7 ms·

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

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.
      - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        I don't think that statement renders the poll invalid. That is to say, I think 90% of people in general would say they pay little or no attention to online ads. But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).
        axod 16y ago
        heh true, true. I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy. Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed. There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because they're confused, that adverts are all bad and irritating. But there's no real evidence to back that up. Nearly everyone clicks on adverts. Nearly everyone buys stuff as a result. Consumers find stuff via adverts, Sellers sell stuff via adverts. They work. I appreciate what you're trying to do though, and hope it does pay off for you, the time is right for some google competition. I'd be satisfied I'm wrong if adblock usage jumped to 50%+ or if more than a few thousand people used Tor or whatever the usual figure is (extremely low).
  - extension 16y ago
    The average person can't decide if they care about it until they understand it. Until they do, I'm glad people like Gabriel are being paranoid on their behalf.
    - axod 16y ago
      Reminds me of stallmans endless ranting about freedom and software. The evidence is that the masses don't care. They just want stuff that works and solves problems for them. Is it open source? Why would anyone (apart from a geek) care?
      - Mithrandir 16y ago
        Disagree. People usually aren't aware of these privacy problems, and would care if they did know. Result: this page. Same goes for free software: more casual users (probably) would use more free software if they knew about it. And the bit about it just working is mostly FUD.
      - potatolicious 16y ago
        If the average person knew that their Google searches can potentially lead to credit rejections or trouble with health insurance providers (hypothetical at this point, but with recent trends not as farfetched as before), I think they certainly would care. The reason why the masses don't care is because they don't know why kind of havoc this sort of lack of privacy can cause. I for one am glad someone is educating the layman in an accessible and non-condescending way.
        axod 16y ago
        Highly hypothetical - to the extreme. How would any insurance co. know if it's me, or someone else in the household? Also afaik health insurance is mainly a US phenomenon thank god.
        epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... There are lots of ways this could play out. If you go to the site and register (increasingly likely), they might be able to detect you individually. Secondly, providers are starting to line up data by email address and other personal facts, so they may be able to match you like that. But even if they aren't absolutely sure it is you, they can still use the information to put you in different initial pools that could be used, for example, to ask you more specific follow-up questions that then put you in different risk pools.
  - LanceJones 16y ago
    Not until their life is impacted negatively (e.g., turned down for health insurance). Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.
poet 16y ago
Supporting privacy is one thing and I'm appreciative of Google's stance. But when we're talking about personally identifiable information we're talking about a binary. Either you're personally identifiable from the data being stored or you're not. The bottom line is that I'm identifiable with the data stored on me by Google but not by the data stored on me by DDG. Google has made this decision to store identifiable information in order to improve the usability of their search and DDG has opted for a different route. I will point out that there is nothing wrong with that. Google is not for those with strong privacy requirements, just as all popular operating systems are not for those with strong security requirements. Google falls at one point on the privacy/usability continuum and DDG falls at another point. But as far as the article being unfair to Google goes, I'll have to disagree. You are identifiable with Google's data and that's a reality.

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.
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      I don't think that statement renders the poll invalid. That is to say, I think 90% of people in general would say they pay little or no attention to online ads. But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).
      - axod 16y ago
        heh true, true. I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy. Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed. There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because they're confused, that adverts are all bad and irritating. But there's no real evidence to back that up. Nearly everyone clicks on adverts. Nearly everyone buys stuff as a result. Consumers find stuff via adverts, Sellers sell stuff via adverts. They work. I appreciate what you're trying to do though, and hope it does pay off for you, the time is right for some google competition. I'd be satisfied I'm wrong if adblock usage jumped to 50%+ or if more than a few thousand people used Tor or whatever the usual figure is (extremely low).
- extension 16y ago
  The average person can't decide if they care about it until they understand it. Until they do, I'm glad people like Gabriel are being paranoid on their behalf.
  - axod 16y ago
    Reminds me of stallmans endless ranting about freedom and software. The evidence is that the masses don't care. They just want stuff that works and solves problems for them. Is it open source? Why would anyone (apart from a geek) care?
    - Mithrandir 16y ago
      Disagree. People usually aren't aware of these privacy problems, and would care if they did know. Result: this page. Same goes for free software: more casual users (probably) would use more free software if they knew about it. And the bit about it just working is mostly FUD.
    - potatolicious 16y ago
      If the average person knew that their Google searches can potentially lead to credit rejections or trouble with health insurance providers (hypothetical at this point, but with recent trends not as farfetched as before), I think they certainly would care. The reason why the masses don't care is because they don't know why kind of havoc this sort of lack of privacy can cause. I for one am glad someone is educating the layman in an accessible and non-condescending way.
      - axod 16y ago
        Highly hypothetical - to the extreme. How would any insurance co. know if it's me, or someone else in the household? Also afaik health insurance is mainly a US phenomenon thank god.
        epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... There are lots of ways this could play out. If you go to the site and register (increasingly likely), they might be able to detect you individually. Secondly, providers are starting to line up data by email address and other personal facts, so they may be able to match you like that. But even if they aren't absolutely sure it is you, they can still use the information to put you in different initial pools that could be used, for example, to ask you more specific follow-up questions that then put you in different risk pools.
- LanceJones 16y ago
  Not until their life is impacted negatively (e.g., turned down for health insurance). Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.

poet 16y ago

Supporting privacy is one thing and I'm appreciative of Google's stance. But when we're talking about personally identifiable information we're talking about a binary. Either you're personally identifiable from the data being stored or you're not. The bottom line is that I'm identifiable with the data stored on me by Google but not by the data stored on me by DDG. Google has made this decision to store identifiable information in order to improve the usability of their search and DDG has opted for a different route. I will point out that there is nothing wrong with that. Google is not for those with strong privacy requirements, just as all popular operating systems are not for those with strong security requirements. Google falls at one point on the privacy/usability continuum and DDG falls at another point. But as far as the article being unfair to Google goes, I'll have to disagree. You are identifiable with Google's data and that's a reality.