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

DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

spreadprivacy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#21

Post by Angeo34 »

esperent wrote: post #8
Angeo34 wrote: post #6

So nobody will mention Mr. Weinberg business history. His last company used to accumulate private personal user info and then sell all to brokers and advertisers. DDG and privacy is a literal oxymoron just like Brave and privacy are. Google and Microsoft Edge are more private even though neither has any privacy.

Maybe he's changed. Is there any evidence to suggest DDG is anything but honest?

I never got this logic. If it's about privacy they are obliged to proof that they are private especially with such a backstory. It's like Google saying "yes we are private" and then data share with the entirety of the US gov without any order. Why do you trust DDG did they do anything to earn your trust or is your trust that worthless?

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#22

Post by Angeo34 »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #11
Angeo34 wrote: post #6

So nobody will mention Mr. Weinberg business history. His last company used to accumulate private personal user info and then sell all to brokers and advertisers. DDG and privacy is a literal oxymoron just like Brave and privacy are. Google and Microsoft Edge are more private even though neither has any privacy.

I'll bite. How are DDG and Brave not helping to protect your privacy?

Brave also still hijacks links and Braves tor implementation actually makes it easier to track you. Also generally the team has ignored fingerprinting issues since years that allow unique identification despite Eich saying they are so easy to fix (see my history on HN Eich even replied yet all those bugs are still open since multiple years)

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#23

Post by esperent »

Angeo34 wrote: post #21
esperent wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he's changed. Is there any evidence to suggest DDG is anything but honest?

I never got this logic. If it's about privacy they are obliged to proof that they are private especially with such a backstory. It's like Google saying "yes we are private" and then data share with the entirety of the US gov without any order. Why do you trust DDG did they do anything to earn your trust or is your trust that worthless?

I don't have any particular trust in them. However, they've staked their entire business model on privacy. That would be foolish if their intent is to sell user info, because doing that is unlikely to stay private for long.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#24

Post by Angeo34 »

fsflover wrote: post #9
Angeo34 wrote: post #6

So nobody will mention Mr. Weinberg business history. His last company used to accumulate private personal user info and then sell all to brokers and advertisers. DDG and privacy is a literal oxymoron just like Brave and privacy are. Google and Microsoft Edge are more private even though neither has any privacy.

Just read their privacy policy: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy .

So why do you trust what they say? If Google or MS says it it's irrelevant but if a small company without any supervision says it it's true?

It's like ppl saying Telegram is private just because they say so.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#25

Post by ffpip »

luckylion wrote: post #12
ffpip wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my main concern. Duckduckgo is used more than Bing in many countries and Microsoft might just cancel their access some day. There is always Yandex I guess

Why would Bing cancel, they're presumably making money off of the arrangement. And DDG-users would likely not migrate to Bing, but to Google: if you have to use a product by an anti-privacy-corporation, might as well use the good one.

Well, the fact that DDG gets more users than Bing would be embarrassing for Bing.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#26

Post by ffpip »

Angeo34 wrote: post #24
fsflover wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read their privacy policy: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy .

So why do you trust what they say? If Google or MS says it it's irrelevant but if a small company without any supervision says it it's true? It's like ppl saying Telegram is private just because they say so.

> Telegram is private just because they say so.

Can you give one instance where Telegram lied about privacy?

It is very clear it is not e2ee on their website. They are private. Many privacy features on Telegram do not exist on other platforms.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#27

Post by mrweasel »

ffpip wrote: post #5
02020202 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they use bing only for some stuff, not as their backend. they will do just fine without bing.

Do you have any source? They have always avoided the question of how much they were dependent on Bing.

No one has a source for “DuckDuckGo is just Bing” either. We know that they use Bing, but not for what, people have just asserted that DDG is just Bing (or Yandex), but no one seems to be able to provide at source to back up the claim.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#28

Post by ffpip »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #11
Angeo34 wrote: post #6

So nobody will mention Mr. Weinberg business history. His last company used to accumulate private personal user info and then sell all to brokers and advertisers. DDG and privacy is a literal oxymoron just like Brave and privacy are. Google and Microsoft Edge are more private even though neither has any privacy.

I'll bite. How are DDG and Brave not helping to protect your privacy?

Brave is good. HN just loves Firefox too much.

I use FF as default. Brave as secondary.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#29

Post by mrweasel »

Angeo34 wrote: post #21
esperent wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he's changed. Is there any evidence to suggest DDG is anything but honest?

I never got this logic. If it's about privacy they are obliged to proof that they are private especially with such a backstory. It's like Google saying "yes we are private" and then data share with the entirety of the US gov without any order. Why do you trust DDG did they do anything to earn your trust or is your trust that worthless?

How do you prove that you’re privacy focused? You have to somehow prove that there’s something you did’t do. That’s kinda hard, and not much different from keeping it a secret.

Re: DuckDuckGo Founding Member in Global Privacy Control Standards Effort

#30

Post by boogies »

fsflover wrote: post #14
Mc_Big_G wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. How are DDG and Brave not helping to protect your privacy?

Brave indeed should not be trusted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442027 .

What does that have to do with privacy? I don’t use Brave (I won’t use anything Chromium-based while it has such dangerously high market share), but I think that controversy was exaggerated. All they where doing was adding redundant metadata (already present in the useragent string), IUUC not tied to any identity other than their own (not just an “anonymized” identity, no unique user identifier at all) to get some non-privacy-violating profit. And the title of that post is quite misleading — they didn’t change any actual links on pages, only added affiliate codes to the suggested omnibar completions you could choose to accept.
Post reply on HN