DuckDuckGo Challenges Google on Privacy (With a Billboard in San Francisco) • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by gawker » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:19 PM UTC

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #180

gawker wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mates installed it for me and I didn't make it past the first day. Search results wasn't accurate enough for me so I went back to Google.

Thx--would appreciate you sending me queries that didn't work for you (if you can recall any you're willing to share): http://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html Always trying to improve!

Sure! While I can't recall any on the top of my head (I'll be sure to send you some if I come across it again - will make an effort to try again at a later date), it's usually more to deal with very specific technical terms. Maybe overly specific? Will report if I have any issues.

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

#192

Post by gloob » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:27 PM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #183

burgerbrain wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not knowing which keywords referred visitors would be terribly annoying to webmasters" Why should I, as a user, care about that?

You don't directly. But if the internet landscape becomes unusable to content providers, you'll care when there is nothing worth finding anymore.

If I don't buy the "Feel sorry for me! Prop up my business!" argument when the newspapers make it, and I don't buy it when the record companies make it, why should I buy it when people running websites make it?

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

#193

Post by amalcon » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:30 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #163

iamelgringo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? 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 maxi…

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many p…

> Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value?

Tobacco companies concealing evidence that nicotine is addictive is sort of the textbook case for this, though you are correct that it is not a law as such. Pretty much every corporation has in its charter a mandate to maximize shareholder value within certain constraints.

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

#194

Post by iamelgringo » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:36 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #163

iamelgringo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? 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 maxi…

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many p…

Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong.

Really? I'm surprised that you have a problem believing that people who manage companies might do things of dubious moral value in order to maximize profit. But, if you insist...

It could be easily argued that BP, Halliburton, et al... maximized shareholder value over environmental safety concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

The current recession is largely due to financial services companies creating derivatives out of sub prime mortgages. That is, bundling toxic debt and making it look like a AAA rated investment and selling it for profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession

Enron's "...reported financial condition was sustained substantially by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the "Enron scandal""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

Vioxx was a drug that I've seen people die from. It was pushed through the FDA approval process and then withdrawn after people started dying from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

Classic example of corporations producing and selling a drug that was toxic, leading to thousands of horrible birth defects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

IBM made a lot of money selling automation systems so the Nazi's could efficiently kill millions in the Holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust Chiquita Brands has admitted to sponsoring terrorist organizations in Latin America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Chiquita_Brands_Internat...

> Oh, and by the way, the government can have access to all that data without a search warrant.

Don't know where you are getting this from.

Really??? If you insist...

"Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program", part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S." [1]

ref:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...

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

#195

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

iamelgringo wrote: post #194

jamesaguilar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many p…

Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. Really? I'm surprised that you have a problem believing that people who…

None of your links provide any evidence that the company was legally obligated to do any of those naughty things.

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

#196

Post by cmontgomeryb » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

rottendevice wrote: post #189

It strikes me as kind of odd that the billboard says "We", implying that DuckDuckGo is a company of multiple people. Then again, saying "I don't track you" would sound extremely strange. I guess we (as a society) have become so accustomed to companies requiring large groups of people to be successful. I guess Gabe's ability to take on Google, the biggest tech company this decade, by himself, is a testament to compute…

Many people do this. If you see a website for a product developed by a single person, more often than not they will use "we".

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

#197

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 4:54 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #173

jamesaguilar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many p…

"Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value?" I can point to companies that sell tainted drugs, products that contain lead paint, that dump toxic materials in rivers, do shoddy work on oil wells, etc. They don't do this because they are required to maximize s…

"Companies do bad stuff" != "Companies are legally required to do bad stuff".

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

#198

Post by T-hawk » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #159

lysium wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recently started using RefControl to get around the nytimes.com block which comes up if the referer isn't google. 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 foun…

You do realize this breaks the ability of www.example.com to track its traffic? They have now lost the information as to how their search rank is performing on Google, and have acquired incorrect information that they think you typed in www.example.com directly.

You're entirely within legal rights to do this, of course. But if everyone did, then sites would have no idea where their traffic is coming from. Morally it is a bit questionable: your browser is blatantly and directly lying to www.example.com about how you got there.

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

#199

Post by ford » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 5:05 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #163

iamelgringo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? 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 maxi…

> they are legally bound to maximize shareholder value Can you point to a single instance where a company was forced to commit some act that its managers reasonably thought was morally wrong because of the "law" that companies must maximize shareholder value? Personally I think this trope has no basis in fact and cannot explain why Google or any other company is compelled to do things that are wrong. There are many p…

The best (but not the only) example of a corporation acting immorally to maximize shareholder value is Ford.

Prior to the release of the Ford Pinto, Ford's managers were fully aware of a design flaw in the Ford Pinto. As most people know, the gas tank on the car made the car explode in a ball of flames if it was involved in a rear end collision.

Ford's management compared the costs of a redesign to the costs associated with wrongful death lawsuits resulting from this design flaw. It was cheaper for them to pay the wrongful death lawsuits, so that's the decision that was made. It's very clear that this decision was made in an effort to maximize shareholder value, and did not take ethics into consideration whatsoever.

More information on this topic at the link below (Link is "Let Me Duck Duck Go That For You, since DDG is the primary topic of this thread):

http://lmddgtfy.com/?q=ford+pinto+lawsuits

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

#200

Post by storborg » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 5:06 PM UTC

I think Wired picked entirely the wrong privacy issue to highlight in this article. Yes, my browser spews the refer(r)er all over. So what?

The referer isn't giving away any private information that the URL of the site isn't giving away already, and as a web publisher, I understand the value of knowing the exact set of terms the user used.

However, I love DuckDuckGo, and try to use it wherever possible, because of other privacy concerns that matter much more to me. The biggest thing I like about DDG is that it doesn't collect or store search history.