5 ms·

I really don't get how people can trust US companies who have privacy as one of their main selling points. You are aware US/UK companies by definition cannot be

I really don't get how people can trust US companies who have privacy as one of their main selling points. You are aware US/UK companies by definition cannot be private regardless what they say themselves. If you want privacy use EU companies. If you don't want to use EU companies use Google since contrary to DDG they are heavily controlled by law. If you like the bangs of DDG use a native app like Albert or Alfred which is way more accessible anyway.

olyjohn 7y ago
A native app? Native to what? I'm trying to search the web... from a web browser. I'd be interested to hear what EU-based search engines are out there that have privacy as one of their values. Also if Google is heavily controlled by law, then what laws don't apply to DDG that would make me safer using Google?
- bugbug99 7y ago
  SwissCows might be slightly better per jurisdiction. DDG is blocking Tor users pretty often these days.
  - tagawa 7y ago
    That's strange. We support Tor both verbally and financially, and have an onion address for Tor users (http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/ http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/). If you have any more details on this, such as a time of day it tends to happen, frequency of searches that trigger it, or browser/OS, I'd be grateful if you could let me know or feel free to email open [at] duckduckgo.com Disclaimer: DuckDuckGo staff
berkes 7y ago
I might have the wrong 'Albert' in mind, but if you mean the 'quick launcher': how is that related to a search engine in any way? One is for navigating apps, desktop and offline content. The other for discovering online content.
- Angeo34 7y ago
  Because those launchers can query search engines per keyword just like bangs
paulddraper 7y ago
> You are aware US/UK companies by definition cannot be private regardless what they say themselves. There is a HUGE difference between "we give your information to advertisers (or ourselves, if an advertiser)" and "we give your information to law enforcement when legally required." --- "You are aware US/UK banks by definition cannot be secure regardless of what they say about themselves." Yes, but it's a far cry from just leaving my cash on my doorstep. Replace your checking account with Bitcoin if you want, but a bank offers enough security/privacy for most people. --- > If you want privacy use EU companies. The EU has gone back and forth on wanting to allow/forbid backdoors.
- Angeo34 7y ago
  That wasn't my point. My point is that US/UK companies are known for selling data that they are supposed to protect. Compare that to EU companies.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    I understood your point to be "US/UK companies by definition cannot be private" (i.e. for legal reasons). Which I think is true but a relatively minor problem compared to the status quo. If your point was "US/UK companies in practice are not usually private", that is probably true.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
gnode 7y ago
There are two separate issues: the commercial exploitation of personal data, and state surveillance. My understanding is, that while the US has virtually no statutory protection of privacy, DDG has a privacy policy, and deliberately violating it would be fraudulent, contravene COPPA, and make them liable in tort law. As far as state surveillance goes, the EU is not a haven, the UK, despite being a member, is one of the worst offenders. Some European countries have relatively good surveillance laws, such as Iceland and Switzerland (neither being in the European Union).
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
AFAICT the USA/UK "CLOUD" treaty rips a hole in the privacy of customers in other countries where the company has a UK/USA presence and prepares to non-consensually violate that privacy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307082
gpm 7y ago
The UK is part of the EU (and will probably continue to be for at least another week). If the EU's privacy laws aren't sufficient in the UK I'm not sure why you think they are sufficient in the rest of the EU.

olyjohn 7y ago

A native app? Native to what? I'm trying to search the web... from a web browser. I'd be interested to hear what EU-based search engines are out there that have privacy as one of their values. Also if Google is heavily controlled by law, then what laws don't apply to DDG that would make me safer using Google?

bugbug99 7y ago
SwissCows might be slightly better per jurisdiction. DDG is blocking Tor users pretty often these days.
- tagawa 7y ago
  That's strange. We support Tor both verbally and financially, and have an onion address for Tor users (http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/ http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/). If you have any more details on this, such as a time of day it tends to happen, frequency of searches that trigger it, or browser/OS, I'd be grateful if you could let me know or feel free to email open [at] duckduckgo.com Disclaimer: DuckDuckGo staff

berkes 7y ago

I might have the wrong 'Albert' in mind, but if you mean the 'quick launcher': how is that related to a search engine in any way? One is for navigating apps, desktop and offline content. The other for discovering online content.

Angeo34 7y ago
Because those launchers can query search engines per keyword just like bangs

paulddraper 7y ago

> You are aware US/UK companies by definition cannot be private regardless what they say themselves. There is a HUGE difference between "we give your information to advertisers (or ourselves, if an advertiser)" and "we give your information to law enforcement when legally required." --- "You are aware US/UK banks by definition cannot be secure regardless of what they say about themselves." Yes, but it's a far cry from just leaving my cash on my doorstep. Replace your checking account with Bitcoin if you want, but a bank offers enough security/privacy for most people. --- > If you want privacy use EU companies. The EU has gone back and forth on wanting to allow/forbid backdoors.

Angeo34 7y ago
That wasn't my point. My point is that US/UK companies are known for selling data that they are supposed to protect. Compare that to EU companies.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  I understood your point to be "US/UK companies by definition cannot be private" (i.e. for legal reasons). Which I think is true but a relatively minor problem compared to the status quo. If your point was "US/UK companies in practice are not usually private", that is probably true.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

gnode 7y ago

There are two separate issues: the commercial exploitation of personal data, and state surveillance. My understanding is, that while the US has virtually no statutory protection of privacy, DDG has a privacy policy, and deliberately violating it would be fraudulent, contravene COPPA, and make them liable in tort law. As far as state surveillance goes, the EU is not a haven, the UK, despite being a member, is one of the worst offenders. Some European countries have relatively good surveillance laws, such as Iceland and Switzerland (neither being in the European Union).

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

AFAICT the USA/UK "CLOUD" treaty rips a hole in the privacy of customers in other countries where the company has a UK/USA presence and prepares to non-consensually violate that privacy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307082

gpm 7y ago

The UK is part of the EU (and will probably continue to be for at least another week). If the EU's privacy laws aren't sufficient in the UK I'm not sure why you think they are sufficient in the rest of the EU.