31–40 of 531 posts
EDIT: I didn't notice that this topic was about the DDG browser (which I didn't know existed) and responded assuming this was about the site/extension. For a browser, yes, a client-side solution is possible and probably preferable. Please check and upvote other comment trees. This makes sense to me and is not alarming. Getting favicons actually is difficult to do robustly; many applications and websites use Google's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard way involves a meta tag, right?
That's my understanding of how it's worked for decades... 1. Check for tag(s) 2. Check for /favicon.ico 3. ...give up? Someone correct me if I'm wrong!
Do they release the source of the webservice? Seemingly not. This is extremely shady.
he made big money in the past selling user data to the highest bidder. you can google all about it. I never understood why people trusted duckduckgo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's my understanding of how it's worked for decades... 1. Check for tag(s) 2. Check for /favicon.ico 3. ...give up? Someone correct me if I'm wrong!
You can also set it in JS still a meta tag and image I guess though. It's how some sites do the notification badge thing that is animated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting favicons actually is difficult to do robustly So if you're a privacy browser. Don't. Favicons are not essential. Or, at the very least make them "opt in" and explain it.
I don't see how this is a privacy violation in any way. The headline is that DDG is tracking the domains you visit, but favicons are loaded for every search result you see unconditional on whether you click them, and DDG already knows what those results are when they serve them to you.
EDIT: I didn't notice that this topic was about the DDG browser (which I didn't know existed) and responded assuming this was about the site/extension. For a browser, yes, a client-side solution is possible and probably preferable. Please check and upvote other comment trees. This makes sense to me and is not alarming. Getting favicons actually is difficult to do robustly; many applications and websites use Google's…
Don’t they already have access to all the search results anyways? This doesn’t seem to be any privacy loss relative to that.
Very weak argument for why they do it. Using a service to retrieve a favicon? Surely there's a way to implement the same logic locally.
So if favicons were gathered locally, then you would prefer that your own browser would reach out and make multiple requests to every (potentially dodgy) site listed on the search result page? Note also that these are favicons for results that DDG has already given you . This isn't tracking your clicks. The list of sites that appear on the search result page is not new information to the search engine that just gave…
This is concerning because it indicates a lack of care in terms of privacy and understanding that the best privacy is achieved by knowing the least. Does this approach permeate their backend as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is a privacy violation in any way. The headline is that DDG is tracking the domains you visit, but favicons are loaded for every search result you see unconditional on whether you click them, and DDG already knows what those results are when they serve them to you.
This is about their browser, not their search service. Your argument is perfectly valid if it was the the search service at question.