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

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

#101

Post by Sephr » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #15

Or, you could use https://encrypted.google.com which disables the referral[1]. You can also turn off the history[2]. Other info, like your IP address (which they partially anonymize after... 9/18/24 months (conflicting details)) and cookie[3] (which you can clear / block), is still stored. Odds are DDG does this too (edit: they don't, see replies), as it's mostly useful for overall statistics. [1]: http://www.google.…

SSL doesn't disable the referrer header. It just happens to not be sent when the link you've clicked on isn't also using SSL. If the link you click on happens to be to an SSL site, they get the full referrer header as intended. A more appropriate way to hide the referrer is to just use a redirection that doesn't include the search terms.

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

#102

Post by extension » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:23 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #65

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wasn't trying to paint with a broad brush, but instead concentrate on very specific things that I think the average person doesn't know about. Personally, as you can gather, I don't think SSL search is enough (or browser plugins). The average person doesn't know it exists and so it essentially doesn't "exist" for most people. If you made it the default, or did something like what we did by dropping the refer…

> "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?

The average person can't decide if they care about it until they understand it. Until they do, I'm glad people like Gabriel are being paranoid on their behalf.

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

#103

Post by patrickaljord » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:25 PM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #74

16s wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will they make money? I agree with you. I like privacy, but ad supported search seems to be the only viable business model. Advertisers won't pay DDG b/c there's no one to target.

I assume they have various methods. One of the methods I noticed by accident was that they add their affiliate id to Amazon links in search results

So amazon can track DDG users.

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

#104

Post by LanceJones » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:26 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #65

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wasn't trying to paint with a broad brush, but instead concentrate on very specific things that I think the average person doesn't know about. Personally, as you can gather, I don't think SSL search is enough (or browser plugins). The average person doesn't know it exists and so it essentially doesn't "exist" for most people. If you made it the default, or did something like what we did by dropping the refer…

> "The average person doesn't know it exists" Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?

Not until their life is impacted negatively (e.g., turned down for health insurance).

Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:29 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #52

rumpelstiltskin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close, but wrong.

Which is why I edited my top post. No need to spread inaccurate information. Since you're going on the offensive, a defensive move might be in order: no, I wasn't. I said "odds are", not "DDG does", because I didn't know for sure and did not intend to claim to. The odds are in my favor, the fact is an aberration on otherwise almost-uniform behavior by search providers.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by aw3c2 » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:29 PM UTC

samtp wrote: post #98

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…

It looks like something that was thrown up quickly. If you have 'mental stress' because some pictures and text lacks design, the problem may be you, not the website.

Surely that might be the case, I was simply stating my experience.

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

#107

Post by zavulon » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:29 PM UTC

jimmyswimmy wrote: post #75

Well, that finally worked for me. For the longest time I've seen the DDG "ads" on here and thought, "meh, Google works fine for me." Focusing on the privacy angle appealed to me, mainly because I like the idea of decoupling my search and email histories. But - if you are so focused on not-tracking then how do you know if an advertising campaign such as this actually works? Presumably this is not the only campaign you…

I'm in the same boat - this has finally convinced me to give it a serious try. I've been using Google mostly in "private" mode in Chrome/FF for a while now, but that's not a real solution.

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

#108

Post by pragmatic » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:40 PM UTC

How does duck duck go make money?

I saw something about adding affiliate links to Amazon results. What else?

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

#109

Post by kingsidharth » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:42 PM UTC

16s wrote: post #66

motters wrote: post #62

I've been using DDG for a while, and have been very happy with it. IMHO they should focus on this privacy aspect, trying to be the most privacy respecting search engine, because it's a key product differentiator and it's also an issue which is only likely to grow in importance.

How will they make money? I agree with you. I like privacy, but ad supported search seems to be the only viable business model. Advertisers won't pay DDG b/c there's no one to target.

Building a product that people use is first step. Money will follow, eventually. Google didn't have revenue model in place since first date.

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

#110

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 8:52 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #76

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that statement renders the poll invalid. That is to say, I think 90% of people in general would say they pay little or no attention to online ads. But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).

heh true, true. I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy. Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed. There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because t…

I hate ads. I despise them. And I work as a small-time consultant along with my studies.

When I install/fix a machine, I always load Firefox with adblock plus due to the amount of harassing nasty ads. Being the location where I do the majority of my business, they are almost exclusively on dialup, so even a 100kb image add is literally 25 seconds extra load time.

Now, am I anti-capitalist? Not quite. I agree that someone doing work for money (be it a sole proprietor or company) has a right to 'hang their shingle'. I most certainly do. However, when I look at content, I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at.

And yes, I full well understand that ad-click and purchase is what increases revenue for content based websites. I also know, from the many articles here, that google is THE player in this sphere, along with their multitude of complaints.

I also, control my network connection from my side. I also control my CPU, what resides in ram, what lands on my screen, and what I choose to not display. As I look at it, we have dealt with nearing 15 years of increasingly hostile ads. I'm only reacting in kind by being hostile to them. And I attribute banners and such like the 'last minute' sale grocery stores attempt by putting candy in the checkout lane.

Yes, I do know that my viewpoint is a minority. But I also recommend goods and services to others. So, yeah, don't abuse us and we'll pass on the sales.