> It's not clear to me that DDG even does (1) though from the article - all the claims I can see are slightly weaker Exactly right! The claim seems to be that

> It's not clear to me that DDG even does (1) though from the article - all the claims I can see are slightly weaker Exactly right! The claim seems to be that DDG's privacy policy contains text that, if you squint just right while standing on one leg, might suggest that there exists something like "an anonymized per-person search history," maybe. Or they might have used that term to mean that there is no per-person search history. It's vague.