3 ms·
Actually, I still have a problem when all my "actual searches" becomes someone else's "most valuable property". Of course there are some other less intrusive s
by illys 10y ago
Actually, I still have a problem when all my "actual searches" becomes someone else's "most valuable property".
Of course there are some other less intrusive search engines (DuckDuckGo, maybe Qwant), but unfortunately they still are less efficient than Google for fine or rare searches.
- bad_user 10y agoWell, I have a problem with that too, but then I'm talking about the average user, which is never going to install Tor in order to connect to DuckDuckGo. And to tell you the truth, I don't trust DuckDuckGo that much either, as they can always turn around and start collecting data without me knowing it. But for us, the technically inclined and privacy aware, there are always solutions. But for the average user, until a better Google comes along, I think it's OK to trust Google with their searches. And compartmentalization is paramount to information security, my point being that trusting some other company besides Google with that data is not acceptable, which is why I find that intercepting HTTPS connections is simply wrong and evil, regardless of reasons. This besides the fact that intercepting HTTPS traffic increases the attack surface, making users less secure.
- __jal 10y agoI see a distinct difference between DDG and Google. We know Google does what it does. DDG's reason for existence is predicated on not doing so. If DDG were found to be lying, I'd guess >80% of its customer base would evaporate overnight. It would mean destroying many years of branding, trust and relatively difficult cultivation of user browser defaults. But that's worth gaming out - what would make it worth it to light all that on fire? About the only thing I can think of is a Lavabit-style conundrum, wherein our intelligence-overlords threaten someone's freedom. So, absolutely could happen, absolutely would come out. So that's why I trust DDG to be less forthcoming with their logs.
- kofejnik 10y agoyou are not paying for search service; ergo, your searches are the product and your search results are but a byproduct of that product
- ysavir 10y agoEhhhhhh I'm paying for it by viewing the sponsored (and non-sponsored) ads. Any tracking that isn't announced to the user is not a cost, but is espionage.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- illys 10y agoI agree with ysavir: I do not mind being exposed to ads related to my current search - I understand it is the price to pay for a free service... I mind my searches being stored and attached to my (not event anonymous) profile in a database. And the "not even anonymous" is not an option: to be able to have a fully functioning phone, I hardly can escape declaring my full details to Google. And this is clearly an "evil" choice of Google: I never created a Linux, Debian, Ubuntu or Mint account to keep my desktop computer up-to-date and featured by additional apps.
- ainiriand 10y agoWhen I started using DDGo some years ago I had the same problem; not quite so relevant search results. I think this is not the situation anymore, the results are very good. And you dont have to worry about security.
- godshatter 10y agoIf the search results aren't relevant, you can always add !g to the search and force it to go to Google. They may still not be as relevant, of course, because Google can't use their data about you to filter the results to what they think you wanted. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm happy with the allegedly sub-par results that are displayed because of my anonymity. Others may not be.