3 ms·
Lest we not forget that DDG plainly refuses any external auditors to verify their claims of user privacy, despite having received a large investment recently an
by nunobrito 8y ago
Lest we not forget that DDG plainly refuses any external auditors to verify their claims of user privacy, despite having received a large investment recently and employing about 50 people (or more now) in full time.
In this case, DDG asks users to have "faith" that their privacy is indeed being respected.
- wslh 8y agoNot defending DDG but it is ridiculuos to ask for a company for auditing to probe their claims. There is no legal enforcement for that. If DDG lies and they are discovered they will loose their user base. It is enough with that.
- dna_polymerase 8y agoYes, but all we can observe for now is that we constantly send the same data to DDG as we did send to Google and for some reason we are supposed to trust DDG. It isn't a too wide far-fetched that DDG could be collecting all data in silence and once they have enough of it (or are big enough to survive losing a part of their user base) start capitalising off of it. I don't trust DDG any more than I do trust Google. In fact I trust Google with their boatloads of great engineers (of which we have learned that they do have some sense of moral and ethics) more than a small company that could easily be forced to capitalise on their user-data because of their shallow pockets.
- wslh 8y agoYou can apply the same thinking to zillions of companies marketing themselves. It is unfeasible and naive to promote auditing information. At the end you would be harming small companies who cannot afford auditing.
- irascible 8y agoFound the libertarian...