Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, accidental downvote while highlighting your question. > Turning off HTTP_REFERER doesn't sound like a very good idea. How would you be able to tell how people found you? And what if people in general, by default, don't want you to know that and we just got it wrong by default in the browser?
I don't remember anyone ever discussing the referrer as being an issue before 3rd party ad networks became so prevalent. This type of tracking exists for loads of other types of marketing, too. Promo codes, questionnaires that say "where did you find us?" and things like that. Above all, there's nothing a website can do maliciously with that information alone. An IP address and the page you came in from, that's all t…
DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
151–160 of 224 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#152Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. I had a scenario like this a few days ago when I googled for "fabric" -- Being a Python developer I was looking for http://fabfile.org and it shows up as the second result while logged in. If I'm not, it won't show up. This may be the outlier state of mind on HN, but I…
Not sure why this hasn't been said yet (maybe I missed it), but dukgo.com already has this figured out. https://duckduckgo.com/fabric It knows that fabric means something in textiles, geology, etc, and that it has multiple meanings in computing. To get Python, just click 'more meanings' EDIT: I guess my point was already made, so in order to contribute something to the conversation, I'll add this: if there's anything…
Or better yet, search for "fabric python" and be done with it, no need for Google storing all your searches at the expense of you typing a few more characters once in a while.
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, normal people don't know how to turn them off or use the https version. Google could do a lot of things to make this easier. The best would be to just prevent ad networks from collecting this personal information altogether. The only reason I've heard against doing so is that webmasters need search terms for SEO, but they can get them via Webmaster tools. Failing that, they could make a setting in the…
> Google could do a lot of things to make this easier. And so could Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, and Opera. As others have mentioned, this is a good marketing move, but it's not clear to me that you actually care that much about this issue.
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you draw the line? what governments is google allowed to hand over information to vs which ones it can deny?
The simple answer is wherever they have operations. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you are going to run ops within a country you implicitly have to follow the law of the land. That being said, thinking they shouldn't be in a particular country which obligates them to do these things is a much more sound position than just saying they shouldn't follow the law in a few particular cases. Ultimately, if…
And because of that I choose to use a 1-man search engine, without loss of quality, while gaining everything last bit of privacy.
And because of this, his stunt of a billboard ad is actually truthful.
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#155Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? I, for one, want Google to be all Orwellian on me because it will mean better search results. I had a scenario like this a few days ago when I googled for "fabric" -- Being a Python developer I was looking for http://fabfile.org and it shows up as the second result while logged in. If I'm not, it won't show up. This may be the outlier state of mind on HN, but I…
Of course it is. Google and Facebook have been pushing the bounds of privacy repeatedly over the years because it is in their financial best interest to do so.
Their primary product isn't search or communication or maps. Their product is plain and simple people's personal information. And, becuase they are a corporation in the USA they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value.
So, of course Google and Facebook have to erode the concept of online privacy. That is their product and that is the value that they are legally bound to maximize.
If they were very clear and up front about this issue, and communicated that information in plain language to their users that would be one thing. But, they don't.
Google doesn't every plainly say, "We track your location with your android phone. We track your searches on Google. We track what sites you visit though our advertising network. We track who you email when you use Gmail. If you use our calendar, we know what your schedule is. We track who you call when you use Google Voice. And, we want you to trust us to do the right thing with that data. We make a crap load of money using everything that we know about you to let other people sell stuff to you. Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant."
So, yes, I do think the privacy issue is pretty important. You have a couple of massive corporations who are for all intents and purposes forced to erode people's concept of privacy. And, if people are going to compete with Google, one of the areas they are very vulnerable is in the area of privacy. Gabriel has been kicking their ass on this, and it's an area where they are vulnerable to competitors.
I say more power to DDG. It's a conversation that needs to be had, and more people need to know about this.
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
And ye shall receive: "An Indian man is facing five years in jail for making an "offensive" comment [against Sonya Ghandi] after Google handed his personal data to local police." http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-... Yahoo taken to task over China http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.h...
Distortion. That's not Google spying on people. The guy use Orkut, a social network website, surely there's his account information there. The personal data that is handed over is email address of the account. It's probably a privacy violation if it's really that hard to find out someone's email address once you know his social network account, but it's not spying on people.
Google's Orkut social networking site
Here is the same story on TechCrunch showing how Google provided more than just an email address:
The owner of the email id Rahul Vaid was traced, using information supplied by Google, to Chakarpur in Gurgaon city of Haryana.
http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-butto...
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the current search, but the problem is millions of pages run third-party ads, and most are run by very few networks. These ad networks can aggregate the terms and then they have previous searches as well.
Doesn't Incognito browsing, like present in Chrome, remedy all these worries?
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember anyone ever discussing the referrer as being an issue before 3rd party ad networks became so prevalent. This type of tracking exists for loads of other types of marketing, too. Promo codes, questionnaires that say "where did you find us?" and things like that. Above all, there's nothing a website can do maliciously with that information alone. An IP address and the page you came in from, that's all t…
OAuth doesn't use cookies, does it?
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious if it's possible to write a Firefox plugin that would block the HTTP-REFERRER header for certain sites.
RefControl https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ I'm using it since years and I don't understand all that referrer-privacy hype. Just don't send the referrer.
For privacy reasons, I set it so it forges the referrer to be the root of the destination site if the domain is different too. So when I go to google.com and click on http://www.example.com/foo, the referer it sends is http://www.example.com/ instead of http://www.google.com/searchterm.
I haven't found any sites which this breaks yet...
Re: DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco)
#160Not 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 :)
They would like to know this information, and could probably do better business if they did know it. But it would be a breach of my privacy for them to know this information without even asking me for it.
I don't see why websites should continue to be treated differently, just because historically they have been...