Bing moving to encrypt search traffic

[wraith808]

Bing Moving to Encrypt Search Traffic by Default

I'm a little bit skeptical of the reasons behind this... looks more like they want to lock out outside people from seeing things for their own benefit more than protect users...

[Stoic Joker]

Oh Baby, Security Theater at its finest..

I joust love this part:

However, to further protect our users’ privacy, we will not include the used query terms.  We will still provide some limited query term data available without compromising the security of customer data through our various webmaster and advertiser tools

...And just WTF is "Query Term Data"?? They go into 3 paragraphs of smokescreen to attempt to outline what is(/n't) about to happen. But they never clarify - like by example - what it is.

Here's a for instance: I do a bing search for Nipple Clamps, select a site from the Bing results, and Bing tells the site OP that I was looking for what exactly???

You can't put a logo on a Plain-Brown-Wrapper without defeating its purpose.

[wraith808]

You can't put a logo on a Plain-Brown-Wrapper without defeating its purpose.

-Stoic Joker (June 18, 2015, 11:22 AM)

That was exactly my thought.  But wanted to know if other people were reading the same thing...

[Innuendo]

...And just WTF is "Query Term Data"?? They go into 3 paragraphs of smokescreen to attempt to outline what is(/n't) about to happen. But they never clarify - like by example - what it is.

Here's a for instance: I do a bing search for Nipple Clamps, select a site from the Bing results, and Bing tells the site OP that I was looking for what exactly???

-Stoic Joker (June 18, 2015, 11:22 AM)

After reading the blog post, my interpretation of this announcement is, and I'll use your example, this:

If you do a Bing search for nipple clamps and select a site from the results, what's passed on to the site is a referrer letting the site owner that you came via Bing. However, what search terms you used to get there are not disclosed. The site owner can use Bing's query tools and discover that 17 people did search for nipple clamps before visiting their site, but nothing that personally identifies you will be disclosed.

Just my interpretation of my announcement, though. What may actually transpire may indeed be more insidious.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't use Bing as my search engine, have never used Bing as my search engine, and probably never will use Bing as my search engine.

[TaoPhoenix]

Does anyone have an actual referrer string?

[Innuendo]

Does anyone have an actual referrer string?

-TaoPhoenix (June 20, 2015, 03:21 PM)

I'd be very surprised if it's anything more than the standard referrer string that informs a web site what web site the visitor is coming from that has been around for eons.

[Stoic Joker]

Does anyone have an actual referrer string?

-TaoPhoenix (June 20, 2015, 03:21 PM)

I'd be very surprised if it's anything more than the standard referrer string that informs a web site what web site the visitor is coming from that has been around for eons.

-Innuendo (June 20, 2015, 03:50 PM)

And it's quite possible that you're right. The problem is that they passed up the chance to just say that in plain English, choosing instead to dance around the specifics ... And that - These days - throws up a flag.

[rgdot]

If you do a Bing search for nipple clamps and select a site from the results, what's passed on to the site is a referrer letting the site owner that you came via Bing. However, what search terms you used to get there are not disclosed. The site owner can use Bing's query tools and discover that 17 people did search for nipple clamps before visiting their site, but nothing that personally identifies you will be disclosed.

-Innuendo (June 20, 2015, 10:28 AM)

That wouldn't be a new thing, as far as Google Analytics go

[Innuendo]

And it's quite possible that you're right. The problem is that they passed up the chance to just say that in plain English, choosing instead to dance around the specifics ... And that - These days - throws up a flag.

-Stoic Joker (June 21, 2015, 07:47 AM)

I think, more specifically, these days everything has to go through the marketing department where they sprinkle technical announcements with their special blend of buzz words and obfuscation that blurs the original, intended version of an announcement.

[Stoic Joker]

And it's quite possible that you're right. The problem is that they passed up the chance to just say that in plain English, choosing instead to dance around the specifics ... And that - These days - throws up a flag.

-Stoic Joker (June 21, 2015, 07:47 AM)

I think, more specifically, these days everything has to go through the marketing department where they sprinkle technical announcements with their special blend of buzz words and obfuscation that blurs the original, intended version of an announcement.

-Innuendo (June 21, 2015, 12:36 PM)

Understood. I just think these Prancing Nancys desperately need to be boiled in their own juices for not using Plain English on critical pieces of information. Any attempting to sell me on a technology, without the clear technical details...is an excruciatingly bad idea. IRL I am notoriously brutal with vendors that wish/desire/make the mistake of playing word games. If you want my money...you better be crystal GD clear about what is to happen/be delivered or you will rue the day we met..

[TaoPhoenix]

...

Does anyone have an actual referrer string?

-TaoPhoenix (June 20, 2015, 03:21 PM)

...
And it's quite possible that you're right. The problem is that they passed up the chance to just say that in plain English, choosing instead to dance around the specifics ... And that - These days - throws up a flag.

-Stoic Joker (June 21, 2015, 07:47 AM)

Right, and I was raising the possibility it was much more sinister *hidden* under harmless doublespeak.

Some combination of weaseling like the way Firefox did it, to the effect of "Your name is personal info. Everything else is not. Therefore we do not share personal info."

But then there's the famous (EFF Foundation?) study that showed that people's browser configs *are* so unique that it *IS* actually personally identifying info. And they know that. But they then hide that behind straight faced lawyers with hypnotic diction to snow the public into complacency. Also, there was that AOL case where "non-personal aggregated data for a study" had a flaw, got ripped apart, and became personal.

So I don't trust them at all, which is why I was hoping one of us was on the other side of a fence and we could do that trick where "oh look, there's a sudden surge in searching for Mauve Zebras". And follow that through the back end.