Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

201–210 of 224 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few spies self-identify as someone who hurts innocent people. They think of themselves as supporting their family while helping their government or something. Don't focus on what nouns different parts of the spying apparatus choose to label themselves with, or what other functions they serve. Instead, consider their effects in the context of being a spying apparatus.

But how is it spying if you use the service voluntarily, they tell you exactly that they collect and often (always?) let you opt out of the collection. That's a really diluted standard for "spying".

Well, consider spies in WW2, specifically the "loose lips sink ships" variety.

The spies that saying warns of were not crawling around in vents with night vision goggles, they were your friends, neighbors, and coworkers who would relay semi-public information to a processing center that used the info towards harmful ends.

I see this situation as a direct analogue. We communicate naturally with a supposedly disinterested or trustworthy party, who then collects that information and distributes it to others, without our best interests in mind.

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

#202
post #12

I know this comes up every now and again...but I find the length of the domain name a barrier to entry. I think building a brand around "DuckDuckGo" is an upward battle.

Set up a keyword bookmark for it. I've got it set to 'd'.

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

#204

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…

All your corporation-evil links fail because they do not show that any law requires this behavior. Please actually answer my question rather than other questions which I did not ask.

Your NSA link fails for two reasons. First, anyone can access your data without a search warrant if they do it illegally. It is deceptive to suggest that the USG can legally access your data without a search warrant. Second, as a technical matter, the USG can intercept communication between Google and you, but does not have access to Google's stored data. The concern is over the data that is going to be stored since obviously that communication between you and Google was going to happen anyway. DDG is no more safe from this attack surface than Google except inasmuch as they offer SSL search, which Google offers as well.

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

#205

Is 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…

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2064240

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

#206

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…

You have given plenty of examples of morally wrong things being done for financial gain. That is not news. People have been corrupt and greedy for thousands of years.

What you have failed to do is show any evidence at all that companies are legally obliged to be corrupt and greedy.

On your link about warrantless surveillance, scroll down to the long section on legal issues. While there is no question that the government asked for, and got, a lot of that information, the legality of the request is quite a different matter.

And now for the concrete counter-example, when the NSA asked for Qwest's cooperation, they didn't get it. This decision has materially affected Qwest's financials because they were shut out of a lucrative NSA contract.

Now show me the shareholder lawsuit against Qwest for failing to maximize shareholder value by refusing the NSA on this matter.

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

#207
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respo…

I disagree. If you're concerned about how you're doing on Google, it makes sense to have to go to Google to find out.

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

#208
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm nor sure where I argued that propping up business was a good thing.

I just think it's silly to pretend that the only concern when making a business or technology decision is the short-sighted impact on consumers/users.

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

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

I don't understand the purpose of your post. I didn't come close to claiming otherwise. I'm not claiming otherwise.

I provided examples of companies doing bad stuff in the pursuit of money. I opined that a change in the law is needed. The fact that companies doing bad stuff does not equal companies being legally required to bad stuff supports my position. That is, even though there is no law requiring companies to do bad stuff they still sometimes do. I suggested that a change in the law might lead to companies doing bad stuff less frequently.

Again, I don't understand the purpose of your post. Can you clarify?

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

#210
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respo…

I disagree. If you're concerned about how you're doing on Google, it makes sense to have to go to Google to find out.

Makes sense from what perspective, optimizing for whom?

My concern is that compared to referrer-leaking of terms – a standard way to inform webmasters, the same for all search engines – using the Google Webmaster Tools encourages webmasters to develop non-portable Google-specific skills. This cements the leader's position even further.

If your top concern is privacy, Google blurring referrers will help. If your top concern is competition in search and analytics, it hurts.

Post reply on HN