6 ms·
Very weak argument for why they do it. Using a service to retrieve a favicon? Surely there's a way to implement the same logic locally.
by tananaev 6y ago
Very weak argument for why they do it. Using a service to retrieve a favicon? Surely there's a way to implement the same logic locally.
- heavyset_go 6y agoBitWarden does this, too.
- slenk 6y agoIf you host your own Bitwarden server you don't have to worry about that. Also different expectations
- yoavm 6y agoYeah, I would just have to worry about losing all my passwords ever.
- slenk 6y agoIt's really easy to back up the server and never lose passwords.
- heavyset_go 6y agoI can attest to this.
- heavyset_go 6y agoI host my own BitWarden server and had to explicitly deny using BitWarden's favicon lookup feature.
- toyg 6y agoBW already has all the URLs of services you use: you saved them yourself for them to keep safe. It's obvious you already trust them enough to know that sort of data.
- ghewgill 6y agoSo if favicons were gathered locally, then you would prefer that your own browser would reach out and make multiple requests to every (potentially dodgy) site listed on the search result page? Note also that these are favicons for results that DDG has already given you. This isn't tracking your clicks. The list of sites that appear on the search result page is not new information to the search engine that just gave them to you. EDIT: Like other commenters, I was not previously aware that DDG had a browser, and my comments were about this behaviour for the search engine results page.
- tananaev 6y agoAre we talking about search results or sites you visit?
- detaro 6y agoWhat about the issue linked suggests to you that it is about search results in any way?
- colecf 6y agoCan you explain your edit a little more? I still only understand your original viewpoint. Just because there's an app doesn't mean they don't have to contact DDG servers at all, right?
- tagawa 6y agoWe had already had created this anonymous favicon service for our private search engine. In addition, doing it this way avoids another request (and potentially multiple) to the end site. The service is private as we do not collect any personal information (e.g. IP addresses) on any requests for this or any service and the requests are all end-to-end encrypted.
- systemvoltage 6y agoWhy not do it locally? It is one extra request to the favicon link in the header and cache it. Or cache it when the user visits the website. Or explicit button in the settings UI to refresh favicons locally. There are so many options.
- haggy 6y agoYour answer to all these criticisms is a lazy one. You are saying "this already exists for other things so we use it regardless of what the correct method is". Just because something exists in one form doesn't mean it's the correct choice.
- oska 6y agoPlease don't downvote this reply from a DDG staff member (as I'm currently seeing). Even if you don't like the reply it's good that we're getting replies.
- aronpye 6y agoGood privacy is not based on trust. Even so, this incident is even less reason to trust you.