Don't want to be swept up in a dragnet? Don't want to be a suspect based on normal everyday activities? Then you better not use Google, try DuckDuckGo or another private search engine.
Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spare yourself by using a different search engine.
Eric Schmidt, as Google CEO, had a habit of saying unpopular but true things. When he responded to a question about how people interact with Google with "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," he wasn't so much offering self-criticism as a warning regarding the overall societal trend, of which Google was merely a part.
The context is often left out in that interview snippet, because he goes on to say "... but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Actions online leave a data trail. The US government has broad subpoena power to acquire that data trail. DDG is a smaller aggregation house, so it's less likely to be hit first, but I wouldn't assume that they don't retain routing info, IP addresses, etc. that could (with some difficulty) be collected and aggregated to narrow the search space for a person.
Schmidt had some incident where some info about him was posted. He was really upset. Pretty sure he threatened or did do legal action. Coming from his position of power.
Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. And privacy means that you can do or say something and have a right to have it not be known or made public. If someone with access to you data exposes it, it's a violation of privacy.
So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.
Doesn't the added context change it from a moral argument to a pragmatic one about opsec as it were? Morally not locking your door doesn't mean you should be robbed. Practically it means you are more likely to be robbed.
Well, no, because that's not what it says. The qualitatively different statement "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't tell Google about it." is probably true, but... well, qualitatively different.
(If the problem with the original isn't obvious to you, try specific cases like "If you don't want people to know you're gay, maybe you shouldn't be being gay.".)
> Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right.
Correct, but not a universal, constant, perpetual one like life and liberty. It is situational and context-specific; for example, it is not assumed you have a right to privacy regarding what you shout in the public square.
The still open question is the scope (perpetuity and breadth) of that right regarding things like the information you query on a publicly-accessible third-party search service... Does it look more like the privacy around what you do in your own bedroom or around what you do in the public square. And we have precedent that pokes at this topic... One's banking affairs, for example, are relatively private, but the state has a vested interest (taxation and investigation of a crime) in acquiring that information in special circumstances, and banks can and will divulge their copy of that information upon due legal request from the state.
I think it's hard to build a case that you have the same right to privacy as a bedroom right regarding information that you have queried in a third-party's database over a public network. It certainly seems like the jury is still out on the topic (and has been for two or three decades now, at least).
I do agree with you that privacy as a concept is variable, as with many other notions. I wasn't thinking with the right to privacy as a bulwark against a state's legal jurisprudence.
For example say a disgruntled ex-lover posts private medical information on someone else and this gets indexed by Google. Obviously this is a breach of privacy. I would extend that to any private information, and the person should have the ability to remove that private information.
I think it has also been made more and more clear that platforms should not perpetually and forever host information about individuals against their wishes. People change, and this should be reflected in the public square. In the old days, your shouts only existed in the memory of those that were there. Now they are as fresh as the day they were posted.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12
states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
The key is "protection of the law" and this is why I think that privacy should be regulated by government which extends its authority into "private" companies. Clearly that function is needed. However, I am constantly hearing the opposite case being made, that government should use its power to dig up information on law-abiding citizens as they could be doing something illegal.
Yes. I think people forget that personalization is not used for ads in Google Search - it's always ads for what you're searching for. Your data is only used for things like YT Ads and banner ads via Adsense-enabled sites.
> the catch is that they didn't log by default but they had to log specific users due to a warrant.
that is a usable quantum bump up in privacy. requiring the authorities to specifically be investigating you, rather than you just being caught in a dragnet looking for someone to investigate.
> When you search at DuckDuckGo, we don't know who you are and there is no way to tie your searches together.
> When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address.
> Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all.
Serving ads based on your search terms is like serving an ad because some ones search had the word 'bolts' in it. You don't need to keep a lot of information pertaining to that around, not about the people using your service at least.
Google isn't doing that. They have pretty complete portraits of your life (and dare I say) psychology that only comes from having such an incredible wealth of information about you and your position in the network graph.
Do you have any evidence that the same government orders were not given to DuckDuckGo? Or that they wouldn't be if DDG had any kind of meaningful market share?
If your goal is not to be seen, relying on things without meaningful market share is actually fine.
Security through obscurity is bad long-term, comprehensive strategy because it's unstable and not indefatigable... Not because it doesn't work in the short run and in one-off cases.
>If your goal is not to be seen, relying on things without meaningful market share is actually fine.
Except for the cases where you want the exact opposite, because the noise makes it more difficult to find a single person. If there's only 5 people using, say, TOR Browser - you become easy to track.
Not saying this is the case here, just that different situations require different operational security considerations.
I've been de-googling my life as much as possible the last year. I think it's impossible to completely be rid of it but at least I feel I'm doing something.
Moving important email to protonmail. I only use firefox and duckduckgo browsers. Pretty much exclusively using duckduckgo for search. I've installed a PiHole on my home network. I've switched to an iPhone... although I considering some custom android ROM now. Using Apple Maps.
I wish there was a YouTube alternative that was up to par.
ProtonMail was required to do this, under Swiss law. They don't track you by default, but they can be compelled to add logging by their government.
This isn't an issue with ProtonMail in particular; any email provider has to follow local laws, and Swiss law is generally a pretty good framework if you have to choose.
For the record, I have no issue with Protonmail (or other tech companies) following the law. But their claim was always that email was encrypted and they "don't track you" which was always nonsense. Just like Apple's privacy promises. In the end all tech companies either track you, have the ability to track you, and have to give you up to the relevant authorities.
I think there's a significant and important difference between collecting data after being presented with a warrant, and collecting data indiscriminately by default.
If this was the case, you would have given the full context in your earlier comment. There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order.
> There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order.
Is there? Either your data is on their server or it isn't. As if they can't give data created before a court order to a government after a court order...
I can't believe I have to argue that there is a difference between always tracking everything by default and only turning on tracking once a warrant arrives.
In one case, you track everything.
In the other case, you don't track everything. But you have the ability to turn on logging when required (like, for example, with a warrant).
>As if they can't give data created before a court order
This is surprisingly simple. You just don't track the data until you have to because of a warrant. Then you say "Sorry, I don't have data before your warrant arrived because we do not track it".
It seems to me there are privacy knock-on effects. How long does the logging need to be on? If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)
Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...
>If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)
No, the warrant must have a specific (non-drag-net) scope. Broadly scoped warrants are fought to reduce the scope to something specific (reduced time-frame, reduced users, etc.). This is common, even with Google/FB. I'm not sure why you assume yes.
>Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...
Being legally compelled to hand over data is not the same as actively collecting every single facet of personal info about people for monetary profit bud.
Google does exactly what you're upset about ON TOP of a plethora of more insidious things.
If you're trying to make a claim that one is equal to the other you're failing miserably.
Because France had a treaty with Switzerland, the home country of protonmail, and Switzerland gave Protonmail a legally binding warant to turn over information. Nothing that Protonmail could do unless they themselves wanted to be arrested.
YouTube and YouTube music are the only remnants of Google for me at the moment. With the occasional use if Facebooks messenger for a particular group of friends and WhatsApp. The later really annoys me, so. Turned getting rid of everything MS was much easier, privately that is, now that I don't need Excel anymore. My employer provided IT equipment is still MS, so.
Complaining about being downvoted is shunned upon on HN and is unlikely to cause people to stop downvoting. It brings nothing interesting to discussion and actually reduces density of interesting things.
You only posted a piece of my edit. I did also clarify my point. Was not meant as a complaint as much as a clarification and invitation for discussion. Wish more down votes would comment.
My style tends to be terse/short and perhaps I don't always make my point well.
It still detracts from the conversation and invites distracting meta-threads like this one (and yes, I'm contributing). It's really better to let your original point stand on its own.
Don't be disheartened by a few downvotes in the short period while a comment is still editable. You may get many more upvotes as time goes on. Or not, but don't take it personally either way.
There are also people like me that upvote interesting comments even if we disagree with them (especially if they are unfairly negative). Meta-commentary on votes tends makes them much less interesting.
Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spare yourself by using a different search engine.