3 ms·

> I think that a class of people, who ask kind of questions that need absolute guarantee of anonymity (I am thinking terrorists, drug dealers, traffickers etc)

• danpalmer 4y ago
  See my reply to the other comment here, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t condoning those things, and are suggesting that Kagi is unsuitable for those uses.
  • aliqot 4y ago
    No means no. This person made the terrible decision to compare those who desire privacy to criminals, and to that I say good day sir.
    • danpalmer 4y ago
      Again, that’s not what the comment said. He says those looking to use it for criminal purposes are not the target market, and he clarifies the level of privacy granted by the product, which is extensive. It sounds like you’ve misread, or at least misinterpreted, and I do agree the wording is a little clumsy. I’d urge you to re-read it without assuming intent and see what it actually says.
      • dalmo3 4y ago
        > He says those looking to use it for criminal purposes are not the target market Which is nothing but a strawman, given that the question was: > How would you solve the issue of self-censorship when the exact identity of a searcher is known? How is "we don't serve criminals" a valid answer to that?