3 ms·

While I am a happy paying Kagi customer, their stance on privacy is nonsensical and amounts to saying "We super duper pinky promise that we won't use your data"

While I am a happy paying Kagi customer, their stance on privacy is nonsensical and amounts to saying "We super duper pinky promise that we won't use your data" From the Anonymity section: "For example your parents can know everything about you and still fully respect your privacy." Ok, but if anyone thinks I trust a company the way I trust my parents they are sorely mistaken, and I certainly wouldn't want my parents to have an easily searchable record of everything I've ever searched for online, the same way a search engine provider does. The complexity of accepting crypto payments is totally understandable. If that's the reason Kagi does not prioritize anonymity then that is understandable, but the justification that "you don't really want privacy anyway" is unnecessary. "We do not log searches or associate them with an account, by design. This is a software architecture decision (we simply don’t need this) and there is no simple switch one can flip to enable this in case of a court order." "Software architecture decision" is meaningless. The only guarantee that data will not be collected and stored is a technological, probably cryptographic one. If an organization is in a position to gain intimate knowledge of your life and habits, they have the ability to influence your life and that of others. Pinky swearing not to do so is a lot like following someone around with a camera while repeating "it's just for a video". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5WjfL2ZAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5WjfL2ZAg I don't expect Kagi to accept crypto, and I'll keep paying just because I'll jump at an opportunity to pay with my money rather than with my data. However, given that they decouple their service from the need to track users, I would have expected them to prioritize anonymity wherever possible as the next logical step. If the justification was technological it would be understandable, but their reassurance that there is nothing to be concerned about is itself concerning.

ukd1 4y ago
It's unsovlable - even if cryptography could solve it, you'd have to trust the implementation. Thought; Just periodically rotate your account, and use a new cc number. There is no bonus to me for keeping a particular account over the long term, as there is no history etc. However, I love the service and want to pay.
- handity 4y ago
  I much prefer to trust an implementation over someone's word. I use Signal because I agree with their stated goals, and their implementation seems to align with those goals. I don't use Facebook because their policy is awful in the first place, and implementation is nonexistent. Kagi is in between. I am happy with their policy, but their implementation is lacking. This wouldn't be a problem, but they don't seem to admit that their goals are fundamentally in conflict with their mode of operation. This is the first item on their FAQ: "Our goal is amplify the web of human knowledge, creativity and self-expression and provide the user tools to fight against the web of greed, ad-tech and user tracking." To pretend that company policy is the best way to achieve that goal is insulting. We will never have an ad-tech and tracking-free future without technological measures. Offering a service on the basis of "Pay with your money, not your data" is a fantastic step in the right direction, but obviously not enough.
  - freediver 4y ago
    Challenges in front of us are monumental, and we prioritize features based on impact to user base. It seems to be the case that full anonymity is not very high on the list for most Kagi users (but best search results in the world are, so that is where we spend most of our limited resources on). It is also not immediately clear how can anonymity be guaranteed from a technical implementation standpoint? Happy to understand more about what the ask is. We do say that our business model is the best guarantee - we make money from our users not third parties; our volume is too small to be interesting to anyone and will always remain small because of the paid nature of the product (in fact we are actively making decisions like increasing prices that are making it even smaller); if we ever sold a byte of data and that was found out, it would immediately kill the entire business; and we do not log searches because we have no use of them, they would only be an uneeded cost and liability. The motive simply isn't there. We understand that you have to believe that, but so you would need to believe any other claim including the full anonymity one. Nothing in the world can 100% guarantee that. As it is we carry the full burden of lack of trust in online technology, that we are not responsible for creating (and have actually founded to be an anti-thesis to). Thanks for supporting Kagi, and we ask for a bit of patience with this, we just started.

ukd1 4y ago

It's unsovlable - even if cryptography could solve it, you'd have to trust the implementation. Thought; Just periodically rotate your account, and use a new cc number. There is no bonus to me for keeping a particular account over the long term, as there is no history etc. However, I love the service and want to pay.

handity 4y ago
I much prefer to trust an implementation over someone's word. I use Signal because I agree with their stated goals, and their implementation seems to align with those goals. I don't use Facebook because their policy is awful in the first place, and implementation is nonexistent. Kagi is in between. I am happy with their policy, but their implementation is lacking. This wouldn't be a problem, but they don't seem to admit that their goals are fundamentally in conflict with their mode of operation. This is the first item on their FAQ: "Our goal is amplify the web of human knowledge, creativity and self-expression and provide the user tools to fight against the web of greed, ad-tech and user tracking." To pretend that company policy is the best way to achieve that goal is insulting. We will never have an ad-tech and tracking-free future without technological measures. Offering a service on the basis of "Pay with your money, not your data" is a fantastic step in the right direction, but obviously not enough.
- freediver 4y ago
  Challenges in front of us are monumental, and we prioritize features based on impact to user base. It seems to be the case that full anonymity is not very high on the list for most Kagi users (but best search results in the world are, so that is where we spend most of our limited resources on). It is also not immediately clear how can anonymity be guaranteed from a technical implementation standpoint? Happy to understand more about what the ask is. We do say that our business model is the best guarantee - we make money from our users not third parties; our volume is too small to be interesting to anyone and will always remain small because of the paid nature of the product (in fact we are actively making decisions like increasing prices that are making it even smaller); if we ever sold a byte of data and that was found out, it would immediately kill the entire business; and we do not log searches because we have no use of them, they would only be an uneeded cost and liability. The motive simply isn't there. We understand that you have to believe that, but so you would need to believe any other claim including the full anonymity one. Nothing in the world can 100% guarantee that. As it is we carry the full burden of lack of trust in online technology, that we are not responsible for creating (and have actually founded to be an anti-thesis to). Thanks for supporting Kagi, and we ask for a bit of patience with this, we just started.