http://searchcio.techtarget.com/news/1140155/Massachusetts-CIO-defends-move-to-OpenDocument http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/massachusetts-open-source-fight-becomes-partisan/506 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/top-national-advocate-for-the-disabled-sets-terms-for-endorsement-of-opendocument-format/2163 (among many others)

Not all: http://zareason.com/shop/ZaReason-s-Open-Hardware-Warranty.html

I mean, don't you have to connect to PSN to get the updates that kill OtherOS? If so, I see only win. :) I mean, that's the icing on the cake. The decision they've forced for us OtherOS users is between staying away from GameOS and PSN or staying away from PSN and getting another SPU and access to the GPU. I don't see the downside, frankly.

But it is not like Bind crawled Google or anything like that, which Google would like everyone to believe.

But they did. Instead of using a program to do the clicking, they used humans.

It's not just the Bing Toolbar; it's also (certain features of?) IE. From TOFA at http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914

Microsoft does disclose that Suggested Sites collects information about sites you visit. From the privacy policy: When Suggested Sites is turned on, the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information. To help protect your privacy, the information is encrypted when sent to Microsoft. Information associated with the web address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included. For example, if you visited the Microsoft.com search website at http://search.microsoft.com/ and entered "Seattle" as the search term, the full address http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?q=Seattle&qsc0=0&FORM=QBMH1&mkt=en-US will be sent. I've bolded the key parts. What you're searching on gets sent to Microsoft. Even though the example provided involves a search on Microsoft.com, the policy doesn't prevent any search -- including those at Google -- from being sent back.

It's worth reading the IE privacy policy to see what all they reserve the right to do with what you do in IE. I don't see the limitations regarding which components specifically will spy on you; some mention it specifically and then there's a broad statement about recording what you do and sending it to Redmond.

IMHO, that's the real story here. That, and the fact that people apparently still need reminding that MSFT is an advertiser just like GOOG, just less successful at it to date.

MSFT sells clicks too (don't forget that the primary reason MSFT is trying to kill GOOG is to seize its advertising revenue. MSFT is a major player in the advertising space.

yes, and data from the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps is *only* used against terrorists.

It's not in the EULA.

You're right; it's perhaps in the privacy policy (arguably, this is part of the EULA, but it's also a separate document):

Microsoft does disclose that Suggested Sites collects information about sites you visit. From the privacy policy: When Suggested Sites is turned on, the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information. To help protect your privacy, the information is encrypted when sent to Microsoft. Information associated with the web address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included. For example, if you visited the Microsoft.com search website at http://search.microsoft.com/ and entered âoeSeattleâ as the search term, the full address http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?q=Seattle&qsc0=0&FORM=QBMH1&mkt=en-US will be sent. Iâ(TM)ve bolded the key parts. What youâ(TM)re searching on gets sent to Microsoft. Even though the example provided involves a search on Microsoft.com, the policy doesnâ(TM)t prevent any search â" including those at Google â" from being sent back.

(source: TOFA: http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914) It's worth reading the rest of the privacy policy; apparently other bits of IE can and will send your information to Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/privacy.aspx

> quite arguably libelous claiming or inferring that a competitor is stealing your product. Perhaps, but the > If they actually believe this to be true, why not launch an actual lawsuit. Umm, this is true of so many things. And also completely irrelevant to "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users." > Otherwise, I'd just call it competition Currently, the argument you're trying to present, "Microsoft copying Google's search results is just competition" is orthogonal to the discussion I'm having, "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users."

I don't follow your argument. You have to be either a person (e.g. the click farms) or a script (pretty clear) simulating being an interested person clicking on an ad with the aim of causing the website owner to get paid by the advertising company in order for it to be click fraud.

it's not just IE, though it's the one currently involved. You need to read what your software vendor reserves the right to do, particularly in the realm of installing code without your knowledge or (further) consent and spying. It'll still be interesting to see the anti-Google Microsofties keep up the refrain of Google spies on you, so use Microsoft instead.

They do spy on (sorry, gather 'click stream' data from) IE users (through IE itself, or one of its add-ons). Read those EULAs veeery carefully, folks!

Somehow this extremely relevant part of the story keeps getting skipped over whenever it's being told.

The 'click fraud' accusation is hilarious and quite arguably libelous as fraud (and click fraud) is a real criminal act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud
"Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.

Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, USA."
(also claimed to be a felony at http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/click-fraud.html with claims of arrests.)

Yep. Add to it the fact that the update that kills otheros is only required if you want to keep using "your" ps3 (how is it yours if it obeys another party not you and it's arguably illegal to change this?) for games and sony online content. That is, if you value OtherOS (like I do), you pretty much already dedicated the box to doing only linux. Combine the various hacks that will allow you to escape OtherOS with this fact and the net result is that you can either stay in the now-unsupported sandbox with its six SPUs or else you can hack "your" ps3 to get the full seven SPUs (and perhaps play games again). I only see win here.