4 ms·
Honest questions: 1) isn't it somewhat unlawful these days not to log anything on the people that are using your website? I'm all in favor of DDG, but can't th
by joering2 8y ago
Honest questions:
1) isn't it somewhat unlawful these days not to log anything on the people that are using your website? I'm all in favor of DDG, but can't they be liable if it would ever come up someone build and detonated bomb thanks to finding info via their search engine?
2) How do we know they haven't been served with NSL ? With NSA capable of breaking SSL, how do we know using DDG != using Google ?
- shopkins 8y ago1. No, services in the US like DDG largely aren't liable for what users post (or do) on their sites, mostly because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [0]. 2. We don't know they haven't been served with a national security letter. DDG's protection scope doesn't cover you needing protection from the government, though. So we know using DDG != Google because that's the surveillance threat vector they're concerned with: literally not being Google (which they aren't). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Sec...
- snazz 8y ago1: I'm certainly no expert on anything remotely law-related, but Google would be in a lot of trouble constantly if they were liable for the real life actions of their users, especially since Google doesn't host the information, they only link to it. The same would apply to DuckDuckGo. 2: Of course nation-state level attacks are going to be an issue for a very limited number of users. Regardless, the privacy benefits from using DDG are still significant, even if it's not a silver bullet.