81–90 of 178 posts
I'm still dreaming of a search engine that parses regular expressions. When that happens I'm there. Yesterday.
Edit: Looks like yc cut off my link there--copy and paste the full thing.
I'm still dreaming of a search engine that parses regular expressions. When that happens I'm there. Yesterday.
I know this isn't exactly what you meant... http://thor.duckduckgo.com/?q=regexp+/ (.*)/+ddg Edit: Looks like yc cut off my link there--copy and paste the full thing.
I'm still dreaming of a search engine that parses regular expressions. When that happens I'm there. Yesterday.
They also need to make sure they use an implementation that doesn't suffer from exponential time[1] regular expressions.
I seriously do not get this privacy sham. All of a sudden everybody and there uncle is very concious about some algorithms (that select the ad for you) knowing what they searched for. I mean even if I search for something inappropriate and then google ads algorithm knows what I searched for, big deal yaar whats the harm? I presume referrer headers existed even before google and this privacy outrage. The thing I do no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If SSL was the default and sending headers was opt-in, it would probably add some weight to your argument. What Google actively promotes to the typical web user, however, is not SSL or anonymous search but rather features that collect user data to an ever greater degree, e.g. Toolbar, Instant Search, and the Chrome browser.
SSL adds latency, because you're setting up an encrypted connection. Google hates slowing down users, and we don't want to slow down every user unless it's a clear win. That's one reason. When Google switched to AJAX-based search, that temporarily stopped sending referrers, and lots of people screamed bloody murder. For example, http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-searc... said "So what can we do a…
In particular, GMail initially had SSL configurable, but then moved it to the default: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... . Apparently they don’t think the latency is a problem—or if they do, that it’s worth it to get the security benefits of HTTPS.
What scares me the most sometimes is when I think about how ubiquitous Google's ads network and analytics network are. Most of the websites I visit use AdSense and/or Google Analytics. Some are using Google's copy of popular javascript libraries like jQuery. This means that when you are moving from site A to site B to site C, there is a good chance that even though A or B or C does not know about it, Google knows your full browsing path and even how you move from one to another. I am not saying that Google is actually doing it, but it is scary someone has the capability to do it and to know more about you than the government and your mother do. It is important a significant portion of the website and our browsing activities are outside of Google's networks.
The first sentence when I stripped out the pictures was "When you search Google, and click on a link, your search term is sent to that site, along with your browser & computer info, which can often uniquely identify you." Referrers are a part of the way the web has worked since before Google existed. They're a browser-level feature more than something related to specific websites. But if referrers bother you, just us…
DuckDuckGo, AFAIK doesn't log your searches or correlate your searches with a user account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The referrer header is indeed a reality of HTTP, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't work around that reality and correct for it, if it has real privacy implications, which I think it definitely does. By getting rid of that header I think we take away a lot of private context, i.e. the actual search terms that landed you on that page, which in and of themselves can provide a lot of background into what was p…
Yup, that was the same day we announced SSL search, which prevents referrers to http sites. I don't begrudge you trying to make privacy a selling point for DDG, but donttrack.us felt like trying to paint Google with a pretty broad brush. Honestly, it reminded me of when Privacy International decided to give Google a worse privacy rating than any other company. Here's how I responded to Privacy International at the ti…
I will point out that there is nothing wrong with that. Google is not for those with strong privacy requirements, just as all popular operating systems are not for those with strong security requirements. Google falls at one point on the privacy/usability continuum and DDG falls at another point. But as far as the article being unfair to Google goes, I'll have to disagree. You are identifiable with Google's data and that's a reality.
Kudos to DDG. Finally a good alternative to the big G. What scares me the most sometimes is when I think about how ubiquitous Google's ads network and analytics network are. Most of the websites I visit use AdSense and/or Google Analytics. Some are using Google's copy of popular javascript libraries like jQuery. This means that when you are moving from site A to site B to site C, there is a good chance that even thou…
I seriously do not get this privacy sham. All of a sudden everybody and there uncle is very concious about some algorithms (that select the ad for you) knowing what they searched for. I mean even if I search for something inappropriate and then google ads algorithm knows what I searched for, big deal yaar whats the harm? I presume referrer headers existed even before google and this privacy outrage. The thing I do no…