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

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

#171

Post by Groxx » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 5:15 PM UTC

foljs wrote: post #166

Groxx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope, you were just plain wrong. The odds would have been in your favor if you have said "odds are a search engine chosen at random does this too". But, instead, you said: "odds are DDG does this too", thus binding the odds to DDG. Since the general stance of DDG is pro privacy, you should have reasoned that the odds were in favor of DDG NOT doing this. (Not to mention that posting that you "were close" didn't provid…

It bound the odds to DDG in the face of a lack of information, where you can only extrapolate from what you know - other search providers. It would've bound straight to DDG if I knew one way or another, but I didn't. Context is very important for such phrasing.

I used it to say "thanks", which was the primary reason for me. The rest was perhaps ill-conceived, but it has been amusing to see the spikes up and down in its rank - it went > +10 for a while.

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

#172

Post by klync » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

bookmarking, delicious-ing, resending to ( / spamming) all my friends and family ....

ddg rules and this finally puts my pov into nice, simple, pretty pictures.

W00t!

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

#173

Post by huertanix » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 6:31 PM UTC

rick_2047 wrote: post #151

huertanix wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just a matter of advertising. Your search history is an incredibly personal and detailed profile of who you are, and governments have a history of trying to use that sort of information for $badThings. See: US DOJ request for search engine histories in 2005. There's a reason why librarians fought so hard to keep your book checkouts private when the Patriot Act passed. Search histories have a potential for…

Then don't select such a government. Last time I checked USA was a democracy.

I tried that. It didn't work.

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

#174

Post by pedanticfreak » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 6:58 PM UTC

I think the more appropriate summary is that DuckDuckGo proactively guards your privacy. Google is completely aware of privacy issues, but allows privacy to slip through the sieve by being indecisive about what to do about it.

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

#175

Post by Matt_Cutts » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 7:21 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #165

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can talk a bit about why we didn't launch with "click here to switch to SSL search" links. When SSL search launched, web search was supported, but not every type of search was supported. For example, Google Image Search wasn't easily supported for some esoteric reasons (some browsers have a limit of 2 simultaneous connections, and that can interact badly with SSL + fetching bunches of thumbnail images). The concern…

In fairness, Google deserves credit for providing SSL search in the first place, but exactly how does one go about contacting the Google Complaints Department? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=S...

We try to keep an eye out for feedback across the web, on Twitter, at search conferences, in comments on blogs, etc. There's also a forum linked to from google.com/webmasters that we keep an eye on.

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

#176

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #169

loup-vaillant wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment looks like you assume that the majority of internet users have an informed opinion about privacy on the internet. I deny that assumption. My observation is that more than 90% computer users don't have a clue. They don't know how computers work, what they store, and what they send. I've even seen computer engineering students that don't know that Gmail does semantic analysis on their e-mail, despite the p…

Why should they have a clue about inner workings. Most people also don't know how a car engine works. My comment isn't that people have an informed opinion about privacy, more that it's a moot point to them. It's like asking them their opinion on a new fuel injection component. Users rightly assume that their personal details will be kept securely by any website they give them to. > " Indeed, I suspect that among tho…

Your post looked like it was trying to assess that privacy isn't such a big deal, period. One of its arguments was an appeal to popularity: the extremely low percentage of people who use special privacy tools. Appeal to popularity can be valid, but I say that it doesn't work here, because the extremely low popularity of privacy tools is fully explained by the fact that nearly everyone doesn't have a clue, and therefore no opinion worth listening to. (When seeking truth, at least. Studying uninformed opinions has other uses.)

> BS

Ah, that is a meaningful disagreement. Well, you've just treated me of an OCD afflicted control freak, along with Eben Moglen. :-) By the way, the majority of the web site I go to (mostly from HN), work like charms, and I don't often have to enable Javascript. Tor doesn't work, true, and that's why I intend to run an exit node very soon. It'll be a drop in the ocean, but we gotta start somewhere. I liked Adblock while I used it, but animated ads stopped bothering me since NoScript.

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

#177

Post by veidr » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:24 AM UTC

I don't think this is an important indictment of Google at all, but I do think it is an important warning (mainly because of its simplicity and digestibility) to those people who don't understand how the interweb tubes work.

For instance, I forwarded the entire page as-is (Cmd-I in Safari if you have Apple's Mail configured) to my little sister.

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

#178

Post by mikeocool » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 3:53 AM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #77

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.

> "...which can often uniquely identify you" makes me feel like this is playing on fear a little too much. A browser signature is somewhat akin to a physical finger print. https://panopticlick.eff.org/ bigebonybooty.com can sell your data too.

The browser signature presented on panopticlick is really not akin to a physical finger print at all.

Most of the features that are called out as making up your browser's 'finger print' actually change fairly regularly on most users machines. Using these features, your finger print would change anytime you update your browser, add a new plugin, or disalbe an old font.