Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Jun 2011 09:33 UTC
Internet & Networking Remember when Altavista was the search engine? Or Yahoo? They stuffed their search pages with useless, distracting crap, and using them became unpleasant. And then, bam, along came Google, with a simple, clear search page and uncluttered search results. However, now that Google has become this massive behemoth, tracking our every move, and tailoring our search results, leading to only being fed those pages you agree with - isn't it time for something new? Something simple? It might be, and you've undoubtedly heard of them: DuckDuckGo. I'm switching. Update: Just got an email from Gabriel Weinberg, the guy behind DuckDuckGo. The OSNews !bang (!osnews) is now live!
Permalink for comment 477986
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't see the problem...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Jun 2011 15:20 UTC in reply to "I don't see the problem..."
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

This notion that if the "government" has access to my online browsing habits, "it" will at some point come and destroy me is utterly misguided to me.


That;'s fine - you seem to have some sort of trust in the governmental system you currently live under. I find such notions cute and naive, but you're free to hold them. I mistrust the government deeply for the simple reason that a government - as an entity, so not on an individual basis - always strives for more control, more power. Having access to everything we do will tilt the balance of power even more towards the governments - and thus, towards the large companies that have the financial means to influence policy.

The role of the internet should be to shift the balance of power back to where it belongs: the people. The government ought to be our employee, not the other way around. Laws exist to serve us, not the other way around. The government should fear us, and its individual members ought to be wholly disposable. This is the only way to ensure the government follows the will of the people, instead of the will of a few powerful individuals.

Why? Because if they do and it turns out he's a lunatic, an explosion that could potentially kill my two daughters can be prevented.


It's all about how willing you are to hand over core freedoms and rights in exchange for "safety" (between quotes, as history has shown that giving up liberties doesn't make the world ANY safer).

If the government proposes to track everyone via a chip, promising it would make your daughters safe - would you do it? Would you find it worth it? What about cameras in all homes and buildings? Would you find that acceptable if it makes the world a safer place? I am NOT willing to give up my right to privacy just because a terrorist *might* someday blow himself up somewhere. That's a risk I'm willing to take.

There have been several totalitarian states where citizens were continuously monitored. Did it make those countries any safer?

Edited 2011-06-21 15:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4