I really hate it when companies try to sugar coat a decision that is all downside for their customers. It may be really hard to do, but Google should just come out and say it: there is no upside for this to anyone except Google. It is not about giving you a better experience or making things more straightforward. It is all about Google deciding to maximize their profits at the expense of their users. That's fine, it's what businesses (ultimately) do (even the ones that pretend they put their users first). Google should just say it - they no longer want to support a free version of their product because they can make more money another way.

When I see ridiculous sugar coating it breeds distrust and disbelief - congratulations Google, I now believe every single future thing you say a little less, well done.

Reading what he is talking about, Stallman's description is absolutely correct. If I am doing a desktop search for local files, it is not be expectation that that search will be transmitted to servers without my consent, and that it does so makes it spyware even if we don't also take into consideration that it is being done to track my interests for monetary gain in the form of referral links. Good on him for calling attention to this functionality.

I'm kind of amazed that a story like this can _still_ elicit negative responses here. Maybe the gov't should provide this, maybe not. Either way: it doesn't right now, but Larry Page just did. I think that is pretty cool. Bravo.

Richard Stallman is absolutely correct in calling this spyware. At the very least, this "feature" should be off by default.

A lot of people are pointing out that if you do not like something, don't use it. It's simple enough, and have a "sounds right" tone to it. As an implied statement with this, anyone complaining should just shut up then.

This is a rather crazy line of thought once one actually starts to think about it. If I see a poisonous (say rotten) food being sold, I find it almost my duty to inform people. Somehow it's now being argued, that I should stay quiet and vote with my feet/wallet instead? If a company does something clearly distasteful and harmful to others, staying quiet and voting with your feet is not a good idea. This should be obvious to everyone. At best, you are ignoring the problem, and at worst, you are implicitly allowing the situation to continue.

If something is harming others, staying quiet or saying that "users should know better and not act like they do" is not the way to go. If the search box was labeled "ask amazon about this", then this would have been a no-brainer and no one would object to this. Its the same as labeling some food-like objects as non-edible. Canonical search however does not do this, and tricks users to send data that they believe is private.

Imagine a worker at a company, using this function to search for internal document including a string with company secrets. Whooops, now that data is at Amazon. Imagine a police worker, seaching for email with witness details. whooops, now that data is also sent to Amazon. Imagine a normal person searching for emails that includes their credit card. Whoops, gone gone. And let's not discuss things that private people honestly, truly, do not wish other people know, or for that matter, journalists.

This is not fair to the users, and RMS points this out. It might even be illegal in some if not all european countries. At the least it's something to write about and inform users about the risk involved.