[HN Gopher] Google finally revealed how much personal data they ...
___________________________________________________________________
Google finally revealed how much personal data they collect in
Chrome
Author : URfejk
Score : 308 points
Date : 2021-03-16 16:11 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.twitter.com)
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| A company that purchases data from another search engine (that
| most likely also uses aggregated personal data to deliver
| results) with just two products (search + browser) compares its
| app data usage to a behemoth that strives for the most
| personalized experience possible in exchange for personal data in
| order to display personalized ads.
|
| Google's apps offer opt-in voice search (solving Audio), optional
| end to end encryption for bookmarks & search history (solving
| Browsing History), while location and diagnostics are opt in as
| well and it's also up to you if you want to store your address
| book of store you credit card with Google (solving Contacts &
| Financial Info).
|
| Yes, most people will probably use Google Contacts, Maps,
| unencrypted bookmarks & browsing history and and store their
| credit card data in the browser, but you're not forced to do
| that.
|
| I really wish DDG would innovate on search, improve their own
| crawlers & indexing and then attack Google head on by comparing
| better results with the ad-ridden, SEO-flooded shit show that
| Google results have become. Instead, their marketing keeps on
| comparing apples to oranges and just keeps on playing the privacy
| angle, which is intellectually dishonest because DDG and Google
| have completely different goals.
|
| Boy do I hope for some real competition in the search engine
| market. Brave and Neeva can't launch soon enough. I'm so sick and
| tired of giving DDG changes upon changes only to switch back to
| Google because the results haven't improved much.
| Seirdy wrote:
| > I really wish DDG would innovate on search, improve their own
| crawlers & indexing and then attack Google head on by comparing
| better results with the ad-ridden, SEO-flooded shit show that
| Google results have become.
|
| DuckDuckGo's organic results are proxied from Bing (or
| sometimes Yandex). Their crawler (DuckDuckBot) just fetches
| favicons and scrapes data for a few Instant Answers.
|
| Most of DuckDuckGo's non-privacy-related selling points are
| their instant answers, which in my experience are really good.
|
| Alternative indexing engines to the "Big Three" English
| indexers (Google, Bing, Yandex) with decent privacy include
| Mojeek, Right Dao, Gigablast, Gowiki, wbsrch, and others. I've
| counted 16 English alternatives in all.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Is there more context for this? I'm seeing an infographic sourced
| to "Apple App Store as of March 2021," but I don't own an iPhone
| so I don't know where this information comes from. Are these
| boxes permissions declared by the app, data collection as
| detected by some heuristic at Apple, or what?
| RickS wrote:
| > Are these boxes permissions declared by the app
|
| Pretty much. My understanding is that they're self-reported (as
| opposed to inferred from eg SDK/API usage), but I haven't
| looked into it super deeply.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/3600998/apples-privacy...
| geocrasher wrote:
| There was not anything in that list that I wasn't already aware
| of. I was expecting some kind of smoking gun that caused me to
| say "Aha! THAT is how I know Google is EVIL!" and it was never
| there. Half the things are opt in, the other half are disclosed
| if you read the TOS/AUP at all or even just think about why they
| don't charge for basic services. So _yawn_ whatever.
| varispeed wrote:
| Are they not violating GDPR because of that? Surely they don't
| need to know most of that data to process search queries? Or it
| is a classic example of trying to bypass regulation by creating
| the fake need for this data in their T&C. Another question is
| that why regulators don't look into that? If I search for
| "Pythagorean formula", do they need my address for that? I think
| the business model like Google should be outlawed (and I believe
| it already is illegal in the EU) and it should not be possible to
| pay for a service with your personal data. Yes, I get the
| argument that if services become paid, then a lot of people won't
| be able to afford the subscriptions, but we could have a law that
| email operators should provide basic email service for free, just
| like banks have to provide basic bank accounts free of charge.
| gowld wrote:
| When has Google not revealed the data Chrome collects?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I don't understand why Location (and other data) is 5 times for
| the Google app for example. Can somebody explain the differences?
| sp332 wrote:
| There are column headings that show the data is being used for
| different purposes.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I see, so the collected data is the same, just the way it is
| used is different. Thanks!
| ricardbejarano wrote:
| Controversial opinion:
|
| Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is
| up to the user to give up:
|
| - Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use
| (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually
| and click "save for future use".
|
| Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here.
| We're not _that_ bad.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Data collection like that is harmless until it isn't, and then
| there's no turning back. So, no, it's not harmless.
|
| I'm assuming by your use of the word "we're" that you work for
| Google?
| freedom42 wrote:
| Recently, Google shared data about Google Docs which led to an
| unnecessary arrest.
|
| "Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared
| details."
|
| https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...
| d1zzy wrote:
| Was the shared data as a result of a lawful request? Any
| company would have to comply in that case.
| zepto wrote:
| Seems hard to make the argument to make that browsing history
| is harmless, given how often it is used in police
| investigations and court cases.
| ricardbejarano wrote:
| I'd love to see some data to back your point.
|
| Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal
| prosecution? Where? How?
| Solocomplex wrote:
| This is very common knowledge.
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&ty
| p...
| [deleted]
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| This is really interesting, thank you.
| dawnerd wrote:
| All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the
| life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way
| more often than I should.
| ruined wrote:
| it's cool that your life is perfect and free of danger.
| consider that you are an outlier
| dawnerd wrote:
| Since I didn't explicitly say it, I'm not okay with
| giving out browsing history and 100% stand behind privacy
| controls and laws that prevent this completely.
| ruined wrote:
| thank you. unfortunately your comment was frustratingly
| indistinguishable from the "i've got nothing to hide"
| fallacy often seen in comment threads like this. when
| there's no way to tell you're being humorous, your
| language does the work of someone being serious.
|
| as the tumblr kids say, satire requires a clarity of
| purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute
| to that which it intends to criticize.
| gowld wrote:
| Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed by
| law enforcement due to their online data. The people that
| are at risk are outliers, and still worthy of concern.
| zepto wrote:
| > Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed
| by law enforcement due to their online data.
|
| This isn't true. The risk is currently _low_ of actually
| being targeted but that doesn't mean people are not at
| risk.
|
| Also law enforcement is not the only problem by a long
| shot. Civil suits, family court, etc, all routinely use
| browsing history data.
| freedom42 wrote:
| Here is something from 2021.
|
| "Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google
| shared details."
|
| https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-
| ravi-a...
| [deleted]
| why_Mr_Anderson wrote:
| _If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most
| honest of men, I will find something in them which will
| hang him._ (Cardinal Richelieu)
| gumby wrote:
| Our company has decided we no longer need whiteboard
| interviews as we just contract with Google for
| candidates' search history (filtered for technical issues
| only of course!).
|
| (In case anyone thinks google sells search history
| retail: this is a joke...at least for now).
| pdkl95 wrote:
| They wouldn't _sell_ browsing histories; that data is a
| valuable asset. They would follow the model used by most
| "AI" products: an "AI"/"smart" _service_ that launders
| candidates ' history data into an opaque score. The
| hiring company's workload is reduced to mapping a score
| value onto their hiring plan, and Google will make a
| carefully worded claim that they are not _selling_
| personal information.
| gumby wrote:
| A shrewd distinction.
| nerdponx wrote:
| This is like arguing that you don't need a right to a fair
| trial if you never break any laws.
| maccard wrote:
| Consider the UK is right now [0], as we speak, passing a
| bill that forces an ISP to hand over browsing data, without
| a warrant, to non-law enforcement agencies (a list of which
| is in the source below). Agencies like the DWP (who handle
| unemployment, and have been subject to much criticism on
| how they make decisions and handle clients) will have
| warrantless access to browsing data for specific people.
|
| A little far fetched, but if you're employed by one of
| those agencies, your boss (or bosses boss etc) can access
| _your_ data, find out how often you're googling basic
| information and use that information against you.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26430266
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| If you were competent, you wouldn't make assumptive searches
| on an obviously subpoena-able device ala burner using Linux
| and Tor.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I agree "harmless" is absolutely the wrong word.
|
| I also think that data that might be harmful to a user
| because it could record them breaking a law should be thought
| of differently than data that could be harmful when used
| maliciously by a third party. Even allowing for the often
| oppressive and unfair application of the law, data that is
| harmful to the user when sent to the authorities should be
| considered differently than other data because there is
| obviously a balancing question around relative harms to
| different parties. If you witness a crime, reporting it might
| be good, but it isn't always.
| zepto wrote:
| Seems like you are arguing that it's ok for Google to use
| the data they collect to actively report people for
| suspected crimes.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I wasn't saying what we _should_ do[1], just saying that
| if the reason data collection hurts a person is that the
| data is evidence of a crime then the situation involves
| more than just that person and we should think about it
| that way. It stops being enough to say that we should
| avoid all harm to the user. Instead, we need to ask if
| the harm to the user in recording the data might prevent
| or address greater harms.
|
| [1] Personally I feel like providers should be legally
| barred from doing anything other than responding to
| warrants for information related to a real person and
| they should, in that case, be prevented from including
| any information linked through statistical imputation.
| duxup wrote:
| Sometimes I worry that after all the concerns about data
| collection, and even if most people would say they don't want
| to give up that data in a survey. But:
|
| When presented with a screen that's hiding a silly cat picture
| they would just instinctively would click "I agree" 99 times
| out of 100, and at that moment, and maybe most, they really
| don't care...
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Half the data Chrome collects is harmless_
|
| If true, that still doesn't negate the other half that is not
| harmless.
|
| More importantly, how about I get to choose what I consider
| harmless, rather than having a Silicon Valley advertising
| agency do that for me?
|
| Also, there's no way of knowing what Google shoves into the
| "other" category. Sunlight disinfects, even in Mountain View.
| ricardbejarano wrote:
| Fair enough.
|
| But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely
| thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other
| browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't
| be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice
| the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6
| months ago, don't know how it performs now).
|
| There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think
| everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's
| point.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I happily trade 'slower' performance for more privacy.
| d1zzy wrote:
| And you make that trade by using another browser (or
| Internet search service, email service, etc).
| sixothree wrote:
| Are you suggesting Chrome isn't a battery hog?
| passivate wrote:
| >There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think
| everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's
| point.
|
| That is not DDG's point at all. Their point is right in the
| linked tweet - "Spying on users has nothing to do with
| building a great web browser or search engine."
| [deleted]
| tehjoker wrote:
| Incredible that performance analysis for benefiting
| consumers is being linked to advertising and behavioral
| analysis for making profits.
| EasyTiger_ wrote:
| > Any other browser you may choose might not collect that
| data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life
|
| This is literally what Chrome does on a MacBook, the
| battery drain is insane
| fooker wrote:
| Chrome _halves_ battery life on macs, compared to Safari.
|
| Clearly the fix is collecting even more performance data!
| :)
| ipaddr wrote:
| I think it opens many file pointers and keeps them open.
| Trying to run chrome with anything that has io operations
| on an older machine and you can see how chrome hogs
| resources.
| jjice wrote:
| I think a critical view is important to prevent further
| advancement in privacy violations. If we are all okay with
| Chrome now, they're likely to include more privacy violating
| data collection in the future. A critical view doesn't
| necessarily mean the product is bad (it's very good at its
| job), but it is important to understand how much of our data
| we're allowing to be collected, especially when the user
| approves of it mindlessly (we've all been there).
| danShumway wrote:
| This is kind of deceptive. Approving location data to be saved
| or used during a web search is not the same thing as approving
| location data to be used for advertising and product
| personalization. Same with contact information, same with
| browser history, same with search history and unique IDs.
|
| Also, none of that data is harmless.
|
| > I think DDG is exaggerating here
|
| Google shouldn't be basing advertising off of individualized
| browser histories in the first place, I don't think it's an
| exaggeration to call that a massive privacy issue. It's a
| single category, but one that encompasses basically everything
| you do online.
|
| And while you _can_ technically turn this off in Google
| settings, doing so will break a large number of Google products
| and features in other apps because Google ties access to
| browser histories and app data into other products in a way
| that is impossible to disentangle from normal functionality.
|
| Back when I used to use Google Maps, turning off location-based
| advertising disabled my ability to _save locations_. Like, I
| couldn 't mark a place on the map as my home on my local device
| unless I gave Google permission to advertise to me based on my
| location. Every time I wanted to navigate there, I needed to
| type in the full address. Even weirder, turning off web history
| took away my ability to use voice commands with my contact list
| on Android phones. I couldn't tell my phone "call mom", because
| that feature required access to my search history.
|
| So this phrase "we're not that bad" creates this impression
| that Google isn't perfect but is still basically respecting
| privacy choices everywhere, and that any violations are just
| accidental -- when in reality trying to opt out of these
| systems is met with outright hostility from Google products,
| and giving an inch in any area is often interpreted by Google
| as permission to use that data in any way they see fit.
|
| The system is a lot deeper and more deliberate than the parent
| comment suggests.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant
| device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of
| data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Hence,
| the interpretation that the data should be usable as Google
| sees fit.
| Leban wrote:
| You left out the /s
| danShumway wrote:
| > It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant
| device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set
| of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary."
|
| Wait, why do you say that? There's nothing inherent to the
| way that assistants work that mean that they need full
| access to everything in my life.
|
| _Human beings_ are "AI complete", but when I go to the
| library and ask them to help me find a book, they don't
| demand that I show them my phone contacts first. Data
| access and intelligence are separate concepts.
|
| And Google's voice assistant could figure out what phone
| number I mean when I say "call mom" without doing anything
| involving AI at all, because I actually explicitly put that
| information into my address book in machine-readable,
| labeled fields. The assistant doesn't need to have an
| advanced AI to solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't
| need to look at my search history.
| specialist wrote:
| > _location data to be saved or used during a web search_
|
| Does location data even help with relevance?
|
| During road trips in 2018, location relevant results were
| turrible. Too many times I'd have to manually add my current
| location. eg "dog parks albuquerque nm" Sorry, no, I don't
| care about Dog Park Pub and Office Supplies in Duluth MN.
| Absolutely enraging.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It seems to work with chains, at least.
|
| e.g. a search for "home depot" turning up the close ones
| with location turned on.
| specialist wrote:
| Ya. My guess is that proper nouns are weighted much
| heavier than distance when displaying results. I also
| guess that indexing of stuff gets worse in smaller
| markets.
|
| I vividly recall wanting to pick up some flowers while
| driving north of Phoenix. Google was useless. No local
| businesses. Just national chains and stuff from other
| time zones. Infuriating.
| nojito wrote:
| Nope. There was a study released that location targeting in
| ads only works 40% of the time
| jefftk wrote:
| link?
| [deleted]
| solosoyokaze wrote:
| Under no circumstance do I want my browsing history being sent
| to a server. That's a pretty black and white issue being
| violated here. Extremely anti-user.
| greggman3 wrote:
| It's not remotely "anti-user". I want my browsing history
| sent to a server. I want that history available from all my
| devices. I suspect most users want that as well. I love it
| that on Chrome iOS I see history from my desktop Chrome. Even
| Firefox has this feature. Nothing "anti-user" about it
| traspler wrote:
| For a first step these labels are okay but I would like for the
| developers to have to provide more details on the
| what/why/whatfor for all these points to settle exactly this
| dispute.
| tomcooks wrote:
| Hot take: why the duck would you need all that info? Stick to
| the ducking results and show clearly marked ducking sponsored
| results based on search keyword, not the shadow avatar of me
| you're creating one "harmless" bs at a time.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| If you chose to allow Chrome to know your location, so it can
| show you on the map, do you consent to have your location
| tracked continuously and associated with your Google account?
| sp332 wrote:
| No, that's a setting in your Google account and not in the
| browser.
| https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en
| tesseract wrote:
| But would people necessarily associate "I gave Chrome the
| OS-level location permission, so I could enable location on
| <non-Google website>" with Chrome itself tracking the
| location and connecting it to a Google account?
| loveistheanswer wrote:
| How do we know if turning off that setting actually does
| stop location tracking, considering what we know about
| Google's past history?
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-
| lo...
| tobasq wrote:
| I have long ago turned all of Google's activity tracking
| preferences off and erased the existing activity, yet
| once in a while some Google service reveals to me that it
| knows something it shouldn't.
| stonesweep wrote:
| Google Takeout is a good way to find out all the things
| you thought you deleted, but are still hanging around on
| their servers. Even stupid banner photos from PicasaWeb
| and G+ 8 years ago were buried in my Takeout that I had
| zero access to see or delete, but they were there (and
| probably still are).
| nofunsir wrote:
| Same.
|
| Also, why must all the services attempt to guilt me into
| turning it back on?
| nerdponx wrote:
| That Q&A is very careful to avoid stating that location
| data is not sent to Google when "location history" is
| turned off. You really think that by flipping a switch on
| your account page, they are going to start discarding some
| of the data they are sent from client devices?
| ricardbejarano wrote:
| Fair point, I do believe we shouldn't live in a world where
| we have to continously watch what flags has our software
| enabled, but I guess I'm someone who's always alert (or at
| least that's what I tell myself).
|
| At this point, I think mine is more of a nihilism towards
| this as I cut everything at the only reliable level: the
| network. But even then, I've hammered myself way too much
| over privacy, and it didn't make me any happier, since, at
| the end of the day, if anyone wants to track you, they'll
| track you.
| extropy wrote:
| The linked image says "coarse location" for Chrome/Analytics.
|
| So this is not your GPS data but most likely IP based
| city/metro.
|
| Also it says "may" everywhere. AFAIK DDG may be doing all of
| those things too.
|
| From a technical POV this looks such a huge FUD that it's
| sad.
| troyvit wrote:
| > AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too.
|
| Except that DDG explicitly says they are not:
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
| technofiend wrote:
| The interesting thing is the failure mode if you don't agree
| to continuous tracking. Google uses the last place it was
| allowed to track you to instead of allowing the user to
| specifically enable a location update for "near me" queries
| to maps or the assistant. It may not be meant as one but it
| feels like a dark pattern, particularly when you can tap an
| icon to update your position in maps but any "near me"
| requests still go back to the last tracked location.
| sp332 wrote:
| It definitely is. You can't even set a "home" or "work"
| location without enabling continuous tracking.
| what_ever wrote:
| Yes, you can. I have location history disabled but I can
| route to home or work in Google Maps. Unless I am missing
| something.
|
| Disc: Googler.
| sp332 wrote:
| Did this change recently?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070183
| what_ever wrote:
| That link is 2.5 years old. Not sure when it changed but
| it's not the case right now AFAIK.
| llimos wrote:
| No. I still can't use Home or Work. Maybe @google.com
| accounts have an exemption.
| freedom42 wrote:
| Does this work?:
|
| Enable it, then set home and work. Then disable it.
| what_ever wrote:
| It's on my @gmail.com account.
| random5634 wrote:
| It's actually annoying, you have to go turn on a setting
| somewhere. I've had a few folks frustrated with this, I think
| for most users if they give google access to their location
| they expect google will remember it.
| siggen wrote:
| I am in agreement. You can choose not to log into Google from
| Chrome, for example. I don't think Chrome misleads when it
| collects these specific information. Where it collects, it's
| obvious-- I didn't see anything in the OP picture that was a
| surprise/hidden collection.
| ericmay wrote:
| > Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to
| use (at least on macOS)
|
| Now if only we could take away Apple's ability to create a
| walled-garden...
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| If only we could take away customer's satisfaction with, and
| preference for a well maintained walled garden.
|
| Alternatively, if only people who don't like Apple's
| solutions would just go away and leave those of us who do
| alone.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| And yet, people inside the walled garden want to interact
| with people outside the walled garden.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| And when they can't get full compatibility, it literally
| causes the exclusion of those outside the walled garden:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411931
| simonh wrote:
| I don't follow you. How would breaking the walled garden
| change that?
| livre wrote:
| Location data is sent by default to the default search engine
| and there's no way to disable that unless you deny location
| permissions from the OS to Chrome. If you want to use a map and
| give permission only to that (Bing maps for example) you have
| to allow Chrome to gather location data which will also be sent
| to the default search engine (usually Google). There's only the
| illusion of choice there (you can change the default search
| engine and send location data somewhere else though).
| karinakarina wrote:
| Or use a private search engine.
| bassman9000 wrote:
| _Half the data Chrome collects is harmless_
|
| Until it's not. Meaning, we don't know if there's a way yet to
| harm users, or we don't know if anyone is actually using it to
| harm users.
|
| If it's harmless, don't collect it.
| ricardbejarano wrote:
| Chrome's the fastest browser on the market. That, along with
| some nice marketing strategy is what makes it the absolute
| market leader.
|
| The reason Chrome is so fast, is most likely thanks to the
| performance (harmless) data it collects. Firefox may be proud
| of not collecting as much data, but (at least on macOS) they
| spend twice the battery to render twice as slow.
|
| Not saying you shouldn't be able to choose what data you're
| collected (which, you are) but there are reasons (not
| necessarily evil) to get that data to the devs.
| bassman9000 wrote:
| _what makes it the absolute market leader_
|
| What makes it the absolute leader is the void left by a
| dismal IE, and a completely lost Firefox, a few years back.
| Today's lead is coasting. I don't know OSx, but perceived
| performance in Linux/Windows is not any better than today's
| Firefox/Chromium derivatives, if any at all.
|
| You keep saying "harmless", and keep missing the point. If
| you don't want data to be used against users, don't collect
| it. And use explicit opt-in for everything.
|
| This argument is like the classic _well, if you haven't
| made anything wrong, why do you care if the state collects
| that much info about you?_. The problem is not being
| harmless today. Is that, when the moment of being harmful
| come, then it's too late.
| greggman3 wrote:
| Today's lead isn't remotely "coasting". All you have to
| do is read the list of new features added every release.
| If Chrome was coasting that list would be empty.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| "nice marketing strategy" is I think a fairly strong
| euphemism for the ways in which Google has its tentacles in
| absolutely everything. From Android to search to identity
| through a google account, gmail, and so on.
|
| The browser itself is trivial to separate from Google,
| which is why (completely ungoogled) Chromium exists, but to
| get yourself out of the Google services web is very, very,
| hard.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Please... 90% of users don't even know what web browser
| they are using. I can't count the number of times I've gone
| to someone's house to fix their computer, and they don't
| know what Internet Explorer or Chrome is. They just know
| what icon to click to get to the internet.
| passivate wrote:
| >Could it be better? Sure!
|
| Is there anything that _cant_ be better? I'm sure as engineers
| we can all come up with proposed improvements on pretty much
| anything. :)
|
| >But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
|
| The point (that DDG is making, paraphrased here) is spying on
| the user is not necessary to build a great browser/search
| engine. Do you disagree with that? I don't.
| redm wrote:
| I agree. The word "spying" is thrown around a bit loosely. I
| suspect most users are oblivious, but the information is there
| to see; the choices are there to make.
|
| That said, I have to make a conscious choice to avoid Google
| data collection wherever I can, but I still end up using many
| Google products. I was more accepting when data collected was
| silo'ed in individual Google services. Now that those barriers
| are down [1], it will probably take government intervention to
| re-isolate key platforms (like Chrome, Android, Youtube,
| Search, Ads, Maps, etc.)
|
| [1] https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-
| major-...
| paxys wrote:
| Why is stuff like saving browsing history, doing voice search or
| autofilling credit cards suddenly a bad thing? Chrome lets you
| turn all of that off in a single click if you want. I have
| personally found most of the features on that list to greatly
| enhance my web experience.
| emmelaich wrote:
| Same! I'd like critics to point out the downsides of Google not
| having this information too.
|
| For me, the Google search is sometimes magical. Way better than
| any other.
| raspasov wrote:
| I use Safari. It's the best browser for Mac.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > I use Safari.
|
| So, instead of handing all of your info to Google, you hand it
| over to Apple.
|
| Nothing to write home about.
| raspasov wrote:
| What do you use?
|
| PS Also, I'd rather share *some* data with a company that
| proactively (1,2) teaches users how to minimize data sharing
| and is moving to an opt-in model rather than opt-out. I
| realize that this is a marketing strategy also. But at least
| it's not disingenuous.
|
| (1) https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/A_Day_in_the_Life_of_Y
| our...
|
| (2) https://www.apple.com/safari/docs/Safari_White_Paper_Nov_
| 201...
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| What major tech company monitors you less than Apple?
|
| Microsoft?
|
| We live in an era where you can be a tinfoil hat closed off
| out of touch Linux user or just deal with it. Nobody likes it
| so you're not special for touting an obviously majority
| opinion. But the utility it brings to connect people makes
| most forget and not care.
| izgzhen wrote:
| DDG will still have a hard time competing with Google in both
| search quality and revenue even if only keyword-based ads is
| allowed and used in future. Privacy is a nice feature to have,
| but not sufficient.
| karinakarina wrote:
| Okay maybe it won't overtake the tech giant but what about just
| providing a private choice? And what about Startpage? 1.
| Startpage provides Google results while protecting privacy. 2.
| So far, contextual marketing has been profitable for both
| Startpage and DDG. It's not Google level revenue, but interest
| in private search is growing significantly.
| cmelbye wrote:
| Where can I find Safari's privacy nutrition facts?
| intellirogue wrote:
| https://www.apple.com/privacy/labels/
| hallqv wrote:
| Please tell me why this kind of data collection is harmful for
| the average user?
|
| I love data collection, it makes the web sing!
| Crazyontap wrote:
| I guess the majority of people on HN already know this more or
| less. The problem is still this: We still don't have good
| alternatives to Google's products and services.
|
| 1) Android: Google still owns all our phones. Even on rooted
| phones it hard to remove google services that god know send so
| many requests containing whatnot to the eeee addresses. Just
| install no-root firewall and you will be amazed the amount of
| pending requests that accumulate in 1 hour.
|
| 2) Google search: I guess I can manage with DDG but when it's not
| that straight forward search, subconciosuly I'm still thinking
| that let's just do a quick google search to see if i'm not
| missing anything. And often I find better results. While adblocks
| makes sure I filter most of the crap.
|
| 3) Gmail: Yes there are alternatives but switching emails is
| hard. It's a big commitment for most people to switch a 10 year
| old gmail address. And it still works great at filtering spam and
| whatnot.
|
| And same for maps, youtube and all their services.They really
| have a big leverage on everyone.
|
| Quiting facebook and instagram was child's play in comparison. I
| haven't logged in for almost an year now. Quitting google is
| really hard otoh.
| CivBase wrote:
| I switched to DDG and ProtonMail with very little effort, even
| after using multiple GMail accounts for well over a decade. I
| occasionally retry searches on Google if the DDG results aren't
| good enough, but Google rarely finds anything DDG can't.
|
| Android has proven much more difficult to drop, although I'm
| hopeful that Librem and PinePhone are paving the way for an
| eventual alternative. I'm still using Android for now, but I at
| least try to source my apps from F-Droid instead of the Google
| Play Store.
|
| Maps and YouTube have been a little difficult. I'm trying to
| use OsmAnd on my phone, but I still find myself going to Google
| Maps somewhat frequently. I've replaced the YouTube app on my
| phone with NewPipe and I try to watch content on alternative
| platforms when possible, but there's a lot of stuff posted
| exclusively on YouTube.
| leokennis wrote:
| There is one good argument for Google, and that is it's free as
| in beer. For most people, any price over $0 is a dealbreaker.
|
| However, assuming you're willing to pay for privacy, switching
| e-mail is super easy. For example, from the Fastmail UI, you
| literally log in to your Google account and all your mail is
| transferred to Fastmail.
|
| Switching to DDG? It's 95% as good.
|
| Switching to Apple Maps or OSM? It's 95% as good.
|
| Google Drive? There are 100 competitors.
|
| There is one site you cannot do without, and that is YouTube.
| Everything else from Google can easily be ditched, the only two
| things in your way could be a reluctance to pay money and a
| slight feeling of unease at having to get used to something
| else.
| abandonliberty wrote:
| > any price over $0 is a dealbreaker.
|
| The user pays for Google in the end, just not consensually.
| It's a closed loop. All the money ultimately comes from the
| users. Product or politics, all advertisers are expecting to
| get some return.
|
| Unfortunately it's in human nature to not want to pay. Search
| needs to be a utility that we all fund to make it the best
| tool for society.
| donaldo wrote:
| Are we talking about the same Google? I don't remember them
| taking money without my consent.
| paxys wrote:
| > All the money ultimately comes from the users.
|
| All the money comes from _some of_ the users. Sure Google
| is collecting everyone 's data, but in the end the vast
| majority of it is worthless. I'd be surprised if even 1% of
| users are profitable for the ecosystem. The tiny minority
| clicking on ads and buying products is subsidizing everyone
| else.
| e40 wrote:
| _Switching to DDG? It's 95% as good._
|
| I would say for personal stuff (ie, non-programming) it is.
| For programming, I continually have to switch back to google.
| DDG is way worse for me. Maybe it's just me, but the types of
| things I search for just don't work on DDG and I've wasted
| way too much of my time looking for answers using DDG, only
| to find them quickly with Google. It totally frustrates me,
| because I would much rather use DDG.
| tarsinge wrote:
| Switching email is the easiest, because service level is
| similar elsewhere. The migration just take a long time, but
| keeping the legacy gmail in parallel of the new account is not
| too bothersome. It's also a great occasion to use your own
| domain, so a future switch to another hosting is even easier.
| upofadown wrote:
| Switching from Gmail is basically zero effort. You configure
| Gmail to forward all your email to the new account. Done.
|
| Email is generically really great in this regard. Very little
| lockin.
| ssss11 wrote:
| Also Chrome/Chromium.
| bozzcl wrote:
| Here's what I did for each point:
|
| Android: iPhone. I don't know if I trust Apple more than
| Google, but at least on the surface level our interests align
| better. Might try a Librem 5 or Google-less Android in the
| future.
|
| Google search: DDG. Agreed with your points there, sometimes
| it's tempting to go back to Google.
|
| Gmail: Hey.com commercial account, plus a custom domain and
| individual aliases for each service I give my email address to.
| That helps with portability somewhat, in the future at least.
|
| Maps: Apple Maps has been pretty nice. Might give OpenStreetMap
| a try.
|
| YouTube: Invidious.
|
| Android Auto: Apple Car Play. I wish there were a better option
| that didn't depend on Apple.
|
| Google Drive: OneDrive, but I'm looking for alternatives.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| YouTube alone has been a wonder of the world quite honestly.
| karinakarina wrote:
| For search: Use Startpage - gives you Google results with
| privacy.
|
| For email: Most people have multiple emails - work, school,
| personal, from the early 2000s. It's not out of this world to
| switch to an encrypted email service.
|
| Android: Never used it because I like iPhone. And, iPhone is a
| pretty great alternative to Android - definitely more private.
| But isn't there GrapheneOS and LineageOS?
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| > For search: Use Startpage - gives you Google results with
| privacy.
|
| FYI, Ads company brought up Startpage. Despite their public
| statement with privacy for Startpage, I don't trust them
| since they can 180 it without any repercussion.
| karinakarina wrote:
| (Startpage employee) Privacy policy hasn't changed and
| that's legally binding.
|
| "Marketing messages can claim almost anything, but a
| privacy policy has legal status." - Robert E.G. Beens,
| Startpage CEO and Co-founder
|
| If you have questions, let me know.
| martincmartin wrote:
| Google Maps has the wrong street names near me, so I looked for
| something from OpenStreetMap. But there's nothing that works
| with Android Auto. In fact, there are only two Android Auto
| navigation apps, Google Maps and Waze. Both owned by Google,
| and Waze seems happy to send me through the most confusing
| intersections if it thinks it will save 5 seconds of driving
| time.
| valiant55 wrote:
| I've submitted multiple corrections to Google Maps and all of
| them eventually were fixed. I even got a same day response
| one time, with the longest taking about 3 weeks. I haven't
| made any corrections recently. Have you attempted to submit
| feedback on the Maps site?
| seaman1921 wrote:
| +1 ... rather than complaining about it, leverage the
| editing functionality provided in there to make the maps
| better for everyone.
| bozzcl wrote:
| Android Auto was the biggest pain for me. I tried /e/OS, but
| for the life of me I couldn't get AA to work with MicroG.
| sarcasmatwork wrote:
| Good find here!
|
| Using Brave + Duck duck go.
| Grazester wrote:
| Why Brave??
| NtGuy25 wrote:
| It's produced by a "Reputable" company and has a good update
| process. I can TRUST my software updates from brave.
|
| "Ungoogled Chromium", while FOSS, have no good update method,
| and since i'm not going to build it myself, I don't have the
| same level of trust that something malicious hasn't been
| implanted.
|
| Brave provides similar features to ungoogled chromium and I
| don't have to support Mozilla or Google and their practices.
|
| Big issue is the trust factor. As well as all the Chrome zero
| days going out, not having security updates in a timely
| manner is risky.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Brave is still new and when it comes to security, we will
| have to see how it turns out.
|
| You put quotes around reputable and rightly so. Brave just
| bought a ton of clickstream data, harvested stealthily by
| another "privacy-focused" browser. When it comes to
| privacy, no, I don't trust Brave an inch.
| Grazester wrote:
| There is a a lot of talk here about "Trust", that's
| somethings I cannot attribute to Brave. I am sorry.
| foolinaround wrote:
| What is the reaon?
| tres wrote:
| What's the business model again? How are they making
| money?
|
| "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer;
| you're the product being sold"
| sarcasmatwork wrote:
| It's better than Chrome and FF imho. Lacks the tracking BS
| from Chrome, and FF has gone downhill..
|
| Any reasons not too?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Brave uses Chromium.
| ravenstine wrote:
| What's wrong with Chromium? I don't think Google's
| tracking specifically has anything to do with Chromium.
| Chromium !== Chrome
| asddubs wrote:
| I think the main problem is that by using it you're still
| giving google decision-making power over the future of
| the web
| freedom42 wrote:
| Because the direction Chromium is heading is in large
| part controlled by Google, more than Firefox. Also
| Chromium still has Google bits, otherwise ungoogled-
| chromium won't exist right?
| ravenstine wrote:
| I see. I generally agree with that, which is one reason
| why I'm a Firefox user, but I'm not totally sure I buy it
| as a reason not to use Brave. It's a fair viewpoint,
| though. I could see it being a reason for being against
| Brave if the Google-ness of Chromium is able to make
| Brave less private.
| freedom42 wrote:
| I think Google recently took out the syncing capability
| from Chromium. Things like that.
|
| Edit: Also the manifest v3 thingy which made Ublock
| Origin operation restricted, also I think it prevented
| CNAME uncloaking. Idk whether Google went ahead with
| manifest v3 though.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Nothing. I use Chromium. I just prefer it over Brave.
| ancarda wrote:
| Why not use a Firefox fork like Waterfox? That fixes a
| number of the complaints people have with Firefox while not
| pushing us towards a browser engine monopoly - which you do
| by using a Chromium based browser.
|
| Besides, the Basic Attention Token crap in Brave is kinda
| shady.
| eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote:
| What's wrong with Firefox?
| ancarda wrote:
| Nothing, so long as you're okay with telemetry, bundled
| junk like pocket, and the removal of the compact UI (see
| the thread from yesterday -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26464533).
|
| Firefox's internals are great -- it's never been faster
| or as stable, and for that we made real sacrifices like
| losing XUL extensions but increasingly I don't understand
| Mozilla's decision making.
|
| EDIT: I understand many of the things I'm talking about
| can be fixed with about:config. I had a list of over 30
| flags in my notes and it was becoming untenable to patch
| all my devices whenever a feature I needed was changed or
| removed. Whereas with Waterfox, I so far have only one
| about:config change:
| dom.security.https_only_mode = true
| hackerfromthefu wrote:
| >> I don't understand Mozilla's decision making.
|
| Yeah lots of (usually subtle-ish) incongruous actions.
|
| Ignore the public messaging and work backwards from what
| they actually do to understand their real motivations.
|
| I've written some other comments with my analysis on it
| if you're interests you can check my comment history.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Waterfox
|
| Or IceCat. Or, even better, original Firefox.
| sarcasmatwork wrote:
| I have not heard about Waterfox, will give it a try.
|
| I've only been using Brave for the last ~2months.
| andor wrote:
| The real question is how much data is collected from users who
| have "Web and App Activity" sharing turned off.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Is Google 'Do No Evil' dead?
| sp332 wrote:
| Yes, officially almost three years ago.
| https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
| Crash0v3rid3 wrote:
| What a terrible article.
|
| Look at what the last paragraph says despite the title:
|
| The updated version of Google's code of conduct still retains
| one reference to the company's unofficial motto--the final
| line of the document is still: "And remember... don't be
| evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right -
| speak up!"
| BalinKing wrote:
| I feel terribly misled--for several years now, I thought
| they removed "don't be evil" entirely (apparently, courtesy
| of overhyped news headlines and whatnot). Obviously it
| doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things (I don't
| suddenly trust Google a whole lot more), but it feels bad
| to have both believed and passed on misinformation.
|
| (And, yeah, it's also my fault for not having checked
| primary sources at the time.)
| sp332 wrote:
| I just searched around and picked one near the top of the
| results. Lots of similar reporting at the time.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| "Removes nearly all mention..."
|
| AKA: they moved the line from the opening statement to the
| closing statement.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| Hasn't quite a lot of time passed since they gave up on that
| motto? I'm not upset about the content of the "article", I hope
| it wasn't a secret to anyone that Google, the owner of the
| worlds largest web advertising platform, has been collecting
| data from users this whole time.
| obviouslynotme wrote:
| I am going to make the real controversial opinion:
|
| Who is surprised here? Google makes money by spying on people.
| Everything they make is designed to make money. Search history
| gathers what you are interested in. Android and Chrome vacuum
| your physical data and more. YouTube both gathers your interests
| and might become a serious advertising platform someday. Gmail
| vacuums up what Android messaging misses. Google Ads, Fonts, and
| Analytics catch anyone who isn't using Chrome with the help of
| webmasters. Every major Google product is designed around one
| purpose: knowing everything about you.
|
| I have used Firefox for years and years because this is obvious
| to me. Google shuts down divisions that make a lot of money all
| the time. Yet somehow, they are just spending ungodly amounts of
| money on all this "free stuff." Please. I don't care if you watch
| a 30 minute YouTube video on how to set all of your Google
| settings in just the right way for them to graciously not upload
| live video of your face. Two patches later you have to do it
| again. This is all while trusting this highly sketchy company to
| honor its settings. It's like trying to set the perfect contract
| with a demon or wish for a monkey paw. The real way to win is to
| not do it.
| danShumway wrote:
| I don't think many people _here_ are surprised, but putting
| this information front-and-center for ordinary people is an
| important step in raising the general awareness of privacy
| issues in nontechnical communities.
|
| I think that the average person on the street might jokingly
| say that Google knows everything, but seeing the extent of that
| data collection right in front of them might have a different
| emotional impact.
| slightwinder wrote:
| > Google makes money by spying on people.
|
| Wait..was this a secret?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Why does it matter who is surprised?
| obviouslynotme wrote:
| Because it won't change. Everyone here knows what Google is
| and I will bet you that over 90% of HN unique users come from
| a Chrome browser.
|
| It will only get worse. Google always steps on everyone when
| it dominates a market. Gmail marked your private email server
| as spam by mistake? Good luck even finding someone to care.
| Chrome is at this very moment disabling the HTTP2 standard
| push feature, essentially asserting Chrome as the real
| standards body.
|
| This is what all of us chose. Without some regulatory body
| stepping in, privacy will never come back. Even then, that
| regulatory body will probably be completely staffed by
| Googlers, since they are experts in Internet privacy.
| karinakarina wrote:
| I disagree. Change is possible, though it may be a while
| before we see it across all mainstream products. But, the
| EU and California are making progressing in pushing Big
| Tech to making changes to their data collection policies,
| consumers are opting for privacy friendly products (DDG saw
| the dramatic increase in search of 62% in 2020), and
| companies are making structural changes in some of their
| products.
|
| And yes, privacy law is needed to bring privacy back. But,
| it's also people and privacy friendly products. We have
| some power. Don't dismiss everyone because one company is
| too big.
| loosetypes wrote:
| DDG: compared to Google, yes.
|
| How does the duckduckgo mobile browser compare to safari on iOS
| with regards to privacy though?
| tialaramex wrote:
| What do we suppose this picture is actually comparing?
|
| I think these are self-assessments, and crowing that you've
| assessed yourself as not having problems is not a very reliable
| sign that you don't have any problems.
| asjkaehauisa wrote:
| All is about threat model. I really would love to switch to
| firefox but afaik it's less secure. So who would hurt me more, so
| random dude or corporation? My choice is simple.
|
| It's the same with all messengers. I use facebook messenger
| (because everybody around me use it) and i know that they collect
| a lot of data (and have acess to my chats). For me, still threat
| isn't facebook but my acquaintances who use weak password, so
| they're easy target (and my messages would be compromised).
|
| We have to change our mind about computers. Everything can be
| exploited and used against us.
| SimeVidas wrote:
| > I really would love to switch to firefox but afaik it's less
| secure.
|
| Afaik it's more secure. Personally, I've enabled DNS-over-HTTPS
| and HTTPS-only mode, which are both available as standard
| options in Firefox. There are more security options on the
| about:config page.
|
| Of course, there's also Enhanced Tracking Protection, which is
| enabled by default. It's more of a privacy feature, but it has
| a positive effect on security as well..
| lights0123 wrote:
| > afaik it's less secure
|
| Firefox doesn't have a Spectre vulnerability that allows
| websites to read crossorigin images, videos, and JS that won't
| be fixed for another month or 2 :)
| viklove wrote:
| Why would you use a proprietary browser when Firefox is around?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Chromium is open source and Firefox collects quite a bit of
| data by default as well.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Chromium is open source, but almost nobody uses it. Almost
| everyone uses either of the proprietary forks, Chrome and
| Edge.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Not if you use Linux, and Chromium is also in the
| Chocolatey repo and Homebrew.
| URfejk wrote:
| And on Android you can use Ungoogled Chromium.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| People who use Linux to browse the web, or install
| browsers with Chocolately or Homebrew, are all an extreme
| minority of browser users.
|
| Also, this post is about iOS...
| [deleted]
| dblohm7 wrote:
| (Mozilla employee) Yeah, but how much of what Firefox
| collects is PII? (And no, Telemetry is not PII)
| smt1 wrote:
| Chromium is Chrome with a lot of code ripped out.
| Specifically most things that interact with google, widevyne,
| etc.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Because Chrome syncs to my Google account so the large
| collection of devices I browse on have shared history,
| defaults, and bookmarks.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Firefox does that https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/sync/
| tapoxi wrote:
| Performance problems on macOS/Linux, Firefox seems fine on
| Windows but that's where I spend the least of my time.
| kristofferR wrote:
| Yeah, I had to use Chrome on my old Macbook 12' before I got
| my M1 Macbook Air (now everything is instantaneous with
| Firefox).
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I've been using firefox for years and I have no idea what
| these performance problems are.
| hackerfromthefu wrote:
| Lucky you!
| olyjohn wrote:
| Same here. I don't get the complaints. I use it regularly
| on macOS, iOS, Linux and used to run it on Windows every
| day...
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| I have had 0 performance issues on macOS or Linux with
| Firefox. I use both OS'es extensively.
| staplers wrote:
| I use Firefox everyday for work and home. For a few years now
| Firefox has beaten Chrome in speed/usability for me.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Not all devices permit installing freestanding browsers
| (applies more to iOS /Safari).
|
| The Chrome engine provides app Web functionality (on Android).
|
| Forcing all Chrome users to disclose data is coercive.
|
| Chrome has ~70% browser share.
| woofster wrote:
| Maybe cos it's a laggy as hell?
| eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote:
| Enabling either the OpenGL or WebRender compositor might help
| in case of performance issues (`layers.acceleration.force-
| enabled` and `gfx.webrender.all` in `about:config`).
| xwolfi wrote:
| It changed recently, it's quite amazing tbh, I'm back on FF
| however weird it sounds !
| nso wrote:
| I'm all-in with Edge. After lasts weeks update the startup
| time is... wow. I've since started closing my browser when
| not using it.
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/3586259/whats-in-
| the-l...
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Firefox on iOS, like Chrome, is a shell around the engine
| behind Safari. Performance is pretty similar.
| qzx_pierri wrote:
| Firefox has been faster than Chrome for months now. I
| switched over to it on Windows and I'm enjoying myself so
| far. It's not for everyone though, so I get your
| apprehension.
| Hani1337 wrote:
| My biggest privacy concern with Google is how search result URLs
| contain user identifiers.
| [deleted]
| yourad_io wrote:
| Do you have an example of this?
| lmkg wrote:
| When Google Ads is linked to Google Analytics, the links
| append the 'gclid' query parameter to the URL they point to.
| This value is how a downstream conversion, collected by
| Analytics, is associated with the upstream ad click from
| Google Ads. The 'gclid' parameter is unique to the ad
| impression, i.e. it's a join key to both the term that was
| searched, and the user who searched for it.
| jefftk wrote:
| gclid is appended to ad clicks, but not organic search:
| https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9744275
|
| (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
| whoopdedo wrote:
| What part of those vague descriptions covers Google's practice of
| reading messages sent to a GMail address that are purchase
| receipts and adding it to a list of places you've shopped at?
| Wohlf wrote:
| That's not a function of Chrome, that's a function of Gmail.
| arsome wrote:
| This is cool and I'm glad to see Apple reporting on it - but do
| they offer you a way to simply bypass it and achieve better
| privacy without breaking things? Like send fake location data,
| randomize a device ID per app, etc. XPrivacy did this quite
| nicely on Android and I'd love to see something similar on iOS.
| zepto wrote:
| Yes.
|
| You can't stop Google doing geoip, but you can stop iOS
| providing GPS to Google.
|
| Device id's can indeed be switched off.
| pvaldes wrote:
| In the last weeks I had seen a phone repeating the entered
| password in a clear voice (after a "security update" none less),
| and other showing in google maps the exact point where a home
| video has been recorded while playing the video.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Why use DDG when you can use Bing directly?
| freeflight wrote:
| Because DDG has bangs [0]
|
| [0] https://duckduckgo.com/bang
| fsflover wrote:
| Compare their privacy policies. Otherwise you are right and
| it's better to use https://yacy.net and SearX.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| 1) I use VPN anyway, so Bing doesn't know who I am.
|
| 2) Bing belongs to Microsoft whose primary business is to
| sell software, not ads, so they are less dependent on
| collecting user information.
|
| 3) If I wanted a search aggregator, I would use a non-US
| company, for example, Qwant.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Microsoft whose primary business is to sell software, not
| ads, so they are less dependent on collecting user
| information.
|
| If it was true they would not collect every keystroke on
| their OS.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Yeah, and Bill Gates installs mind controlling chips via
| vaccines
| karinakarina wrote:
| 1) VPNs only hide your IP address. They don't make you
| anonymous. Search engines and websites can still track you.
|
| 2) If it's non-private, it still collects personal data.
|
| 3) Or Startpage - HQed in the Netherlands, hides IP
| address, Anonymous View feature lets you visit results in
| private, and Google results.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| yacy is interesting, thanks!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:02 UTC)