> 1) It's a search box. Stuff not typed in the search box never leaves the machine Is this even an argument? If the box isn't used (crippling the user interfac

> 1) It's a search box. Stuff not typed in the search box never leaves the machine Is this even an argument? If the box isn't used (crippling the user interface) there is nothing to discuss. You may also argue that if the pc is powered off there aren't privacy problems. > 2) It's plainly obvious the first time you use it that results are coming back from the Internet. So discovering that you lost your privacy after the fact is the correct way to be informed? > 2b) There is a prominent notice saying so. If you don't think it's prominent enough, see point 2. I think it's not prominent enough, see the answer to the point 2 > 3) It's a search box that didn't exist previously. Canonical invented it. I think it's reasonable for Canonical to create a "search the universe" mechanism on the desktop. Fair enough if you don't like it, or don't want to use it. It's trivial to turn it off (there's even a global Privacy Settings dialog) or to use other searches Let's break it down > It's a search box that didn't exist previously. Canonical invented it. How can this give rights over the users' privacy is beyond me > I think it's reasonable for Canonical to create a "search the universe" mechanism on the desktop. Sure, as long the users know beforehand that they are "searching the universe" > It's trivial to turn it off Would you like a bath that by default stream what you do over internet? But ehi, "it's trivial to turn it off", so what's the problem? It should be _obviously_ an opt-in > Edit: I should have expected the downvotes. I notice, though, that the downvoters are unable to actually respond to my argument. The downvoters are able to respond. Are you unable to read?