Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 224 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#61

Post by jackowayed »

waqf wrote: post #37

I have nothing against GW and I wish him well, but what kind of guarantee do I have of his claim that he doesn't log my search queries? (I realize that the "Referer" thing is indeed verifiable.)

Why would he? He has no advertising to use it for. He doesn't want the government to be able to subpoena him. (They can't ask for information he doesn't have.) And it would pretty much kill the business he's been building for 3 years if it came out that he was logging information that he's been loudly claiming that he doesn't.

He also wrote a blog post on how to change nginx's defaults to not log IP and user agent: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-not-log-p...

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#62

Post by epi0Bauqu »

sorbus wrote: post #39
epi0Bauqu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK this doesn't shut off the search leakage in the referrer header.

Anyone who really cares can - and will - use HTTPS. EDIT: It appears that at least one person disagrees with me. So, a quick question: Which takes more effort for the end user, switching to a new search engine or switching to https?

In the last few weeks, I've talked to a lot of people that care. And in general people do care: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/21/web-surfers-troubled-...

I can tell you that normal people who care also don't know about HTTPS or how to use it. I'm all for Google making it easier to do so, or otherwise stop this personal information from leaking. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2122431 for some ideas.

Also, FWIW, HTTPS alone doesn't solve the issue completely, as HTTPS->HTTPS traffic still leaks.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#63

Post by tzs »

coderdude wrote: post #11
potatolicious wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's disingenuous. DDG has legitimate claim to "Google tracks you" beyond just referrer URLs. When you search for "athlete's foot" on DDG you won't see an add for foot cream the next time you're watching a video on YouTube. That's the sort of tracking Google undeniably does do that users may find troubling (I know I do). Most users don't know about this level of tracking. Moreover, while referral URLs containing se…

Then that is their ONLY claim against Google (yet not Google alone). Everything else on that donttrack.us page is applicable to any and every search engine or Website. I believe DDG is being disingenuous by making it sound like this a Google-only thing. Even if Google is the big guy they want to go after, they should be up front that this is not something that makes Google evil or is specific to Google.

An ad that says "Google, Bing, Yahoo all do bad thing X. Our search engine that you never heard of before this ad does not!", one response in the readers mind might be "If all the ones I heard of do X, maybe it isn't bad".

If an ad is going to mention competitors, it is best to just name one competitor in cases like this, where the reader might not have heard of you before.

If the market is more even, mentioning others might be OK. For example, if Honda put in some new safety feature in the CR-V, it would be OK for them to name the Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester in their ads, because all three companies are well known to most readers.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#64

Post by gojomo »

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #33
jeremydavid wrote: post #8

Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters. Unless you're using dodgy 3rd party advertisers, I don't see what's so bad about aggregating referrer data. I have a feeling Google might be keen to hold onto their duck.com domain a little longer :)

You can get that info via Google's Webmaster Tools: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/

So if Google blurs referrers by default, instead of just people who opt for HTTPS search, but then more webmasters become more tightly bound to Google Webmaster Tools for necessary analytics, is that a net win for consumers and search engine diversity?

I doubt most webmasters will endeavor to learn N different webmaster control panels, so this recommendation further advantages the leader.

Google might very well respond to the pressure of this campaign by saying, "OK, you got us, we'll change", then laugh all the way to the even-stronger-monopoly bank.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#65

Post by epi0Bauqu »

seabee wrote: post #48
epi0Bauqu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK this doesn't shut off the search leakage in the referrer header.

Actually, with Google Instant, the search terms aren't in the URL anymore - does it still leak?

Yes. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063961

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#67

Post by peteforde »

I'm all for a good story, and the one-man DDG going up against Google is certainly a great one. However, considering the number of armchair business analysts on HN I'm shocked that nobody seems to call out Gabriel for appearing to fall into a cliched trap: "we don't track you" isn't a product, it's a feature.

I genuinely wonder what DDG would do if Google simply addressed all of their referrer privacy issues. Then what, exactly? Would DDG simply pack up and go home?

It's a fair question.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#68

Post by mcantor »

prawn wrote: post #66

For anyone that just wants to see what the billboard looks like and isn't interested in the article: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/01/ddg_bill...

Couldn't those people just click on the link, look at the picture of the billboard and then close the window?

Not being sarcastic... that's what I did.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#69

Post by epi0Bauqu »

seabee wrote: post #44
sorbus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly sure that the issue is the browser passing on the referrer, not that Google is making websites aware of any additional information. I might be wrong, of course; there's a lot of FUD about this floating around.

The browser does it, and did it long before Google existed.

That doesn't mean Google couldn't or shouldn't prevent the browser from doing it.

When this all started, no one envisioned ad networks and data companies aggregating all this personal information, or even that search terms would be a central part of the Internet.

So now that we know what is going on, why allow this personal information to leak? As far as I can tell, the only reason is so Webmasters can do better at Google SEO. And that reason can be wholly mitigated through the use of Google's Webmaster Tools.

Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)

#70

Post by coderdude »

tzs wrote: post #63
coderdude wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that is their ONLY claim against Google (yet not Google alone). Everything else on that donttrack.us page is applicable to any and every search engine or Website. I believe DDG is being disingenuous by making it sound like this a Google-only thing. Even if Google is the big guy they want to go after, they should be up front that this is not something that makes Google evil or is specific to Google.

An ad that says "Google, Bing, Yahoo all do bad thing X. Our search engine that you never heard of before this ad does not!", one response in the readers mind might be "If all the ones I heard of do X, maybe it isn't bad". If an ad is going to mention competitors, it is best to just name one competitor in cases like this, where the reader might not have heard of you before. If the market is more even, mentioning othe…

>one response in the readers mind might be "If all the ones I heard of do X, maybe it isn't bad"

Somehow I doubt a reader can frame what donttrack.us says in a good light if you also include Bing and Yahoo. It talks about shady employees, getting hacked, people finding out you have herpes, etc.

>If the market is more even, mentioning others might be OK

>it would be OK for them to name the Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester in their ads, because all three companies are well known to most readers

Google, Bing, and Yahoo are known by basically everyone, so I think there is some inconsistency with your argument. That, or you're conflating market-share and mind-share.

Post reply on HN