4 ms·

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.

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.