Et Tu, Mozilla? Firefox 3 To Get Privacy Mode 326
CWmike writes "Mozilla will respond to Google's Chrome and Microsoft's IE8 with its own private-browsing, or 'porn' mode in Firefox, according to notes posted on its Web site, and is on track to deliver one in 3.1, the version that will likely go beta next month."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Gosh (Score:4, Funny)
It's time to write an extension... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Realism (Score:5, Insightful)
I am willing to bet it doesn't stop Adobe Flash [epic.org] to store "cookies" on your PC. It's pretty useless for average Joes to hide their tracks surfing pr0n since they don't know how to disable flash cookies. Worse, they aren't even aware of the existence of these cookies.
Re:Realism (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I watch porn just to get cookies flashed at me!
Re: (Score:2)
Flashblock - don't let it run in the first place and it can't put cookies on your system.
Re:Realism (Score:4, Informative)
Flashblock - don't let it run in the first place and it can't put cookies on your system.
Actually, Flashblock doesn't prevent flash from running - it just shuts it down quickly, so it doesn't block cookies [mozdev.org] at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Flashblock - don't let it run in the first place and it can't put cookies on your system.
Actually, Flashblock doesn't prevent flash from running - it just shuts it down quickly, so it doesn't block cookies [mozdev.org] at all.
No, but AdBlock (plus) will prevent those silly flash ads from ever being downloaded in the first place. a much better solution.
Re: (Score:2)
You want the Tor Button plugin + NoScript, then.
The beauty of extensions (Score:5, Informative)
The Distrust extension for Firefox DOES remove flash cookies, and it sits as a convenient toggle-button in the status-bar.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1559 [mozilla.org]
At least in my opinion, it's a lot nicer to just click a button and browse privately, and then click it again after you're finished than to have to open up a whole new window like in Chrome. I really think the "open new Incognito window" would be more usable if it was an "open new Incognito tab", instead. Although maybe that's just my opinion.
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Average Joe's big worry is that Average Jane will go to check her emails and as she types the hot in hotmail, hot-teen-pussy.com comes up in the drop-down box, or worse, hot-twinks.com
The thing Is, Firefox used to be realistic (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the days of Firefox 2, you could surf with no worries. All you had to do was avoid typing the porn site into the address bar, and you left no noticeable traces. This meant that bookmarks and links (think search results) left virtually no traces.
If you screwed-up, you could easily erase your browsing history. If you were really paranoid, you could turn off cookies while you browsed as well.
Then, along came Firefox 3 with the Awfulbar(TM). Suddenly, your entire web access history plus bookmarks we
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Clear Private Data function in Firefox 3 clears the address bar as well, or at least it always has for me.
Re:Realism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that people don't have self control and allow themselves to be led around by their biological nature rather the logic nature we have inherited.
Why is your biological nature "wrong"? What compass are you using to tell you what's right and why is it better?
And Responding to Safari... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quote from the site: "Pretty funny, those Mac users."
I don't think they have met the worst Mac fans.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe not, but we've been able to discreetly view porn for longer than the Windows and Linux crowds, which is really all that matters here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, and firefox has had a extension for it since a few months later
https://update-dev.mozilla.org:8080/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&id=1306&vid=6511 [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's pretty funny; the nightlies of Firefox display a giant warning when you try to go to that site, because it has a self-signed certificate!
Here's a different link that won't force you to add an exception to your browser. [mozilla.org]
Well technically (Score:5, Informative)
FireFox/FireBird/Phoenix/FireWhatever has from day one featured an option for scraping any traces (and same for Mozilla and Netscape).
The subtlety is that until now the control was rather coarse (you could either remove most of the traces or leave all of them. You could chose *which traces* : history, cache, cookies, etc. but *not wich tabs* you removed all cookies or all urls etc.).
Whereas now you can fine tune for only some tabs.
(although cookies could be changed from permanent to session-only for specific URLs)
On the other hand, I was under the impression that Inter Explorer until very recently had the capability to only remove some traces (it was possible to purge the cache with a simple button click, but not all other forms of traces). But I haven't been a regular IE user, so I can't reliably assert whether or not IE could scrap all traces.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with not allowing cookies in the current addons, Stealther for example, is that it blocks the cookies entirely, rather than simply sandboxing them. So reddit or many other sites, for example, keeps asking if you are over 18 and won't allow you past until you allow it to set a cookie. With a sandboxed approach, the site can set the cookie to its hearts content and you, the user, know that the sandbox will be wiped clean when you close the browser/tab.
That *is* a session cookie (Score:3, Informative)
(although cookies could be changed from permanent to session-only for specific URLs)
So reddit or many other sites, for example, keeps asking if you are over 18 and won't allow you past until you allow it to set a cookie. With a sandboxed approach, the site can set the cookie to its hearts content and you, the user, know that the sandbox will be wiped clean when you close the browser/tab.
Congratulation, you successfully described a "session" cookie.
BTW that's my default type of cookies (Setting : "consider all cookies as session cookies". Then only put exception to the couple of website where I really need cookies carying data from one session to another).
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that that removes ALL history. "Porn" mode just stops recording things. If your wife/boss/kids/parents look at the history of a 'cleaned' IE or Firefox it will show no history, no cookies, nothing.
If you just turn on porn/privacy mode before doing your thing then turn it off you still have your 5 month browsing history. Cookies to login to google but nothing what you did while the session was 'on' will show up.
That's the difference.
It doesn't have one? (Score:5, Funny)
Well what have I been using all this time then?
There have been plugins for this for a long time. (Score:5, Informative)
firefox has had plugins for this for some time, they just weren't there by default.
Re:There have been plugins for this for a long tim (Score:5, Informative)
True.
First page I found in Google:
http://lifehacker.com/software/privacy/download-of-the-day-stealther-firefox-extension-174752.php [lifehacker.com]
When you have a good extension system, not everything needs to be incorporated anymore. Like an Adblocker...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
True.
First page I found in Google:
http://lifehacker.com/software/privacy/download-of-the-day-stealther-firefox-extension-174752.php [lifehacker.com]
When you have a good extension system, not everything needs to be incorporated anymore. Like an Adblocker...
Absolutely. I've used Stealther for a long while. It's the first thing I download (followed by NoScript) and... Well... I don't see a reason to incorporate that to FF. It's quick to get it and easy to find for anyone who wishes to have such... It works just like the extensions are supposed to work in FF!
(That said, the stealther should get some bug fixes. It doesn't remove whole history but if visiting example.com and example2.com before putting it on, then visiting example2.com and example3.com and turning
Re:There have been plugins for this for a long tim (Score:5, Informative)
direct link: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1306 [mozilla.org]
It has 820.000 downloads, so it's not like people have been missing this functionality from firefox...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Some plugins are more capital than other. (Score:2)
When you have a good extension system, not everything needs to be incorporated anymore. Like an Adblocker...
On the other hand, some other things are so much useful, that I would be nice to have them packaged together with the installer, so users can easily select them if they wish.
(That's already the case with the crash-report tool)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There have been plugins for this for a long tim (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article, "privacy mode" would do the following:
* Discard all cookies acquired during the private session.
* Not record sites visited to the browser's history.
* Not autofill passwords, and not prompt the user to save passwords.
* Remove all downloads done during the session from the browser's download manager.
All of those things can be set on the Privacy tab, in Options. Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the privacy option is it makes it much easier to keep useful things like cookes and history for your day to day browsing while also allowing you to surf anonymously for your "private sites".
Subtle difference in Granularity (Score:5, Informative)
All of those things can be set on the Privacy tab, in Options. Am I wrong?
The subtle difference is that since the old NetScape days, the pivacy can only controlled for the whole browser :
You either scrap your whole history or you keep it.
In Chrome, Safari and starting from version 3.1 of FireFox :
one tab could be in private mode (for example not saving any cookie nor cache) while the next tab could be a normal tab with your usual web AJAX application running.
Although I fail to realise who could simultaneously need to be able to fap at some p0rn in one tab while writting TPS reports at the very same time in the next tab.
That's multitasking taken to some really weird proportion.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sod privacy! (Score:5, Interesting)
People having to hide pleasures from their wifes/SOs makes me sad (Y_Y)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, someone in the same sorry state of affairs got mod points. Still, doesn't change that it's a poor way of living. Think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sound like somebody without wife/SO
You sound like someone with limited life experience.
Excellent word choice (Score:5, Funny)
Pivacy, Private, or Porn Mode (Score:2, Interesting)
By default I put my snail mail in envelopes (keep my correspondence private), by default I put on clothes (keep my privates... private), and by default I expect the police are not searching my house or tapping my phone (4th Amendment privacy). Why isn't my browser private by defa.... oh wait, it's not my browser, it belongs to MS Google Mozilla, nevermind.
Re:Pivacy, Private, or Porn Mode (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a login on your computer right? So that other people can't see your files? That means they cannot see your browsing history either. The only reason for a 'stealth mode' is to keep the browsing history secret from *yourself*, so it doesn't helpfully autosuggest embarrassing sites when you start typing in the awesome bar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By default I put my snail mail in envelopes (keep my correspondence private), by default I put on clothes (keep my privates... private), and by default I expect the police are not searching my house or tapping my phone (4th Amendment privacy).
That's not really a good analogy. It's not like your browser broadcasts its history. It's just there by default to anyone using your computer. Take your wife (or husband) for example. Just as she, by default, at your computer and logged in, has access to your history, she also has access to what snail mail you get and, with luck, those privates you mentioned.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By default I put my snail mail in envelopes (keep my correspondence private), by default I put on clothes (keep my privates... private), and by default I expect the police are not searching my house or tapping my phone (4th Amendment privacy). Why isn't my browser private by defa.... oh wait, it's not my browser, it belongs to MS Google Mozilla, nevermind.
The privacy is relative to people who can access your computer. I'm assuming you don't normally expect strict secrecy from your wife regarding your cor
Google != Wife (Score:2)
I'm assuming you don't normally expect strict secrecy from your wife regarding your correspondence, your house, your phone, and your...privates. If you do expect that, you'll probably have to engage in non-default behavior. Just like here.
That house, phone, and privates all belong to her because I married her. Using your analogy, would it be too much to ask for a purely platonic web browser without everyone flaming me as commitment phobic? ;-)
Bad analogy. (Score:2)
So do you also keep your clothes closet locked so no one can see your underwear, and do you keep the number of the page of any book you might be reading in a vault instead of using a bookmark and then destroy the book after finishing it?
Once again... (Score:2, Informative)
Mozilla follows Microsoft's lead.
(takes wagers on how this gets modded)
Re:Once again... (Score:4, Funny)
I definitely wouldn't have wagered on "insightful". Bill Gates doesn't usually log in until the evening.
Re:Once again... (Score:4, Funny)
I had to re-read that... I thought you were talking about his evening toilet habits.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but Mozilla had already announced to do this ages ago.
Us usual slashdot is slow to report and also wrong in this case as they have the chronology wrong.
Why Porn Mode? (Score:5, Funny)
I can think of LOTS of other uses. For instance..
um...
ah, no wait, I've almost got it....
um........
Ok, I'll get back to you on this one.
Re:Why Porn Mode? (Score:5, Funny)
Try - "Buying a secret present for your wife/girlfriend", I know, I know, slashdot - no wife/girlfriend.
Re:Why Porn Mode? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what folks generally call a "mistress". If you're having an affair, she's not a "girlfriend".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To differentiate between the two I, and everyone I know uses spaces. Takes it from one noun to a noun and adjective.
girl friend != girlfriend
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Russell Crowe's character in _Master & Commander_ (an otherwise sucky film)
Present for girlfriend (Score:2)
Heh. Well my girlfriend tends to be very curious when she gets wind that I'm shopping for her. I have my own laptop+login so it's not likely she'll get a my browser, but if she did it would be nice to know she wouldn't be able to pull up my online shopping/browsing history. As it is I have to hide the presents to prevent her from poking/shaking/sniffing/investigating them in attempts to guess the content :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Links? (Score:5, Informative)
Not About Pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets face it. Pornography has been around since the dawn of the internet and in all that time not one browser, newsreader or email client ever offered a "privacy mode" until recently. We're talking since BBS days here. Yes there are some people who would like to spin, or frame, these features as "porn mode". But this is a fairly transparent attempt to discredit what is an important, appropriate and yes disruptive new innovation.
And what has spurred this innovation? What necessity has been the mother of this invention? Porn? No. Thing far more unsettling than that. Phishers, fraudsters, malware have all played their part. People need more protection nowadays. But most of the reasons for privacy features can be summed up in one word.
Marketers.
Modern marketers are utterly relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever. They are are with enormous databases, and the desire to fill them with as much data as they can lay their hands on. Tracking users and their habits online, and assaulting them with advertisements based on that data has become an industry in itself. Every social networking website, every online newspaper, every site that has any ability to track its users whatsoever is piping that data straight to an eager marketing department which presumably has some method concocted to throw ads back at users who would rather be left alone.
This is international information collection on an unprecedented scale in human history. To be sure, as of now this is only a practice of private enterprise, the current databases are disorganized and incompatible. But this is a new industry, essentially only a decade or so old. What will happen when its methods, theories and processes standardize? How dangerous will those databases be then?
Google is not blameless in this either. Remember that the company makes its money not on searches, but on advertisements that it offers on its search pages and on other sites. That company is tracking probably the majority of web user by now, and any site that you go to that is affiliated with Google (this includes Slashdot), dutifully makes sure that your presence their and what you are doing is made known to Seattle, so that they may better know your habits. You think they'll just sit on all that juicy marketing data till the end of time and forever "Do No Evil"? Get real. They are a private company and will do whatever they like as long as it is legal. Watch it happen.
So go ahead, call it a "porn" feature, but the reality is that those browsing for porn will probably not even bother to turn it on. It will only be used by those who understand just how dangerous so much personal data in private hands can be.
Make no mistake, this is a disruptive technology. Marketers will not like it. Webmasters will not like it. Google will not like it. So expect substantial mudslinging surrounding this issue in the months to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen.
I find it interesting just how invasive the marketers have become with internet browsing, and the fact that they find no moral qualms with doing it.
Re:Not About Pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern marketers are utterly relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever. They are are with enormous databases, and the desire to fill them with as much data as they can lay their hands on.
Ok, settle down for a second and catch your breath. Good.
I work for a company that sells software and services that tracks user behavior as they travel through sites. It sees what you're clicking on, what you're searching on, how long you're taking between clicks, and a few other things. From that data, it tries to figure out what you'd be interested in purchasing. Our customers, mainly online retailers, are free to display this information and recommendations however they see fit. The default display is a simple set of static images and prices for items you might want to purchase. We don't invite users to "punch the monkey".
If you use "privacy mode", or otherwise blow your cookies away between sessions, we won't know who you are the next time you come to the site. So we have nothing to go on about who you are, so we'll probably end up showing you products that you probably aren't interested in.
In essence, I think it's an unfair assertion that marketers are, as you say, "relentless, completely amoral and without any scruple whatsoever." It's their job to try to get you to spend a little more money on their site. If you were planning on buying a $50 item, why not show you a $55 item that more people with browsing habits like you like you are buying anyway? Yes, some marketers can be pushy about that, but that has nothing to do with cookies and tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ok, settle down for a second and catch your breath. Good.
Why should he? Why on earth should marketers have a soapbox, millions of hours of soapbox, and nobody else? Most marketers are an invasive bunch of pricks that have basically destroyed broadcast television (the net value of TV programs to the viewer is zero because of advertising) and are trying to do the same to the web, video on demand and pretty much every other media. Modern mass marketing has become a costly arms race to get mind share where e
Re: (Score:2)
so we'll probably end up showing you products that you probably aren't interested in.
You do that already. All your products are ones I'm not interested in, if I want something I'll go hunt it out and buy it.
Incidentally, you should be promoting the 'porn mode'. If suddenly all my 'off topic' browsing disappears from your advertising database, you have better quality statistics and significantly less noise. If I browse for work purposes, you don't want to be considering those sites to target advertising at m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pornography has been around since the dawn of the internet
Either you phrased that badly, or you're thinking of VHS tapes.
Pornography (in the modern sense) was common enough in the Victorian era, and if I've done my math correctly, Al Gore hadn't yet been born.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Make no mistake, this is a disruptive technology. Marketers will not like it. Webmasters will not like it. Google will not like it."
In case you missed it, Google put this feature into their own web browser product. I get it. People are afraid of Google because they are very large and powerful. But all this scaremongering and anti-Google sentiment is, IMO, unfounded. Yes, they have had instances where their "Don't be evil" pledge has been tested. However, overall, I have not seen them do
Re: (Score:2)
Google is big, see how much they can track with just a few cookies, because they have: google-analytics, google-adwords and doubleclick. That's a really large part of all websites out there already. If you visit such a site, some refferer & cookie combination is send to Google. I do consider this to be a real problem.
Re:Not About Pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will not like it.
really? [google.com]
Google's browser is the first to include one.
Irony at it's best (Score:4, Insightful)
Pr0n mode can kill free pr0n in theory.
Pretty much every single free porn site on the Internet makes money via affiliate programs. They offer free content in an attempt to sell you a membership to the pay site that the content comes from. The way the affiliate clicks are tracked is via cookies. If every web browser has an easy way to toggle cookie-saving while browsing porn then free porn sites could end up losing a ton of money. They'll go under if such browsing practices become the norm and affiliate programs can't figure out a better way to track than cookies. And avoiding tracking is one of the obvious purposes here.
So a tip to surfers. If you have absolutely no intention of purchasing a pay-site membership ever then leave the cookies off and don't sweat it. But if you purchase porn at all then you're not doing your favourite free site(s) any service by browsing with cookies off.
Re: (Score:2)
I torrent my porn.
Why the hell would I use TGP's for porn when I can download hours of fap-happy vids? Our favorite trackers have terabytes of porn tracked and available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two points:
1) Cookies _are_ saved. Just not past the end of a session. If I click though an ad on a free porn (or any other type of) site to buy a subscription to a pay site, the pay site will still know where I clicked through from, unless there is some other workaround in place by the browser to hide it. All browsers already have a 'hide referrer' option.
2) It's trivially easy for referrers to hash their affiliate ID into the URL that is used to go from the free to the pay site. Cookies and referrer URLs
Missed a trick (Score:5, Interesting)
What I would personally like is to be able to add certain sites to a password-protected "privacy list", so that visits to those sites would be stealthed, while visits to other sites would not. I don't want to have to start a special private session, which seems like a pretty lame way to do it. Mozilla should have looked at how to improve this feature by adding something like that, for example. Unfortunately it looks like Mozilla are just implementing the same thing as IE and Chrome, instead of looking to improve on it.
Re:Missed a trick (Score:5, Insightful)
A list of "private" sites is a pretty convenient way for somebody to figure out what sites you're going to that you don't want people to know about.
The whole point of this is to *not* leave a trail.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it would be an encrypted and password-protected list. If you're looking at child porn, that might not be good enough, but for most folks I think it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
What I would personally like is to be able to add certain sites to a password-protected "privacy list", so that visits to those sites would be stealthed, while visits to other sites would not. I don't want to have to start a special private session, which seems like a pretty lame way to do it. Mozilla should have looked at how to improve this feature by adding something like that, for example. Unfortunately it looks like Mozilla are just implementing the same thing as IE and Chrome, instead of looking to improve on it.
Let me be sure I've got this. Your proposal on how to keep from generating lists of sites you don't want people to know you visit, is to generate a list of sites you don't want people to know you visit.
Brilliant!
Or you store it as a list of hashes of domain names?
Password protect (Score:2)
Or the section where you add/remove/view items on the list could be encrypted+password-protected. For extra privacy, have different passwords return different lists (see honey, the only thing on here is online shopping sites, no pr0n).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say he'd prefer a type of 'profile' system, where you change a tab to work under a different 'user' and you get the benefits of cookies and history and bookmarks, but they don't get mixed up with your other browsing.
It would not just be for porn, you could have a profile for porn, general surfing crap, work related surfing, etc. Possibly one for each interest you have. It could help manage ever growing bookmark lists. You could set privacy options for a profile to delete data at the end of the session,
Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Why a seperate mode? (Score:4, Insightful)
Specifically, the mode would:
* Discard all cookies acquired during the private session.
* Not record sites visited to the browser's history.
* Not autofill passwords, and not prompt the user to save passwords.
* Remove all downloads done during the session from the browser's download manager.
These are good web surfing practices to begin with. These seem more like bug fixes to me. Why not make them the default? Why would I ever want to browse without these safeguards?
Re:Why a seperate mode? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because:
* I like to be identified automatically when I open slashdot or any community forum.
* I like to come back to the site I just found yesterday
* I don't like to enter passwords again an again
* When I download something, I usually intend to keep it for a while
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are those on by default? Because they are nice features! I like the fact that Firefox remembers the dozens (possibly hundreds) of stupid logins that I have to various sites. I like the fact that cookies allow the site to remember who I am or my preferences so I don't have to log in each time I go there. I occasionally use the history to look for a site I visited earlier and can't remember the address to.
In general, I use Firefox in my account, and no one (other than root) can get to any of that info
The Invisible Hand of the REALLY Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply a case of competition driving another cycle of improvement. Those people who like to claim there's no reason for open source developers to improve and innovate often forget that your basic human being is a competitive critter at heart.
Maybe not so good. (Score:2)
I mean, free porn sites are not the most trustworthy sites in the world. It's good that there's disincentive to use the same browser to do your on-line banking and your porn hunting.
It'd be better to do questionable things in a separate virtual machine.
In the early days of the web browsers were innocuous. The worst you could do is download and run malware. Sensible people used to protect their machines by being careful about executable attachments to their email.
Now that applications are becoming ne
What's the use? (Score:2)
How private is it if you boss can still look over your shoulder and see where you're at. Now if "privacy mode" can prevent that, THAT would be really privacy.
Oh, wait! Nevermind.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3m privacy film on you laptop/LCD? works great for me at work. they need to get very close to you to see what you are doing.
Not Convinced Until.... (Score:2, Informative)
Sandboxie (Score:2, Offtopic)
Well, having used the free (gratis) nagware version of Sandboxie, I found it useful enough to cough up $20 or something for a non-nagware version. Doing this in the browser is the wrong place, but running your browser in a sandbox you genuinely protect yourself from sites which scribble all over your system (cookies, history, stored passwords, changed bookmarks, dodgy add-ons, ...). You *don't* protect yourself from spyware which scrapes there and then, but you can chuck away and filesystem or registry chan
Re:Mind your French (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In short, whom is Mozilla betraying and who is about to die?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IE8 = privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
With IE8 having the functionality to log keystrokes and send those back home the level of privacy is debatable.
From the IE8 Privacy statement, that almost no one will go though the trouble of reading:
"When Suggested Sites is turned on, the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with some standard information from your computer such as IP address, browser type, regional and language settings,"
One of these things, is not like the other.
Re: (Score:2)
"Microsoft's IE8 browser includes a keystroke-logging search suggestion tool similar to the one that Google modified Monday after coming under fire from users. Unlike Chrome, IE8 Beta 2 doesn't enable the feature -- which some have compared to a keylogger -- by default. One privacy expert said that was a "huge difference.""
1. This information wasn't in the original post I responded to.
2. It's not enabled by default.
3. Sending input entered into the URL bar != keylogger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't worry, Google still knows you did it even if you've tried hard to forget.
Re: (Score:2)