13 ms·

Interview with DuckDuckGo CEO Gabe Weinberg

323 points by tchalla 7y ago

nellypat 7y ago
The opt-in/opt-out arguments is a valid one and DDG IS my primary search engine and I love it. BUT, I must say this pseudo-activisim by DDG has become too much now, they're building this pure and altruistic image whereas obviously they will directly benefit from regulation and hurting Google!
- fghtr 7y ago
  What is "too much" and "pseudo" about their activism? Yes, they indeed directly benefit from that. What is wrong with having a privacy-respecting monetization?
  - nellypat 7y ago
    I think it could hurt their image in the long-term. I've already seen others complain here and there about the pushy narrative, they just need to be more subtle about it. Again, I'm using DDG and want them to expand so I want what's best for them!
    - jeromegv 7y ago
      Problem with people in the tech community is to think that sometimes anything that involves promoting yourself is being too push. DDG needs to do interview, needs to be on the front of the issue and needs to be doing activism in order to make changes. Just having a browser and shutting their month to not sound "pushy" isn't going to help them grow and make the changes that WE need.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      > I've already seen others complain here and there about the pushy narrative, they just need to be more subtle about it. what should they do instead?
      - Zhyl 7y ago
        Have more of a sense of humour about it. I think most complaints I've seen about people on this seem to mostly be tonal.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - rvnx 7y ago
    Their own analytics/tracking is opt-out ;)
    - tagawa 7y ago
      DuckDuckGo staff here. Just want to point out that we do not track users - opt in or opt out. We do serve ads that can be disabled (opt-out) but they’re contextual, based on individual search terms rather than any form of tracking.
      - lioeters 7y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight. I've been a DDG user for a number of years now, and I'm so glad that it exists. Its demonstrated integrity feels exponetially relevant, in contrast with state and corporate behavior these days.
      - rvnx 7y ago
        Ah true, if you don't consider logging search queries, and storing device information on improving.duckduckgo.com, and sending all data to your partner Yahoo/Bing, and use affiliate tracking codes. Then yes, you are not tracking.
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    They/Gabriel create AstroTurf campaigns that obscure the commercial entity behind the campaigns.
- ccannon 7y ago
  If they are successful I think it’s entirely possible that people will switch back to using Google and away from DDG if they can be certain their data is kept private.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    In addition to not stalking you across the web DDG also does not store data on you even when using their products directly. For me that is still cause for my use of DDG.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- lloydde 7y ago
  “DuckDuckGo is a general internet privacy company at this point, and we help you essentially escape the creepiness and tracking on the internet.”
  - beenBoutIT 7y ago
    The Internet has always been and will always be creepy. As a search engine DDG isn't that great.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      >The Internet has always been // What do you mean by that?
      - beenBoutIT 7y ago
        Back before chat had pictures there were creepers creeping on the Internet, it's not an artificial sandbox like Disneyland where everything is perfect.
- boh 7y ago
  Are you suggesting DDG stop marketing the primary benefit of their product in an effort to be "real" with its customers? What is your suggestion for an alternative message? "We are trying to make money like everyone else, please use our search engine that is not an altruistic public good and is trying to influence regulation that will hurt our competitors". Doesn't really roll off the tongue.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    They could do what they're already doing without mentioning Congress or altering regulations. I use DDG and will continue to, but can't say I care for them (or anyone/anything else I support) slamming down on that "let's get the government to help me" lever.
    - idrios 7y ago
      I think you can take each one on a case by case basis. If health insurance companies lobbied the government to require that all citizens have health insurance, I'd take a ton of issue. But if health insurance companies lobbied to require doctors to get consent if they want to harvest tissue or organ samples from patients for personal research, I'd support that change. It's all grey area but as of yet I don't think DDG is at all in the wrong.
  - nellypat 7y ago
    No. I just want them to be smarter about how they deliver the message. I would love them to succeed and this is just a feedback from a regular user who follows news about DDG.
    - boh 7y ago
      "Be smarter" doesn't explain what it is you want them to do.
- jsgyx 7y ago
  Like Mozilla, made even worse by the fact that later Mozilla proceeds to stab you in the back :P
MikeLui 7y ago
Let’s take it a step further and have AdBuddies from Maniac
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  I loved that part the most about Maniac. I hate ads but at least AdBuddy is entirely more obvious. Its like sponsored living.
ianai 7y ago
Or make a kind of asset out of a persons likeness and data. Endow individuals with ownership of their likeness and data. Give them something they can demand payment for storing, using, and selling. I’m thinking something like the minimum civil court valuation per month of storage or use. Likeness and data would be defined by a jury of their peers.
Yizahi 7y ago
Does anyone remember outcry of advertisers after Microsoft made absolutely useless and toothless Do-Not-Track option opt-in instead of opt-out? They were stinking and whining for months and finally got what wanted. The answer is no, unless some "communists" will regulate this spy community of advertisers they will never agree to lessen data collection (including the switch to opt-in).
- austincheney 7y ago
  Yeah, fuck them if they can’t take a joke. Aside from all the valid reasons why the spyware is horrid there are also practical reasons. I get virtually no benefit from gigabit Ethernet at the house when surfing the web due to all the extra http requests.
- frou_dh 7y ago
  IIRC the argument was that DNT being enabled by default in a browser made its "advisory" nature to the server on the other end even more toothless, because it could be argued that for the majority of users with it enabled, it would not be a signal of any actual decision on their part.
- plushpuffin 7y ago
  Personally, I think even without Internet Explorer ruining Do-Not-Track (which I also think Microsoft torpedoed on purpose by making it the default), the tracking companies wouldn't have respected it. They were looking for an excuse not to comply with DNT after promising Congress they would self-regulate, and IE gave them a fig-leaf to go back on their word.
0898 7y ago
We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? I feel like this whole brouhaha about data has left me behind.
- spencerflem 7y ago
  Would you be willing to send me, a stranger, your complete browser history?
  - CDSlice 7y ago
    Well, what will you give me in return? If you give me something good like high quality maps and directions then maybe.
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      It’s often not a trade or is a trade for something rubbish.
      - paulcole 7y ago
        What do you mean by “something rubbish”? Can you give an example? As they say, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.
        hombre_fatal 7y ago
        I am going on a trip with my girlfriend, and while looking at her Google Maps, I saw that it had marked the hotel we were staying at along with the dates we would be there. Right there next to the hotel marker. Impressive, really. I don't like that sort of thing because you can't depend on it. Even if you had the perfect workflow for it, what about any hotel booking you have that doesn't send an email for Gmail to parse, or Gmail can't parse it? Just seems like an annoyingly probabilistic system. Aside from the obvious issues of privacy and creepiness, like how did Google Maps get information that was supposedly just between me and the hotel? But my girlfriend absolutely loved it. She just wished it also showed us our bus route and schedule like it apparently sometimes does for her.
wybiral 7y ago
The irony here is that this article has at least 20 trackers. PS: Firefox Quantum is great
- odensc 7y ago
  Is it really ironic though? This article isn't published by DuckDuckGo - it's published by Vox, which doesn't necessarily agree with their viewpoint.
  - wybiral 7y ago
    I didn't say it was hypocritical. Just ironic.
    - odensc 7y ago
      What definition of irony would this fit? Honestly asking.
      - wybiral 7y ago
        The Alanis Morissette definition.
      - gtirloni 7y ago
        I sincerely don't think it fits but I'm no expert in philosophy. Maybe it's just an interesting (sad) fact that an article about data privacy is full of trackers? I think we all got what you were trying to say and we're just being pedantic, sorry.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      It's neither ironic nor hypocritical that the Vox website reporting on DDG's view about data privacy has 20 trackers. Nice overview with examples (if somewhat lengthy): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-and-hypocrisy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-a...
tyiz 7y ago
It’s already there. That’s one of the European GDPR core rules.
jedberg 7y ago
AT&T tried this and it didn't go well. For a time you could get a discount on your internet if you opted into their data tracking programs. From what I heard, there was a lot of complaining and little uptake, which is backed up by the fact that they cancelled the program less than a year later and just started charging everyone the lower price (and claimed that they stopped the tracking). I think people don't want to be reminded that they're being tracked, which is possibly why it went poorly, but this will be a problem with any company that wants to do opt in tracking.
- shmerl 7y ago
  Discounting Internet by axing privacy is a nasty idea. Privacy should be available by default without any added price tags.
  - lastpingstandin 7y ago
    This isn't some moral position, it's an economic one. ISP's make money with the data they gather. Once you remove that as a revenue stream, it'll naturally increase the prices those companies are willing to charge.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      They make more than enough money by providing the Internet service. They should have nothing to do with your data. Especially considering, how easily they can spy on you. It's like your post office delivery would charge you more, if they'll not sniff through your mail. This thing shouldn't even come up as a "feature", it should be the always enabled default.
      - jslabovitz 7y ago
        The USPS likely would charge you more, if they weren't already in the business of selling both address lists and access (carrier route deliveries of bulk mail). So they might not be sniffing your mail, but from what it seems the postal service needs your data to survive.
miguelrochefort 7y ago
I don't think it's up to the user to decide how data about them gets used. Regulation like GDPR only makes it more difficult (impossible) for competition to emerge. It basically secures the future dominance of big players like Google and Facebook. Making people pay a monthly fee to get their data collected and analyzed seems like the next big business model. We will soon reach a limit on the usefulness of passively collected data and will need to switch to a more active model. I would prefer to have complete access to data about myself, but it would be unreasonable to expect a monopoly on it.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > I don't think it's up to the user to decide how data about them gets used. To a certain extent, I'd agree. Specifically in the case of things like analytics data. The real problem is people not knowing this data is being collected in the first place where you can't make any kind of informed choice on opting in.
  - 8bitsrule 7y ago
    Under the GDPR, "the data is not available publicly without explicit, informed consent, and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information stored separately. No personal data may be processed unless it is done under a lawful basis specified by the regulation, or unless the data controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized affirmation of consent from the data subject. The data subject has the right to revoke this consent at any time.... Data subjects have the right to request a portable copy of the data collected by a processor in a common format... violators of the GDPR may be fined up to €20 million ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... Key phrases here: 'explicit, informed consent' ... 'lawful basis' ... 'right to revoke this consent' ... 'fined'
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      I know the regulation. That's not what I'm arguing here.
jhayward 7y ago
Not only should we opt in but there should be a (digitally) signed chain of custody showing the exact derivation of any information held by 3rd parties that in itself, or when combined with others, can identify and reveal information about individuals.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  Be real. You are saying that data should not be collected at all.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - coding123 7y ago
    I've long dreamed of a contract system in the world that does this. Every contract you're apart of, becomes explicit. We get paid for our data based on our preferences. Let's say the cost of showing me an ad is $51, so be it, it that means I can't read a blog post - fine, at least I agreed to the the terms for a price. The system would be all encompassing but organized by agreement type - titles, loans/mortgages, insurance, purchases/warranties, ad networks, bets, etc... All managed by an open system but used by private parties. I don't advocate for this to be done by say, etherium, I still think the classic system can be used to decide disagreements, but at least all of what you agreed to will become very explicit. And there can be ways to "break out" of agreements, with whatever very explicit ground rules to be followed after that.
  - opportune 7y ago
    I work with user data as part of my job. We gladly set up large pipelines and infrastructure to let data flow from users, through message queues, into databases, and from there into analytics workflows. But we balk at the thought of this process being anything but unidirectional, or in implementing exportable logs to track how data is tranferred, combined, or analyzed. If the way user data propagates through third parties where auditable and visible, it would definitely at least double the work of setting up user analytics. But, other industries make do with similarly powerful regulations. If you can't afford to let users see what you're doing with their data, should you be allowed to collect user-level metrics anyway? We could also blacklist a limited set of data types, as is effectively done with HIPAA, to better enforce privacy. However, even HIPAA is not restrictive enough, and there is a whole subfield of academia engaged in privacy research which has shown that even HIPAA compliant (in the sense they don't contain certain columns of data) datasets can be used to reveal senstive information using relinkage against public forms of data [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]. But the tech industry is better equipped than any other industry to enforce algorithmic privacy and be good stewards of data. We just don't want to, because it's hard. Building structures up to building safety code is also hard (and, in some ways, too bureaucratic/poorly implemented. Sometimes private companies can actually copyright building code laws[5]), but it's good that we do it, in general. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-anonymity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-anonymity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-diversity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-closeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-closeness [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy famously used by Apple [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification [5] https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted... P.S. : I do think HIPAA, GDPR, etc. have their flaws. But that just means we should try to do better, rather than just blindly oppose any attempt to do better. The vast majority of privacy gains can be accomplished with the simplest changes: anonymization, pseudonymization, limits on time/spatial granularity, etc.
another-dave 7y ago
What a badly copy-edited headline (from the original article). Maybe just me, but my first reaction reading it was "Why is the CEO of Duck Duck Go advocating opting-in to data tracking? Actually, he was saying we should _have to_ opt in to data tracking, if it's something you want. [/Pedant]
- couchand 7y ago
  The thing that really bothers me is that it ought to read "opt in to", but I agree with your sentiment.
- morrbo 7y ago
  This is why this is blatant clickbait
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    The only way to stop this is by starving their hunger for clicks. It would be nice having a global clickbait variable to be attached to an URL or a domain, so that it can be community updated when titles such as this one are used, then a browser extension reads it and warns before clicking it. Of course I would expect heavy abuses of such a tool...
- dang 7y ago
  In cases like this we give up trying to finesse it and just say "Interview". Title changed thus above.
OrgNet 7y ago
we should, but can we? of course not... it need to be a law
throw2016 7y ago
If anyone is convinced what they are doing is good for end users they would let them make the choice. But expending time and energy to design and code deceptive dialogs with misinformation and avoid transparency betrays the opposite. You don't need an ethics course for this, it's willful fraud and deception. Our societies are shaped as much by technology as by the incessant greed of a few often couched in euphemisms like 'innovation' and 'drive' to justify their value but these only accrue to a few. Behavioral targeting and surveillance have negative externalities for everyone not making money from it, and even for them in the wider societal and long term context. If this is the behavior we are incentivizing then either we provide strong regulations to counter greedy and unethical behavior or accept these as our fundamental driving values without fabricating a 'feel good' alternative reality as a fig leaf or feigning shock at mercenaries in our midst.
contingencies 7y ago
TLDR; Most money made from advertising is still contextual, however because it's possible for G/FB to monopolize behavioral advertising and there is no regulation to prevent it, they do it anyway. Opt out is stupid: I'd like food that isn't tainted, please. Filter bubbles are bad news macro-politically. Regulation is rarely effective but still a good idea. Corporate fines should be two orders of magnitude larger. Instagram does evil things to your brain.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The problem for businesses, of course, is that nobody would opt in. Data collection is something literally nobody wants, and the only reason it survives is because most people don't know what these companies are doing, or aren't able to keep up with the ways to decline being included in it. Data monetization is an inherently harmful and unwanted business practice.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  No one would partake in something they don’t like if they’re made aware of it and have a choice... well, good?
chr1xzy 7y ago
Duckduckgo - Based in US / very weak privacy laws Servers - hosted using Amazon (AWS) Bangs aren't safe. For example typing “!g kittens in basket” and hitting return, drops you off on the Google website to display your results (thus logging your IP, search term and browser info immediately). DuckDuckGo is owned by Gabriel Weinberg who is is the founder, current CEO and controlling shareholder. Investors/shareholders include Union Square Ventures and several others. DuckDuckGo generates it’s income from advertising (Bing Ads) and collects affiliate revenue (Amazon, eBay). Duckduckgo and Yahoo partnership https://web.archive.org/web/20160724030640/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160724030640/ https://duck.co/help/results/yahoo-technical-implementation https://duck.co/help/results/yahoo-technical-implementation https://duck.co/blog/blog/post/311/yahoo-partnership https://duck.co/blog/blog/post/311/yahoo-partnership Duckduckgo has no audit Duckduckgo gives out a HTTP header field that identifies the address of the webpage. Both companies were asked "if you were ordered to compromise your service/customer privacy in any way would you" DuckDuckGo – Gabriel Weinberg said: “No one is preventing me from doing that.”
- hardwaresofton 7y ago
  As a fan of DDG (I use it daily), I had no idea there was this much risk -- I was surprised enough to find out they offloaded search to Bing a while ago (but also I don't blame them, it's probably pretty hard). Even with these hangups, I still think any near-viable option to Google should exist. [EDIT] - just realized it's only been 20 minutes (not a day) -- looking forward to DDG's response
  - rvnx 7y ago
    There is so much to say. In practice, DDG revenues depends on tracking visitors. DDG asks third-parties to track (Yahoo/Bing ads), so if someone asks "do you track? NO! WE DON'T". They don't need to create a user profile, the keyword based ads pay enough. This is the catch, "we don't track, but we ask our partners to do it for us". The same with Amazon affiliate revenue. Did you know that DuckDuckGo had access to the whole history of items bought through their affiliate link ? It's a detailed item list, like "3 x Happy Belly Dried Mango, 500 g" Every, single, item. No tracking (◠ ‿ ◠)

323 points by tchalla 7y ago

The opt-in/opt-out arguments is a valid one and DDG IS my primary search engine and I love it. BUT, I must say this pseudo-activisim by DDG has become too much now, they're building this pure and altruistic image whereas obviously they will directly benefit from regulation and hurting Google!

fghtr 7y ago
What is "too much" and "pseudo" about their activism? Yes, they indeed directly benefit from that. What is wrong with having a privacy-respecting monetization?
- nellypat 7y ago
  I think it could hurt their image in the long-term. I've already seen others complain here and there about the pushy narrative, they just need to be more subtle about it. Again, I'm using DDG and want them to expand so I want what's best for them!
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    Problem with people in the tech community is to think that sometimes anything that involves promoting yourself is being too push. DDG needs to do interview, needs to be on the front of the issue and needs to be doing activism in order to make changes. Just having a browser and shutting their month to not sound "pushy" isn't going to help them grow and make the changes that WE need.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    > I've already seen others complain here and there about the pushy narrative, they just need to be more subtle about it. what should they do instead?
    - Zhyl 7y ago
      Have more of a sense of humour about it. I think most complaints I've seen about people on this seem to mostly be tonal.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rvnx 7y ago
  Their own analytics/tracking is opt-out ;)
  - tagawa 7y ago
    DuckDuckGo staff here. Just want to point out that we do not track users - opt in or opt out. We do serve ads that can be disabled (opt-out) but they’re contextual, based on individual search terms rather than any form of tracking.
    - lioeters 7y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight. I've been a DDG user for a number of years now, and I'm so glad that it exists. Its demonstrated integrity feels exponetially relevant, in contrast with state and corporate behavior these days.
    - rvnx 7y ago
      Ah true, if you don't consider logging search queries, and storing device information on improving.duckduckgo.com, and sending all data to your partner Yahoo/Bing, and use affiliate tracking codes. Then yes, you are not tracking.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  They/Gabriel create AstroTurf campaigns that obscure the commercial entity behind the campaigns.
ccannon 7y ago
If they are successful I think it’s entirely possible that people will switch back to using Google and away from DDG if they can be certain their data is kept private.
- austincheney 7y ago
  In addition to not stalking you across the web DDG also does not store data on you even when using their products directly. For me that is still cause for my use of DDG.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lloydde 7y ago
“DuckDuckGo is a general internet privacy company at this point, and we help you essentially escape the creepiness and tracking on the internet.”
- beenBoutIT 7y ago
  The Internet has always been and will always be creepy. As a search engine DDG isn't that great.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    >The Internet has always been // What do you mean by that?
    - beenBoutIT 7y ago
      Back before chat had pictures there were creepers creeping on the Internet, it's not an artificial sandbox like Disneyland where everything is perfect.
boh 7y ago
Are you suggesting DDG stop marketing the primary benefit of their product in an effort to be "real" with its customers? What is your suggestion for an alternative message? "We are trying to make money like everyone else, please use our search engine that is not an altruistic public good and is trying to influence regulation that will hurt our competitors". Doesn't really roll off the tongue.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  They could do what they're already doing without mentioning Congress or altering regulations. I use DDG and will continue to, but can't say I care for them (or anyone/anything else I support) slamming down on that "let's get the government to help me" lever.
  - idrios 7y ago
    I think you can take each one on a case by case basis. If health insurance companies lobbied the government to require that all citizens have health insurance, I'd take a ton of issue. But if health insurance companies lobbied to require doctors to get consent if they want to harvest tissue or organ samples from patients for personal research, I'd support that change. It's all grey area but as of yet I don't think DDG is at all in the wrong.
- nellypat 7y ago
  No. I just want them to be smarter about how they deliver the message. I would love them to succeed and this is just a feedback from a regular user who follows news about DDG.
  - boh 7y ago
    "Be smarter" doesn't explain what it is you want them to do.
jsgyx 7y ago
Like Mozilla, made even worse by the fact that later Mozilla proceeds to stab you in the back :P

MikeLui 7y ago

Let’s take it a step further and have AdBuddies from Maniac

giancarlostoro 7y ago
I loved that part the most about Maniac. I hate ads but at least AdBuddy is entirely more obvious. Its like sponsored living.

ianai 7y ago

Or make a kind of asset out of a persons likeness and data. Endow individuals with ownership of their likeness and data. Give them something they can demand payment for storing, using, and selling. I’m thinking something like the minimum civil court valuation per month of storage or use. Likeness and data would be defined by a jury of their peers.

Yizahi 7y ago

Does anyone remember outcry of advertisers after Microsoft made absolutely useless and toothless Do-Not-Track option opt-in instead of opt-out? They were stinking and whining for months and finally got what wanted. The answer is no, unless some "communists" will regulate this spy community of advertisers they will never agree to lessen data collection (including the switch to opt-in).

austincheney 7y ago
Yeah, fuck them if they can’t take a joke. Aside from all the valid reasons why the spyware is horrid there are also practical reasons. I get virtually no benefit from gigabit Ethernet at the house when surfing the web due to all the extra http requests.
frou_dh 7y ago
IIRC the argument was that DNT being enabled by default in a browser made its "advisory" nature to the server on the other end even more toothless, because it could be argued that for the majority of users with it enabled, it would not be a signal of any actual decision on their part.
plushpuffin 7y ago
Personally, I think even without Internet Explorer ruining Do-Not-Track (which I also think Microsoft torpedoed on purpose by making it the default), the tracking companies wouldn't have respected it. They were looking for an excuse not to comply with DNT after promising Congress they would self-regulate, and IE gave them a fig-leaf to go back on their word.

0898 7y ago

We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? I feel like this whole brouhaha about data has left me behind.

spencerflem 7y ago
Would you be willing to send me, a stranger, your complete browser history?
- CDSlice 7y ago
  Well, what will you give me in return? If you give me something good like high quality maps and directions then maybe.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    It’s often not a trade or is a trade for something rubbish.
    - paulcole 7y ago
      What do you mean by “something rubbish”? Can you give an example? As they say, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        I am going on a trip with my girlfriend, and while looking at her Google Maps, I saw that it had marked the hotel we were staying at along with the dates we would be there. Right there next to the hotel marker. Impressive, really. I don't like that sort of thing because you can't depend on it. Even if you had the perfect workflow for it, what about any hotel booking you have that doesn't send an email for Gmail to parse, or Gmail can't parse it? Just seems like an annoyingly probabilistic system. Aside from the obvious issues of privacy and creepiness, like how did Google Maps get information that was supposedly just between me and the hotel? But my girlfriend absolutely loved it. She just wished it also showed us our bus route and schedule like it apparently sometimes does for her.

wybiral 7y ago

The irony here is that this article has at least 20 trackers. PS: Firefox Quantum is great

odensc 7y ago
Is it really ironic though? This article isn't published by DuckDuckGo - it's published by Vox, which doesn't necessarily agree with their viewpoint.
- wybiral 7y ago
  I didn't say it was hypocritical. Just ironic.
  - odensc 7y ago
    What definition of irony would this fit? Honestly asking.
    - wybiral 7y ago
      The Alanis Morissette definition.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      I sincerely don't think it fits but I'm no expert in philosophy. Maybe it's just an interesting (sad) fact that an article about data privacy is full of trackers? I think we all got what you were trying to say and we're just being pedantic, sorry.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    It's neither ironic nor hypocritical that the Vox website reporting on DDG's view about data privacy has 20 trackers. Nice overview with examples (if somewhat lengthy): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-and-hypocrisy https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-irony-a...

tyiz 7y ago

It’s already there. That’s one of the European GDPR core rules.

jedberg 7y ago

AT&T tried this and it didn't go well. For a time you could get a discount on your internet if you opted into their data tracking programs. From what I heard, there was a lot of complaining and little uptake, which is backed up by the fact that they cancelled the program less than a year later and just started charging everyone the lower price (and claimed that they stopped the tracking). I think people don't want to be reminded that they're being tracked, which is possibly why it went poorly, but this will be a problem with any company that wants to do opt in tracking.

shmerl 7y ago
Discounting Internet by axing privacy is a nasty idea. Privacy should be available by default without any added price tags.
- lastpingstandin 7y ago
  This isn't some moral position, it's an economic one. ISP's make money with the data they gather. Once you remove that as a revenue stream, it'll naturally increase the prices those companies are willing to charge.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    They make more than enough money by providing the Internet service. They should have nothing to do with your data. Especially considering, how easily they can spy on you. It's like your post office delivery would charge you more, if they'll not sniff through your mail. This thing shouldn't even come up as a "feature", it should be the always enabled default.
    - jslabovitz 7y ago
      The USPS likely would charge you more, if they weren't already in the business of selling both address lists and access (carrier route deliveries of bulk mail). So they might not be sniffing your mail, but from what it seems the postal service needs your data to survive.

miguelrochefort 7y ago

I don't think it's up to the user to decide how data about them gets used. Regulation like GDPR only makes it more difficult (impossible) for competition to emerge. It basically secures the future dominance of big players like Google and Facebook. Making people pay a monthly fee to get their data collected and analyzed seems like the next big business model. We will soon reach a limit on the usefulness of passively collected data and will need to switch to a more active model. I would prefer to have complete access to data about myself, but it would be unreasonable to expect a monopoly on it.

cameronbrown 7y ago
> I don't think it's up to the user to decide how data about them gets used. To a certain extent, I'd agree. Specifically in the case of things like analytics data. The real problem is people not knowing this data is being collected in the first place where you can't make any kind of informed choice on opting in.
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  Under the GDPR, "the data is not available publicly without explicit, informed consent, and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information stored separately. No personal data may be processed unless it is done under a lawful basis specified by the regulation, or unless the data controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized affirmation of consent from the data subject. The data subject has the right to revoke this consent at any time.... Data subjects have the right to request a portable copy of the data collected by a processor in a common format... violators of the GDPR may be fined up to €20 million ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... Key phrases here: 'explicit, informed consent' ... 'lawful basis' ... 'right to revoke this consent' ... 'fined'
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    I know the regulation. That's not what I'm arguing here.

jhayward 7y ago

Not only should we opt in but there should be a (digitally) signed chain of custody showing the exact derivation of any information held by 3rd parties that in itself, or when combined with others, can identify and reveal information about individuals.

jolfdb 7y ago
Be real. You are saying that data should not be collected at all.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- coding123 7y ago
  I've long dreamed of a contract system in the world that does this. Every contract you're apart of, becomes explicit. We get paid for our data based on our preferences. Let's say the cost of showing me an ad is $51, so be it, it that means I can't read a blog post - fine, at least I agreed to the the terms for a price. The system would be all encompassing but organized by agreement type - titles, loans/mortgages, insurance, purchases/warranties, ad networks, bets, etc... All managed by an open system but used by private parties. I don't advocate for this to be done by say, etherium, I still think the classic system can be used to decide disagreements, but at least all of what you agreed to will become very explicit. And there can be ways to "break out" of agreements, with whatever very explicit ground rules to be followed after that.
- opportune 7y ago
  I work with user data as part of my job. We gladly set up large pipelines and infrastructure to let data flow from users, through message queues, into databases, and from there into analytics workflows. But we balk at the thought of this process being anything but unidirectional, or in implementing exportable logs to track how data is tranferred, combined, or analyzed. If the way user data propagates through third parties where auditable and visible, it would definitely at least double the work of setting up user analytics. But, other industries make do with similarly powerful regulations. If you can't afford to let users see what you're doing with their data, should you be allowed to collect user-level metrics anyway? We could also blacklist a limited set of data types, as is effectively done with HIPAA, to better enforce privacy. However, even HIPAA is not restrictive enough, and there is a whole subfield of academia engaged in privacy research which has shown that even HIPAA compliant (in the sense they don't contain certain columns of data) datasets can be used to reveal senstive information using relinkage against public forms of data [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]. But the tech industry is better equipped than any other industry to enforce algorithmic privacy and be good stewards of data. We just don't want to, because it's hard. Building structures up to building safety code is also hard (and, in some ways, too bureaucratic/poorly implemented. Sometimes private companies can actually copyright building code laws[5]), but it's good that we do it, in general. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-anonymity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-anonymity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-diversity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-closeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-closeness [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy famously used by Apple [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification [5] https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/09/can-the-law-be-copyrighted... P.S. : I do think HIPAA, GDPR, etc. have their flaws. But that just means we should try to do better, rather than just blindly oppose any attempt to do better. The vast majority of privacy gains can be accomplished with the simplest changes: anonymization, pseudonymization, limits on time/spatial granularity, etc.

another-dave 7y ago

What a badly copy-edited headline (from the original article). Maybe just me, but my first reaction reading it was "Why is the CEO of Duck Duck Go advocating opting-in to data tracking? Actually, he was saying we should _have to_ opt in to data tracking, if it's something you want. [/Pedant]

couchand 7y ago
The thing that really bothers me is that it ought to read "opt in to", but I agree with your sentiment.
morrbo 7y ago
This is why this is blatant clickbait
- squarefoot 7y ago
  The only way to stop this is by starving their hunger for clicks. It would be nice having a global clickbait variable to be attached to an URL or a domain, so that it can be community updated when titles such as this one are used, then a browser extension reads it and warns before clicking it. Of course I would expect heavy abuses of such a tool...
dang 7y ago
In cases like this we give up trying to finesse it and just say "Interview". Title changed thus above.

OrgNet 7y ago

we should, but can we? of course not... it need to be a law

throw2016 7y ago

If anyone is convinced what they are doing is good for end users they would let them make the choice. But expending time and energy to design and code deceptive dialogs with misinformation and avoid transparency betrays the opposite. You don't need an ethics course for this, it's willful fraud and deception. Our societies are shaped as much by technology as by the incessant greed of a few often couched in euphemisms like 'innovation' and 'drive' to justify their value but these only accrue to a few. Behavioral targeting and surveillance have negative externalities for everyone not making money from it, and even for them in the wider societal and long term context. If this is the behavior we are incentivizing then either we provide strong regulations to counter greedy and unethical behavior or accept these as our fundamental driving values without fabricating a 'feel good' alternative reality as a fig leaf or feigning shock at mercenaries in our midst.

contingencies 7y ago

TLDR; Most money made from advertising is still contextual, however because it's possible for G/FB to monopolize behavioral advertising and there is no regulation to prevent it, they do it anyway. Opt out is stupid: I'd like food that isn't tainted, please. Filter bubbles are bad news macro-politically. Regulation is rarely effective but still a good idea. Corporate fines should be two orders of magnitude larger. Instagram does evil things to your brain.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The problem for businesses, of course, is that nobody would opt in. Data collection is something literally nobody wants, and the only reason it survives is because most people don't know what these companies are doing, or aren't able to keep up with the ways to decline being included in it. Data monetization is an inherently harmful and unwanted business practice.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
No one would partake in something they don’t like if they’re made aware of it and have a choice... well, good?

chr1xzy 7y ago

Duckduckgo - Based in US / very weak privacy laws Servers - hosted using Amazon (AWS) Bangs aren't safe. For example typing “!g kittens in basket” and hitting return, drops you off on the Google website to display your results (thus logging your IP, search term and browser info immediately). DuckDuckGo is owned by Gabriel Weinberg who is is the founder, current CEO and controlling shareholder. Investors/shareholders include Union Square Ventures and several others. DuckDuckGo generates it’s income from advertising (Bing Ads) and collects affiliate revenue (Amazon, eBay). Duckduckgo and Yahoo partnership https://web.archive.org/web/20160724030640/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160724030640/ https://duck.co/help/results/yahoo-technical-implementation https://duck.co/help/results/yahoo-technical-implementation https://duck.co/blog/blog/post/311/yahoo-partnership https://duck.co/blog/blog/post/311/yahoo-partnership Duckduckgo has no audit Duckduckgo gives out a HTTP header field that identifies the address of the webpage. Both companies were asked "if you were ordered to compromise your service/customer privacy in any way would you" DuckDuckGo – Gabriel Weinberg said: “No one is preventing me from doing that.”

hardwaresofton 7y ago
As a fan of DDG (I use it daily), I had no idea there was this much risk -- I was surprised enough to find out they offloaded search to Bing a while ago (but also I don't blame them, it's probably pretty hard). Even with these hangups, I still think any near-viable option to Google should exist. [EDIT] - just realized it's only been 20 minutes (not a day) -- looking forward to DDG's response
- rvnx 7y ago
  There is so much to say. In practice, DDG revenues depends on tracking visitors. DDG asks third-parties to track (Yahoo/Bing ads), so if someone asks "do you track? NO! WE DON'T". They don't need to create a user profile, the keyword based ads pay enough. This is the catch, "we don't track, but we ask our partners to do it for us". The same with Amazon affiliate revenue. Did you know that DuckDuckGo had access to the whole history of items bought through their affiliate link ? It's a detailed item list, like "3 x Happy Belly Dried Mango, 500 g" Every, single, item. No tracking (◠ ‿ ◠)