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 478121
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by daedalus8
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 08:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by daedalus8"
Member since:


"And what gives you guarantee that these websites are not tracking you?"

There's no guarantee other websites are not logging. The best we can do is run through tor or another type of anonymous proxy.

However the problem with google in particular is their own ubiquity. Not only do they have google search traffic, they scan private emails. They bug a large portion of the internet via adsense, analytics, youtube, doubleclick, google checkout, blogspot, maps, google apps, and so on.

"Please people, start being a bit more realistic, nothing on the internet can be hidden, at least not for too long."

Can you explain what you mean by this?

"HTTPS is not safe either, remember that you could be going through a transparent proxy and all your traffic could be being decrypted in the middle, but you wouldn't know any better."

I'm not sure what you meant here either. HTTPS does in fact protect from MITM attack. However it obviously cannot protect your privacy from the endpoint who's decrypting the traffic.

"Anyways, you don't like what Google is doing, then don't use it, or clear your cookies every once in a while."

Google has a great deal of information collected from properties not owned by google. Web users generally don't know when they're being watched by google - they think the tracking only takes place at, and that's far from the case.

What about their foray into healthcare services? If the provider has a contract with google, patients have no knowledge google will hold their information, much less have the right to opt out.

Even governments are outsourcing IT to google. In these cases, we have no reasonable way to know when google is actually watching us.

We're forced to take them at their word as to what they do with the information. Even if the company is officially committed to privacy, those of us in IT know that it only takes one rogue employee to fall to temptation and use customer data inappropriately. And there's always the risk of government control, and intrusion.

At what point do we say it's too much information for one entity to have? For me, we're well beyond any point which makes me comfortable.

"Also stop bitching when you are actually using Google's Chrome browser and watching video's on Google's Youtube, or using Gmail, or GoogleVoice for your 'VoIP', or Picasa, or any of their offerings, hypocrisy is not a good thing."

I don't believe I was being hypocritical. These are very real concerns about privacy and the future of the web. I think a lot more people would be outraged if they only knew the extent of google's monitoring.

Reply Parent Score: 2