5 ms·

Wouldn't it be more impressive if they were served warrants but refused or were unable to comply? This just makes it sound like no one uses DDG so the authoriti

by gundmc 5y ago

Wouldn't it be more impressive if they were served warrants but refused or were unable to comply? This just makes it sound like no one uses DDG so the authorities don't care to request that information.

shusson 5y ago
As mentioned in the tweet, the impressive part is that "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants"
- lbriner 5y ago
  tbf, DDG can't know that they have no requests because they don't collect history, although that wouldn't be a completely mad assumption. It is also conceivable that their market share is simply so small that no-one the police are chasing are known to use DDG for their web searches. In fact the second is more likely since otherwise the Tweet would read, "we haven't been able to serve any warrant requests", rather than "we haven't received any"
  - mike_hock 5y ago
    Or, you know, the tweet may be a lie.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Right... The one privacy-based search engine included in browser search engine lists. If the government wanted to make a secret deal with a company, it's not like they would make it known. Heck, they could even get cases redacted that mention it. People gotta make money.
- vadfa 5y ago
  As if that assurance by DDG would've stopped the authorities from requesting something.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  I cannot believe that no prosecutor got a warrant just to see if they were telling the truth in their PR materials...
- didibus 5y ago
  > and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants That's an abductive argument, which means it is one plausible explanation, but given the many possible explanations, it is not certain that the lack of search history is why they've had 0 search warrants.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 5y ago
    Sure it's not proof, but it's pretty good evidence. This man is unlikely to be the shooter because he has no hands.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Terrible analogy. You don't need hands to shoot a gun, and the hands-less man would still be issued a warrant if there were evidence he was the shooter. The point is that being issued warrants and claiming to not have search logs are independently conclusive.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        The number of users and the number of issued warrants however are dependant...
    - didibus 5y ago
      Yeah, abduction reasoning is still useful, it can serve to orient us in our surroundings, aka, it can help us explore the search space from places that are more likely to be correct. So it's still a useful form of reasoning. Just don't make the mistake of thinking it proves the consequent. I'd much have preferred the tweet said: "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, this might be the reason why we've had 0 search warrants." But it said: "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants" That's a strong assertion, and it's not been demonstrated. You could likely say that it is because the police had never had a case where they needed too, given the lack of popularity of DDG, they might have found all they needed through other sources of warrants. Or it could be any other reason, like they don't even know it exists, or anything else I'm not thinking of.
irrational 5y ago
Or, the police assume that everyone uses Google, so it doesn't every occur to them to ask DDG. It's not like the police are known for their tech-saviness.
autoexec 5y ago
My cynical suspicion is that they probably aren't getting warrants because as a US based online service that is specifically marketed to people interested in privacy they've already been handed a national security letter that prevents them from telling anyone about it and the state is collecting every scrap of data DDG has in real time and shares some of that data with other agencies on a regular basis.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  It’s possible; however, they can’t be compelled to actively lie. We would expect DDG communications on privacy to cease if they were compromised by NSL.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Would they have to be lying? They could say with total truth that they haven't gotten any search warrants because a national security letter is not a search warrant of any kind. It's an administrative subpoena. Search warrants have to target something specific. They've got very little to do with a national security letter authorizing the state to take every last scrap of data in real time "Room 641A" style
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    Unless the national security letter also forces them to keep doing these communications. Pretty sure you can be forced to lie by such a letter. Not sure if that extends to being in a court though. Or if they would have to plead the 5th in such cases.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      You cannot. You can only be indirectly forced to stop issuing a warrant canary due to incompatibility with requirements not to report, in narrow cases (stricter standards than standard letters.) This would go hand in hand with a request anyway, so removing the canary would still serve its purpose and that’s what other search engines have done. But there has been absolutely nothing compelling active, creative lies like what DDG would be writing here if compromised.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Or they're thoroughly backdoored and warrants aren't necessary.

by gundmc 5y ago

shusson 5y ago

As mentioned in the tweet, the impressive part is that "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants"

lbriner 5y ago
tbf, DDG can't know that they have no requests because they don't collect history, although that wouldn't be a completely mad assumption. It is also conceivable that their market share is simply so small that no-one the police are chasing are known to use DDG for their web searches. In fact the second is more likely since otherwise the Tweet would read, "we haven't been able to serve any warrant requests", rather than "we haven't received any"
- mike_hock 5y ago
  Or, you know, the tweet may be a lie.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Right... The one privacy-based search engine included in browser search engine lists. If the government wanted to make a secret deal with a company, it's not like they would make it known. Heck, they could even get cases redacted that mention it. People gotta make money.
vadfa 5y ago
As if that assurance by DDG would've stopped the authorities from requesting something.
rndgermandude 5y ago
I cannot believe that no prosecutor got a warrant just to see if they were telling the truth in their PR materials...
didibus 5y ago
> and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants That's an abductive argument, which means it is one plausible explanation, but given the many possible explanations, it is not certain that the lack of search history is why they've had 0 search warrants.
- MetaWhirledPeas 5y ago
  Sure it's not proof, but it's pretty good evidence. This man is unlikely to be the shooter because he has no hands.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Terrible analogy. You don't need hands to shoot a gun, and the hands-less man would still be issued a warrant if there were evidence he was the shooter. The point is that being issued warrants and claiming to not have search logs are independently conclusive.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      The number of users and the number of issued warrants however are dependant...
  - didibus 5y ago
    Yeah, abduction reasoning is still useful, it can serve to orient us in our surroundings, aka, it can help us explore the search space from places that are more likely to be correct. So it's still a useful form of reasoning. Just don't make the mistake of thinking it proves the consequent. I'd much have preferred the tweet said: "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, this might be the reason why we've had 0 search warrants." But it said: "DuckDuckGo doesn't have any search histories by design and, bc of that, has had 0 search warrants" That's a strong assertion, and it's not been demonstrated. You could likely say that it is because the police had never had a case where they needed too, given the lack of popularity of DDG, they might have found all they needed through other sources of warrants. Or it could be any other reason, like they don't even know it exists, or anything else I'm not thinking of.

irrational 5y ago

Or, the police assume that everyone uses Google, so it doesn't every occur to them to ask DDG. It's not like the police are known for their tech-saviness.

autoexec 5y ago

My cynical suspicion is that they probably aren't getting warrants because as a US based online service that is specifically marketed to people interested in privacy they've already been handed a national security letter that prevents them from telling anyone about it and the state is collecting every scrap of data DDG has in real time and shares some of that data with other agencies on a regular basis.

1123581321 5y ago
It’s possible; however, they can’t be compelled to actively lie. We would expect DDG communications on privacy to cease if they were compromised by NSL.
- autoexec 5y ago
  Would they have to be lying? They could say with total truth that they haven't gotten any search warrants because a national security letter is not a search warrant of any kind. It's an administrative subpoena. Search warrants have to target something specific. They've got very little to do with a national security letter authorizing the state to take every last scrap of data in real time "Room 641A" style
- Akronymus 5y ago
  Unless the national security letter also forces them to keep doing these communications. Pretty sure you can be forced to lie by such a letter. Not sure if that extends to being in a court though. Or if they would have to plead the 5th in such cases.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    You cannot. You can only be indirectly forced to stop issuing a warrant canary due to incompatibility with requirements not to report, in narrow cases (stricter standards than standard letters.) This would go hand in hand with a request anyway, so removing the canary would still serve its purpose and that’s what other search engines have done. But there has been absolutely nothing compelling active, creative lies like what DDG would be writing here if compromised.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Or they're thoroughly backdoored and warrants aren't necessary.