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)

#211

Post by bobds » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #152

natep wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Not sure why this hasn't been said yet (maybe I missed it), but dukgo.com already has this figured out. 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.

Or just search for "fabric" without personalization/being-logged-in and you probably get the Python-related fabric in the top 10.

It was result number 7 for me.

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

#212

Post by mike-cardwell » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

T-hawk wrote: post #198

mike-cardwell wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You think a website has a right to track where I came from. I think a user has a right to privacy.

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

#213

Post by Travis » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 8:03 PM UTC

xentronium wrote: post #166

dauphin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedophilia is illegal in most countries, I'd be happy if ad networks gather data about your interest on young boys and pass it to the feds! Beasts! Edit: judging by the downvotes, I guess a good bunch of hackers like to live in atrocity!

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security (via Ben Franklin)

You got the oft-excluded part of the quote right -- temporary security -- but the actual quote is, "he who would trade Essential Liberty for some Temporary Security, deserves neither Liberty or Security."

Many people omit the word, "temporary". The suspicious part of me says they do it so their (mis-quoted) statement appears more bold and uncompromising.

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

#214

Post by joesb » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 8:33 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #156

joesb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 OWNS Orkut, in fact, it says so on the 2nd line: 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...

Yes, Google own Orkut.

That makes it even less sensible to call Google "spying" on people when one signup for Google's social network.

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

#215

Post by jamesaguilar » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 8:42 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #209

tedunangst wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out.

As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already require companies to consider the broad interests of society. Environmental regulations, taxes, tort law, and various other similar regulations, not to mention the natural pressure that the best interest of society tends to be somewhat compatible with profit, all influence companies to choose the option that is best for society as a whole most of the time. I wonder what specific law you are proposing when you say that laws should be changed to make companies consider the "societal interest."

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

#216

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 9:03 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #209

tedunangst wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

If your intention was not to answer the question you quoted, it would have been best not to quote it, because it looks like you are trying to answer it.

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

#217

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:20 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #215

yequalsx wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out. As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already req…

No one is claiming that the law that corporation are required to try to maximize shareholder value is the same thing as requiring companies to do bad things. Some people, me included, are saying that there are unintended consequences with this law and that some companies do bad things in an effort to maximize profit (increase shareholder value).

Pointing out that companies doing bad things is not the same thing as legally requiring them to do bad things is a red herring. It's not germane to the discussion at hand.

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

#218

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #216

yequalsx wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If your intention was not to answer the question you quoted, it would have been best not to quote it, because it looks like you are trying to answer it.

No one is claiming that the law that corporation are required to try to maximize shareholder value is the same thing as requiring companies to do bad things. Some people, me included, are saying that there are unintended consequences with this law and that some companies do bad things in an effort to maximize profit (increase shareholder value).

Pointing out that companies doing bad things is not the same thing as legally requiring them to do bad things is a red herring. It's not germane to the discussion at hand.

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

#219

Post by jamesaguilar » Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 11:33 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #217

jamesaguilar wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You responded to a post arguing against the notion that companies are legally required to do things that are wrong for profit. You responded with an argument that many companies had done things wrong for profit, but without proving that they are legally required to do so. So your response was basically irrelevant, and the GP is pointing that out. As a technical matter, there are a number of ways that laws already req…

No one is claiming that the law that corporation are required to try to maximize shareholder value is the same thing as requiring companies to do bad things. Some people, me included, are saying that there are unintended consequences with this law and that some companies do bad things in an effort to maximize profit (increase shareholder value). Pointing out that companies doing bad things is not the same thing as le…

On the contrary, the claim in the original post is exactly that Google must do bad things because of some unnamed law that corporations must maximize shareholder value. Specifically:

"So, of course Google and Facebook have to erode the concept of online privacy [i.e. do bad things]. That is their product and that is the value that they are legally bound to maximize [i.e. the reason they must do bad things is because they are legally required to]."

That is what I was responding to when you responded to me. Since you are so mistaken about what exactly the discussion at hand is, I don't know how you can claim to know what is germane to it.

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

#220

Post by BrandonM » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 3:28 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #210

BrandonM wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> 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.

What's the point of looking at search engine terms except to optimize for them in some way? The optimization is going to be based on a search engine algorithm, and with Google being the most common search engine that's the one most people are going to optimize for.

That was my point: if you're trying to compete in search and analytics, it's not in a vacuum; it's in the context of a specific company's search algorithm. It only makes sense to tweak your performance by referring to that company's website, e.g. Google Webmaster Tools.