Mozilla says beware Google use Bing

[leezer3]

A small example for you lot-
For years now I've been involved online with a certain community.
Everything was fully legal and above board for many years, and is currently legal in just about any country you care to name, other than this one- A badly written new law has outlawed what it terms 'extreme' examples of this, without applying any decent amount of context, and hence large parts of the field (Where my primary interests lie) are suspect.

I'm in no way happy with the government tracking what I do online, and deciding that my interests come under the 'extreme' banner & possibly prosecuting me, despite the fact that this used to be legal, and is legal everywhere else.
No-one is harmed, and I'm not, or at least I hope I'm not a deranged axe murderer or anything similar.

-Leezer-

 

[unwashed potato!]

A small example for you lot-
For years now I've been involved online with a certain community.
Everything was fully legal and above board for many years, and is currently legal in just about any country you care to name, other than this one- A badly written new law has outlawed what it terms 'extreme' examples of this, without applying any decent amount of context, and hence large parts of the field (Where my primary interests lie) are suspect.

I'm in no way happy with the government tracking what I do online, and deciding that my interests come under the 'extreme' banner & possibly prosecuting me, despite the fact that this used to be legal, and is legal everywhere else.
No-one is harmed, and I'm not, or at least I hope I'm not a deranged axe murderer or anything similar.

-Leezer-

if i have read this correclty, the issue is with the law itself and the fact that it finds what you're doing illegal, and not from watching your activities? out of interest has it anything to do with anime (if thats the right word)? sorry if this is an insult to you, it wasn't meant as one, just based on a few words you have said in the previous post and nothing else.

 

[gillywibble]

I'm actually quite shocked by how naive 95thrifles seems to be.

This.

As I have done in the past, I will refer to this article -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

 

[95thrifles]

This.

As I have done in the past, I will refer to this article -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

Your point?

Transparency
The data subject has the right to be informed when his personal data are being processed. The controller must provide his name and address, the purpose of processing, the recipients of the data and all other information required to ensure the processing is fair. (art. 10 and 11)

Data may be processed only under the following circumstances (art. 7):

- when the data subject has given his consent
- when the processing is necessary for the performance of or the entering into a contract
- when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation
- when processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject
- processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed
- processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject

 

[gillywibble]

Your point?

Went straight over your head it seems.

Europeans are acutely familiar with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of personal information from their experiences under World War II-era fascist governments and post-War Communist regimes, and are highly suspicious and fearful of unchecked use of personal information. World War II and the post-War period was a time in Europe that disclosure of race or ethnicity led to secret denunciations and seizures that sent friends and neighbors to work camps and concentration camps. Europe has experienced atrocities directly related to privacy and the release of personal information inconceivable to most Americans. In the age of computers, Europeans’ guardedness of secret government files has translated into a distrust of corporate databases, and governments in Europe took decided steps to protect personal information from abuses in the years following World War II. Germany and France, in particular, set forth comprehensive data protection laws.

 

[faugusztin]

I would understand this whole discussion if the replacement search engine would be something based in EU (or at least non-US).

Do any of you think Bing is in any form different when we talk about applying US laws to US subjects ? Bing must record exactly the same informations as Google must do.

 

[95thrifles]

Went straight over your head it seems.

You're comparing keyword searches for terrorism and the like to Nazism and Communism, come on

I'm acutely aware fo the data protection act and the European Convention on Human rights, specifically article 8 which gives everyone the right to private/family life, however there are distinctions between absolute rights and qualified rights, also theres a caveat which allows it to be disregarded in the interests of National Security

 

[Alex_6n2]

Go and live in a glass house?

 

[lunarwolf]

Bing must record exactly the same informations as Google must do.

from what I have read they do not stock as much information nor do they keep the records as long. but I think the point of the original blog was to illustrate Google CEO's complete disregard for data protection of Google users, if you are fine with that, that is your prerogative.

On a side note, you must consider that there have been many times when data is lost on public buses or stolen.

 

[ac1d1ty]

from what I have read they do not stock as much information nor do they keep the records as long. but I think the point of the original blog was to illustrate Google CEO's complete disregard for data protection of Google users, if you are fine with that, that is your prerogative.

On a side note, you must consider that there have been many times when data is lost on public buses or stolen.

this

 

[leezer3]

if i have read this correclty, the issue is with the law itself and the fact that it finds what you're doing illegal, and not from watching your activities? out of interest has it anything to do with anime (if thats the right word)? sorry if this is an insult to you, it wasn't meant as one, just based on a few words you have said in the previous post and nothing else.

Not really. The law itself an issue yes, but my concern stems from the fact they could potentially access my search records from the past to substantiate anything they care to throw at me.
It also majorly bothers me that they could potentially access anything I've searched for, based on something that isn't actually defined, and has had no test case as to the precise meaning of 'extreme'.
Basically, I'd say my area of interest is neither legal or illegal at the moment, rather stuck in a nasty legislative grey area.


It's not anime realated either, if you're interested look up the early works of Brent Scott / PD [Not the basketball player] (Basically those produced from 1997- 2005) for one of the better known examples.

This is not something I'm really going to elaborate further on, unless people are specifically interested, for one it's decidedly family unfriendly.

-Leezer-

 

[faugusztin]

from what I have read they do not stock as much information nor do they keep the records as long. but I think the point of the original blog was to illustrate Google CEO's complete disregard for data protection of Google users, if you are fine with that, that is your prerogative.

On a side note, you must consider that there have been many times when data is lost on public buses or stolen.

Nope, authorized users (=police etc) have exactly the same info as with Google, connected to IP or username - maybe even more because live.com is used in a lot more places than Google login. You have all that in discussion to the article btw.

So this whole "replace Google with Bing" talk is like running from tiger and jumping in front of lion . They are required to store this info by law, so they can't store less, it's that simple.

 

[Faustus]

Must admit I thought that was going to be to do with the limited news results or whatever theyve been on about lately, as it is its privacy. I completely agree with Googles stance personally

I have been having this very debate on another forum for some weeks now. I no longer use Google for my search needs, I have switched to Bing and very happy I am with it too! I have said for some time that Google has got far to large and dominant and I view it as a malevolent force.

Remember that everything that is free comes at a price. MS have other revenue streams and don't rely on ads like Google do - I would much prefer to put my trust with MS than with Google

 

[unwashed potato!]

Remember that everything that is free comes at a price.

such as bing

 

[Amnesia]

Not really. The law itself an issue yes, but my concern stems from the fact they could potentially access my search records from the past to substantiate anything they care to throw at me.
It also majorly bothers me that they could potentially access anything I've searched for, based on something that isn't actually defined, and has had no test case as to the precise meaning of 'extreme'.
Basically, I'd say my area of interest is neither legal or illegal at the moment, rather stuck in a nasty legislative grey area.


It's not anime realated either, if you're interested look up the early works of Brent Scott / PD [Not the basketball player] (Basically those produced from 1997- 2005) for one of the better known examples.

This is not something I'm really going to elaborate further on, unless people are specifically interested, for one it's decidedly family unfriendly.

-Leezer-

is it what is now classed as extreme porn ?
there has been a debate about it on these forums....its a pretty dumb law.
the act itself is fine but if someone was to take a photograph of it(even those involved in the act) then all of a sudden it becomes illegal and you could end up on the sex offenders register.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm actually quite shocked by how naive 95thrifles seems to be.

really? unfortunately there are many many many people who think the same .

Who needs rights and innocent until proven guilty. even people who are against these things still somehow agree to the terrorist laws ..

 

[Faustus]

such as bing

Originally Posted by Faustus
Remember that everything that is free comes at a price

If you are going to quote then please don't do so out of context, I actually said -

Remember that everything that is free comes at a price. MS have other revenue streams and don't rely on ads like Google do - I would much prefer to put my trust with MS than with Google

 

[leezer3]

is it what is now classed as extreme porn ?
there has been a debate about it on these forums....its a pretty dumb law.
the act itself is fine but if someone was to take a photograph of it(even those involved in the act) then all of a sudden it becomes illegal and you could end up on the sex offenders register.

Yes, you could call it that.
However, nobody's sure, TBQH. They haven't bothered to define extreme properly, and to the best of my (And the wider communities knowledge), there has only been one case on this [Pure, not beastiality, kiddie or anything like those], which was at the magistrates, and basically didn't get fought.

I'd also note that the act itself isn't necesarily fine either, but I'm not going into the technicalities.

-Leezer-

 

[unwashed potato!]

If you are going to quote then please don't do so out of context, I actually said -

you actually said that at :54, i quoted at :53

your post was above mine as well so didn't need to be quoted word for word, as everyone could easily see it in context. you trust ms over google simple because of how they make money? have you done any research on the companies and how they make money, what they beleive in etc?

my point still stands, just because of how they make revenue doesn't mean something that is free doesn't come at a price. you said it yourself, EVERYTHING that is free comes at a price. you've gone from google who appear to be focused on giving stuff away for free, to ms who are infamous for being the opposite.

both comapnies by law will have to keep the data for x amount of time, e.g. 1.5 years. if thats all the bing keep it for then thats ok, but if google keep it for another .5 of a year whats the problem? they don't have to hand it over, just the latest 1.5 years. if they have had it for 1.5 years, as well as bing, whats the harm in another 6 months or whatever. seems silly to me.

if google wasn't around i bet stuff like live maps wouldn't be free, or it would be heavily limited with paid for versions offering the useful stuff. ms are changing imo because they have to, not because they want to, google have always been the nicer guys. i use so many services from them and i'm sure it'll only increase. so what if they make money from me, i make money from them as i can get better results, work faster, find where i need to go better, then companies that sell something i want can find me directly, rather then having to waste money advertising to people who don't, increasing the products price, and possibly one day they'll be able to see that i bought a printer 2 years ago, so advertise the latest one to me that i'd want. it's a win win win win win situation.

 

[atpbx]

Given the fact that given enough time the various authorities could make a charge of anything stick to anybody, allowing yourself to be put in the line of fire by letting them look at everything you do seems spectacularly naive.

Just look at that poor Brazilian guy shot on the tube, guilty of one thing (over staying a visa) with a bit of surveillance and a lot of incompetance and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, he's shot dead for being a terrorist while going about his daily business.