Exactly ... and as for suggestions ... they may be sending requests with keystrokes, but I would imagine they are not 'storing' them along with their order and identifiable data (They could be, but I doubt it). I would think that would be too unreliable and risky in terms of performance. Firefox does essentially the same thing via it's search box when Google and/or Yahoo are selected.

I bet they do store *queries*. A Request does not automatically equate to storing something in a database. Do MSN/BING/Yahoo!/[INSERTSEARCHPROVIDER] not store the queries (along with environmental info. about those queries) and the subsequent clicks and look at that data?

And there's things like this from the article:
---
In the second part of the video, LePage demonstrates how Internet Explorer 8 has a privacy feature called InPrivate, a privacy mode to allow browsing without leaving a trace. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge the existence of Google Chrome's Incognito, which disables history tracking, which undercuts his argument.
---

And there's the question of how IE does it's Anti-phishing ... I'm sure it send all your URL's through M$'s network. Does he address whether or not those are stored? M$ is just mad that Google beat them to the idea ... Look for it in a future version of IE. Move along folks ... nothing new to see here.

Just check your browser's privacy options and set them to level you are comfortable using them.

"(1) "Subversive organization" means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of ...

• controlling - lobbyists, right?
• conducting - lobbyists and defense contractors
• seizing - either party in an election year, year before an election year ... or these days, the day after the election we just had.
• overthrowing the government of the United States - what the hell does that mean!?!?!?!?

...

But in the end ... I think this (bolded) is the important part:
... of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means

So .. in the end, it's just a virtual turing stupidity test; An easy way to round up the bottom feeder idiot anarchists/communists/whatever-ists.

Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information, Google knows someone wants this information, and the attack originated in China?

Malevolent/Corrupt/Evil ... yet. Odd ... no.

And to make waters muddier ... how about throwing this in the mix ... to whom is the 'responsible' part of responsible disclosure? If I paid for software (.e.g IBM DB2 and other commercial vendors are on the list), the company needs to be responsible and disclose the issue to me if it was disclosed to them (... IMO). How many vendors do that when a security researcher/firm 'responsibly' discloses a vulnerability/exploit to them (with or without embargo date)?

There's more than one angle for responsibility in the debate.

I think there's validity to that ... for most semi-responsible developers.

However, if you are programming with security exceptions, you are likely to develop things that have/require more security exceptions (e.g. you must be admin/dbo/superuser/root to run it). It's not going to happen just because you're running as admin ... but it becomes much easier to do so ... unless you have pretty rigorous testing specifically targeting other user types. My team all has regular user accounts on their desktops and we do just fine. A couple of us (me as lead) have admin rights to maintain the system (we have a duplicated network/environment to do our work), install stuff etc.

Why propagate the Microsoft development model of must-be-admin-to-run-the-software?>

One way is to buy-and-shelf. There's also flooding the market with a free-but-inferior product ... that didn't quite work with Money against Quicken though

and made contractual obligations with their resellers. *gasp*

Some would say that's where they used thugs and tommy guns ... or some modern equivalent, like lawyers who can manipulate 'immoral laws'. Yes ... if OEMs and other companies had more cojones to tell M$ to screw off, some of this would have taken care of itself. Of course, we're in the US ... we use legislators and lawyers to solve that stuff.