7 ms·

The first sentence when I stripped out the pictures was "When you search Google, and click on a link, your search term is sent to that site, along with your bro

The first sentence when I stripped out the pictures was "When you search Google, and click on a link, your search term is sent to that site, along with your browser & computer info, which can often uniquely identify you." Referrers are a part of the way the web has worked since before Google existed. They're a browser-level feature more than something related to specific websites. But if referrers bother you, just use the SSL version of Google to prevent referrers from being sent to http sites (or change your browser not to send referrers at all). The corresponding sentence even for a website that strips referrers would be "When you search on domain X, and click on a link, your browser & computer info is sent to that site, which can often uniquely identify you." Read more carefully in that light, the first sentence is really saying that third-party sites that you land on after searching or visiting a domain can track you. That's independent of whether you came from Google or any other search engine, of course.

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
The referrer header is indeed a reality of HTTP, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't work around that reality and correct for it, if it has real privacy implications, which I think it definitely does. By getting rid of that header I think we take away a lot of private context, i.e. the actual search terms that landed you on that page, which in and of themselves can provide a lot of background into what was personally going on with that person on that page. So yes, the first sentence is all about the referrer header. And yes, it is just one piece of the privacy puzzle, but it is one that I think can certainly be solved. It is also a piece I feel the average person knows nothing about. Here's the original post when I made the change to make searches externally anonymous: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/duck-duck-go-searches-are-now-externally-anonymous.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/duck-duck-go-sea...
- Matt_Cutts 16y ago
  Yup, that was the same day we announced SSL search, which prevents referrers to http sites. I don't begrudge you trying to make privacy a selling point for DDG, but donttrack.us felt like trying to paint Google with a pretty broad brush. Honestly, it reminded me of when Privacy International decided to give Google a worse privacy rating than any other company. Here's how I responded to Privacy International at the time: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-all-credibility/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-al... The fact is that Google has a good history of supporting privacy, from fighting overly broad subpoenas from the DOJ to SSL Search to creating a browser plugin to opt out of personalized advertising: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/pluginfaq.html http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/pluginfaq.html .
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    I really wasn't trying to paint with a broad brush, but instead concentrate on very specific things that I think the average person doesn't know about. Personally, as you can gather, I don't think SSL search is enough (or browser plugins). The average person doesn't know it exists and so it essentially doesn't "exist" for most people. If you made it the default, or did something like what we did by dropping the referrer header, I think it becomes moot (at least the first sentence). I'm really not trying to say Google is all bad or anything. In fact, I use a lot of Google services myself, e.g. Gmail. And I know you take privacy very seriously. However, the ad networks and other aggregators are starting to do some pretty scary stuff, and so I think you need to do more faster to catch up, or stay ahead of them in the privacy arena.
    - axod 16y ago
      > "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?
      - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-by-tracking-poll-says/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=blogmod http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-...
        axod 16y ago
        Yeah I'd take that with a giant pinch of salt. "90% of respondents said they pay little or no attention to online ads." eg the respondents are in no way a representative sample. It also sounds like an entirely loaded poll - eg "Would you like more ability to opt out of online tracking".... "um... yes? I guess". There's so much FUD around the issue - "should advertising networks be allowed to target products to you based on tracking". The term 'tracking' sounds bad. It sounds like they are monitoring everything you do, when in fact they're just storing a cookie and noticing which other sites you visit that also carry ads from the same network.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Mixing the 'search term' and 'browser & computer info' points in the same lead sentence is misleading, suggesting (again to the 'average' person) you're more different from Google than you are.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
brudgers 16y ago
If SSL was the default and sending headers was opt-in, it would probably add some weight to your argument. What Google actively promotes to the typical web user, however, is not SSL or anonymous search but rather features that collect user data to an ever greater degree, e.g. Toolbar, Instant Search, and the Chrome browser.
- Matt_Cutts 16y ago
  SSL adds latency, because you're setting up an encrypted connection. Google hates slowing down users, and we don't want to slow down every user unless it's a clear win. That's one reason. When Google switched to AJAX-based search, that temporarily stopped sending referrers, and lots of people screamed bloody murder. For example, http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-search-results-breaks-search-keyword-tracking-for-everyone http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-searc... said "So what can we do about it? If you run a blog, write about this. Submit this story or your own story to large tech blogs like TechCrunch, CenterNetworks, ReadWriteWeb, GigaOm, etc - no large site has written about this yet, and one of them needs to. ... Do anything you can to spread the word and let Google know that this is not acceptable." Or see http://www.seobook.com/Ad-Networks-Partners-Hoarding-Publisher-Data-For-Profit http://www.seobook.com/Ad-Networks-Partners-Hoarding-Publish... or http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/3240-google-ajax-bad-news-for-third-party-analytics-providers http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/3240-google-ajax-bad-news-fo... or http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/02/04/google-update-breaks-third-party-analytics-tools/ http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/02/04/google-update-breaks-t... . So we heard lots of complaints. SSL as an option provides a nice choice for people who care about these issues and don't mind taking a tiny hit in latency.
  - AnthonyJBentley 16y ago
    I think moving to SSL as a default is a good move. What difference does no logging on the receiving end make when your ISP can log everything you search for? In particular, GMail initially had SSL configurable, but then moved it to the default: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... . Apparently they don’t think the latency is a problem—or if they do, that it’s worth it to get the security benefits of HTTPS.
huertanix 16y ago
Clicking on a link in a Google search results page creates a redirect URL that leads back to Google itself and logs the visit to your Google Web History if you are logged in. Its not a simple matter of referrals to third party websites. Its a personal detailed silo of personal information that Google sits on and can only stay private as long as Google can make good on its promise to. DuckDuckGo, AFAIK doesn't log your searches or correlate your searches with a user account.
X-Istence 16y ago
Ignoring the search term being sent, browser and computer info is ALWAYS available to the target site, that is not something Google can even stop. Browser send information on who they are, JavaScript allows probing of what is installed, how big the screen is and all of that fun stuff. So I don't see how that sentence is even fair at all, Duck Duck Go might stop the search term from being sent (and as a webmaster I'd hate that as it makes it harder to figure out how users are getting to my site), but they can't stop browser and computer info from being sent.

epi0Bauqu 16y ago

The referrer header is indeed a reality of HTTP, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't work around that reality and correct for it, if it has real privacy implications, which I think it definitely does. By getting rid of that header I think we take away a lot of private context, i.e. the actual search terms that landed you on that page, which in and of themselves can provide a lot of background into what was personally going on with that person on that page. So yes, the first sentence is all about the referrer header. And yes, it is just one piece of the privacy puzzle, but it is one that I think can certainly be solved. It is also a piece I feel the average person knows nothing about. Here's the original post when I made the change to make searches externally anonymous: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/duck-duck-go-searches-are-now-externally-anonymous.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/duck-duck-go-sea...

Matt_Cutts 16y ago
Yup, that was the same day we announced SSL search, which prevents referrers to http sites. I don't begrudge you trying to make privacy a selling point for DDG, but donttrack.us felt like trying to paint Google with a pretty broad brush. Honestly, it reminded me of when Privacy International decided to give Google a worse privacy rating than any other company. Here's how I responded to Privacy International at the time: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-all-credibility/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-al... The fact is that Google has a good history of supporting privacy, from fighting overly broad subpoenas from the DOJ to SSL Search to creating a browser plugin to opt out of personalized advertising: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/pluginfaq.html http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/pluginfaq.html .
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  I really wasn't trying to paint with a broad brush, but instead concentrate on very specific things that I think the average person doesn't know about. Personally, as you can gather, I don't think SSL search is enough (or browser plugins). The average person doesn't know it exists and so it essentially doesn't "exist" for most people. If you made it the default, or did something like what we did by dropping the referrer header, I think it becomes moot (at least the first sentence). I'm really not trying to say Google is all bad or anything. In fact, I use a lot of Google services myself, e.g. Gmail. And I know you take privacy very seriously. However, the ad networks and other aggregators are starting to do some pretty scary stuff, and so I think you need to do more faster to catch up, or stay ahead of them in the privacy arena.
  - axod 16y ago
    > "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-by-tracking-poll-says/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=blogmod http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-...
      - axod 16y ago
        Yeah I'd take that with a giant pinch of salt. "90% of respondents said they pay little or no attention to online ads." eg the respondents are in no way a representative sample. It also sounds like an entirely loaded poll - eg "Would you like more ability to opt out of online tracking".... "um... yes? I guess". There's so much FUD around the issue - "should advertising networks be allowed to target products to you based on tracking". The term 'tracking' sounds bad. It sounds like they are monitoring everything you do, when in fact they're just storing a cookie and noticing which other sites you visit that also carry ads from the same network.
gojomo 16y ago
Mixing the 'search term' and 'browser & computer info' points in the same lead sentence is misleading, suggesting (again to the 'average' person) you're more different from Google than you are.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

brudgers 16y ago

If SSL was the default and sending headers was opt-in, it would probably add some weight to your argument. What Google actively promotes to the typical web user, however, is not SSL or anonymous search but rather features that collect user data to an ever greater degree, e.g. Toolbar, Instant Search, and the Chrome browser.

Matt_Cutts 16y ago
SSL adds latency, because you're setting up an encrypted connection. Google hates slowing down users, and we don't want to slow down every user unless it's a clear win. That's one reason. When Google switched to AJAX-based search, that temporarily stopped sending referrers, and lots of people screamed bloody murder. For example, http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-search-results-breaks-search-keyword-tracking-for-everyone http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-searc... said "So what can we do about it? If you run a blog, write about this. Submit this story or your own story to large tech blogs like TechCrunch, CenterNetworks, ReadWriteWeb, GigaOm, etc - no large site has written about this yet, and one of them needs to. ... Do anything you can to spread the word and let Google know that this is not acceptable." Or see http://www.seobook.com/Ad-Networks-Partners-Hoarding-Publisher-Data-For-Profit http://www.seobook.com/Ad-Networks-Partners-Hoarding-Publish... or http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/3240-google-ajax-bad-news-for-third-party-analytics-providers http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/3240-google-ajax-bad-news-fo... or http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/02/04/google-update-breaks-third-party-analytics-tools/ http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/02/04/google-update-breaks-t... . So we heard lots of complaints. SSL as an option provides a nice choice for people who care about these issues and don't mind taking a tiny hit in latency.
- AnthonyJBentley 16y ago
  I think moving to SSL as a default is a good move. What difference does no logging on the receiving end make when your ISP can log everything you search for? In particular, GMail initially had SSL configurable, but then moved it to the default: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... . Apparently they don’t think the latency is a problem—or if they do, that it’s worth it to get the security benefits of HTTPS.

huertanix 16y ago

Clicking on a link in a Google search results page creates a redirect URL that leads back to Google itself and logs the visit to your Google Web History if you are logged in. Its not a simple matter of referrals to third party websites. Its a personal detailed silo of personal information that Google sits on and can only stay private as long as Google can make good on its promise to. DuckDuckGo, AFAIK doesn't log your searches or correlate your searches with a user account.

X-Istence 16y ago

Ignoring the search term being sent, browser and computer info is ALWAYS available to the target site, that is not something Google can even stop. Browser send information on who they are, JavaScript allows probing of what is installed, how big the screen is and all of that fun stuff. So I don't see how that sentence is even fair at all, Duck Duck Go might stop the search term from being sent (and as a webmaster I'd hate that as it makes it harder to figure out how users are getting to my site), but they can't stop browser and computer info from being sent.