Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Privacy Microsoft Mozilla Technology

Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing 527

Posted by timothy
from the what-about-flimpy-and-torgo? dept.
Andorin writes "Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues. Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo, Dotzler asserts that Bing's privacy policy is better than Google's. Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time...' Ars Technica also covers the story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing

Comments Filter:
  • Privacy fears (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:10AM (#30400520)
    The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy. They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy. It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.
    • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ibsteve2u (1184603) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:39AM (#30400806)
      lolll...right up until you find out that you weren't employed by Company "A" because their personnel director - a devout Baptist - ran a background check and stumbled across the number of searches that you do for cheerleader-specific porn.
      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nathrael (1251426) <nathraelthe42ndNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:44AM (#30400862)
        Because Google will give your search history to every two-bit company director out there. Sure, they may not withhold information from the feds (be that a good or bad thing) but as long as they don't publish my search history publicly (not that I actually have anything to hide apart from a few torrent searches) I really could care less.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Because Google will give your search history to every two-bit company director out there.

          As a two-bit company director, I am shocked and appalled at the suggestion that Google might not give me access to everything!

          Joking aside, knowledge (information) is power; there are well known implications of private data being publicly accessible on the internet (like prospective employers searching, etc etc) but when highly personal or sensitive information is in the hands of a small number of people (e.g on a government system, or at Google etc etc) there is a real potential there for blackmail or othe

        • Re:Privacy fears (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mantis2009 (1557343) on Friday December 11, 2009 @01:01PM (#30403584)
          You really couldn't care less, right? You're already at the minimum of caring. If you could care less, then by all means, please start caring less right away.
      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rufty_tufty (888596) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:07AM (#30401116) Homepage

        Alternatively we come to a more honest world where everyone realises that pretty much everyone looks at porn.
        And if he tries to pull that on you in the interview you whip out your phone and google him and fine he's a fan of MILFs and you then both compare favourite websites. You then look up who else he has looked up and find that they had far more dodgy tastes than you do and use this to your advantage in the salary negotiation phase of the interview.

        Power and knowledge are only scary when the few have them, as soon as everyone has them then that's a lot less worrysome...

        • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

          by camcorder (759720) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:32AM (#30401438)
          You think. Privacy of human life has more diverse things than affinity to porn. You might have a disease that you wouldn't prefer everyone to know about it. That could be a bad thing you might like to hide, but you might also prefer to hide positive things about yourselves in order to normalize your relationship with other people. Only when social interaction is at zero level (as we slightly start to have with facebook generation) your notion about privacy can be considered okay.
      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maxume (22995) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:21AM (#30401304)

        It might suck until you found another job, but at least you didn't end up working for some religious tight ass.

      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MaWeiTao (908546) on Friday December 11, 2009 @11:48AM (#30402422)

        I think there are more important privacy concerns then someone's enjoyment of porn, which no one is likely to discover anyway.

        How about political or religious views which people are far more likely to express on social sites? Perhaps some atheist will decide they don't want you working for them because you're a devout Christian. Or a conservative manager wont hire because they've read up on your liberal views. The discrimination doesn't only go one way. And then there's the bigger danger of people have access to your medical records. Imagine the difficulty you might face if employees know you have a persistent medical condition that might necessitate some time off.

    • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wall0159 (881759) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:22AM (#30401316)
      That's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation' - I'm sure that generation's kids will value privacy, what with all the horror stories their parents tell them.
    • Re:Privacy fears (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gbarules2999 (1440265) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:27AM (#30401380)
      Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them. The same goes for the rest of the internet. Hopefully common sense prevails - it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what you might want to keep tucked away, out of your logged-in Google searches. Searches for anything Google doesn't need to know about are better left to an anonymous search engine.

      I don't think Google is any different from any company, to be honest, and I don't tell them anything they don't need to know about me. I still think Schmidt's quote was turned from a fairly mild statement (if it had been communicated properly) into a fearmongering rampage, but if it made somebody wake up and start being smart about what they post, I'm all for it.
      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:5, Informative)

        by timeOday (582209) on Friday December 11, 2009 @12:25PM (#30402954)
        You speak as if searching anonymously were a simple matter of not logging in. The fact is, you have no real way of knowing where any given search engine may be following you. Between cookies, redirect links, ip address tracking through ads or other inline links on 3rd party sites, search content analysis (as with the "anonymized" searches leaked by AOL a few years back)... there is a real question whether anonymous web use is possible at all, a question which nobody can answer definitively since new analysis techniques are discovered all the time.
      • Re:Privacy fears (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chysn (898420) on Friday December 11, 2009 @12:38PM (#30403190)

        if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them. The same goes for the rest of the internet.

        Okay, but that stops collaboration in the cloud dead, doesn't it? You want privacy for more than protecting yourself against law enforcement or looking good in the eyes of potential employers. You want privacy for protecting your work-in-progress from competitors. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Okay, then, that means no product development discussion on Wave. Whatever.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Just because there's nothing wrong with what you do today, doesn't mean someone won't decide it was wrong tomorrow.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Arkham (10779)

      Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft. Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end. As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.

      I hate how everyone politicizes everything, but honestly, Schmidt is right. I don't google for how to make bombs, so I don't worry about someone thinking I'm some kind of nutjob.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rliden (1473185)

        Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft. Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end. As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.

        Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law. They don't need to do evil if they can profit off of those who do. I don't think it's that conspiratorial. I just want to point out that the moral black and white of large tech companies and the IT industry in general is a lot more shades of gray than some clear good and evil division.

        [consiparacy_theory_on]
        I think the blog's reference to Schmidt

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by D Ninja (825055)

      Heh...you're very right about this. I don't know if you've ever heard of PostSecret, an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest, darkest secrets to be published. Well, while this is fairly anonymous, there is also a PostSecret Facebook site. So, I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board. These secrets were attached to their name. There one a few that particularly scared me, and some I couldn't decide wheth

  • Choices (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Narpak (961733) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:10AM (#30400522)
    Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TapeCutter (624760) *

      Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?

      My tip would be to take some personal responsibility for what you tell others about yourself.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by six11 (579)

        Choices, choices.... Do I hand over the care for my personal privacy to Beelzebub or Ba'al?

        My tip would be to take some personal responsibility for what you tell others about yourself.

        This is good advice. But many people don't know who is figuratively in the room when things are 'said' that ought to remain private. It's sometimes not obvious that the devious but perfectly legal thing you're doing is being logged. What's worse, your friends might be the ones who spill the private beans.

        If you would ask your average Facebook user about who can and can't see/find the horribly embarrassing picture of them wearing a pixie outfit, submerged in a bathtub, drinking from a gallon-pitcher of Oat S

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TapeCutter (624760) *
          I agree, the first line of defence against so called 'evil' is personal responsibility but it's certainly not a gaurentee. There was a site operating here in Oz that would encourge teenage boys to "get even" by posting embarrasing pictures of the ex-girlfiends. The site would then charge the ex-girlfriend exorbident admin fees to have it removed. I'm not sure if it's still up but I wouldn't be surprised.
  • by Kranerian (1427183)
    Even with this, there's still too much of a stigma associated with Microsoft and Bing for many internet users to take them seriously. Leave Bing to the uncaring and the uninformed.
  • by CFBMoo1 (157453) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:17AM (#30400586) Homepage
    A full comparison of alternate search engines instead of recommending just Bing would have been a better statement. He could have lined up Google, Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc and compared privacy policies side by side for the people he's speaking too.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Malc (1751)

      Google has been pissing me off recently with their toolbar updates that change the behaviour of the browser. If I wanted the new window/tab functionality of Firefox to behave like Safari, I'd be using Safari. Why do I want the sidewiki thing, or whatever it's called? Etc, etc. Piss off: I got the google toolbar as better way of searching for things, along with find in page option when I have the results. So it gets uninstalled.

    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:53AM (#30400950) Homepage
      RTFA. He's interested in a search that actually works, with better privacy terms. Yahoo! == Bing, or very soon will, so that's redundant. Ask sucks. What's "etc"? Yeah, AltaVista. Dream on: searching it for "mozilla recommends bing" gets 0 hits. Fail.
    • by Xest (935314) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:11AM (#30401174)

      Nah, Google's biggest threat right now is Microsoft with Bing and they know it. This is why Google recently accepted to allow media outlets to limit the number of articles that could be viewed on Google news before being confronted with a paywall- because some outlets were threatening to delist from Google and only list from Bing, presumably Google felt the threat was big enough that Google news would lose enough content to matter.

      This Mozilla guy is playing the same game- he recommended Bing because he knows that word is enough to make Google stand up, take notice and hopefully take action, not because he seriously advocates a search engine switch unless Google really do continue this attitude. A search engine comparison doesn't catch the headlines quite like a high profile mention of a switch to Google's main search threat.

  • The Blog Page (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tonycheese (921278) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:18AM (#30400600)

    Whoa, that page has some crazy background. Reminds me of something out of the 1990s.

    Anyway, before all the conspiracy theorist posts pop up, this looks like it's just a post on his personal blog, which includes posts about his beard and other random things. Even if Mozilla was officially endorsing and getting paid for Bing searches, Google already has the same deal so there's no issue there.

    Of course, this could just be a member of the Mozilla community jumping at the first chance to get back at Google for making Chrome... hmm...

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:18AM (#30400606)

    Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?

    • by Adambomb (118938) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:24AM (#30400660) Journal

      Fixed.

    • Re:One word: LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoYob (1630681) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:37AM (#30400784)

      Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?

      I would like to point out, that Microsoft has come under horrendous fire because of their business practices and privacy and other things as you all know. Now because they realize that they are in fact losing (although slowly) market share to F/OSS because of these issues - the EU has been really hammering Microsoft, MS has been becoming more sensitive to the privacy issue. It seems like whenever I do anything with a MS product these days message boxes pop up stating what data and where they are sending it and whether I would like to opt out, decrease certain parts of the data, or just send it all. Why even with my Visual Studio Beta 2, there were all these statements regarding what they'll be collecting.

      What I'm saying is, when it come to my privacy, I'd trust Microsoft before Google - but that's as far as I trust any organization.

      I would also like to point out that while all of you are fretting about your searching habits and what porn site you guys re visiting may be tracked by Google or whoever, the credit bureaus and your bank is sending your: SSN, dob, name, address, past addresses, spouse's name, mother's maiden name and other very sensitive information all over the World. I had an issue with a credit report and I settled it with a very nice woman in India - I think - her accent was muddled. She refused to give me her location because of "security reasons". That was Trans Union. Banks offshore quite a bit of their back office processing.

      MS and Google are far far off of my radar as far as privacy issues and for "evil" business practices.

  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:19AM (#30400616)
    Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that Microsoft will respect your privacy _more_ than Google is a fool. I'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google's policy's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable.
    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:42AM (#30400838)
      Exactly. Google's opinions are not as relevant as their actions. So far, so good.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course). They have a phone OS, and they are pushing cloud services.

      Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market, and doing a mediocre job within that market.

      So the question becomes "Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who's developed the technology and are really good at it, or by a company which is not so good

      • by D Ninja (825055) on Friday December 11, 2009 @11:48AM (#30402428)

        Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).

        I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.

        Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed. I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest. I'm glad Google went ahead and did it. It's not like Google is saying, "Bill_the_Engineer LIVES HERE!" Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700's saying, "Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house!!!"

        Give me a break.

    • by Jazz-Masta (240659) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:31AM (#30401424)

      When I saw that "funny" mockup of Google and the phrase "where are my fucking keys" - and google returns "on the fridge, where you left them dipshit" - I honestly thought this is where it is headed.

      Google has made no secret of wanting to control the entire Internet experience for a user from content down to how you access that content. They have both sides of the market cornered, from a user and a webmaster's perspective.

      They control most of the advertising, and they control (directly through analytics, or indirectly through adsense tracking) your website statistics. They know where a user goes to, and from, they know which sites. They know what you search for. If you've actually read the adsense terms, you'll know they tell you they use all the information they have on you to target advertisements...ON ANY SITE.

      If you search for "buy a cadillac" and you then go to another website, if the cadillac ads are permitted to run on that site, it is likely you'll see them, or other ads Google has specifically targeted to you. It is no longer the job of the webmaster to do this.

      I like Google, but the amount of information they have, if they DID decide to be evil, they would be the WORST company, because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you.

  • Switch from Google? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DarkTitan_X (905442)
    If I had any real reason to switch from Google, it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google's search results.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:22AM (#30400648)

    Dear customers. We noticed that it's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic. Please switch to hydrogen cyanide.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Yup, I can think of a few reasons for switching from Google, but none for switching to Bing. Where are the other options?
  • Clusty (Score:3, Informative)

    by LeepII (946831) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:24AM (#30400654)
    Clusty is by far the best search engine. I don't understand why more people are not using it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:28AM (#30400700)

    Sounds like fear of Chrome

    • by toppavak (943659) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:00AM (#30401018)
      Indeed, privacy concerns are an interesting straw man here. The fact of the matter is that pretty much nothing on the internet is truly private. Even if Bing has a better written privacy policy it doesn't really follow that they'll actually be more respectful of their customers privacy than Google. If you have sensitive information that you don't want a 3rd party to have access to on the internet, then don't put it on the internet- the very act of doing that means the information won't be private anymore. 99.9999% of users don't care if Google knows they enjoy watching the Wire or what words people didn't know because they searched for its wiki page or what journal articles I look up on Scholar or what companies I've recently read about and decided to look up on finance. In fact most of the people I know that use Google services heavily are more than happy to share that kind of irrelevant information if Google sees some value in it and can use revenue indirectly generated from that to provide us with amazing products like Reader, Groups, Gmail, Android, Code, Scholar, Finance, Books, etc etc etc. In conclusion, information on the internet is not going to private regardless of whose search engine you use or how kitten-friendly their privacy policy is. At least Google has a decent track record [dataliberation.org] of being respectful about your 'private' data while working towards as close to an ideal privacy scenario as it would be possible to get online.
  • by Kostya (1146) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:29AM (#30400710) Homepage Journal

    I seriously had to stop and read this twice. Apparently hell froze over.

    Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well. I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.

  • How about Cuil (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:40AM (#30400814)

    It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy, Cuil never seems to be mentioned. Or at least I do not see it.

    On Cuil's privacy page it says:
    "When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period. Your search history is your business."

    So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more? Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about. Or perhaps it is just not well known.

  • problems with bing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:41AM (#30400826)

    i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:

    • The changing background image... i really don't want to be surprised every time i open up the search engine. It is very distracting.
    • The main page contains the word "shopping". I don't know exactly what it is, but it drives me away.
    • The links to other microsoft sites, like "msn", "hotmail", etc. Since i don't like those, i also don't like those links on my search page.
    • The fonts used, especially on the search results page, are too large. But perhaps i am too much accustomed to google already.
    • Lack of options on the search results page (similar pages, add comment, promote, remove)
    • No direct linking to pdf files in search results

    Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.
    Why can't they just get it right?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jmyers (208878)

      Most people will like the design elements of Bing.
      shopping - so does Google
      links to other products - so does Google
      I just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side, some font on my monitor.
      I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my results

      Have you actually tried Bing?

      I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google, got almost the exact same sites.

      Never underestimate Microsoft. The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor.

  • by idiotnot (302133) <sean@757.org> on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:42AM (#30400844) Homepage Journal

    You've prompted a switch, Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background

  • Bitter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheJabberwocky (876055) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:42AM (#30400846)
    Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Well, firefox needs to get its act together and remember what their original purpose was because I've noticed a lot of average users complaining about the last couple Mozilla releases being buggy and slow across all platforms. On the windows side, quite a few have already flocked to Chrome an a few to Opera. OSX, a lot of folks have gone back to Safari.

  • by jocknerd (29758) on Friday December 11, 2009 @09:48AM (#30400906)

    Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Everyone should be concerned about privacy. Only a fool thinks they have nothing to hide. Would you honestly trust this bat shit crazy society to judge you correctly or to not abuse their power?

  • Switch to CUIL (Score:3, Informative)

    by chord.wav (599850) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:00AM (#30401034) Journal

    Or you can use CUIL (http://www.cuil.com). It's a great search engine
    As they say: Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users

  • by Rennt (582550) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:10AM (#30401160)

    Schmidt was warning users about the risks inherit in using ANY search engine "including Google" and that governments can access data kept by search engines in the future. Dotzler's reaction is truly cringe worthy.

    He then goes on to say "There is no ambiguity, no "out of context" here." right after COMPLETELY taking the quote out of context. This is ugly.

  • by R.Mo_Robert (737913) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:25AM (#30401362)

    This post puts words in Mozilla's mouth. While this was a high-profile Mozilla figure (Asa Dotzler), it is his personal blog, so keep in mind it's just what he thinks, not any recommendation on behalf of Mozilla.

    In any case, his exact words [mozillazine.org] were, "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.)" That's not exactly a whole-hearted recommendation; it's saying, "Here's something bad, but this is how you can switch it to something better." And again, of course, it's just his opinion based on the respective privacy policies--but, if someone appeals to the PATRIOT Act like Google was talking about, I'm not convinced it matters either way. (Just because it's not tied to your account doesn't mean they can't figure it out.)

  • by giladpn (1657217) on Friday December 11, 2009 @10:56AM (#30401732)
    Remember the days when Microsoft was "evil" and Google everyone's darling?

    Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity, Microsoft's domination looked for a while like it really was slipping, and Google simply became too big.

    Google has simply become everybody's competitor.

    Example: the Chrome browser competes directly with Mozilla's Firefox. Not that this was the reason for that blog post, of course ;-)

    Another example: Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).

    Another example: the publishing industry has set its sights on Google, for the crime of taking away too much of their Ad revenue. They are contemplating de-indexing Google.

    So Microsoft, once the "evil empire", is now champion of Liberty. Well, that is good; because they never were that evil, so some redress is in order.

    And Bill Gates did contribute $40bn to the world. When Sergei Brin, Larry page and Eric Schmidt do the same with their personal fortunes, we can all go back to normal.

    Bottom line: businesses are for-profit affairs. The best restraint on them is competition. We the people should keep Microsoft and Google both on their toes, for our own best interest.

    And we should remember that people like Gates, Brin, Schmidt & Page are good good people at heart. They are creative. They contribute. Just like everyone, we need to set them straight from time to time.
  • That really bugs me. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DarthVain (724186) on Friday December 11, 2009 @11:06AM (#30401874)

    'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

    One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time.

    "Hey if you got nuthin' to hide you won't mind if we violate your rights!"

    I would love to see a privacy war, competition at its finest...

    Bing might just get a new user today.

  • Hmnn (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Friday December 11, 2009 @03:13PM (#30405520)
    I sense a disturbance in the force.
  • by fluffy99 (870997) on Friday December 11, 2009 @03:42PM (#30405882)

    No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining. I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market. Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.

Working...