Is DuckDuckGo worth using? Has anyone here ever investigated how much it tracks you? My main focus is privacy, I will never use Google.
>Nek Minit reCAPTCHA.
Fek u 4chan
Bump for need of another's opinion.
I heard Duck Duck Go has a shitty search engine. However I did see solutions to get Google results, I was thinking about using it.
>>53688595
I purely use it for the anonymity, though some people say it still tracks you for ads. I use the search engine, it functions fine enough for me, but desu I don't use search engines much, lol
>>53688478
searx.me
Any "private" and "secure" search engines track you more than Google does.
>>53689568
prove it
DDG has an onion domain, just use that. You could use Google via TOR, but captchas galore will ruin your day.
Ddg used to steal Google search results. They didn't even like their own shit
>>53689568
>tracking you more than Google
How could DDG create a profile on me using search results, email, texts, location info, and call records? Anything is better than Google. I've heard good things about Disconnect, but I just deal with captcha hell on Tor using Google.
>>53690194
>falling for the privacy meme.
Jesus Christ dude, it's as if you think some neckbeard at Google is pouring over your porn searches. There are too many people in Google's ecosystem. You're not any more interesting than the other million people Google is also tracking.
They use this info to feed it into algorithms and give you better search results. My work profile is tuned to the point where I can search for pretty much anything work-related that would be ambiguous out-of-context, and the thing I'm looking for is nearly always the first or second result. It's great.
Oh, and if it's the US Government you're really worried about, you must be incredibly naive to think that you can stay off of the government's radar by using "privacy"-oriented sites and products - if anything, it makes you MORE conspicuous.
>>53690354
>google just wants to help, guys
>I promise
They're one of the largest multinational corporations in the world. You'd be a fool to trust any institution with that much power.
>hurr durr tor is depricated
It's not. The fact that the FBI was willing to pay, er... "donate", a million dollars to Carnegie Mellon for a temporary Tor exploit is proof enough that Tor isn't systemically compromised.
I use private bridges to connect so my ISP doesn't know im using Tor. For sites that hassle me about Tor, I just use Tor to connect to a proxy then proxy to the site.
Its not perfect, but I'm not in the botnet and I'm safer than 99% of users.
They don't have the money/resources to store data on people. Of course your searches are still being tracked by intelligence agencies, but DDG doesn't store information about you, in practicality they can't even begin to. They're some lowly search engine only tech geeks know about and use.
That's why I salt my searches with random words and phrases from a rotating list of RSS newsfeeds. What am I searching for? Everything.
>>53688478
I use it as the default search engine for the !bangs alone.
I usually stick to the default search engine for stuff easy enough to find, but use !g for something more complex than searching for project websites etc.
>>53690354
You have no clue about how they track people. If you do something suspicious once you get marked and will be watched forever.
>>53688478
The only downside is that the owner has a fishy past. Other than that, seems normal.
And if it fails, just use !g
>>53691845
Do you have a source for this?
Just create some script that queries googlel with random stuff every few minutes to avoid 'profiling'
>>53691923
THAT guy at my work told me about it during coffee break. You know, the one wearing hats and knows everything.
>>53691923
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/01/nsas-google-worlds-private-communications/
They're tracking everyone all the time. Raise enough flags once and they'll search your entire history.
>>53690722
>waiting 2 minutes for a jpg
tor through a proxy is worse than dialup
>>53692133
I don't get jpgs with wget.
>>53692091
We're talking about Google Inc. tracking people, not the NSA. It's old news the NSA logs everything and anything.
Google doesn't track people, they don't care enough to, they just sell the data to advertisers. Not that that's a justification but, they're certainly not the ones keeping tabs on people.
>>53692182
Google makes money off advertising. It's their job to build profiles of you to sell ads. They track you and store as much as they can.
>>53692235
Yes, I understand that, but they're not compartmentalizing and targeting users based on their search queries. The article you linked explains the NSA and their involvement in wiretapping Internet communications, not 'if you google stuff about bombs Google calls the FBI.' They just build the profile and send it off to XYZ.
>>53692258
They do exactly that.
http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/08/05/the-dangers-of-deputizing-google-to-bust-child-pornographers/
Using the PRISM program, the NSA set up "court-approved search terms" that got automatically flagged and sent to the NSA.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
Worst of all:
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
Of course ddg is the best search engine. You have nothing to fear. all your secret search will be safe with ddg. Why, even your favorite celebrities, like snoop hound or miss gaga use it, so why should'nt you?
just read this article on how great ddg is and see for yourself...
>timesofisrael.com/searching-for-privacy-in-an-online-world/
>>53692309
They're searching through images and cloud storage, not your search queries. What you type into the box at the top of the page is only of interest to them insofar as it's profitable via advertisers.
>not making sure to use dnscrypt to a non-logging independent dns server operating with dnssec
Doesn't matter which search engine you use if you're using your ISP dns or google's kek
>>53692377
Did you read any of the links? The NSA has a direct feed to all Google searches.
For the record, what you search for online is one of the biggest components of your profile. It lets them know what you eat, wear, think about, etc. Search for an OBGYN and 9 months later it knows to serve you ads for baby goods.
>>53692395
>Not running your own recursive resolver like god intended
>>53692410
I'm talking about Google Inc. targeting people based on their search queries, the NSA logging everything is such old news it shouldn't even be specified when making a point anymore.
>>53692377
You don't understand PRISM.
>>53692413
>implying stockfirmware cuck
anyone with a brain already has caching enabled on their router, I've seen many though that still have that call out to the ISP dns servers though
>>53692426
What do you mean targeting people?
>>53688478
THE OWNER HOLDS THE SOURCE CODE HIGH
>>53692429
Did I not just say that I'm not even talking about the NSA? I'm talking about Google itself doesn't call the FBI for simple search queries. Again, the NSA logging everything is so ingrained in all communications it's not useful specifying the fact over and over again.
>>53692433
I mean, Google only logs your information and builds a profile to sell to advertisers. They don't call the FBI if you googled something suspicious.
>>53692463
I literally just pointed you to a case where they did just that.
In any case, what's the difference between alerting the police and giving them free reign over all your data?
>>53692491
There's a difference between a search query and actually having images of something in particular on your Gmail account.
None really, it's just important to draw distinctions and specify this sort of information.
It's still located in the US. When asked to by court, they will track you. Just use StartPage instead.
>>53692518
The distinctions are on paper only. The government is tapped directly into Google's data. They don't need google to call them, they're sitting in the same cubicle.
>>53692539
The NSA is ineffective and can't actually sort through all of their data well enough to see through the incoming fog that is the planet's Google searches.
>>53692563
But it has no problem going back and retroactively viewing everything you've ever searched for.
>>53692598
I suppose not. This still doesn't change the original debate, which is that Google isn't interested in the intricacies of your googling (even if there are a few people busted for incriminating photo content) in that if you google something once you're watched by some Google employee behind a computer forever; they just want to move your profile to advertisers and make the money. They're too busy to give two shits about what people google.
Main issue is that DuckDuckGo's crawler is slow. indexes are several days old.
i love bangs though duckduckgo.com/bang
