

    YouTube is just one Google site based entirely on hosting and serving copyrighted material. Virtually nobody comes to YouTube for the original content.

    Just bullshit. They are, if anything overly eager to have content pulled based upon loose matches by copyright bots.

    Some of that copyrighted content is posted by the rights holders as advertising too.

    Then there's this steaming turd:

    The criminally insane Eric Smith, former CEO of Google

    Criminally insane? Greedy maybe, but the only one criminally insane is the anonymous blogger that posted this crap.

    Google is definitely not your friend.

    Of course it isn't.

    Google does evil, all the time.

    Oh really? I don't trust them, but they've been remarkably non-evil considering the amount of power they wield.

    Google does not give a shit about your privacy.

    Agreed.

    Google has no "noble" interests; everything they do is purely intended to help them rape your privacy.

    They push for an open internet with open standards where ever they can; they could push closed standards but don't -- that's relatively noble, for a corporate entity.

    Google doesn't give you anything "for free". You are the product and Google laughs the whole way to the bank.

    Same with all ad-based content.

    Please do not promote Google anymore.
    [...]
    If possible, circumvent as many Google services and downloads that you can, and help others remove their Google tentacles.

    I don't and help others block their trackers and use other search engines.

    They are not "the lesser of two evils".

    They are the lesser of 5 evils (Apple, MS, Oracle, FaceBook, Google). I fear that someday they could become enormously evil, but for now the blogger is a hyperventilating, hyperbolic douche.

  • by rioki (1328185) on Friday September 21, 2012 @03:08AM (#41408285) Homepage
    The difference is that Google started with high ethics and suits are "letting is slip", Microsoft on the other hand started with the premises of making money, they view as ethics an asset that valued against each other. (If it makes them more money they are "ethical".)
  • by tlambert (566799) on Friday September 21, 2012 @03:59AM (#41408459)

    First, nowhere on that page does Microsoft pledge not to track you. Second, Microsoft has a vested interest in shooting everyone who honors DNT in the head so that they can't get any more revenue by being better at analytics than Microsoft. Third, Microsoft sites fail to honor DNT, even if you are dumb and use IE9. Fourth, the DNT standard was written such that DNT was opt-in, not opt-out, and Microsoft is failing to implement the standard with IE9.

    So the business model is:

    (1) Ruin every honest web sites analytics by DNT-by-default in IE9
    (2) Ignore the DNT sent by IE9 and other browsers when doing their own analytics
    (3) Become the sole source of qualified targeted advertising as a result
    (4) Profit!

    There isn't even a "???" step in there.

  • by bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) on Friday September 21, 2012 @05:37AM (#41408839) Homepage

    The can also be good and bad at the same company. No company gets to the size of MS etc. without someone doing something evil. Hell even Linux has had at least one murderer work on it; statistically companies that size must have all sorts.

    With the possible exception of Oracle no tech. company sets out to be evil.

    Microsoft's bad name has mainly come from their cut-throat approach to competitors (of which OSS is one) and the even worse treatment of their supposed partners. However they have historically treated developers well, and respected privacy.

    Despite their motto and their many-many good deeds, this is far from the first time Google have deliberately violated people's privacy (Streetview springs to mind), and even when court have never given wholehearted apologies.

    As with all things you have to choose your poison, then take responsibility for limiting your own risks.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...