10 ms·

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

• 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.
  • michaelbuckbee 16y ago
    Are they passing on search terms for previous searches or just the current search? In your (frankly terrifying) example, would the site have had to have ranked for "naked bieber pics", showing up in the results and then you click it to pull the search terms? Because that would seem to be pretty innocuous.
    • epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      Just the current search, but the problem is millions of pages run third-party ads, and most are run by very few networks. These ad networks can aggregate the terms and then they have previous searches as well.
      • dauphin 16y ago
        Pedophilia is illegal in most countries, I'd be happy if ad networks gather data about your interest on young boys and pass it to the feds! Beasts! Edit: judging by the downvotes, I guess a good bunch of hackers like to live in atrocity!
        • endtime 16y ago
          I think the downvotes are because you're missing the point so hard that they're assuming you must be trolling.
          • anti-pedo 16y ago
            OK thanks for the precision. I might not have the right kind of "humour" for this place. I might not like Jason Bieber's music, but I sure don't want to harm him neither... Btw, repeat after me: trolls do not exist (the Harry Potter books get it wrong). See: http://bit.ly/gaIrQQ http://bit.ly/gaIrQQ
• joakin 16y ago
  I would prefer the web to be better classified and less "guessing". For my queries google has been guessing wrong most of the time and putting results of things i didnt search for in the top results page. With the bangs and the zero-click duck aproaches what I think is a really good solution, for 'fabric' you get : http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fabric http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fabric Which has in the zero click info all the meanings (including the python library), and if you would want python related results just do: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python+fabric http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python+fabric And it works beautifully... I guess is a matter of how you are used to search
  • stoney 16y ago
    I agree, when I search for "fabric" I want to see the same results (more or less) on whichever computer I'm on - logged in to Google or not. If I want information on the fabric python library I just search for "python fabric" - works on DuckDuckGo as noted above and also works just fine on Google.
    • prawn 16y ago
      "I want to see the same results (more or less) on whichever computer I'm on" Even if only to stay aware of where your sites (and those of clients) are going to be positioned when customers search for them.
• mahmud 16y ago
  Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Yes it is, if you're a political activist. Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government.
  • moultano 16y ago
    >Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government. [citation needed]
    • mahmud 16y ago
      And ye shall receive: "An Indian man is facing five years in jail for making an "offensive" comment [against Sonya Ghandi] after Google handed his personal data to local police." http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-information http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-... Yahoo taken to task over China http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.htm http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.h...
      • joesb 16y ago
        Distortion. That's not Google spying on people. The guy use Orkut, a social network website, surely there's his account information there. The personal data that is handed over is email address of the account. It's probably a privacy violation if it's really that hard to find out someone's email address once you know his social network account, but it's not spying on people.
        • mahmud 16y ago
          Google OWNS Orkut, in fact, it says so on the 2nd line: Google's Orkut social networking site Here is the same story on TechCrunch showing how Google provided more than just an email address: The owner of the email id Rahul Vaid was traced, using information supplied by Google, to Chakarpur in Gurgaon city of Haryana. http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-button-google-assists-in-arrest-of-indian-man/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-butto...
• JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Ok, maybe, if it worked. But Google results have been tanking in quality. So now I vote for privacy. DuckDuckGo gives me quality results without being creepy.
• jdp23 16y ago
  i don't think it's an outlier state of mind at all ... in fact at this stage the majority of people in the US aren't concerned about search privacy. but, y'know, DuckDuckGo doesn't have to get the majority of people. with their incredibly low costs, if they can get their search market share to even 1%, they can be hugely profitable. and there are at least that many people who care.
  • jorgem 16y ago
    How does ddg make money, anyway?
    • Sargis 16y ago
      The search results to amazon are affiliate links. I'mbassuming they have other methods to get revenue as well.
      • gawker 16y ago
        Are they just aggregating search results from various websites and putting it all together into one package?
    • jimboyoungblood 16y ago
      Judging from their homepage, I'd guess they sell bowties for ducks.
• natep 16y ago
  Not sure why this hasn't been said yet (maybe I missed it), but dukgo.com already has this figured out. https://duckduckgo.com/fabric https://duckduckgo.com/fabric It knows that fabric means something in textiles, geology, etc, and that it has multiple meanings in computing. To get Python, just click 'more meanings' EDIT: I guess my point was already made, so in order to contribute something to the conversation, I'll add this: if there's anything wrong with your search result, you can just click the feedback button in the corner, explain what it is ('not showing official site for x', etc) and it gets fixed really fast.
  • paganel 16y ago
    > Not sure why this hasn't been said yet (maybe I missed it), but dukgo.com already has this figured out. Or better yet, search for "fabric python" and be done with it, no need for Google storing all your searches at the expense of you typing a few more characters once in a while.
    • bobds 16y ago
      Or just search for "fabric" without personalization/being-logged-in and you probably get the Python-related fabric in the top 10. It was result number 7 for me.
  • ntoshev 16y ago
    The same word is likely to mean different things to different people. DDG doesn't have the infrastructure to handle this, Google has (with Search History). What you get with DDG is generic Bing results, lightly filered and in a different UI.
• loewenskind 16y ago
  So you seriously want to give up your privacy (and ours as well) to save you typing one freaking word (python)? That's lazy to the point of being offensive.
• iamelgringo 16y ago
  Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Of course it is. Google and Facebook have been pushing the bounds of privacy repeatedly over the years because it is in their financial best interest to do so. Their primary product isn't search or communication or maps. Their product is plain and simple people's personal information. And, becuase they are a corporation in the USA they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value. So, of course Google and Facebook have to erode the concept of online privacy. That is their product and that is the value that they are legally bound to maximize. If they were very clear and up front about this issue, and communicated that information in plain language to their users that would be one thing. But, they don't. Google doesn't every plainly say, "We track your location with your android phone. We track your searches on Google. We track what sites you visit though our advertising network. We track who you email when you use Gmail. If you use our calendar, we know what your schedule is. We track who you call when you use Google Voice. And, we want you to trust us to do the right thing with that data. We make a crap load of money using everything that we know about you to let other people sell stuff to you. Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant." So, yes, I do think the privacy issue is pretty important. You have a couple of massive corporations who are for all intents and purposes forced to erode people's concept of privacy. And, if people are going to compete with Google, one of the areas they are very vulnerable is in the area of privacy. Gabriel has been kicking their ass on this, and it's an area where they are vulnerable to competitors. I say more power to DDG. It's a conversation that needs to be had, and more people need to know about this.
  • jamesaguilar 16y ago
    > they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many possible reasons why they would do something you disagree with: maybe they don't think it's wrong. Maybe they actively want to do something bad. Maybe you are not correct in your beliefs about what they are doing. But I think the reason you gave why they need to violate people's privacy is a cop out. There are also a number of counter-examples where corporations fail to maximize shareholder profits by donating to charity, taking principled environmental stances, etc. I don't know how you or anyone could come to the conclusion that the U.S. legal system rigidly enforces absolute profit maximization. > Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant. Don't know where you are getting this from.
• rms 16y ago
  I think it's a red herring, but enough people take it seriously for this to be brilliant PR on the part of Gabriel.
• huertanix 16y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2064240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2064240