Discussion in 'other software & services' started by guest, Feb 1, 2012.
Read more: http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-slams-googles-privacy-policy-in-newspaper-ad
I've been using Hotmail for a long time now. I specially like Alias. Unfortunately, while good, Bing still doesn't support SSL. Until then, for most of my time I'll use Ixquick, or Google SSL when neeeded.
It surprises me that Microsoft still doesn't provide an SSL version of their search engine. What stops them?
Dunno, but you can always use DuckDuckGo SSL which is powered by Bing: https://duckduckgo.com/
Unfortunately, from my experience, and at the image of Ixquick, results are only great as long as you search for English terms. Once I start looking for non-English terms, it's mayhem. I got no other alternative other than resorting to Google whenever I need to find something that both Ixquick/DuckDuckGo cannot provide.
Surely you can change the default language in Ixquick/Startpage by clicking on the options in the top right corner?
FUD of the highest order.
Actually, once the results of a search appear, we can choose the language in the bottom. I'm just going to add that as my search engine, rather than ixquick.com.
I never noticed it before, because I usually don't scroll that far. And well, I just figured that if it was to be provided, it would be so at the main page or they would automatically set the language every time we're searching. I'd imagine it wouldn't be that hard to create an algorithm capable of detecting the language.
It's kinda odd, though. Why wouldn't the option to choose the language appear in the main page, before the search?
Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.
OK, I suppose I should be glad that I can only speak/read English.
Of course it is, but I suppose you can't blame MS for taking the opportunity to take the privacy moral high ground for a bit. If we're very lucky this eventually may work well for the average end-user, if both of these giants tried very hard to make privacy oriented policies. Although I'm sceptical of that ever happening.
Pretty much what Seeker said - but yeah of course MS is going to jump on the opportunity. I mean... they'd be stupid if they didn't.
At least it's fact-generated FUD
Honoring the tradition of Get your facts first
Haha! I’m sure MS with the help of their top $$ lawyers chose their words carefully, to deliver the message with both as much impact as possible, without incurring a legal backlash.
I'm not aware of Google dragging anyone to court as yet.
Anyways, isn't MS a big stakeholder in Facebook, that other upholder of privacy that people here choose not to focus on for reasons that are beyond me
Because Facebook offers fine tuned control over privacy preferences, unlike Google.
Depending on how serious you are about privacy, none of the "big dogs" will be an option.
From the: we have no shame department
Bottom line, who would you prefer mine your data ? I'll take Google, but that's just me.
More details on that FDA enforcement would be appreciated.
I did mean FTC not FDA, apologies for that. I have no clear details at this time as the current issue is being shrouded by an all out slugfest between the two titans.
What sparked the FTC into looking into the mutiple layers of Google's Privacy Policies began with Google Plus, this I do know with certainty.
Microsoft in the interpretation of those in the security industry and elsewhere were disturbed to read this Microsoft alternative to Google product
I'd take a company who's sole profit isn't generated from my data, and as so, is far less likely to need to abuse it.
Not sure I follow that logic.
Google fires back against Microsoft's privacy ad
Gotta love the careful wording and avoiding the fact that their ads are based off of scanning your email. They are saying no human reads your mail in a way that sounds like they are completely private, crafty!
What's hard to understand about it? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Microsoft make billions off of software and as so are far less inclined (although you cannot rule it out) to need to profit off your data as Google do. Targeted/shaped ads = higher revenue for Google, which happens to be it's main source of income. You know this so I really don't understand how you can't follow this logic.
What happens if something happened to Google tomorrow, their main source of income was somehow jeopardized and they were facing either abusing it to increase profits or calling it quits as a company, what would they do? They'd find some way to capitalize on shaped advertising further. Just like a software/hardware company would find some way to capitalize on software/hardware further, usually by releasing more software/hardware. Which sounds worse?
we don't give a damn about your world
with all your global profits and all you're to oppose
we don't give a damn about your world
you bring about the stink
you bring about the confused
bring about the solution
bring about the future
bring about the conclusion
bring about revolution
bring about revolution
Something like that! (Belongs to a song by SOAD.)
I would think that Google - a company that relies almost entirely on ads - would not want to abuse the one thing it's got going for it. If they lose user trust, if they step just a bit too far over the line of the law, their entire business goes down. They have far far far more to lose.
I don't really care one way or another. I see your point that they have more to lose so they could get desperate but right now abusing users would only serve to hurt their business.
Similar to that one android CarrierIQ fiasco - understanding how machines "read" and parse is important. They don't read like we do. If I read somethig by you I understand it. All Google's machines can hope to do is pick up on a few words as metrics and if those metrics meet a specific signature a little ping goes off somewhere and you get an ad based on that.
I'll understand if someone has a problem with that... it's just best to understand that it's so far removed from the way humans would read it that saying things like "read" really doesn't convey how these things work.
Separate names with a comma.