Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide • Hacker News Board

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#41

Post by rumpelstiltskin » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:39 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #24

nopal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other info, like your IP address...is still stored. Odds are DDG does this too, as it's mostly useful for overall statistics. You could have checked this assertion by reading DDG's plain-language privacy policy: When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address. Because this information could be used to link you to y…

> This is a very unusual practice So I was close. They even admit the odds were in my favor. Thanks for the fact!

Close, but wrong.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#42

Post by epi0Bauqu » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:39 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #37

I have a question: does this policy of DDG violate their legal responsibilities? Thats a serious question. I believe that law enforcement requires some form of data retention but I'm not sure what.

No, nothing that I've ever come across says you have to save and store peoples' personal information. If you have it, then you have to abide for legal requests for it, but if you don't have it, you don't have it.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#43

Post by danielhfrank » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:44 PM UTC

Could anyone comment on how much of this stuff could be sidestepped by just using an incognito window in Chrome? I don't mind ads targeted to, say, me as a Java developer. But, if I'm going to look up anything I'd rather others not know about, I simply pop open an incognito window and... am I good to go? Is there anything besides my IP address that can be read when I'm doing that?

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#44

Post by Kadin » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:45 PM UTC

joakin wrote: post #32

Here goes some feedback, hopefully we can gather some suggestions for Gabriel instead of saying 'Encrypted Google' all the time... In my opinion (using my designer side) the site lacks basic design, the text is well written, and the images make it really easy to read, but its missing some eye candy. Something to do would be structure each argument as a page/slide, and make the reading more like slides or a book. In m…

Ugh, disagree. I detest the online-slideshow thing, and often wish people would just take their "slides" and put them on the same page and just let me scroll.

Whenever I see someone doing a slideshow-type presentation, my immediate assumption is that they are just dragging me through the process so they can get more eyeballs for their advertising. (Cf. much of Cracked.com and other "Top x Lists".)

There are things that could be done to make the page more appealing, if you're not into the lowdef look that I think they're going for intentionally, but breaking it into multiple pages if it does't really have to be is just obnoxious.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#45

Post by epi0Bauqu » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:45 PM UTC

aw3c2 wrote: post #33

That site turned me off. I am using DDG as my primary search engine for many months now. I really dislike the style and "atmosphere" of that site. The images are seemingly unordered and could use some borders. The images of the dog biting the women or the predator disgust me. Then some "motivationals" and memes that do not help the case. This site gave me mental stress (the left-alignment of varied sized text and ima…

Truly sorry about that -- of course not the intention. I tried to keep it as simple as possible, and didn't iterate much on the design. I'm open to design changes if anyone has any concrete ideas.

Personally I hate disgusting images, and didn't think those two rose to that level. If anyone has suggestions for equally good replacements, I'm fine with that too.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#46

Post by gyardley » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:47 PM UTC

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #30

Ryan_IRL wrote: post #4

I think it's some valid info here, and it's certainly worth being wary of the info Google collects, but I also sense a little bit of FUD here. The whole "...which can often uniquely identify you" makes me feel like this is playing on fear a little too much. It's not like that "big ebony booty" search is going to come up in a job interview any time soon guys.

I really tried hard with this not to perpetrate any FUD. I re-read all the recent WSJ reporting many times and ran this by a bunch of critical eyes. Tracking down to the individual level is certainly real.

The 'F' in FUD stands for fear. While tracking down to the individual level is certainly real, it certainly isn't anything a typical user needs to be concerned about - at least not to the extent that the WSJ's encouraging.

(Many people in the ad industry assume the WSJ's spreading such FUD because the WSJ as a premium brand benefits disproportionately in a world with dumbed-down ad targeting. I don't have any evidence for this - but it would explain the WSJ's vituperativeness.)

To me, this looks like you've just reproduced the WSJ's FUD, since the FUD just happens to reflect favorably on DuckDuckGo. That's not exactly laudable, although it is understandable.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#47

Post by epi0Bauqu » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:48 PM UTC

Kadin wrote: post #44

joakin wrote: post #32

Here goes some feedback, hopefully we can gather some suggestions for Gabriel instead of saying 'Encrypted Google' all the time... In my opinion (using my designer side) the site lacks basic design, the text is well written, and the images make it really easy to read, but its missing some eye candy. Something to do would be structure each argument as a page/slide, and make the reading more like slides or a book. In m…

Ugh, disagree. I detest the online-slideshow thing, and often wish people would just take their "slides" and put them on the same page and just let me scroll. Whenever I see someone doing a slideshow-type presentation, my immediate assumption is that they are just dragging me through the process so they can get more eyeballs for their advertising. (Cf. much of Cracked.com and other "Top x Lists".) There are things th…

Yes, I wanted to keep the lowdef look, though I'm happy to entertain any design changes within that look.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#48

Post by epi0Bauqu » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

gyardley wrote: post #46

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really tried hard with this not to perpetrate any FUD. I re-read all the recent WSJ reporting many times and ran this by a bunch of critical eyes. Tracking down to the individual level is certainly real.

The 'F' in FUD stands for fear. While tracking down to the individual level is certainly real, it certainly isn't anything a typical user needs to be concerned about - at least not to the extent that the WSJ's encouraging. (Many people in the ad industry assume the WSJ's spreading such FUD because the WSJ as a premium brand benefits disproportionately in a world with dumbed-down ad targeting. I don't have any evidenc…

I guess that is our point of disagreement. I don't think the WSJ stuff is FUD. I think it is a long overdue expose on what is actually going on in this industry that the average person is completely unaware of.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#49

Post by jdp23 » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #30

Ryan_IRL wrote: post #4

I think it's some valid info here, and it's certainly worth being wary of the info Google collects, but I also sense a little bit of FUD here. The whole "...which can often uniquely identify you" makes me feel like this is playing on fear a little too much. It's not like that "big ebony booty" search is going to come up in a job interview any time soon guys.

I really tried hard with this not to perpetrate any FUD. I re-read all the recent WSJ reporting many times and ran this by a bunch of critical eyes. Tracking down to the individual level is certainly real.

Agreed. I didn't see FUD here, just an accurate presentation of how much tracking Google does. So I decided to start out the new year by switch my search to DDG and seeing how well it performs.

Re: Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide

#50

Post by rayvega » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #37

I have a question: does this policy of DDG violate their legal responsibilities? Thats a serious question. I believe that law enforcement requires some form of data retention but I'm not sure what.

IANAL, but I don't think so. What law would that be? If I walk into any retail store and pay with cash, is the store owner required by law to get my personal info? No, they are not.

Perhaps in heavily regulated industries such as banking that might be different but search engines are not government regulated (for now).