[gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[John J. Foster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 283 bytes --]

http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox

Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
Just a bad mark on Mozilla.

John

-- 
Contrary to the lie machine, the world is not safer.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Paul M Foster]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:

> http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox
> 
> Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
> certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
> Just a bad mark on Mozilla.
> 

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to 
make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have 
made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This 
seems the same to me as Ford offering a television show free cars so 
that whenever you see a car in the show, it's a Ford. This is as old as 
advertising itself.

Mind you, all the link has is rumor and innuendo to go on. No solid 
proof. A supposed insider blogger makes an accusation, they ask for 
corroborating documents which haven't yet been filed, and the principals 
have no comment for them. They've interpeted the silence of those 
involved to mean their "guilt". Despite the fact that they aren't 
_required_ to disclose any information about the matter, either way, 
except perhaps in quarterly filings. While they may indeed be "guilty", 
this is scant evidence to even make such an accusation, much less grant 
it any credence.

Paul

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[John J. Foster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2248 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:05:34PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:
> 
> > http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox
> > 
> > Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
> > certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
> > Just a bad mark on Mozilla.
> > 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to 
> make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have 
> made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This 
> seems the same to me as Ford offering a television show free cars so 
> that whenever you see a car in the show, it's a Ford. This is as old as 
> advertising itself.
> 
> Mind you, all the link has is rumor and innuendo to go on. No solid 
> proof. A supposed insider blogger makes an accusation, they ask for 
> corroborating documents which haven't yet been filed, and the principals 
> have no comment for them. They've interpeted the silence of those 
> involved to mean their "guilt". Despite the fact that they aren't 
> _required_ to disclose any information about the matter, either way, 
> except perhaps in quarterly filings. While they may indeed be "guilty", 
> this is scant evidence to even make such an accusation, much less grant 
> it any credence.
> 
I did not mean in any way to try and pass off accusations and inuendoes
as statements of fact. That is the reason I asked in the first place.

But I strongly disagree with much of what you said regarding these
actions, if true, being OK.

Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in
Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google
may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but
"IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If
Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never
visited, I have a problem with that. 

IF anything in that article is true, and you think that that type of
underhandedness (is that a word?) and deception is OK, fine. I don't.

John
-- 
Contrary to the lie machine, the world is not safer.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Bob Sanders]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:14:26 -0400
"John J. Foster" <Gentoo-User@festus.150ml.com> wrote:


> Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in
> Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google
> may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but
> "IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If
> Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never
> visited, I have a problem with that. 
> 

So, I checked and it seems that Firefox has Google as the default search engine.
But it lets me change that search engine to Yahoo and even add search engines.
And it saves my preference.

And you're saying that taking money to continue to support development with
the return of having Google as the default is bad?  Even though the end user
can still tailor that default?

> IF anything in that article is true, and you think that that type of
> underhandedness (is that a word?) and deception is OK, fine. I don't.
>

What's underhanded about advertising?  That's all it is.  The end user is not locked
in to a specific search engine.  Underhanded is locking the search engine choice after
taking money, not rotating a specific engine to the top as a pre-configured default. 

Bob
-- 
-  
Are you living in the real world?
-  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Foster [mailto:Gentoo-User@festus.150ml.com] 
> Sent: 10 August 2005 01:14
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:05:34PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox
> > > 

I've read the linked page(s) and I've also read some other relevant
articles.  I have not yet seen a clear enough thesis that explains why
on this occasion creating a 'for profit' organisation will serve more
effectively the public good/end user.  If indeed true, then I don't
think that private information (search/browsing patterns) being shared
without knowledge and consent of the user is acceptable.  Car
manufacturers sponsoring *privately* funded events (like a TV show) is
clearly not the same.  These days many companies sponsor events for
charitable organisations - the question is to what extend is this
sponsoring acceptable.  I suggest that it is acceptable only to the
extent that it does not compromise the objectives of the not for profit
organisation.  Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on - whether
undertaken by a for profit or not organisation!

Any idea how Opera (adware in its 'free' form) behaves on this issue?  I
suspect it probably does the same, but at least it clearly states so
when you first launch the unpaid program.  Not sure what happens if you
pay for it.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Michael Kintzios schreef:

> Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
> trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on

This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" is, in fact,
"private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.

Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the street.

You can see me. The fact of my existence is not private.

Because you can physically see me, you know a lot of things about me
already.

1. I am human.

2. I am female.

3. I am of childbearing age (you don't know my exact age, but you can
see that I am older than 9 and younger than 50).

4. I am of African descent.

5. I am (for the purposes of this example), wearing a wedding ring, so I
am or was in a committed relationship, most likely with a man.

All of this information is *personal*, but *not* "private", and all of
our collected knowledge and assumptions about these conditions can be
legitimately applied to the information you have about me, if you choose
to communicate with me, in order to improve the odds of successful
communication (whatever your purpose in successfully communicating with
me may be).

Now, if you don't happen to be looking out the window at that moment, or
if I go out of my way to disguise myself in order to conceal as much of
this information as possible, you won't see me, or you won't see me as I
am, but that does not make the above information private. It just makes
it public information that I am keeping from you.

The Internet is a public street. The fact that I'm "on" it is not
private. The location that I started from and the location I'm going to
is not private, any more than the fact that I left my house and went to
the butcher's three blocks away is... and now you know I'm a meat eater,
or closely associated with one. Oh, dear.

So if a "gossip" (Google) is actively watching and remembering that I
went to the butcher (and not the dry cleaner), and therefore, when next
in conversation with me, makes a point of mentioning information of
interest to meat-eaters (a better-value butcher, problems with the
butcher I use, some health information related to meat), is that some
kind of crime?

And here I thought that was "forming a relationship".

I understand that "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not
out to get you", but this seems a bit excessively cautious to me.

Not to mention that all of this watching and remembering is done by
Google, not Firefox per se-- especially if you control your cookie
settings (Preferences=>Privacy=>Cookies=>Enable only for the originating
website). I mean, if a Google search sets cookies from not-visited
websites, and those cookies generate a profit, who are the not-visited
websites paying? Not Mozilla... they'd be paying Google, who has already
paid some portion of those profits to Mozilla for the default search
engine spot and is unlikely to be sharing further revenue. Why would they?

These issues are indeed worthy of watching (business practices usually
are), but honestly, don't we have higher-priority "privacy" and security
issues on our plates?

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1343 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:13:30 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:

> > Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
> > trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on
> 
> This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" is, in fact,
> "private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.

It also assumes that Mozilla are making a profit from this. Being
non-profit doesn't preclude any sort of income to cover costs. Gentoo is
non-profit but sells CDs, mugs and t-shirts, as well as accepting
donations.

Netscape/AOL put a lot of money into Mozilla when they separated it, and
some more later. Why was this OK but taking money from Google is such a
sin?

If it has been Microsoft I could understand the resistance, but when the
World's best search engine takes out advertising (and this is what it
boils down to) on the World's best browser it is nothing more than a
sensible arrangement that helps both get better. Firefox and Mozilla have
to have one search engine as the default, that would have been Google
anyway, so they are simply accepting payment to maintain the status quo,
while not forcing any restrictions on their customers.

Now, how much are KDE getting for doing the same with Konqueror?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

30 minutes of begging is not considered foreplay.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Iain Buchanan]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:51 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:13:30 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
> > > Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
> > > trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on
> > 
> > This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" is, in fact,
> > "private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.
> 
> It also assumes that Mozilla are making a profit from this. Being
> non-profit doesn't preclude any sort of income to cover costs. Gentoo is
> non-profit but sells CDs, mugs and t-shirts, as well as accepting
> donations.

The website http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox was saying that
sure, their (mozilla's) 2003 revenue of 2.3 million seems reasonable,
but their reported (from insider information) 2004 revenue of $30
million was not acceptable.

While I don't agree with everything they have to say, I think if there
is an evil one out of google and firefox, its google.  Like someone else
said, if firefox wants to accept money to maintain the status quo, then
so what?

If the mozilla foundation really is "restructuring by spinning off the
Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit subsidiary" then time will tell.  They
can't delay "Form 990" for ever.

The reason google is so good is because it takes lots of measures to try
and get the best search results, and its inevitable that this will
include information about my searching habits to better tailor results
to me?  If I don't like it, I can use another engine.

Just some thoughts!
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Iain Buchanan schreef:
> On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:51 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> 
>>It also assumes that Mozilla are making a profit from this. Being
>>non-profit doesn't preclude any sort of income to cover costs. Gentoo is
>>non-profit but sells CDs, mugs and t-shirts, as well as accepting
>>donations.
> 
> 
> The website http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox was saying that
> sure, their (mozilla's) 2003 revenue of 2.3 million seems reasonable,
> but their reported (from insider information) 2004 revenue of $30
> million was not acceptable.
> 

"Not acceptable"? The only basis on which making 27 million dollars
could possibly be considered unacceptable (especially in the US) is
because it would mean that they *did* in fact make a profit, and their
not-for-profit status was at risk. But that doesn't mean it was
"intentional", as it were.... Maybe a gazillion people bought the CD.
Maybe a gazillion *companies* bought the CD. What were they supposed to
do, say "oh, no, I couldn't possibly accept this payment, that would be
*profit* <shudder>"?
> 
> If the mozilla foundation really is "restructuring by spinning off the
> Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit subsidiary" then time will tell.  They
> can't delay "Form 990" for ever.

And if my theory holds water in any way, then the Mozilla Foundation
really would have had no choice but to spin off a for-profit
subsidiary... after all, if the money is rolling in (via perfectly
legitimate and socially acceptable means), it has to go somewhere, and
it can't go to the N-F-P foundation beyond a certain level.

I find it unbelievable that, after all the effort Netscape and then
Mozilla have expended to keep this browser alive, not to mention make it
viable, much less successful, the fact that they have managed to
overcome all these odds and trounce their opponents to the extent that
they are able to turn a profit (when they had never expected/intended
to), somehow manages to give the last stalwart detractors an audible
voice. I would have thought that the cheers of celebration would have
drowned them out some time ago.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
> Sent: 11 August 2005 01:32
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
[snip]
> And if my theory holds water in any way, then the Mozilla Foundation
> really would have had no choice but to spin off a for-profit
> subsidiary... after all, if the money is rolling in (via perfectly
> legitimate and socially acceptable means), it has to go somewhere, and
> it can't go to the N-F-P foundation beyond a certain level.

An accountant could probably advise better, but I would think that there
are appropriate vehicles (e.g. NfP trusts) which would allow financial
profits that cannot be expensed in activities supporting the Moz
Organisation objectives within the financial year, to be stored and in
turn invested thereafter both in for profit and not schemes so that they
may grow and prosper.  Making an economic profit is not a problem in
itself.  Compromising Moz.Org./OSS objectives in seeking to derive this
profit creates a conflict of interest and therefore it becomes a
problem.  Of course this may not be the case with the FF/Google
syndication, I don't really know.

Perhaps what we have here is a strategic failure; i.e. Moz could not
come up with valid ideas to promptly expense the profit in support of
the development of FF and other products and therefore were forced to
spin-off.
---------------------
[OT]
Holly, you mention that you have a zillion search engines incorporated
in your browser . . . 8O
Where do you get them from?  How can these be added to a browser?
[/OT]
-- 
Regards,
Mick

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Michael Kintzios schreef:

> [OT]
> Holly, you mention that you have a zillion search engines incorporated
> in your browser . . . 8O
> Where do you get them from?  How can these be added to a browser?
> [/OT]

The vast majority of them come from mozdev.org itself. If you click the
search engine button (the Google logo, in this case), you get a
drop-down list of available search engines (as you probably know,
Firefox includes several by default other than Google-- Amazon.com,
Creative Commons, Ebay, Yahoo, and dictionary.com). At the bottom of
this list there is an entry "More (or "Add) search engines", which, if
clicked, opens http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html . On this page,
you can find a whole lot of search engine plugins for any purpose--
mostly for specific sites or purposes, including Gentoo Packages
(packages.gentoo.org), Gentoo Bugzilla, by both summary (word/name) and
 bug #, the Gentoo Forums, Gentoo-Portage, and the Gentoo Wiki (although
all of these engines are not necessarily where you'd expect if you go
through the listing, but putting 'Gentoo' in the page's search box will
bring them all up). Debian also has some engine plugins, as does
Mandrake (just one). Not to mention various dictionaries in many
languages, shopping sites, and other special interest categories. Also,
a few sites that I visit have plugins that have not (yet) been accepted
by Firefox, and so are available from the website itself. You may also
find this to be the case.

There are two caveats:

1. this may have changed, but before the recent 'upgrade every day'
period (where Firefox was being revised every day over the course of 4
days), the folder /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/searchplugins (now
/usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/searchplugins) was a root-only folder, meaning
that you had to install search engine plugins as root. It also meant
that an upgrade would remove all your installed plugins, restoring the 5
default plugins. There are Mozilla bugs 'open' for this issue, but I
don't know their current status. The bugs themselves are linked in the
thread of the MozillaZine forums I link to below.

I solved this by a) changing the permissions of the searchplugins folder
so that I could write to it as a user, so I could install search engines
as a user; b) once installed, copying the searchplugins folder to /root
as a backup, so that if an upgrade wiped the folder, I could just copy
it back.


2) Search plugin order is rather random, which can be a problem if you
have a lot of search plugins. You can, however, set the order of your
search plugins. I set them up in groups of similar type, in order of
likelihood of use, with Google Linux-- rather than Google Main-- as
first (because my Google searches are more likely Linux-specific than
'general'). Google itself is second, and the IMDB is third, since I'm
always running to my computer during commercials to get a list of actors
in the movie I'm watching -- "I know her/him from *somewhere*, but...."
Then dictionaries/thesauri (in two languages), then Gentoo-specific
engines, then other Linux engines-- LQF has a Firefox search plugin, did
you know?-- and so on.

The way to do this is to set up a user.js  (easy with the ChromEdit
plugin), and is documented on the MozillaZine forums here:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=177335 (a summary is in
the first post, more detailed instructions on page 5, see the post by
Roger77, which gives the format for the entries). The nice thing about
this is that user.js is in your profile folder, thus is unaffected by an
upgrade, so once you restore your backup plugins (if that's still
necessary), the reinstalled plugins will be in the correct order (your
order, in other words).

Anyway, the search box is one of my favorite features of Firefox. I
watch my bf (a dedicated Mozilla Windows user) typing 'synonym cadence'
in the *Google* Bar because he's trying to remember a(n English) word
for a kind of poetic rythmic title (which turned out to be
'alliteration', which he remembered himself after throwing a snit
because the help he had asked me for was in some way unsatisfactory. The
point being, Google didn't lead him to the answer, but a targeted search
from an appropriate site might have), and regretting that he won't even
try Firefox, where he could just change the search engine to
thesaurus.com (or InterGlot Synonym NL), type the word and have the
specific search results he needed in many fewer steps.

But to each his or her own. I like efficency, and the ability to
customize the search box helps me gain more efficiency in my searches.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

Wow!  Thanks, I've bookmarked this message.  :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
> Sent: 11 August 2005 13:39
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
> Michael Kintzios schreef:
> 
> > [OT]
> > Holly, you mention that you have a zillion search engines 
> incorporated
> > in your browser . . . 8O
> > Where do you get them from?  How can these be added to a browser?
> > [/OT]
> 
> The vast majority of them come from mozdev.org itself. If you 
> click the
> search engine button (the Google logo, in this case), you get a
> drop-down list of available search engines (as you probably know,
> Firefox includes several by default other than Google-- Amazon.com,
> Creative Commons, Ebay, Yahoo, and dictionary.com). At the bottom of
> this list there is an entry "More (or "Add) search engines", which, if
> clicked, opens http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html . On this page,
> you can find a whole lot of search engine plugins for any purpose--
> mostly for specific sites or purposes, including Gentoo Packages
> (packages.gentoo.org), Gentoo Bugzilla, by both summary 
> (word/name) and
>  bug #, the Gentoo Forums, Gentoo-Portage, and the Gentoo 
> Wiki (although
> all of these engines are not necessarily where you'd expect if you go
> through the listing, but putting 'Gentoo' in the page's 
> search box will
> bring them all up). Debian also has some engine plugins, as does
> Mandrake (just one). Not to mention various dictionaries in many
> languages, shopping sites, and other special interest 
> categories. Also,
> a few sites that I visit have plugins that have not (yet) 
> been accepted
> by Firefox, and so are available from the website itself. You may also
> find this to be the case.
> 
> There are two caveats:
> 
> 1. this may have changed, but before the recent 'upgrade every day'
> period (where Firefox was being revised every day over the course of 4
> days), the folder /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/searchplugins (now
> /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/searchplugins) was a root-only 
> folder, meaning
> that you had to install search engine plugins as root. It also meant
> that an upgrade would remove all your installed plugins, 
> restoring the 5
> default plugins. There are Mozilla bugs 'open' for this issue, but I
> don't know their current status. The bugs themselves are linked in the
> thread of the MozillaZine forums I link to below.
> 
> I solved this by a) changing the permissions of the 
> searchplugins folder
> so that I could write to it as a user, so I could install 
> search engines
> as a user; b) once installed, copying the searchplugins 
> folder to /root
> as a backup, so that if an upgrade wiped the folder, I could just copy
> it back.
> 
> 
> 2) Search plugin order is rather random, which can be a problem if you
> have a lot of search plugins. You can, however, set the order of your
> search plugins. I set them up in groups of similar type, in order of
> likelihood of use, with Google Linux-- rather than Google Main-- as
> first (because my Google searches are more likely Linux-specific than
> 'general'). Google itself is second, and the IMDB is third, since I'm
> always running to my computer during commercials to get a 
> list of actors
> in the movie I'm watching -- "I know her/him from 
> *somewhere*, but...."
> Then dictionaries/thesauri (in two languages), then Gentoo-specific
> engines, then other Linux engines-- LQF has a Firefox search 
> plugin, did
> you know?-- and so on.
> 
> The way to do this is to set up a user.js  (easy with the ChromEdit
> plugin), and is documented on the MozillaZine forums here:
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=177335 (a summary is in
> the first post, more detailed instructions on page 5, see the post by
> Roger77, which gives the format for the entries). The nice thing about
> this is that user.js is in your profile folder, thus is 
> unaffected by an
> upgrade, so once you restore your backup plugins (if that's still
> necessary), the reinstalled plugins will be in the correct order (your
> order, in other words).
> 
> Anyway, the search box is one of my favorite features of Firefox. I
> watch my bf (a dedicated Mozilla Windows user) typing 
> 'synonym cadence'
> in the *Google* Bar because he's trying to remember a(n English) word
> for a kind of poetic rythmic title (which turned out to be
> 'alliteration', which he remembered himself after throwing a snit
> because the help he had asked me for was in some way 
> unsatisfactory. The
> point being, Google didn't lead him to the answer, but a 
> targeted search
> from an appropriate site might have), and regretting that he 
> won't even
> try Firefox, where he could just change the search engine to
> thesaurus.com (or InterGlot Synonym NL), type the word and have the
> specific search results he needed in many fewer steps.
> 
> But to each his or her own. I like efficency, and the ability to
> customize the search box helps me gain more efficiency in my searches.
> 
> Holly
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 
> 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Antoine]

Michael Kintzios wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
>>Sent: 11 August 2005 01:32
>>To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>>Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
>>scenes payola
>>
>>
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>And if my theory holds water in any way, then the Mozilla Foundation
>>really would have had no choice but to spin off a for-profit
>>subsidiary... after all, if the money is rolling in (via perfectly
>>legitimate and socially acceptable means), it has to go somewhere, and
>>it can't go to the N-F-P foundation beyond a certain level.
> 
> 
> An accountant could probably advise better, but I would think that there
> are appropriate vehicles (e.g. NfP trusts) which would allow financial
> profits that cannot be expensed in activities supporting the Moz
> Organisation objectives within the financial year, to be stored and in
> turn invested thereafter both in for profit and not schemes so that they
> may grow and prosper.  Making an economic profit is not a problem in
> itself.  Compromising Moz.Org./OSS objectives in seeking to derive this
> profit creates a conflict of interest and therefore it becomes a
> problem.  Of course this may not be the case with the FF/Google
> syndication, I don't really know.

Is this right? AFAIK, non-profits don't actually make "profits" at all,
they have surpluses. The surpluses can't be redistributed as such
(though of course a non-profit could give money away, though would
probably need justification) but they are surpluses that in theory
"should be" reinvested/spent.
I really don't see any reason whatsoever for spinning off a company for
these reasons. In any case, if the company remains wholly owned by the
mozilla foundation then the problem won't go away - if the foundation
decides to withdraw capital it will still be "surplus". I guess the
company could then be sold but I can't see how it would differ from any
other company that is paid to be the guider of an OSS project...
I may be wrong about my assumptions but would be interested to know if
that is wrong...
Cheers
Antoine
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
> Sent: 10 August 2005 13:14
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
> Michael Kintzios schreef:
> 
> > Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
> > trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on
> 
> This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" 
> is, in fact,
> "private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.

Good point!  Perhaps I should have added that I would wish it to be as
private as possible . . .

Do the cookie settings under preferences override FF/Google's preset
cookie flow?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:28:18 +0100
"Michael Kintzios" <michaelkintzios@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

> Do the cookie settings under preferences override FF/Google's preset
> cookie flow?

Yep, the FF/Google cookie flow, yes. But I think you mean the cookie
flow from Google's search result pages' links? No, probably the cookie
settings won't allow to influence this (well, they'll do if you
construct fine-grained per-domain cookie settings). I emphasize it
again: It's NOT google-specific. Prefetching just fetches everything
linked as being "next", and Google just uses this fact.

Prefetching with a different set of general cookie acceptance
permissions than normal website visits would be kind of pointless.
You'd better disable prefetching completely, then.

I'd vote for a preference setting for prefetching:
- disable / enable / enable for the same host only
a little bit like cookie handling.

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Iain Buchanan]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 15:42 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:28:18 +0100
> "Michael Kintzios" <michaelkintzios@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Do the cookie settings under preferences override FF/Google's preset
> > cookie flow?

> I'd vote for a preference setting for prefetching:
> - disable / enable / enable for the same host only
> a little bit like cookie handling.

from http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox "Fortunately, you can
disable this "feature" by entering about:config in the address bar and
then scrolling down to network.prefetch-next and toggling it to false"
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:30:31 +0930
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> > I'd vote for a preference setting for prefetching:
> > - disable / enable / enable for the same host only
> > a little bit like cookie handling.
> 
> from http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox "Fortunately, you can
> disable this "feature" by entering about:config in the address bar and
> then scrolling down to network.prefetch-next and toggling it to false"

Yep, I knew that. But my point was that there should be a third
setting, not only enable/disable, but something like "allow prefetch
only for pages on the same host". Cookie handling already has this,
AFAIK.

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Matt Randolph]

Holly Bostick wrote:

>Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the street.
>  
>

Do you think Jane and John Doe computer users know that?  Do you think 
they know that what they do in Word and Outlook is private, and what 
they do in Internet Explorer is public?  It's only the distance of an 
inch on the computer screen between the icons.  How could they possibly 
know it makes a whole world of difference?

>You can see me. The fact of my existence is not private.
>
>Because you can physically see me, you know a lot of things about me
>already.
>...
>All of this information is *personal*, but *not* "private",
>  
>

If you saw someone following you in the street, writing down your every 
action, documenting what you bought and at which stores you bought it 
at...  If you saw someone recording public but personal information 
about you as you went about your business in public, would you not call 
the police?  What if someone was peering through the window of your home 
yet did it while standing on the public right of way (the sidewalk)?  
What if they had binoculars and a camera?  Have you given up all of your 
rights to privacy in your home by opening your curtains?  If you had any 
sense you would call the police on anyone who did any of those things to 
you because that is harassment and it is none of their goddamned 
business.  It is YOUR business and when all is said and done it is one 
of the few things in this world that you truly have.

How are these business practices fundamentally any different?  Are they 
different somehow because these companies can conduct their surveillance 
invisibly?  Does that somehow make it excusable?

>These issues are indeed worthy of watching (business practices usually
>are), but honestly, don't we have higher-priority "privacy" and security
>issues on our plates?
>
>Holly
>

Do you plan to worry about spying by corporations later on, after they 
have essentially created an easement through your personal business?  
What part of trying to preserve your fundamental right to privacy is not 
vitally important right now? 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Matt Randolph schreef:
> Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>> Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the street.
>>  
>>
> 
> Do you think Jane and John Doe computer users know that?  Do you think
> they know that what they do in Word and Outlook is private, and what
> they do in Internet Explorer is public?  It's only the distance of an
> inch on the computer screen between the icons.  How could they possibly
> know it makes a whole world of difference?

Don't get me started on how responsible I 'should' be in terms of
protecting others from their own stupidity. I am, generally, not for it.
You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't make them, and the lack
of learning is what makes Jane and John Dingbat dingbats in the first
place. Admittedly, there are some mistakes (the fatal kind), that you
don't want people to make as a learning experience, but there is a
reason that they say "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." And I
think there is no way that we can stretch "cookies deposited on your
computer by non-visited sites" to "something that could kill you".

If John and Jane Dingbat don't have a clue, well, that's not so good. If
they don't have a clue that they don't have a clue, well, that's
hopeless. If they have a clue that they don't have a clue, but choose
not to get a clue, then they need to protect themselves in their
voluntary 'blind spot', and that's their responsibility, not mine.

> 
>> You can see me. The fact of my existence is not private.
>>
>> Because you can physically see me, you know a lot of things about me
>> already.
>> ...
>> All of this information is *personal*, but *not* "private",
>>  
>>
> 
> If you saw someone following you in the street, writing down your every
> action, documenting what you bought and at which stores you bought it
> at...  If you saw someone recording public but personal information
> about you as you went about your business in public, would you not call
> the police?  

Not as a first resort, no.

> What if someone was peering through the window of your home
> yet did it while standing on the public right of way (the sidewalk)?

I've actually lived in this situation (a ground floor flat with front
windows on the street), so I know what I'd do. What I did... and what I
would do in the previous situation is confront the person, and (in the
first situation ask them what they were doing), and (if the reason was
not acceptable) inform them that their behaviour was unacceptable and
ask them to/demand that they cease and desist (or move along, as the
case may be). If they then did not, that would be a reason to call the
police. I would, most likely, close my curtains as well (but possibly
not, if I wanted to monitor their activity while waiting for the police).


> What if they had binoculars and a camera?  

Binoculars I probably can't do anything about/don't know anything about,
since the fact that they are using them suggests that they're hiding
from me (it's kinda stupid to stand right in front of my window and yet
use binoculars to look into my open window). Same with a camera, but if
for some reason somebody was standing right in front of my window taking
pictures of the interior of my house, I would do the same (confront them
and ask why), then likely demand the film before telling them to move
along. I might even be induced to replace the unexposed film at my own
cost, depending on the situation.

> Have you given up all of your
> rights to privacy in your home by opening your curtains?  

Sort of-- at least to all areas of your home visible through the window.
It's called "plain sight". If you want privacy, the first line of
defense is to prevent normal human senses from perceiving your activity.
You wouldn't open up your curtains and then murder your spouse right in
front of the open windows, and expect that there would be "no witnesses"
because your right to privacy demands that *no one look* (or hear) your
crime? Does your right to privacy supercede my right to turn my head and
perceive my environment accurately while walking down the street?

Think about disturbing the peace. You are in your house, having a party.
A noisy party. I am in my house, trying to sleep. We are both on our
private property, but your 'private' activity is perceptible to my
senses on my 'private' property-- I can hear you.

I then have a legitimate actionable complaint (because the noise you are
making is clearly public, because I can perceive it, despite the fact
that I am not in your private area). Therefore, the police will act on
it, if I choose to call them (which is how I know it's a legitimate
complaint in the public arena).

> If you had any
> sense you would call the police on anyone who did any of those things to
> you because that is harassment and it is none of their goddamned
> business.  It is YOUR business and when all is said and done it is one
> of the few things in this world that you truly have.

But you don't. 'Everybody' (in your immediate environment) knows "your
business" (or some aspects of it). If not by the space that you
displace, by the space that you don't. Half the time, one's effort to
keep a "secret" reveal that there is a secret to be kept, which just
impells some proportion of the observant to want to know what that
secret is.

You or I are not wraiths. If the aforementioned butcher (who has owned
his store for years) sees me walking down the street every two days, but
I never come in the store, that butcher 'knows' that I have some regular
business on the street, but (for whatever reason) no interest in  meat
(or his meat, at least). The fact that I'm a vegetarian (for this
example) is personal, but it can never be private (although the reason I
chose to become a vegetarian may be), because it is extremely difficult
to completely conceal, from everyone I may encounter in even the most
limited way (travel reservationist, airplane stewardess, neighbors,
people I invite for dinner or who invite me for dinner or dates that
take me out for dinner), that I avoid dead animal meat in any and all forms.

We live in the world with others, and in such a case, what you *do* is
very rarely private (because what you do is usually perceptible to
someone, somewhere). Our notion of 'privacy' is an agreement that we've
made with each other, because there are too many of us, and we are
almost never alone, and the human animal does have a need for
privacy/solitude (there have been experiments as to what happens when
you overpopulate an environment, and generally it makes the animals a
bit nuts). For example, the agreement that one doesn't look at the other
people when on an elevator. It's stupid, but necessary, especially in
urban environments. One is never alone, and solitude is the only way to
ensure 'privacy', because if you take as read that others have the right
to live (which may include perceiving your activity, whether or not they
are actively trying to), their "right" to perceive their environment
cannot help but conflict with your "right" to not be perceived within
that environment. Assuming you have such a right (as opposed to a
desire), which may or may not be the case.

> 
> How are these business practices fundamentally any different?  Are they
> different somehow because these companies can conduct their surveillance
> invisibly?  Does that somehow make it excusable?

If I see you walking down the street, but you don't see me looking at
you, I have conducted my "surveilance" "invisibly". I mean, please. You
say that "people" (individuals or businesses) don't or shouldn't have
the "right" to perceive your existence if you don't specifically
authorize them to. I may not like it, and I may want to keep the level
of what they can perceive to a limit that I specify, but I do not think
that the "right" to perceive one's environment is in and of itself a
crime, if (or just because) that environment includes me. Don't the
administrators of a website have "rights" to know about their 'private'
area (with a public easement) as well?

> 
>> These issues are indeed worthy of watching (business practices usually
>> are), but honestly, don't we have higher-priority "privacy" and security
>> issues on our plates?
>>
> 
> Do you plan to worry about spying by corporations later on, after they
> have essentially created an easement through your personal business? 

The easement already exists, of necessity. Otherwise, the world (or at
least the world of commerce) would come to a fairly sudden stop. Since
we are under the impression that we want to preserve the world of
commerce, we have to live with these inconsitencies.

> What part of trying to preserve your fundamental right to privacy is not
> vitally important right now?

My fundamental right to privacy? About the only true privacy I have is
that of my own thoughts, and so the vitally important action to preserve
that would be preventing anyone from putting a chip in my head (or
body), without my knowledge that would read said thoughts.

I don't care if "you" know what I do. Because 'everybody' knows what I
do anyway in large part (if only by seeing what I *don't* do). If I
desire for some reason to not have anyone know what I do, I have to
actively conceal what I do. But once I am put in that position, I'm out
of the realm of my 'rights', and into the realm of setting my desires
above the 'rights' of others.

I desire to take your television, so I must conceal what I do because
you have the 'right' to retain your television (supposedly."Personal
property", and how it is designated are also agreements that we have
made with each other, fairly recenty). I am well-known, but I desire not
to be perceived (and therefore recognized and most likely interrupted in
my business), so I must conceal my physical appearance so as not to be
recognized, irrespective of your 'right' to perceive and know who is in
your environment. I desire that the boss doesn't discover that I surf
porn (or do other non-work related activity) on the company PC, so I
must conceal the evidence of that, although the boss has the right to
know what 'his' PC is being used for. I desire to entertain myself, or
practice my artistic skills (photograpy, drawing, writing), or my
specific observational skills (maybe I'm a cop aiming for promotion to
detective, or a budding psychologist), so I actively observe people, and
record my observations. I have the "right" to observe, and I also have
the "right" to record my observations, and my observation does not
interfere with whatever you may be doing in any way. But you apparently
have the right to choose not to be observed (despite being in public or
offering an 'easement' to the public, by opening your curtains, which
allows me to observe you). So whose 'rights' win?

It's a sad day when one (i.e., me) has to do a whole morality check
before leaning over somebody's fence to smell a flower in the garden. I
feel so bad about 'infringing on private property' that it almost
overwhelms the pleasure of appreciating the beauty of the flower (which
is, after all, why it was grown, so that its beauty could be appreciated).

It's all a bit sick, if you ask me.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Holly Bostick schreef:
> Matt Randolph schreef:
> 
> 
> 
>>What if they had binoculars and a camera?  
> 
> 
> Same with a camera, but if
> for some reason somebody was standing right in front of my window taking
> pictures of the interior of my house, I would do the same (confront them
> and ask why), then likely demand the film before telling them to move
> along. I might even be induced to replace the unexposed film at my own
> cost, depending on the situation.

What's funny is that this reveals that I carry a vestige of the
superstitious belief that taking a picture steals some or all of your soul.

Otherwise, why would it matter if a stranger had a picture of me? Even
if they were getting paid for publishing said photo, I would hope that
my greed wouldn't come into play (you get paid, so I should get some of
the money for it). Yes, naturally, the photo *could* be used for
criminal purposes (put up on a dating or porn site), which I would
object to, but 1) most people are not criminals and 2) taking the
photograph is not in and of itself a crime (photosouping it onto a naked
body and posting it on a porn site is the crime).

But I must admit that it gives me a chill to think of a stranger taking
photos of me as in the example -- she said, looking at her two photo
postcards, one of a young girl, one of an elder man and woman. I wonder
how they feel about having their pictures on my wall?

H
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
> Sent: 11 August 2005 15:08
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
> Matt Randolph schreef:
> > Holly Bostick wrote:
> > 
> >> Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the street.
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> > Do you think Jane and John Doe computer users know that?  
> Do you think
> > they know that what they do in Word and Outlook is private, and what
> > they do in Internet Explorer is public?  It's only the 
> distance of an
> > inch on the computer screen between the icons.  How could 
> they possibly
> > know it makes a whole world of difference?
> 
> Don't get me started on how responsible I 'should' be in terms of
> protecting others from their own stupidity. I am, generally, 
> not for it.
> You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't make them, 
> and the lack
> of learning is what makes Jane and John Dingbat dingbats in the first
> place. Admittedly, there are some mistakes (the fatal kind), that you
> don't want people to make as a learning experience, but there is a
> reason that they say "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." And I
> think there is no way that we can stretch "cookies deposited on your
> computer by non-visited sites" to "something that could kill you".
> 
> If John and Jane Dingbat don't have a clue, well, that's not 
> so good. If
> they don't have a clue that they don't have a clue, well, that's
> hopeless. If they have a clue that they don't have a clue, but choose
> not to get a clue, then they need to protect themselves in their
> voluntary 'blind spot', and that's their responsibility, not mine.
> 
> > 
> >> You can see me. The fact of my existence is not private.
> >>
> >> Because you can physically see me, you know a lot of 
> things about me
> >> already.
> >> ...
> >> All of this information is *personal*, but *not* "private",
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> > If you saw someone following you in the street, writing 
> down your every
> > action, documenting what you bought and at which stores you 
> bought it
> > at...  If you saw someone recording public but personal information
> > about you as you went about your business in public, would 
> ing used for. I desire to entertain myself, or
> practice my artistic skills (photograpy, drawing, writing), or my
> specific observational skills (maybe I'm a cop aiming for promotion to
> detective, or a budding psychologist), so I actively observe 
> people, and
> record my observations. I have the "right" to observe, and I also have
> the "right" to record my observations, and my observation does not
> interfere with whatever you may be doing in any way. But you 
> apparently
> have the right to choose not to be observed (despite being in 
> public or
> offering an 'easement' to the public, by opening your curtains, which
> allows me to observe you). So whose 'rights' win?

I think that a lot of this argument hinges on the parallel drawn by
Holly above: "Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the
street" which is 'almost' correct.  Unlike your average street the
Internet is selectively transparent with regards to our movements.  This
is so because the Internet does not automatically and uniformally
provide information about everyone's presence and movements.  Anyone
walking down the street can see others and others can see them.  On the
Internet the same information needs to be gleaned and perhaps deciphered
using more than your average browser, mail client and IM.  It's not
automatic and unintentional for all participants, it presumes intent and
ability.  So, it's not exactly like walking down the street.

My angle/wish is simply this.  I find the Internet invaluable for
providing access to information.  I would like this access to remain
unimpeded and as free as possible.  I suggest that this can be so if no
one can monitor the type and content of information people seek in a
personally attributable way.  Furthermore, I would rather that people
had a choice of remaining totally anonymous in their search and
consumption of information and were in no way penalised for exercising
it (think of it in the context of being a citizen in a country with a
totalitarian regime and you'll get my drift).  I suspect that this
freedom to access is increasingly and gradually being reduced.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Benno Schulenberg]

Holly Bostick wrote:
> I have the "right" to observe, and I also have
> the "right" to record my observations,

Yes, as an individual you have that right (unless you're observing 
military installations :).  But Google is a company, and companies 
are bound to some rules:

http://home.planet.nl/~privacy1/wbp_en_rev.htm

Or in a more understandable form (but in Dutch):

http://www.justitie.nl/themas/meer/hoofdlijnen_wbp.asp

In short: "Organisations may only collect and use personal data for 
a well-defined goal.  This goal they must define up front, before 
starting the collection of data.  They may not collect more data 
than strictly necessary for that goal."  Etcetera, etcetera.

Benno
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Ian K]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1825 bytes --]

Benno Schulenberg wrote:

>Holly Bostick wrote:
>  
>
>>I have the "right" to observe, and I also have
>>the "right" to record my observations,
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, as an individual you have that right (unless you're observing 
>military installations :).  But Google is a company, and companies 
>are bound to some rules:
>
>http://home.planet.nl/~privacy1/wbp_en_rev.htm
>
>Or in a more understandable form (but in Dutch):
>
>http://www.justitie.nl/themas/meer/hoofdlijnen_wbp.asp
>
>In short: "Organisations may only collect and use personal data for 
>a well-defined goal.  This goal they must define up front, before 
>starting the collection of data.  They may not collect more data 
>than strictly necessary for that goal."  Etcetera, etcetera.
>
>Benno
>  
>
I personally think it is an uneeded FireFox bashing. I do agree that a
software
program should not be as dependant on a single website (Google) as
FireFox is.
I think that the instant "Im Feeling Lucky" feature needs some big changes.

And for those of us who would rather not use Google, well, its a pain.

I know that FireFox is trying to be helpful, and I understand that. I
just dont
want to see it on the road to Microsoft Word's 'helpfulness'. I DONT WANT TO
TAB IT, $#@! IT!!! ..ahem..

Ive seen worse features in programs, but I think that FireFox should be
less dependant on something like a website. That really should go
for anything, if no program depended on anything else, it would make
installs (Yes I know about emerge, :) ) much easier.

I think that Mozilla's financial status is completely irrelevant to this
story, and in no way affects their program. In fact, if they pull in money,
they can use it to make their browser/emailClient much better.

This article has some truths, but also some major faults.
Im still happy to use Firefox.
Ian

[-- Attachment #2: omega_2_1.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 275 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:Ian K
n:K;Ian
email;internet:omega_2_1@yahoo.ca
note;quoted-printable:Pentium 3=0D=0A=
	500mHz=0D=0A=
	256MB RAM=0D=0A=
	80.0GB HDD=0D=0A=
	ATI Radeon 7000 Evil Wizard 64MB=0D=0A=
	Computer name: "PentaQuad"=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Antoine]

Holly Bostick wrote:
> Michael Kintzios schreef:
> 
> 
>>Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing
>>trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on
> 
> 
> This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" is, in fact,
> "private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.
> 
> Surfing the Internet is a lot like walking down the street.
> 
> You can see me. The fact of my existence is not private.
> 
> Because you can physically see me, you know a lot of things about me
> already.
> 
> 1. I am human.
> 
> 2. I am female.
> 
> 3. I am of childbearing age (you don't know my exact age, but you can
> see that I am older than 9 and younger than 50).
> 
> 4. I am of African descent.
> 
> 5. I am (for the purposes of this example), wearing a wedding ring, so I
> am or was in a committed relationship, most likely with a man.

How would you feel if a company bought lots of
too-small-to-be-readily-visible flying cameras (like the mosquito-cams
in the Dan Brown book Deception Point :-)) and followed you around
wherever you went (in these "public" places, which would certainly
include shops but not the bathroom...)? Without you being conscious of it?
Very useful to follow someone around to get their (window)shopping
habits, and almost certainly completely illegal. How are these different
(apart from legality)?
Cheers
Antoine
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Antoine schreef:

> How would you feel if a company bought lots of
> too-small-to-be-readily-visible flying cameras (like the mosquito-cams
> in the Dan Brown book Deception Point :-)) and followed you around
> wherever you went (in these "public" places, which would certainly
> include shops but not the bathroom...)? Without you being conscious of it?
> Very useful to follow someone around to get their (window)shopping
> habits, and almost certainly completely illegal. How are these different
> (apart from legality)?

OK, now explain to me why they are "almost certainly illegal".

My guess is because humans are made very uncomfortable by constant
observation-- i.e., a lack of solitude, which condition is ever
increasing. You are almost never alone; in fact one must really go out
of one's way to be 'alone' in today's world. You are always reachable,
if you have a cell phone. With video phones now here, you're not only
reachable, but visible. No more picking up the phone naked and unkempt.
Because, as social animals (and curious ones), we find it hard to resist
picking up the phone when it rings.

So this discomfort has been codified into law in some fashion (or
several fashions), since we refuse to stop the march of technology (or
slow the expansion of the human race, which is eating away at our
ability to be 'private', which essentially means 'alone with our thoughts'.

But this is a social issue masquerading as legalities. Because the
actual fact of someone knowing where I shop (which many people know,
without me being conscious of it) is not relevant to anything. *It
doesn't matter if anyone knows this*, except insofar as they choose to
use the information in a way that I'm not happy with, which is a fact of
life on Planet Earth-- some proportion of people will use the
information they have in a way I'm not happy with. The real issue is
that knowing that such constant observation is occurring, without our
active consciousness of it, or ability to control or limit it, *makes
our skin crawl*, which is a human thing. That doesn't make it "bad" (in
some eternal sense), any more than the fact that most people have a
'natural' fear of snakes (all snakes, even the harmless ones) makes
snakes "bad".

I understand that things that make our skin crawl are a 'problem' that
we have to solve in order to manage a society successfully, but there's
a big difference between 'agreements that humans make with each other to
make our lives bearable' and 'natural law' (i.e., inalienable rights).

I just wish we'd stop confusing the one with the other.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Bob Sanders]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:19:43 +0200
Antoine <melser.anton@gmail.com> wrote:

> How would you feel if a company bought lots of
> too-small-to-be-readily-visible flying cameras (like the mosquito-cams
> in the Dan Brown book Deception Point :-)) and followed you around
> wherever you went (in these "public" places, which would certainly
> include shops but not the bathroom...)? Without you being conscious of it?
> Very useful to follow someone around to get their (window)shopping
> habits, and almost certainly completely illegal. How are these different
> (apart from legality)?

Um...you may not know this, but Holly is in the UK.  London in particular has
cameras all over the place.  From what I've heard, it's not possible to walk in
public there without being recorded.  In public, there is already a trail of her
activities.

Bob
-  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 564 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:51:36 -0700, Bob Sanders wrote:

> Um...you may not know this, but Holly is in the UK.  London in
> particular has cameras all over the place.  From what I've heard, it's
> not possible to walk in public there without being recorded.  In
> public, there is already a trail of her activities.

I thought Holly was in Holland, but she can answer that for herself.

The UK does have the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita, Big
Brother is not just a TV show :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I am Flatulus of Borg. Pull my finger.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Neil Bothwick schreef:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:51:36 -0700, Bob Sanders wrote:
> 
> 
>>Um...you may not know this, but Holly is in the UK.  London in
>>particular has cameras all over the place.  From what I've heard, it's
>>not possible to walk in public there without being recorded.  In
>>public, there is already a trail of her activities.
> 
> 
> I thought Holly was in Holland, but she can answer that for herself.

Yep, born in the US; New York City, in fact, which is why I tend to go
on about one's 'right' to be accurately aware of your environment--
there have been many periods in NYC history where it was critically
important to actively observe your 'local environment' in order to be
aware (for instance) that a released mental patient was near you on the
subway platform (because there was a rash of such people pushing
strangers onto the tracks), not to mention the 'Crazy man of 96th
Street', who assaulted people with thrown objects when they were walking
along the street.

I moved to The Netherlands 5 years ago. I've never been to the UK, but
from the news, it looks like they're getting almost as 'paranoid' about
accurately assessing their environment as the US is since 2001. Which is
not a big surprise, both due to the attacks, and due to the fact that
everybody is now playing 'catchup' in terms of 'what the hell is
actually happening in the area for which I'm responsible'?

It often happens that if you let something go for a while, when the time
comes around that you finally need to take care of it, you have to do a
lot more work than if you had been keeping track of the job's
necessities all along. And if you have to do a lot of work, very fast,
most people will often go 'overboard'-- do everything possible, because
the lack of organization in the job due to the lack of prior attention,
and the time constraints make it impossible to distinguish what is
strictly necessary to be done to accomplish the job, as opposed to what
is possible to do but not strictly necessary.

So it's no big surprise that we've gone from 'observing very little' (in
an effort to maintain the illusion of privacy), to 'observing everything
possible, whether or not it's relevant' (because we have realized that
being unaware of your environment is dangerous, but since we haven't
been observing up to this point, we have no way to judge exactly what
information is relevant to minimizing or eliminating the dangerous
conditions). Because we have made significant technological advances, we
now have the ability to observe quite a great deal. And we're 'stupid'
enough to be happy about that, as if the ability to observe, collect and
maintain irrelevant data is not a waste of resources and attention, and
as if our ability to 'entertain' the masses with irrelevant observation
(Reality TV) is not itself undermining our ability to limit the amount
of observation in our personal lives *to* the relevant.

Big Brother may be watching you, but you watch Big Brother-- that show
with the incredibly ironic name-- don't you? So who are 'you' (generic)
to talk about 'privacy'? Much less as a inalienable right, when it's
clear that this right can be happily bought and sold?

Holly



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:17:40 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:

> Big Brother may be watching you, but you watch Big Brother-- that show
> with the incredibly ironic name-- don't you?

No way!

> So who are 'you' (generic)
> to talk about 'privacy'? Much less as a inalienable right, when it's
> clear that this right can be happily bought and sold?

The contestants are not really selling their privacy, just performing for
pay. but even if they were, it is theirs' to give or sell, not ours to
take. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Neil Bothwick schreef:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:17:40 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
> 
>>Big Brother may be watching you, but you watch Big Brother-- that show
>>with the incredibly ironic name-- don't you?
> 
> 
> No way!
> 
> 
>>So who are 'you' (generic)
>>to talk about 'privacy'? Much less as a inalienable right, when it's
>>clear that this right can be happily bought and sold?
> 
> 
> The contestants are not really selling their privacy, just performing for
> pay. but even if they were, it is theirs' to give or sell, not ours to
> take. 
> 
> 
I thought that the whole point of an inalienable right was that it could
not be bought or sold (or given or taken, for that matter).

I was thinking about the distinction you made, and wondering if it meant
that I could legally sell my (supposed) inalienable right to
freedom/liberty on eBay (i.e., can I sell myself into slavery-- not
indentured servitude, but actual slavery, which would be the only
condition in which I had sold my inalienable right, rather than just my
labor for a specified amount of time).

If I did, would the buyer be performing an illegal act by buying my
right to liberty? The contract itself is, by your reasoning, perfectly
legal, but it is illegal to hold slaves, because it compromises my
"inalieanble" right to liberty... which I have sold, which (according to
you) I may do. But of course, I do not have the right to sell my liberty
at all

in·al·ien·a·ble   Audio pronunciation of "inalienable"  P
Pronunciation Key  (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
 adj.
That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.

because inalienable rights may not be transferred to others, by any
means, willing or unwilling. So any such contract is invalid.

I really question the distinction that Big Brother contestants are
performing for pay, rather than selling their right to privacy. At what
point is the distinction made that they're 'performing', rather than
just 'living' under specified conditions? Because they're on TV? But
that's a circular argument-- they sold their right to privacy (which
they presumably may not sell, if such a right is inalienable) to be on
TV, but because they're on TV, their right to privacy no longer applies,
because any appearance on TV is classified as a 'performance', even if
that performance appears indistinguishable from 'real life'. Witness the
many live surgery shows now appearing. That actually *is* real life...
isn't it? But the patient has consented to overlook (for pay, or other
compensation) their (inalienable?) right to privacy when their body is
being sliced open (or is the interior of your body not private?) in
order that it be televised. In any case, it looks to be a damn slippery
slope to be starting down, if one really is concerned about what
'others' may observe about one and what others may not observe.

Is the right to privacy actually inalienable? If so, is all of it
inalienable, or just some of it? How much? If not, and we have no
inalienable right to privacy in any degree, then all we're talking about
is a (relatively) minor agreement between humans in order to maintain
society (as opposed to a meta-agreement like the inalienable rights to
life, liberty, etc), and those are always going to be something where
some of us don't agree with the compromise ultimately reached.

But this is back to where I started... the ultimate meaning of "the
right to privacy" and the extent and nature of such a right, is a far
more important question than whether Mozilla is accepting "dirty" money
from Google, who (possibly) violates said right...because it's
impossible to judge whether someone is violating a right that is
indistinct in extent and ambiguous in meaning.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1135 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:16:21 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:

> > The contestants are not really selling their privacy, just performing
> > for pay. but even if they were, it is theirs' to give or sell, not
> > ours to take. 

> I thought that the whole point of an inalienable right was that it could
> not be bought or sold (or given or taken, for that matter).
> 
> I was thinking about the distinction you made, and wondering if it meant
> that I could legally sell my (supposed) inalienable right to
> freedom/liberty on eBay (i.e., can I sell myself into slavery-- not
> indentured servitude, but actual slavery,

That's not a valid comparison, because the idi^H^H^Hcontestants on BB are
only selling their privacy for a limited time, not for good. Most of them
probably find their lives become private again far sooner than they had
wished, the talentless, publicity-seeking wannabes.

Besides that, if freedom is an inalienable right, does that not include
the freedom to sell that freedom? Not that we really have any truly
inalienable rights.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'd give real money if he'd shut up!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Uwe Thiem]

On 12 August 2005 16:16, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Neil Bothwick schreef:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:17:40 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> >>Big Brother may be watching you, but you watch Big Brother-- that show
> >>with the incredibly ironic name-- don't you?
> >
> > No way!
> >
> >>So who are 'you' (generic)
> >>to talk about 'privacy'? Much less as a inalienable right, when it's
> >>clear that this right can be happily bought and sold?
> >
> > The contestants are not really selling their privacy, just performing for
> > pay. but even if they were, it is theirs' to give or sell, not ours to
> > take.
>
> I thought that the whole point of an inalienable right was that it could
> not be bought or sold (or given or taken, for that matter).

Privacy isn't an unalienable right. You can install webcams all over your 
house or flat and let people pay to watch you. Actually, there is such a web 
site. ;-)

Uwe

-- 
95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software 
developers. - Linus Torvalds

http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holly Bostick [mailto:motub@planet.nl] 
> Sent: 12 August 2005 16:16
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
[snip]
> I really question the distinction that Big Brother contestants are
> performing for pay, rather than selling their right to 
> privacy. 

I don't really watch this program despite the fact that it's being
pumped onto us at all times of night and day, but I was reading on the
newspaper that a certain contestant's* agency invoiced channel4 for her
appearance on BB.  Apparently there was an outcry amidst aficionados of
BB that the rules of the program were compromised, because she is not a
normal joe public but an artist (of some sort).

  * I can't recall her name, but she was described as a new entrant who
performed a lewd act using a bottle on the living room floor . . .
puleeeeze!
-- 
Regards,
Mick

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Sanders [mailto:rmsand@concentric.net] 
> Sent: 12 August 2005 03:52
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the 
> scenes payola
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:19:43 +0200
> Antoine <melser.anton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > How would you feel if a company bought lots of
> > too-small-to-be-readily-visible flying cameras (like the 
> mosquito-cams
> > in the Dan Brown book Deception Point :-)) and followed you around
> > wherever you went (in these "public" places, which would certainly
> > include shops but not the bathroom...)? Without you being 
> conscious of it?
> > Very useful to follow someone around to get their (window)shopping
> > habits, and almost certainly completely illegal. How are 
> these different
> > (apart from legality)?
> 
> Um...you may not know this, but Holly is in the UK.  London 
> in particular has
> cameras all over the place.  From what I've heard, it's not 
> possible to walk in
> public there without being recorded.  In public, there is 
> already a trail of her
> activities.
> 
> Bob

Just FYI:  There's also cameras installed in the toilets of many
establishments.  A friend of a friend got arrested for snorting class A
substances in the lav.  The funny thing is that he was a copper and he
had confiscated the said substance a few minutes earlier . . . :D

Quoting from WSJ.com: "In all, there are at least 500,000 cameras in the
city, and one study showed that in a single day a person could expect to
be filmed 300 times."  Now if you add the times you've been to the
toilet you see that Holly is quite accurate in saying that you can only
be alone in your thoughts - Big Brother is watching . . .

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Paul M Foster]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:14:26PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:05:34PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox
> > > 
> > > Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
> > > certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
> > > Just a bad mark on Mozilla.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to 
> > make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have 
> > made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This 
> > seems the same to me as Ford offering a television show free cars so 
> > that whenever you see a car in the show, it's a Ford. This is as old as 
> > advertising itself.
> > 

<snip>

> 
> Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in
> Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google
> may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but
> "IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If
> Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never
> visited, I have a problem with that. 

IANAL, and I'm not privvy to all the laws pertaining to non-profits, but 
I think that what really defines a non-profit is that no single person 
or group "profits" from the entity. And I think that non-profits 
routinely gain funds from investments in other entities. I'm not sure, 
but I think this is the case.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Billy Holmes]

Paul M Foster wrote:

> I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to 
> make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have 
> made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This 

Some people have this idea that making money from OSS is wrong. Perhaps 
if they gave Mozilla a bunch of cows and goats it would be better...
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Holly Bostick]

Billy Holmes schreef:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> 
>> I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla
>> to make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could
>> have made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's
>> bad? This 
> 
> 
> Some people have this idea that making money from OSS is wrong. Perhaps
> if they gave Mozilla a bunch of cows and goats it would be better...

Aside from the previously-made point that no one has actually "said"
that Mozilla is "making money" from this transaction (if I download and
burn a Linux CD and sell such CDs to others who cannot due to lack of
broadband, asking only the cost of the blank CD and shipping, I am not
"making money"; I am only recouping my costs), has anyone actually
"proven" that Google's position as default search engine is because
Google 'paid' Mozilla for that position?

I mean, Google is arguably the best search engine, so it would have
presumably been the default anyway. Heaven knows that if it was a
question of money, Microsoft has enough to throw around that if that was
the only determining factor, the default would likely be MSN search.

It does happen that you do me an honor (making my search engine the
default), and I show my appreciation for that by doing you a favor
(donating some money to your project).

We call it 'professional courtesy', and it's not the same as 'payola',
although it can look that way to the extremely suspicious.

Even if Google did buy their position, if in some burst of insanity I
decided that AltaVista was better, I could change my default to AltaVista.

So Mozilla still gets their money (and I do want them to have some
money, btw), and I still get the default search engine I want.

Of course I have 50 search engines available in my search box, so
'default search engine' is not as meaningful in my case as it might be
to others who don't feel the need to use the appropriate specific engine
for each individual search, as I do.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Michael Crute]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2824 bytes --]

Hey guys just to put this all in perspective the guy who wrote that silly 
little article is a nutcase that is waging some weird holy war against 
google. His other sites are:

http://www.google-watch.org/
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/

So check those out first and that will squash what little credibility that 
article started out with. This guy is really of his rocker.

-Mike

On 8/10/05, Holly Bostick <motub@planet.nl> wrote:
> 
> Billy Holmes schreef:
> > Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla
> >> to make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could
> >> have made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's
> >> bad? This
> >
> >
> > Some people have this idea that making money from OSS is wrong. Perhaps
> > if they gave Mozilla a bunch of cows and goats it would be better...
> 
> Aside from the previously-made point that no one has actually "said"
> that Mozilla is "making money" from this transaction (if I download and
> burn a Linux CD and sell such CDs to others who cannot due to lack of
> broadband, asking only the cost of the blank CD and shipping, I am not
> "making money"; I am only recouping my costs), has anyone actually
> "proven" that Google's position as default search engine is because
> Google 'paid' Mozilla for that position?
> 
> I mean, Google is arguably the best search engine, so it would have
> presumably been the default anyway. Heaven knows that if it was a
> question of money, Microsoft has enough to throw around that if that was
> the only determining factor, the default would likely be MSN search.
> 
> It does happen that you do me an honor (making my search engine the
> default), and I show my appreciation for that by doing you a favor
> (donating some money to your project).
> 
> We call it 'professional courtesy', and it's not the same as 'payola',
> although it can look that way to the extremely suspicious.
> 
> Even if Google did buy their position, if in some burst of insanity I
> decided that AltaVista was better, I could change my default to AltaVista.
> 
> So Mozilla still gets their money (and I do want them to have some
> money, btw), and I still get the default search engine I want.
> 
> Of course I have 50 search engines available in my search box, so
> 'default search engine' is not as meaningful in my case as it might be
> to others who don't feel the need to use the appropriate specific engine
> for each individual search, as I do.
> 
> Holly
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 


-- 
________________________________
Michael E. Crute
Software Developer
SoftGroup Development Corporation

"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3387 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Philip Webb]

050810 Michael Crute wrote:
> the guy who wrote that silly little article is a nutcase
> that is waging some weird holy war against google. His other sites are:
>   http://www.google-watch.org/
>   http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
> So check those out first and that will squash what little credibility
> that article started out with. This guy is really of his rocker.

No more than Groklaw, I'ld say, in fact probably somewhat less.

He has a link to an interesting mathematical analysis of Google counts :

  http://aixtal.blogspot.com/2005/01/web-googles-counts-faked.html

Just for the more general record, I see nothing wrong
with Firefox making some money out of its default search engine:
as others have pointed out, it's easy to change to another.
There's nothing wrong with earning an honest loonie (buck, quid etc):
it's when you bully or deceive that real questions arise.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:52:10 -0400
"John J. Foster" <Gentoo-User@festus.150ml.com> wrote:

> Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
> certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
> Just a bad mark on Mozilla.

This is to be separated:

#1: Google is implemented as Mozilla's #1 Search Engine in the list.
#2: Google uses the Mozilla Browser's prefetching feature

ad #1: If that makes Mozilla a bad browser for you, you're free to fork
your own source tree and have whatever-you-like as #1 search engine.

ad #2: Certainly this imposes a privacy leak. But it's a feature you
can disable - as well as, e.g. including images from foreign web sites.
That cookie argument doesn't count: any image linked from other sites
can do the very same.


-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list