This "blog" has one post and was specifically started to bash DDG.
I don't use the duck (yet?) but to me it looks like an attempt at black PR.
Even if the duck doesn't give full anonymity, I would still prefer it to Google - the new leaked slides revealed that NSA has direct access to Google, whereas with ddg, they'd have to snoop upstream.
I am the author. I did start that blog just for that post. I have never blogged before in any substantial way, but the naivete of comments from the CEO of DDG and the fact that users reading articles like in The Guardian might be misled into believe they are protected from NSA monitoring by DDG, motivated me to blog. No black PR. I don't work for any other search engine company, I am an American working for a small software company in Tokyo, Japan.
> I am the author. I did start that blog just for that post.
Can you prove that you are not an agent of the NSA trying to dissuade people from using services like DDG? I mean, you are using BlogSpot of all services, so you are directly contributing to the tracking of individuals (heck, you are encouraging it), so forgive me if your motives are suspect.
Frankly, that you cannot prove otherwise, I think you should say as much: that you should not be trusted.
Can you prove that you are not an agent of the NSA trying to dissuade people from using services like Google? I mean, you're using HN of all services, so you're directly contributing to the Silicon Valley culture that arms the NSA with tracking tools (heck, you're encouraging it!), so forgive me if your motives are suspect.
Frankly, that you cannot prove otherwise, I think you should say as much: that you should not be trusted. I say good day, sir.
Why should you be trusted?
Most people can't prove anything about themselves that is not subject to falsification - given deep enough cover, anything is possible.
Asking a blog author to prove a negative, which is impossible, is silly.
Argue with the message, not with the messenger.
No, actually, it's not the point, it's completely tangential to any point.
Either someone has valid points or they don't.
It doesn't matter whether it's a pathological liar saying it, or the most truthful person in the world. Either his criticisms of duckduckgo have merit or they don't.
Motives, while interesting to speculate about, do not change the strength of the argument.
No, actually, that was my point, and while you can disagree with my point, you can't tell me what my point is.
Listen, I'll make it easy for you.
> Either his criticisms of duckduckgo have merit or they don't.
So let's say they have merit. That means they have merit in all cases. Nothing is 100% proof against surveillance. Nothing is. So once you get over that, the rant against DDG is pointless. Because if at a technical/legal level, nothing can protect you, then everything is equal. What you have left is things like intent. In this case, the intent of DDG is to do what they can to protect you.
And they've taken distinct steps to do that. Steps that make DDG different from Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others. Heck, comparing those three to DDG is disingenuous at best because they aren't even remotely the same (even if you consider them all search engines). This is especially true when you include the quotes the OP was trying to use. Using the OP's own evidence that he keeps using, it doesn't say what he wants it to say.
So, the only way his criticisms hold water is if nothing can protect you. He wasn't arguing that.
I don't use the duck (yet?) but to me it looks like an attempt at black PR.
Even if the duck doesn't give full anonymity, I would still prefer it to Google - the new leaked slides revealed that NSA has direct access to Google, whereas with ddg, they'd have to snoop upstream.