5 ms·

> This is not about search. Yes, it is. Your competitors in the privacy-centric browser space don’t have this restriction because they’re not search engines ac

> This is not about search. Yes, it is. Your competitors in the privacy-centric browser space don’t have this restriction because they’re not search engines acquiring the majority of their data from an entity with a conflicting interest. I’m inclined to blame Microsoft here; this is a nasty move on their part. However, your stance is problematic. This is a problem, and it’s a serious one. It undermines trust in a product that claims to be the bastion of privacy. And statements like this… > Overall our app is multi-pronged privacy protection in one package (private search, web protection, HTTPS upgrading, email protection, app tracking protection for Android, and more to come), being careful (and putting in a lot of effort) to not break things while still offering protections -- an "easy button" for privacy. …don’t help the matter. To me, that just sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo. Ultimately, if a privacy-centric browser is contractually obligated to load tracking scripts and is required to avoid disclosing that fact, I want absolutely nothing to do with either party.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>and is required to avoid disclosing that fact, Isn't this entire story about them disclosing this fact?
- zenexer 4y ago
  > Isn't this entire story about them disclosing this fact? It seems to be, but they're claiming the details are confidential. It's rather confusing. I wonder whether Microsoft's intention was to prevent them from disclosing it altogether, or whether they just wanted to avoid the general details of the contract getting out (rather than this particular tidbit of info). I'm inclined to suspect it was the latter--just a general NDA. In any case, I don't like it.
  - yegg 4y ago
    No, it is not just a general NDA.
    - mda 4y ago
      One wonders what other juicy nuggets are in this non general NDA.
yegg 4y ago
We will work diligently today to find a way to say something in our app store descriptions in terms of a better disclosure -- will likely have something up by the end of the day. In terms of our app and multi-pronged protection, it isn't mumbo jumbo. Our app is way more than just a browser (and increasingly so). For example, the app tracking protection mentioned for Android blocks trackers in all your other apps. The email tracking protection blocks trackers in your email (that you read in your regular email client/app). I understand the concern here that we are working to address in a variety of ways, but to be clear no app will provide 100% protection for a variety of reasons, and the scripts in question here do currently have significant protection on them in our browser. From the comment "That is, the privacy thing most people talk about on the web (blocking 3rd party cookies) applies here to MSFT. We also have a lot of other web protections that also apply to MSFT-owned properties as well, e.g., GPC, first-party cookie expiration, fingerprinting protection, referrer header trimming, cookie consent handling, fire button data clearing, etc."
- colechristensen 4y ago
  "multi-pronged privacy", "easy button", "capabilities", and repeated use of the word "protection" are all signals that what is being said is an attempt to sell me something and that the salesman should be doubted. What's actually happening is you're forced to allow Microsoft scripts which do indeed do telemetry on users despite some restrictions you put on them, and they're still effective because fingerprinting works. That fact is embarrassing for a product you're trying to sell as promoting privacy so there's this mildly deceptive attempt to hide what's going on with lots of words and claims of protection instead of straightforward disclosure.
  - thrwawy283 4y ago
    Still coming to my own conclusion here, but I wouldn't dismiss "easy button" as marketing. We keep hoping for easy buttons and reasonable default settings in things like openssl or pgp. I do like organizations that understand an easy button is the safest default. Is that what we have here?
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Do you have any sources you can cite that Microsoft has breached contracts with companies in the past in an effort to get at your ID for advertisers? Otherwise, I would consider this a nothing burger.
Aeolun 4y ago
> To me, that just sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo. What’s more helpful is to hear in which exact situations their blocking doesn’t work.
bozhark 4y ago
DDG is a search engine to most people, nothing more. Just because other avenues exist doesn’t mean people walk them
- HKH2 4y ago
  Still, it's a search engine that touts its privacy. If people want speed and convenience they're far better off using Google.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>and is required to avoid disclosing that fact, Isn't this entire story about them disclosing this fact?

zenexer 4y ago
> Isn't this entire story about them disclosing this fact? It seems to be, but they're claiming the details are confidential. It's rather confusing. I wonder whether Microsoft's intention was to prevent them from disclosing it altogether, or whether they just wanted to avoid the general details of the contract getting out (rather than this particular tidbit of info). I'm inclined to suspect it was the latter--just a general NDA. In any case, I don't like it.
- yegg 4y ago
  No, it is not just a general NDA.
  - mda 4y ago
    One wonders what other juicy nuggets are in this non general NDA.

yegg 4y ago

We will work diligently today to find a way to say something in our app store descriptions in terms of a better disclosure -- will likely have something up by the end of the day. In terms of our app and multi-pronged protection, it isn't mumbo jumbo. Our app is way more than just a browser (and increasingly so). For example, the app tracking protection mentioned for Android blocks trackers in all your other apps. The email tracking protection blocks trackers in your email (that you read in your regular email client/app). I understand the concern here that we are working to address in a variety of ways, but to be clear no app will provide 100% protection for a variety of reasons, and the scripts in question here do currently have significant protection on them in our browser. From the comment "That is, the privacy thing most people talk about on the web (blocking 3rd party cookies) applies here to MSFT. We also have a lot of other web protections that also apply to MSFT-owned properties as well, e.g., GPC, first-party cookie expiration, fingerprinting protection, referrer header trimming, cookie consent handling, fire button data clearing, etc."

colechristensen 4y ago
"multi-pronged privacy", "easy button", "capabilities", and repeated use of the word "protection" are all signals that what is being said is an attempt to sell me something and that the salesman should be doubted. What's actually happening is you're forced to allow Microsoft scripts which do indeed do telemetry on users despite some restrictions you put on them, and they're still effective because fingerprinting works. That fact is embarrassing for a product you're trying to sell as promoting privacy so there's this mildly deceptive attempt to hide what's going on with lots of words and claims of protection instead of straightforward disclosure.
- thrwawy283 4y ago
  Still coming to my own conclusion here, but I wouldn't dismiss "easy button" as marketing. We keep hoping for easy buttons and reasonable default settings in things like openssl or pgp. I do like organizations that understand an easy button is the safest default. Is that what we have here?

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Do you have any sources you can cite that Microsoft has breached contracts with companies in the past in an effort to get at your ID for advertisers? Otherwise, I would consider this a nothing burger.

Aeolun 4y ago

> To me, that just sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo. What’s more helpful is to hear in which exact situations their blocking doesn’t work.

bozhark 4y ago

DDG is a search engine to most people, nothing more. Just because other avenues exist doesn’t mean people walk them

HKH2 4y ago
Still, it's a search engine that touts its privacy. If people want speed and convenience they're far better off using Google.