8 ms·

DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

334 points by woodrow 16y ago

coderdude 16y ago
More FUD from DuckDuckGo about Google and privacy issues. Didn't we come to the conclusion that the things they are railing against Google for are applicable to any and every Website? Matt Cutts stole the comment show on this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619 The worst thing about this is how blindly news about DDG gets upvoted around here. Edit: To my down-voters: It doesn't make what I said not true anymore.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- potatolicious 16y ago
  That's disingenuous. DDG has legitimate claim to "Google tracks you" beyond just referrer URLs. When you search for "athlete's foot" on DDG you won't see an add for foot cream the next time you're watching a video on YouTube. That's the sort of tracking Google undeniably does do that users may find troubling (I know I do). Most users don't know about this level of tracking. Moreover, while referral URLs containing search terms has been the norm for a long time (and IMHO, is not an evil move, just legacy from a privacy perspective), there is no real reason why things must stay this way.
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    I was under the impression you can opt-out of all that, is that not the case?
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      No, you cannot opt-out of the referrer header. However, you can use the SSL version, which doesn't send it in most cases (still sends it for HTTPS->HTTPS traffic). Edit: sorry, I meant you cannot opt-out using http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ or other HTTP (regular Google) settings.
      - ezalor 16y ago
        So it's really just a time-limited solution, a temporary chance.
      - moultano 16y ago
        Of course you can. That's a setting in your browser.
      - djmdjm 16y ago
        You can opt out using https://encrypted.google.com/ https://encrypted.google.com/ (this has been pointed out a number of times)
  - coderdude 16y ago
    Then that is their ONLY claim against Google (yet not Google alone). Everything else on that donttrack.us page is applicable to any and every search engine or Website. I believe DDG is being disingenuous by making it sound like this a Google-only thing. Even if Google is the big guy they want to go after, they should be up front that this is not something that makes Google evil or is specific to Google.
    - potatolicious 16y ago
      donttrack.us also rips on third-party ad networks that are non-Google for extending the tracking even further. This also seems to be the core reason why DDG rails against search terms in referral URLs, since it's a major enabler for third-party network tracking. So yes, DDG is targeting the 800# gorilla in its marketing, but it's not unjustified, nor has DDG claimed on the donttrack.us page that Google is the sole culprit in the destruction of user privacy. There's a certain amount of opportunism in this billboard/privacy ad campaign here, that much is obvious. But, as a search engine it does not seem unreasonable to call out the failings of your main competitor.
      - coderdude 16y ago
        >donttrack.us also rips on third-party ad networks that are non-Google for extending the tracking even further On the site it says "Those sites usually have third-party ads. and those third-parties build profiles about you," How are they able to do this? Because Google lets them. That's the message they are sending across to people. The entire campaign is anti-Google only in nature. It's not this fair and balanced reporting on privacy that you're making it out to be. >nor has DDG claimed on the donttrack.us page that Google is the sole culprit in the destruction of user privacy Their campaign only talks about Google. That's the only name and logo they ever show or speak of.
        potatolicious 16y ago
        > "That's the message they are sending across to people." Which is true. > "The entire campaign is anti-Google only in nature." Well, yes. DDG is a search engine. They are targeting their chief competitor, a search engine, in their marketing. > "It's not this fair and balanced reporting on privacy that you're making it out to be." Correction: it's not a comprehensive guide to everything online that violates your privacy. But donttrack.us never claimed to be. You seem to be under the impression that the intent for donttrack.us is an entirely selfless, complete, and comprehensive guide. Now, I'm not affiliated with DDG, but it seems absurd to derive that from the site. The way I see it is: yes, they're targeting Google, but that's not exactly unfair given that Google is DDG's chief competitor. If you were Subway, running attack ads on McDonald's on the obesity angle, why would you waste your breath also ripping apart I Can't Believe It's Not Butter? Nothing DDG has said is false, nor (IMHO) have they deceived their users by omission. Everything in this campaign is accurate. I simply don't see the outrage. Now, whether or not the privacy issue is even worth fretting about, or whether using DDG will reverse the tide of privacy destruction that you're exposed to everywhere else, that's another issue entirely. DDG hasn't claimed that switching from Google will fix all of your privacy woes, but what they do claim is that it will fix the privacy violation that Google directly allows. That seems fair enough.
- patio11 16y ago
  Matt's comment is, basically, no fair for criticizing us for incontestably true things which are intrinsic to our business model. That was only fair when w were the scrappy underdog taking on the uncaring megacorp with the unassailable market position.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - dschobel 16y ago
    Pithy but Google won the day because its search quality beat the holy hell out yahoo, altavista, et al.
ladon86 16y ago
That's awesome! Does anyone (Gabriel...) know if there has been a noticeable bump in traffic as a result?
- idoh 16y ago
  Check here in the coming days: http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html
jeremymims 16y ago
This is surprisingly inexpensive advertising and will likely generate the value of its price in press coverage alone.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  I would have cost advertising on a billboard in an area like that cost ten times as much.
- tlrobinson 16y ago
  See that billboard directly behind it with "San Francisco Chronicle" along the top? That's for the auto show in November... 2010. It couldn't have been very expensive if they're still advertising an event that ended two months ago...
  - JacobAldridge 16y ago
    I doubt the Chronicle is still paying for that, it just means no paying replacement has been found so it hasn't been covered / removed. That could mean it's REALLY expensive to advertise there, though it's more likely it's just not a prime advertising site. Still, what's a full page ad in Wired set you back? Solid PR play by DDG.
- simplegeek 16y ago
  I think this is a brilliant idea and this is very cheap. In fact, he put up a bill-board and also he's on Wired now ;) Nice, two birds in one shot ;)
truebosko 16y ago
Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. I had a scenario like this a few days ago when I googled for "fabric" -- Being a Python developer I was looking for http://fabfile.org http://fabfile.org and it shows up as the second result while logged in. If I'm not, it won't show up. This may be the outlier state of mind on HN, but I think in general, as-in billboard advertising, it's not an issue. Am I wrong?
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. Will it necessarily mean better search results or will it mean that you will be subjected to personalized spam produced by those who game Google's system? I think history shows that there will be at least a little of the latter.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - ericd 16y ago
    That's being a bit pedantic, he's just using it as a colorful way of saying that he doesn't mind them keeping track of what he's done, and he backs it up with a really good reason.
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    For anyone wondering, this comment has changed. After being told by ericd he was being a pedantic ass and downvoted he edited the comment. This isn't what it originally said.
    - yhmv 16y ago
      And now it's deleted, such a jerk.
- klochner 16y ago
  There is also a slightly different case - google passing on your search terms to the website that you click through to. You may trust google with knowing that you searched for "naked bieber pics", but you may not want other websites also knowing your search habits.
jeremydavid 16y ago
Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters. Unless you're using dodgy 3rd party advertisers, I don't see what's so bad about aggregating referrer data. I have a feeling Google might be keen to hold onto their duck.com domain a little longer :)
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  You can get that info via Google's Webmaster Tools: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/
  - gojomo 16y ago
    So if Google blurs referrers by default, instead of just people who opt for HTTPS search, but then more webmasters become more tightly bound to Google Webmaster Tools for necessary analytics, is that a net win for consumers and search engine diversity? I doubt most webmasters will endeavor to learn N different webmaster control panels, so this recommendation further advantages the leader. Google might very well respond to the pressure of this campaign by saying, "OK, you got us, we'll change", then laugh all the way to the even-stronger-monopoly bank.
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      That would be a fine outcome from my perspective.
    - BrandonM 16y ago
      I disagree. If you're concerned about how you're doing on Google, it makes sense to have to go to Google to find out.
      - gojomo 16y ago
        Makes sense from what perspective, optimizing for whom? My concern is that compared to referrer-leaking of terms – a standard way to inform webmasters, the same for all search engines – using the Google Webmaster Tools encourages webmasters to develop non-portable Google-specific skills. This cements the leader's position even further. If your top concern is privacy, Google blurring referrers will help. If your top concern is competition in search and analytics, it hurts.
noelchurchill 16y ago
I am inspired that one man is pulling off DuckDuckGo
- adityakothadiya 16y ago
  This is really big deal. Every time I fail to find a great co-founder, I just look up to Gabriel and decide to not give up even if I've to run my company as a solo founder. Running a company as a solo-founder is not new. We've many successful solo founders on HN. But running a Search engine is a really big deal, where many big companies have failed. So respect to Gabriel is even more...
latch 16y ago
I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.
- cmelbye 16y ago
  This is one of the biggest reasons I don't use DuckDuckGo yet. Seems trivial, but for me it's certainly a barrier to entry. I'd say the second biggest reason is the annoying user interface (gaudy effects like large lime green backgrounds when you roll over search results, etc.)
  - hrabago 16y ago
    > I'd say the second biggest reason is the annoying user interface DuckDuckGo is the first website that made me want to install a browser plugin to change the way the page looks. (As for other websites that had a look I didn't like, I simply stopped visiting them.) The problem with installing plugins, though, is that I use several browsers on several computers, and to get a consistent look, I'd have to customize all of them (if possible).
    - aperiodic 16y ago
      You can customize a fair amount DuckDuckGo's UI using the settings page[1], most notably hover highlighting, color scheme, and header placement (fixed vs scrolling). [1]: http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html
      - hessenwolf 16y ago
        Not good if you operate on several different computers & browsers.
  - aperiodic 16y ago
    DuckDuckGo does have a very annoying default color scheme. Fortunately you can turn it off in the settings page: http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html.
aditya 16y ago
I love it when WIRED quotes someone on Hacker News :-)
Joakal 16y ago
I think Wired is mocking the HN community subtly.
yhmv 16y ago
Btw epi0Bauqu I love your new ddg logo!
waqf 16y ago
I have nothing against GW and I wish him well, but what kind of guarantee do I have of his claim that he doesn't log my search queries? (I realize that the "Referer" thing is indeed verifiable.)
- jackowayed 16y ago
  Why would he? He has no advertising to use it for. He doesn't want the government to be able to subpoena him. (They can't ask for information he doesn't have.) And it would pretty much kill the business he's been building for 3 years if it came out that he was logging information that he's been loudly claiming that he doesn't. He also wrote a blog post on how to change nginx's defaults to not log IP and user agent: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-not-log-personally-identifiable-information.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-not-log-p...
pedanticfreak 16y ago
Anyone else think there should be a DuckDuckGo of browsers that is similarly proactive about privacy? There way more ways than just cookies to track people nowadays and it's about time we implemented default behavior in the browser to block them. There's no reason to wait for Google or Mozilla to do it for us either.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Excellent point. There's a great opportunity for somebody enterprising to take the lead here and get a lot of press for it.
- markkat 16y ago
  I would use this, most definitely. Sign me up. I don't think Google or Mozilla would do it. I think an interesting option would be to have a "what you can know about me" table in the browser that you could fill out. Location, interests, etc. -Your web experience is customizable, but on your terms.
- cyrus_ 16y ago
  The EFF has a plugin that uses SSL when available on a number of common websites (Google included): https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere. AdBlock will get rid of a lot of stuff (you will be depriving some sites of revenue, use the whitelist if you respect the site.) There are a few other privacy-related add-ons that I don't have experience with too.
brisance 16y ago
It's not just the privacy angle, DDG also returns much more relevant results for my searches. YMMV.
jjcm 16y ago
A quick (and perhaps slightly offtopic) question, what's DDG's revenue model? Is it just an experiment right now, and if so how is Gabriel funding this?
- citricsquid 16y ago
  He has an about me page somewhere, but he sold a business a while back for a relatively large amount and I assume he could live off that forever, so money certainly isn't a concern for him. Edit: found the info, $10m - http://investor.untd.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=328835 http://investor.untd.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=328835
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    It's rather telling that he gets to work on DDG on his own terms from Pennsylvania. (I'm a coder that pines for mudding and visible stars, so the fact that my career choices are NYC/SF is disheartening at times.)
    - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
      Actually there seem to be a good number of jobs in Pittsburgh, but I know nothing about the natural environs that way. In California, if you work in Silicon Valley you can always live down in the Santa Cruz mountains. If you work in SF you can live in Marin. It is often faster to go from Marin to SOMA than it is to go from the Sunset or Richmond to SOMA. I can't say it's a quick commute from the SC mountains to anywhere, but the option is there. I know Apple has a shuttle bus from Santa Cruz to Cupertino, maybe other firms do, too. NYC metro is not great for stargazing but I was surprised that there are nice places for hiking upstate, and in NJ and CT. Even Vermont and the Berkshires are accessible for weekend trips.
prawn 16y ago
For anyone that just wants to see what the billboard looks like and isn't interested in the article: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_billboard2-660x441.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_bill...
- mcantor 16y ago
  Couldn't those people just click on the link, look at the picture of the billboard and then close the window? Not being sarcastic... that's what I did.
  - prawn 16y ago
    I'm sure I'm not alone in that I read HN comments before I hit an article, often because so many articles are linkbait, misleading, lacking content, overly saturated in ads, etc. I very, very rarely click through to TechCrunch articles, for example, as they're rarely satisfying. If the comments suggest the article is especially worth reading, then I'll click on. If they don't say much about the article itself or suggest that it's not worth the click, I feel as though I haven't rewarded average behaviour with that page view. In this case, I checked the HN comments for a direct link to the image because that's honestly all I wanted to see - the design and wording of the billboard. I didn't want the article, comments, masthead, everything else that comes with a news site pageload these days. I use AdBlock so the ads weren't going to reward the site owner and I'd just be chewing up extra bandwidth. When I didn't see a link to the image, I wondered if anyone else might've been looking for one too and thought I'd put one up. Easy to click for those who wanted it, easy to ignore for everyone else. I assume the couple of downvotes are people thinking along your lines, or being against deep-linking?
peteforde 16y ago
I'm all for a good story, and the one-man DDG going up against Google is certainly a great one. However, considering the number of armchair business analysts on HN I'm shocked that nobody seems to call out Gabriel for appearing to fall into a cliched trap: "we don't track you" isn't a product, it's a feature. I genuinely wonder what DDG would do if Google simply addressed all of their referrer privacy issues. Then what, exactly? Would DDG simply pack up and go home? It's a fair question.
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  Privacy is just but one aspect of DuckDuckGo: http://duckduckgo.com/about.html http://duckduckgo.com/about.html http://duckduckgo.com/goodies.html http://duckduckgo.com/goodies.html I spend the vast majority of my time improving the search experience. I would welcome you trying it for a week and giving me your feedback! I would love it if Google reacted to this by stopping this search leakage.
  - peteforde 16y ago
    Deal!
  - jonknee 16y ago
    I changed to Duck Duck Go in Chrome a couple weeks ago to do just this and didn't make it past three days. I was looking forward to getting rid of content mills (which was the reason I wanted to try DDG for a week), but the lack of things like local results and search completion drove me absolutely batty.
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      Thx -- both of those things we're actively working on and should have something for this year (probably earlier than later).
      - jonknee 16y ago
        Great to hear. I like what you're doing and will definitely continue to check it out when you add new features. I don't agree with your stance on referrers (which isn't a Google problem any more than it's a HN problem), but I like rooting for the little guy.
frsandstone 16y ago
This site is linked from DuckDuckGo.com: http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/
jemfinch 16y ago
I've never seen so many typos in a mainstream web media article. Wired should be ashamed.
samstokes 16y ago
I'm surprised he's only paying $7000 to put up a massive billboard next to a major consumer route for a month. I'm sure billboard advertising doesn't have great conversion rates, but I still imagined that would cost more. Anyone care to comment on their experiences with billboard ads?
- Matt_Cutts 16y ago
  Consumer Watchdog paid to put their message up on a Jumbotron in Times Square: http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/09/02/consumer-watchdog-times-square-animation-on-googles-privacy-abuses-may-get-a-sequel/ http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/09/02/consumer-wat... That article says they paid $25000 for their cartoon that tried to make Eric Schmidt look creepy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouof1OzhL8k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouof1OzhL8k
  - rsingel 16y ago
    And as you know, I made it clear that I thought Consumer Watchdog went way over the line and made unfair claims. I don't see this with DDG and its campaign. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/in-defense-of-google/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/in-defense-of-google/
    - yuhong 16y ago
      Yea, I remember reading that it was likely paid by Microsoft.
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  I think the return on investment probably needs to (and intends to) include the public relations events (like the Wired article) created, as well as direct conversion rates. It's entirely possible DDG / Gabriel will have more new users from that article than from a month of the billboard, but of course the article wouldn't have been written if he hadn't done something novel like old-school advertising a new-school product.
some1else 16y ago
I would have put that billboard somewhere on the east coast instead.
dools 16y ago
Turning off HTTP_REFERER doesn't sound like a very good idea. How would you be able to tell how people found you? Knowing what link someone came in from is a great way to see where your site fits into this world wide web of ours. It sounds to me as if the only issue is 3rd party ad networks. The antidote to this seems to me to be more reasonably the web browser's jurisdiction, ie. making the cookie policy more restrictive by default.
- dauphin 16y ago
  *referrer
  - jarek 16y ago
    Heh, no. The header really is "HTTP_REFERER", and is somewhat notorious for the misspelling.
    - dauphin 16y ago
      Open an English dictionary (the Oxford one if you're serious), and come back. Note my fault if tbl didn't know how to speak English corectly backed then.
      - jarek 16y ago
        Surely whether or not the RFC's authors know how to spell a word has no bearing on how sensible it is to correct the spelling of "HTTP_REFERER"? I mean, if dools had said "HTTP referer" then you might have had a point, but "HTTP_REFERER" unambiguously refers to the name of the header field.
        ezalor 16y ago
        No need to be pedant dude.
        jarek 16y ago
jarek 16y ago
Some questions... - is DDG profitable right now? - is it going to be profitable if their user base grows by 10x? 1000x? - do they ever expect a need to be profitable? - if required to be profitable, do they have or foresee a solid business plan that doesn't involve de facto "tracking"?
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  No, yes (10x), yes, grow the user base.
frekri 16y ago
It gave me better results than google on 3 different searches. Bookmarked.
- ezalor 16y ago
  Which kind?
thiago907 16y ago
well googlesharing.net (by moxie marlinspike) prevent google from tracking your searches... its a ff addon if im not mistaken
geekinthecorner 16y ago
I've been on top of that billboard to photograph the sunset. It's about the only use of a billboard I've ever found. Oh, there are ads on them too. Do people actually look at billboards?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
initself 16y ago
Was that article even edited? So many spelling errors!
cpeterso 16y ago
If DDG is highlighting its search privacy, why doesn't the website default to HTTPS? (I know there is more the search privacy than HTTPS, but it would reinforce the "secure" search messaging.)
bambax 16y ago
> * and it’s privacy message seemed to resonate with users* > While... but... Is there a copy editor at Wired?
lysium 16y ago
I understand the privacy concerns, but not the FUD about the referrer. Just turn it off and you're done! There's even a Firefox addon that allows site-specific settings. RefControl https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ I've been using it for years.
axod 16y ago
1. Concentrate on making your product great, instead of attacking the competition/market leader. 2. Don't assume everyone cares about things you do. No one gives a hoot if a website they click on knows what page they came from.
huhtenberg 16y ago
Go, Gabriel, Go! :) I wonder if you can change the text in a couple of week to ".. still tracking. We still don't". This should give those curious another push to go and just try DDG.
rottendevice 16y ago
It strikes me as kind of odd that the billboard says "We", implying that DuckDuckGo is a company of multiple people. Then again, saying "I don't track you" would sound extremely strange. I guess we (as a society) have become so accustomed to companies requiring large groups of people to be successful. I guess Gabe's ability to take on Google, the biggest tech company this decade, by himself, is a testament to computer programming being so empowering.
- cmontgomeryb 16y ago
  Many people do this. If you see a website for a product developed by a single person, more often than not they will use "we".
storborg 16y ago
I think Wired picked entirely the wrong privacy issue to highlight in this article. Yes, my browser spews the refer(r)er all over. So what? The referer isn't giving away any private information that the URL of the site isn't giving away already, and as a web publisher, I understand the value of knowing the exact set of terms the user used. However, I love DuckDuckGo, and try to use it wherever possible, because of other privacy concerns that matter much more to me. The biggest thing I like about DDG is that it doesn't collect or store search history.
radioactive21 16y ago
I am certain, that the point of DuckDuckGo is not to beat Google. It is for google or another search company to buy it.

334 points by woodrow 16y ago

More FUD from DuckDuckGo about Google and privacy issues. Didn't we come to the conclusion that the things they are railing against Google for are applicable to any and every Website? Matt Cutts stole the comment show on this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063619 The worst thing about this is how blindly news about DDG gets upvoted around here. Edit: To my down-voters: It doesn't make what I said not true anymore.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
potatolicious 16y ago
That's disingenuous. DDG has legitimate claim to "Google tracks you" beyond just referrer URLs. When you search for "athlete's foot" on DDG you won't see an add for foot cream the next time you're watching a video on YouTube. That's the sort of tracking Google undeniably does do that users may find troubling (I know I do). Most users don't know about this level of tracking. Moreover, while referral URLs containing search terms has been the norm for a long time (and IMHO, is not an evil move, just legacy from a privacy perspective), there is no real reason why things must stay this way.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  I was under the impression you can opt-out of all that, is that not the case?
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    No, you cannot opt-out of the referrer header. However, you can use the SSL version, which doesn't send it in most cases (still sends it for HTTPS->HTTPS traffic). Edit: sorry, I meant you cannot opt-out using http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ or other HTTP (regular Google) settings.
    - ezalor 16y ago
      So it's really just a time-limited solution, a temporary chance.
    - moultano 16y ago
      Of course you can. That's a setting in your browser.
    - djmdjm 16y ago
      You can opt out using https://encrypted.google.com/ https://encrypted.google.com/ (this has been pointed out a number of times)
- coderdude 16y ago
  Then that is their ONLY claim against Google (yet not Google alone). Everything else on that donttrack.us page is applicable to any and every search engine or Website. I believe DDG is being disingenuous by making it sound like this a Google-only thing. Even if Google is the big guy they want to go after, they should be up front that this is not something that makes Google evil or is specific to Google.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    donttrack.us also rips on third-party ad networks that are non-Google for extending the tracking even further. This also seems to be the core reason why DDG rails against search terms in referral URLs, since it's a major enabler for third-party network tracking. So yes, DDG is targeting the 800# gorilla in its marketing, but it's not unjustified, nor has DDG claimed on the donttrack.us page that Google is the sole culprit in the destruction of user privacy. There's a certain amount of opportunism in this billboard/privacy ad campaign here, that much is obvious. But, as a search engine it does not seem unreasonable to call out the failings of your main competitor.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      >donttrack.us also rips on third-party ad networks that are non-Google for extending the tracking even further On the site it says "Those sites usually have third-party ads. and those third-parties build profiles about you," How are they able to do this? Because Google lets them. That's the message they are sending across to people. The entire campaign is anti-Google only in nature. It's not this fair and balanced reporting on privacy that you're making it out to be. >nor has DDG claimed on the donttrack.us page that Google is the sole culprit in the destruction of user privacy Their campaign only talks about Google. That's the only name and logo they ever show or speak of.
      - potatolicious 16y ago
        > "That's the message they are sending across to people." Which is true. > "The entire campaign is anti-Google only in nature." Well, yes. DDG is a search engine. They are targeting their chief competitor, a search engine, in their marketing. > "It's not this fair and balanced reporting on privacy that you're making it out to be." Correction: it's not a comprehensive guide to everything online that violates your privacy. But donttrack.us never claimed to be. You seem to be under the impression that the intent for donttrack.us is an entirely selfless, complete, and comprehensive guide. Now, I'm not affiliated with DDG, but it seems absurd to derive that from the site. The way I see it is: yes, they're targeting Google, but that's not exactly unfair given that Google is DDG's chief competitor. If you were Subway, running attack ads on McDonald's on the obesity angle, why would you waste your breath also ripping apart I Can't Believe It's Not Butter? Nothing DDG has said is false, nor (IMHO) have they deceived their users by omission. Everything in this campaign is accurate. I simply don't see the outrage. Now, whether or not the privacy issue is even worth fretting about, or whether using DDG will reverse the tide of privacy destruction that you're exposed to everywhere else, that's another issue entirely. DDG hasn't claimed that switching from Google will fix all of your privacy woes, but what they do claim is that it will fix the privacy violation that Google directly allows. That seems fair enough.
patio11 16y ago
Matt's comment is, basically, no fair for criticizing us for incontestably true things which are intrinsic to our business model. That was only fair when w were the scrappy underdog taking on the uncaring megacorp with the unassailable market position.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dschobel 16y ago
  Pithy but Google won the day because its search quality beat the holy hell out yahoo, altavista, et al.

ladon86 16y ago

That's awesome! Does anyone (Gabriel...) know if there has been a noticeable bump in traffic as a result?

idoh 16y ago
Check here in the coming days: http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html

jeremymims 16y ago

This is surprisingly inexpensive advertising and will likely generate the value of its price in press coverage alone.

brown9-2 16y ago
I would have cost advertising on a billboard in an area like that cost ten times as much.
tlrobinson 16y ago
See that billboard directly behind it with "San Francisco Chronicle" along the top? That's for the auto show in November... 2010. It couldn't have been very expensive if they're still advertising an event that ended two months ago...
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  I doubt the Chronicle is still paying for that, it just means no paying replacement has been found so it hasn't been covered / removed. That could mean it's REALLY expensive to advertise there, though it's more likely it's just not a prime advertising site. Still, what's a full page ad in Wired set you back? Solid PR play by DDG.
simplegeek 16y ago
I think this is a brilliant idea and this is very cheap. In fact, he put up a bill-board and also he's on Wired now ;) Nice, two birds in one shot ;)

truebosko 16y ago

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. I had a scenario like this a few days ago when I googled for "fabric" -- Being a Python developer I was looking for http://fabfile.org http://fabfile.org and it shows up as the second result while logged in. If I'm not, it won't show up. This may be the outlier state of mind on HN, but I think in general, as-in billboard advertising, it's not an issue. Am I wrong?

stcredzero 16y ago
I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. Will it necessarily mean better search results or will it mean that you will be subjected to personalized spam produced by those who game Google's system? I think history shows that there will be at least a little of the latter.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- ericd 16y ago
  That's being a bit pedantic, he's just using it as a colorful way of saying that he doesn't mind them keeping track of what he's done, and he backs it up with a really good reason.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  For anyone wondering, this comment has changed. After being told by ericd he was being a pedantic ass and downvoted he edited the comment. This isn't what it originally said.
  - yhmv 16y ago
    And now it's deleted, such a jerk.
klochner 16y ago
There is also a slightly different case - google passing on your search terms to the website that you click through to. You may trust google with knowing that you searched for "naked bieber pics", but you may not want other websites also knowing your search habits.

jeremydavid 16y ago

Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters. Unless you're using dodgy 3rd party advertisers, I don't see what's so bad about aggregating referrer data. I have a feeling Google might be keen to hold onto their duck.com domain a little longer :)

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
You can get that info via Google's Webmaster Tools: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/
- gojomo 16y ago
  So if Google blurs referrers by default, instead of just people who opt for HTTPS search, but then more webmasters become more tightly bound to Google Webmaster Tools for necessary analytics, is that a net win for consumers and search engine diversity? I doubt most webmasters will endeavor to learn N different webmaster control panels, so this recommendation further advantages the leader. Google might very well respond to the pressure of this campaign by saying, "OK, you got us, we'll change", then laugh all the way to the even-stronger-monopoly bank.
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    That would be a fine outcome from my perspective.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    I disagree. If you're concerned about how you're doing on Google, it makes sense to have to go to Google to find out.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      Makes sense from what perspective, optimizing for whom? My concern is that compared to referrer-leaking of terms – a standard way to inform webmasters, the same for all search engines – using the Google Webmaster Tools encourages webmasters to develop non-portable Google-specific skills. This cements the leader's position even further. If your top concern is privacy, Google blurring referrers will help. If your top concern is competition in search and analytics, it hurts.

noelchurchill 16y ago

I am inspired that one man is pulling off DuckDuckGo

adityakothadiya 16y ago
This is really big deal. Every time I fail to find a great co-founder, I just look up to Gabriel and decide to not give up even if I've to run my company as a solo founder. Running a company as a solo-founder is not new. We've many successful solo founders on HN. But running a Search engine is a really big deal, where many big companies have failed. So respect to Gabriel is even more...

latch 16y ago

I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.

cmelbye 16y ago
This is one of the biggest reasons I don't use DuckDuckGo yet. Seems trivial, but for me it's certainly a barrier to entry. I'd say the second biggest reason is the annoying user interface (gaudy effects like large lime green backgrounds when you roll over search results, etc.)
- hrabago 16y ago
  > I'd say the second biggest reason is the annoying user interface DuckDuckGo is the first website that made me want to install a browser plugin to change the way the page looks. (As for other websites that had a look I didn't like, I simply stopped visiting them.) The problem with installing plugins, though, is that I use several browsers on several computers, and to get a consistent look, I'd have to customize all of them (if possible).
  - aperiodic 16y ago
    You can customize a fair amount DuckDuckGo's UI using the settings page[1], most notably hover highlighting, color scheme, and header placement (fixed vs scrolling). [1]: http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html
    - hessenwolf 16y ago
      Not good if you operate on several different computers & browsers.
- aperiodic 16y ago
  DuckDuckGo does have a very annoying default color scheme. Fortunately you can turn it off in the settings page: http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html http://duckduckgo.com/settings.html.

aditya 16y ago

I love it when WIRED quotes someone on Hacker News :-)

Joakal 16y ago

I think Wired is mocking the HN community subtly.

yhmv 16y ago

Btw epi0Bauqu I love your new ddg logo!

waqf 16y ago

I have nothing against GW and I wish him well, but what kind of guarantee do I have of his claim that he doesn't log my search queries? (I realize that the "Referer" thing is indeed verifiable.)

jackowayed 16y ago
Why would he? He has no advertising to use it for. He doesn't want the government to be able to subpoena him. (They can't ask for information he doesn't have.) And it would pretty much kill the business he's been building for 3 years if it came out that he was logging information that he's been loudly claiming that he doesn't. He also wrote a blog post on how to change nginx's defaults to not log IP and user agent: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-not-log-personally-identifiable-information.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-not-log-p...

pedanticfreak 16y ago

Anyone else think there should be a DuckDuckGo of browsers that is similarly proactive about privacy? There way more ways than just cookies to track people nowadays and it's about time we implemented default behavior in the browser to block them. There's no reason to wait for Google or Mozilla to do it for us either.

jdp23 16y ago
Excellent point. There's a great opportunity for somebody enterprising to take the lead here and get a lot of press for it.
markkat 16y ago
I would use this, most definitely. Sign me up. I don't think Google or Mozilla would do it. I think an interesting option would be to have a "what you can know about me" table in the browser that you could fill out. Location, interests, etc. -Your web experience is customizable, but on your terms.
cyrus_ 16y ago
The EFF has a plugin that uses SSL when available on a number of common websites (Google included): https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere. AdBlock will get rid of a lot of stuff (you will be depriving some sites of revenue, use the whitelist if you respect the site.) There are a few other privacy-related add-ons that I don't have experience with too.

brisance 16y ago

It's not just the privacy angle, DDG also returns much more relevant results for my searches. YMMV.

jjcm 16y ago

A quick (and perhaps slightly offtopic) question, what's DDG's revenue model? Is it just an experiment right now, and if so how is Gabriel funding this?

citricsquid 16y ago
He has an about me page somewhere, but he sold a business a while back for a relatively large amount and I assume he could live off that forever, so money certainly isn't a concern for him. Edit: found the info, $10m - http://investor.untd.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=328835 http://investor.untd.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=328835
- alnayyir 16y ago
  It's rather telling that he gets to work on DDG on his own terms from Pennsylvania. (I'm a coder that pines for mudding and visible stars, so the fact that my career choices are NYC/SF is disheartening at times.)
  - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
    Actually there seem to be a good number of jobs in Pittsburgh, but I know nothing about the natural environs that way. In California, if you work in Silicon Valley you can always live down in the Santa Cruz mountains. If you work in SF you can live in Marin. It is often faster to go from Marin to SOMA than it is to go from the Sunset or Richmond to SOMA. I can't say it's a quick commute from the SC mountains to anywhere, but the option is there. I know Apple has a shuttle bus from Santa Cruz to Cupertino, maybe other firms do, too. NYC metro is not great for stargazing but I was surprised that there are nice places for hiking upstate, and in NJ and CT. Even Vermont and the Berkshires are accessible for weekend trips.

prawn 16y ago

For anyone that just wants to see what the billboard looks like and isn't interested in the article: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_billboard2-660x441.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_bill...

mcantor 16y ago
Couldn't those people just click on the link, look at the picture of the billboard and then close the window? Not being sarcastic... that's what I did.
- prawn 16y ago
  I'm sure I'm not alone in that I read HN comments before I hit an article, often because so many articles are linkbait, misleading, lacking content, overly saturated in ads, etc. I very, very rarely click through to TechCrunch articles, for example, as they're rarely satisfying. If the comments suggest the article is especially worth reading, then I'll click on. If they don't say much about the article itself or suggest that it's not worth the click, I feel as though I haven't rewarded average behaviour with that page view. In this case, I checked the HN comments for a direct link to the image because that's honestly all I wanted to see - the design and wording of the billboard. I didn't want the article, comments, masthead, everything else that comes with a news site pageload these days. I use AdBlock so the ads weren't going to reward the site owner and I'd just be chewing up extra bandwidth. When I didn't see a link to the image, I wondered if anyone else might've been looking for one too and thought I'd put one up. Easy to click for those who wanted it, easy to ignore for everyone else. I assume the couple of downvotes are people thinking along your lines, or being against deep-linking?

peteforde 16y ago

I'm all for a good story, and the one-man DDG going up against Google is certainly a great one. However, considering the number of armchair business analysts on HN I'm shocked that nobody seems to call out Gabriel for appearing to fall into a cliched trap: "we don't track you" isn't a product, it's a feature. I genuinely wonder what DDG would do if Google simply addressed all of their referrer privacy issues. Then what, exactly? Would DDG simply pack up and go home? It's a fair question.

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
Privacy is just but one aspect of DuckDuckGo: http://duckduckgo.com/about.html http://duckduckgo.com/about.html http://duckduckgo.com/goodies.html http://duckduckgo.com/goodies.html I spend the vast majority of my time improving the search experience. I would welcome you trying it for a week and giving me your feedback! I would love it if Google reacted to this by stopping this search leakage.
- peteforde 16y ago
  Deal!
- jonknee 16y ago
  I changed to Duck Duck Go in Chrome a couple weeks ago to do just this and didn't make it past three days. I was looking forward to getting rid of content mills (which was the reason I wanted to try DDG for a week), but the lack of things like local results and search completion drove me absolutely batty.
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    Thx -- both of those things we're actively working on and should have something for this year (probably earlier than later).
    - jonknee 16y ago
      Great to hear. I like what you're doing and will definitely continue to check it out when you add new features. I don't agree with your stance on referrers (which isn't a Google problem any more than it's a HN problem), but I like rooting for the little guy.

frsandstone 16y ago

This site is linked from DuckDuckGo.com: http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/

jemfinch 16y ago

I've never seen so many typos in a mainstream web media article. Wired should be ashamed.

samstokes 16y ago

I'm surprised he's only paying $7000 to put up a massive billboard next to a major consumer route for a month. I'm sure billboard advertising doesn't have great conversion rates, but I still imagined that would cost more. Anyone care to comment on their experiences with billboard ads?

Matt_Cutts 16y ago
Consumer Watchdog paid to put their message up on a Jumbotron in Times Square: http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/09/02/consumer-watchdog-times-square-animation-on-googles-privacy-abuses-may-get-a-sequel/ http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/09/02/consumer-wat... That article says they paid $25000 for their cartoon that tried to make Eric Schmidt look creepy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouof1OzhL8k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouof1OzhL8k
- rsingel 16y ago
  And as you know, I made it clear that I thought Consumer Watchdog went way over the line and made unfair claims. I don't see this with DDG and its campaign. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/in-defense-of-google/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/in-defense-of-google/
  - yuhong 16y ago
    Yea, I remember reading that it was likely paid by Microsoft.
JacobAldridge 16y ago
I think the return on investment probably needs to (and intends to) include the public relations events (like the Wired article) created, as well as direct conversion rates. It's entirely possible DDG / Gabriel will have more new users from that article than from a month of the billboard, but of course the article wouldn't have been written if he hadn't done something novel like old-school advertising a new-school product.

some1else 16y ago

I would have put that billboard somewhere on the east coast instead.

dools 16y ago

Turning off HTTP_REFERER doesn't sound like a very good idea. How would you be able to tell how people found you? Knowing what link someone came in from is a great way to see where your site fits into this world wide web of ours. It sounds to me as if the only issue is 3rd party ad networks. The antidote to this seems to me to be more reasonably the web browser's jurisdiction, ie. making the cookie policy more restrictive by default.

dauphin 16y ago
*referrer
- jarek 16y ago
  Heh, no. The header really is "HTTP_REFERER", and is somewhat notorious for the misspelling.
  - dauphin 16y ago
    Open an English dictionary (the Oxford one if you're serious), and come back. Note my fault if tbl didn't know how to speak English corectly backed then.
    - jarek 16y ago
      Surely whether or not the RFC's authors know how to spell a word has no bearing on how sensible it is to correct the spelling of "HTTP_REFERER"? I mean, if dools had said "HTTP referer" then you might have had a point, but "HTTP_REFERER" unambiguously refers to the name of the header field.
      - ezalor 16y ago
        No need to be pedant dude.
        jarek 16y ago

jarek 16y ago

Some questions... - is DDG profitable right now? - is it going to be profitable if their user base grows by 10x? 1000x? - do they ever expect a need to be profitable? - if required to be profitable, do they have or foresee a solid business plan that doesn't involve de facto "tracking"?

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
No, yes (10x), yes, grow the user base.

frekri 16y ago

It gave me better results than google on 3 different searches. Bookmarked.

ezalor 16y ago
Which kind?

thiago907 16y ago

well googlesharing.net (by moxie marlinspike) prevent google from tracking your searches... its a ff addon if im not mistaken

geekinthecorner 16y ago

I've been on top of that billboard to photograph the sunset. It's about the only use of a billboard I've ever found. Oh, there are ads on them too. Do people actually look at billboards?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

initself 16y ago

Was that article even edited? So many spelling errors!

cpeterso 16y ago

If DDG is highlighting its search privacy, why doesn't the website default to HTTPS? (I know there is more the search privacy than HTTPS, but it would reinforce the "secure" search messaging.)

bambax 16y ago

> * and it’s privacy message seemed to resonate with users* > While... but... Is there a copy editor at Wired?

lysium 16y ago

I understand the privacy concerns, but not the FUD about the referrer. Just turn it off and you're done! There's even a Firefox addon that allows site-specific settings. RefControl https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ I've been using it for years.

axod 16y ago

1. Concentrate on making your product great, instead of attacking the competition/market leader. 2. Don't assume everyone cares about things you do. No one gives a hoot if a website they click on knows what page they came from.

huhtenberg 16y ago

Go, Gabriel, Go! :) I wonder if you can change the text in a couple of week to ".. still tracking. We still don't". This should give those curious another push to go and just try DDG.

rottendevice 16y ago

It strikes me as kind of odd that the billboard says "We", implying that DuckDuckGo is a company of multiple people. Then again, saying "I don't track you" would sound extremely strange. I guess we (as a society) have become so accustomed to companies requiring large groups of people to be successful. I guess Gabe's ability to take on Google, the biggest tech company this decade, by himself, is a testament to computer programming being so empowering.

cmontgomeryb 16y ago
Many people do this. If you see a website for a product developed by a single person, more often than not they will use "we".

storborg 16y ago

I think Wired picked entirely the wrong privacy issue to highlight in this article. Yes, my browser spews the refer(r)er all over. So what? The referer isn't giving away any private information that the URL of the site isn't giving away already, and as a web publisher, I understand the value of knowing the exact set of terms the user used. However, I love DuckDuckGo, and try to use it wherever possible, because of other privacy concerns that matter much more to me. The biggest thing I like about DDG is that it doesn't collect or store search history.

radioactive21 16y ago

I am certain, that the point of DuckDuckGo is not to beat Google. It is for google or another search company to buy it.