5 ms·

Their privacy policy: https://neeva.co/privacy https://neeva.co/privacy They still plan to collect a lot of data, and share it with: IT and related servi

by 4cao 6y ago

Their privacy policy: https://neeva.co/privacy https://neeva.co/privacy They still plan to collect a lot of data, and share it with: IT and related services Payment processors Analytics providers Customer service providers Vendors to support the provision of the Services Microsoft is one such provider where we may share limited personal information in order to make the Services available. You can read about their use of data in Microsoft's privacy policy. So, Microsoft's frequently-changing (last updated: January 2021) privacy policy effectively applies: https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement While more competition is always good news, I can't see this as a privacy-conscious choice. Edit: You can even connect your Google account, and they will collect the data about you and your contacts from it. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting blocked for this by Google on, ironically, privacy grounds (Google has no interest in assisting an emerging competitor like this if they can get away with it, and they probably can). Then, there's this gem: We may aggregate or de-identify the information we collect. Aggregated or de-identified data is not subject to this Privacy Policy. It's been demonstrated before that this is also a privacy risk. AOL's "de-identified" release of search-engine data turned out to be a privacy disaster: https://www.cnet.com/news/aols-disturbing-glimpse-into-users-lives/ https://www.cnet.com/news/aols-disturbing-glimpse-into-users... https://www.cnet.com/news/aol-apologizes-for-release-of-user-search-data/ https://www.cnet.com/news/aol-apologizes-for-release-of-user... A privacy-respecting search engine should just not collect all this data in the first place.

jug 6y ago
Yes, I assumed as such as soon as I read "personalized" in this article. Companies don't tend to do all that in-house, so they'll try to figure out your personal life and send it off as usual. I find this ethically questionable practice a bit strange when filter bubbles are not necessarily even good for your search experience. You'd think it would make more business sense out of both technical reasons and PR to steer clear of it. I mean, I see many complaints about Google results lately and they're the experts at this. I'd stick with DuckDuckGo if what you're looking for is something other than Google that is also more privacy concious.
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
Almost all meta search engines use Bing or Google's data and inherit this to a greater or lesser extent. I would argue that a search engine can't be truly privacy focused without independence. Mojeek is one of the only ones that falls into this category. Compare their policy with Neeva's - https://www.mojeek.com/about/privacy/ https://www.mojeek.com/about/privacy/
- falcor84 6y ago
  Couldn't a privacy-focused search engine potentially proxy all searches through a single Google and a single Bing "user" such that they weren't able to build a profile on any individual?
  - tweetle_beetle 6y ago
    Yes, and I suspect that's the aspirational model that is used by most. But ultimately they are at the mercy of Google and Bing's terms when they use their data. Realistically DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, Ecosia, Lycos, etc. won't just shut down their businesses if they feel that Bing crosses a privacy line in the sand. And neither will Startpage or Ask if Google do the same. Follow the money and all that.
  - zo1 6y ago
    You would think, but the search engines have a tight-lid on that sort of thing via at-least terms of use. Ideally, the HTTP/proxy layer of the internet could have solved this with caching of the search URLs, but caching has pretty much been gimped thanks to "privacy", HTTPS, logins, etc. I'll add this as another data-point to my tin-foil hat explanation of why privacy and HTTPs has so heavily been forced upon us by Google et al.
  - jameshush 6y ago
    That’s exactly what Startpage does. Everything’s proxied on their own infra in different countries. IIRC we were the only ones allowed to do that because we had a legacy contract from Google.
ahvee_at_neeva 6y ago
Howdy! Wanted to help share some context as I'm the Head of Product for Neeva. First, thank you for this feedback and everyone else's in the thread, as well. We are listening and improving based on what we hear from our early users and all those interested in our work. For context on some of the choices we made when thinking about building a private search engine: - First, one of the biggest risks to people’s privacy online is advertising. To present a true alternative requires an alternative source of revenue than advertisers. By being a subscription service we only put users first. - Second, a search engine that stores nothing can’t get better. Even on this thread people have preferences like wanting to never see Pinterest results or see more of them. We want to offer a better search experience and privacy so you don’t have to choose one or the other. Unfortunately, we can’t build all things ourselves to get there. Whenever we work with a partner, we are very careful to ensure that they see only as little as they need to see. For example, while we do use Stripe to process credit card payments, they are never going to see what anyone searched on Neeva. However, in order to cover the full, diverse spectrum of what people search we have partners like Yelp, Xignite and Bing in addition to our own tech. Given what’s required, there isn’t a viable, private search engine that exists without such partners, as well. Whether others disclose them is another question. Particularly the advertising partners of the “free” search engines... In each of these cases, we vet the privacy standards of these businesses and make sure they align with our privacy policy and values, as well. In cases like Bing we take proactive measures to protect user privacy by obfuscating or omitting all other personal information outside of a query. Therefore, clauses like the above are meant to help bring transparency more than anything. Lastly, in terms of aggregated and de-identified information, we’ll take another look at this language. We've already updated our policy based on user feedback and we have no intention of ever sharing de-identified information like the above. Thanks for the callout. Keep the feedback coming! We're listening. This is hard stuff and we appreciate all the support we receive.

by 4cao 6y ago

jug 6y ago

Yes, I assumed as such as soon as I read "personalized" in this article. Companies don't tend to do all that in-house, so they'll try to figure out your personal life and send it off as usual. I find this ethically questionable practice a bit strange when filter bubbles are not necessarily even good for your search experience. You'd think it would make more business sense out of both technical reasons and PR to steer clear of it. I mean, I see many complaints about Google results lately and they're the experts at this. I'd stick with DuckDuckGo if what you're looking for is something other than Google that is also more privacy concious.

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

Almost all meta search engines use Bing or Google's data and inherit this to a greater or lesser extent. I would argue that a search engine can't be truly privacy focused without independence. Mojeek is one of the only ones that falls into this category. Compare their policy with Neeva's - https://www.mojeek.com/about/privacy/ https://www.mojeek.com/about/privacy/

falcor84 6y ago
Couldn't a privacy-focused search engine potentially proxy all searches through a single Google and a single Bing "user" such that they weren't able to build a profile on any individual?
- tweetle_beetle 6y ago
  Yes, and I suspect that's the aspirational model that is used by most. But ultimately they are at the mercy of Google and Bing's terms when they use their data. Realistically DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, Ecosia, Lycos, etc. won't just shut down their businesses if they feel that Bing crosses a privacy line in the sand. And neither will Startpage or Ask if Google do the same. Follow the money and all that.
- zo1 6y ago
  You would think, but the search engines have a tight-lid on that sort of thing via at-least terms of use. Ideally, the HTTP/proxy layer of the internet could have solved this with caching of the search URLs, but caching has pretty much been gimped thanks to "privacy", HTTPS, logins, etc. I'll add this as another data-point to my tin-foil hat explanation of why privacy and HTTPs has so heavily been forced upon us by Google et al.
- jameshush 6y ago
  That’s exactly what Startpage does. Everything’s proxied on their own infra in different countries. IIRC we were the only ones allowed to do that because we had a legacy contract from Google.

ahvee_at_neeva 6y ago

Howdy! Wanted to help share some context as I'm the Head of Product for Neeva. First, thank you for this feedback and everyone else's in the thread, as well. We are listening and improving based on what we hear from our early users and all those interested in our work. For context on some of the choices we made when thinking about building a private search engine: - First, one of the biggest risks to people’s privacy online is advertising. To present a true alternative requires an alternative source of revenue than advertisers. By being a subscription service we only put users first. - Second, a search engine that stores nothing can’t get better. Even on this thread people have preferences like wanting to never see Pinterest results or see more of them. We want to offer a better search experience and privacy so you don’t have to choose one or the other. Unfortunately, we can’t build all things ourselves to get there. Whenever we work with a partner, we are very careful to ensure that they see only as little as they need to see. For example, while we do use Stripe to process credit card payments, they are never going to see what anyone searched on Neeva. However, in order to cover the full, diverse spectrum of what people search we have partners like Yelp, Xignite and Bing in addition to our own tech. Given what’s required, there isn’t a viable, private search engine that exists without such partners, as well. Whether others disclose them is another question. Particularly the advertising partners of the “free” search engines... In each of these cases, we vet the privacy standards of these businesses and make sure they align with our privacy policy and values, as well. In cases like Bing we take proactive measures to protect user privacy by obfuscating or omitting all other personal information outside of a query. Therefore, clauses like the above are meant to help bring transparency more than anything. Lastly, in terms of aggregated and de-identified information, we’ll take another look at this language. We've already updated our policy based on user feedback and we have no intention of ever sharing de-identified information like the above. Thanks for the callout. Keep the feedback coming! We're listening. This is hard stuff and we appreciate all the support we receive.