However, if you want an encrypted search option, https://encrypted.google.com/ is always encrypted and isn't affected by these methods.
puts on tinfoil hat
edit: Thank you for the downvote[s]!
edit2: I just remembered a relevant example. Reading "How Google works", I clicked in many ways with their vision about smart creatives and how to run a company properly. However I then immediately realised that it's written by the same a-hole involved in the massive Google-Apple wage fixing scandal , and it made me question how much of what's in there is real.
As the article concluded, "DuckDuckGo it is" :-)
Append !g to your query and https://encrypted.google.com is where it'll send you.
You'll get a "feel" for which queries are more suitably answered by Google than DDG quickly enough--which is not all that often as you expect, not because DDG's own results are so incredible, but because as you get the hang of the other !bang operators, you'll find you search directly the very sites that you wished/expected your top Google hits to be in the first place (!w Wikipedia, !so Stackoverflow, !r Reddit, !snopes, !gi !yi !bi image search engines, !map Google maps, !yt Youtube, !wnl !wde !wxx Wikipedia country-code xx, to just name a few I use all the time).
The network administrator can adjust the DNS configuration for www.google.com to point to our NoSSLSearch end point. For regular http traffic, the user will see no difference.
We will not serve SSL search results for requests that we receive on this VIP. If we receive a search request over port 443, the certificate handshake will complete successfully, but we will then redirect the user to a non-SSL search experience. The first time a user is redirected, they will be shown a notice that SSL has been disabled by the network administrator.
Google provides an option for network administrators to disable SSL searching on their own networks. It doesn't involve paying Google. You can see in this thread that filter manufacturers and their clients (schools, etc.) were the motivation for this feature and they'd simply block services that didn't allow filtering if the feature didn't exist.
Apparently google has an option for network administrators to force a redirect to "nosslsearch.google.com". Oddly enough, the "learn more" page has removed the reference to this domain, but it's in the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20140827203531/https://support.go...
BT is trying to make some cash selling data to third parties. Since google allows to specific network blocks (defined probably by IP address) to use non-SSL connections, BT installed public WiFi to offer internet access and gather data which could be sold to advertisers. Is it really a goldmine? I'm not sure, with Google and Facebok gathering much more personal data than BT ever will, I'm not sure if it's a Goldmine, depends on the quantity and accuracy I guess...
Using the latest Chrome/Firefox, searching for anything in the address bar is sent over https. Perhaps the author is being 'watched' as he is a surfing via BT's wifi pass?
Is it safe to assume this is some sort of trusted MITM proxy?
I think this is really taking it too far. We use Lightspeed and they block SSL traffic during the handshake based on the domain its destined for. No need to decrypt anything.
How'd you set that up?
these days they're into just about everything: landlines, tv, internet, mobiles, you name it.
they tend to have a notorious reputation for providing a bad service, with their internet service being the prime example... god help you if something goes wrong with your phoneline.
BT Infinity blows the competition out of the water, has no bandwidth limits at the £26/mo option and is very reliable.
I didn't care enough to find out why, I always use a VPN when using WiFi and to be fair to BT they recommend the use of a VPN when using the BT WiFi service.
 It took BT 2 weeks to install the line correctly after cocking it up twice! Third times a charm. Great going BT! /s
Either way, it seems more and more quaint to me that anyone connecting via a mainstream ISP assumes they'll get an unadulterated feed to the internet. If you're an adult and want to decide for yourself how you'll use the internet, get a VPN in place and relegate your ISP to being a dumb bit pipe.
Fortunately, there are still some good ISPs left in the UK. I'm with Andrews & Arnold and they're staunch supporters of an uncensored net (http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html). They're also just generally awesome - dual homed static IPv4 and IPv6 addressing, a geek answers the phone if you ever have reason to call, you can choose your backhaul transit provider and lots of other nice things. You can even opt for billing that follows the lunar cycle :)
Regardless of ISP though, I think even Joe User should figure out how to install & use a managed VPN service for when they're out and about using random wifi networks (e.g. from privateinternetaccess.com or similar). Of course, that assumes these VPN services are trustworthy which I'm sure a lot aren't...
Hence it's probably not got much to do with privacy, and more to do with usability.
If +90% of users just got HTTPS/SSL security warnings from their browsers instead of a BT Wifi login page, they wouldn't be able to use BT Wifi unless they're of the minority who know and understand how HTTP/HTTPS connections work.
Also, BT Wifi tends to log you out every 20 minutes to 6 hours seemingly by random, forcing you login with your credentials again, and this need to re-login is something that OSX never detected.
They do capture and redirect SSL traffic on first connection, resulting in a security warning on Firefox. So it's not a technical limitation.
Prior to login, all DNS requests for the new MAC are spoofed to direct to the login service regardless of protocol.
Honestly, I assumed this meant that Google wasn't allowed to do it. And since they couldn't secure you, they wouldn't give you your account.
Google seems to have failed us once more.
I don't think it's fair to blame Google if they are complying with the law of the land and the wishes of society as expressed through the democratic process.
They are supposed to know how not to drive their product into the tree. Society doesn't. Their search is their product, and not "society's".
But now it will be increasingly hard for them given what they sell for money.
I have a good idea where this is all headed, and probably within my lifetime people like you and me are going to be able to deal out some pretty damn bitter "I told you so's". In the meantime I will try to keep that from happening by trying to educate people, for as long as doing so doesn't get me killed. But expecting a group of people, many of whom don't agree with me anyway, to practice some mild civil disobedience on my behalf, would accomplish very little other than to drive me mad.
The problem is they undermine how secure internet and HTTPS works and how people perceive it.
They're heading us for the world where nobody will even be in control WRT how much info is collected and what it is about.
Edit: Just saw Agl's response, I'm glad Google is changing this.
What is it about extreme internet content that you think is so important that BT should support it being downloaded via their customers home routers without those customers knowledge? Or is it that schools use such a system to block extreme content - presumably you think that the dreggs of the internet are appropriate for schools to allow students to access easily?
Google's not stopping you searching for whatever extreme content you like they're just limiting their enablement of such searches in circumstances where those in control of the internet connection choose for it to be limited.
Their routers seem to have no QOS - one computer doing an update will kill internet for others in the house, presumable this is the same if other users are on the 'BT Openworld' wifi it shares.
2. They're invading the privacy of everyone not downloading 'extreme content'.
3. Privacy invasion is not appropriate in anything that pretends to be generic internet access, extreme or not.
Especially when changing the CNAME record is something that absolutely any DNS provider could be doing anyway...
I assume BT is a European (or British) ISP?
Is "seppuku" a common analogy people use? I just looked it up and was a bit surprised at the result.
2. "Suicide" is a common metaphor, and "seppuku" (a Japanese form of ritual suicide) is sometimes substituted as a more colorful synonym for this usage.
I am going to give it a try for a solid week at home and see if I can live with its results. I have no idea if they're as good, but I hope so.
As a result I'm on DDG + Firefox at this point
If you can't find something on DuckDuckGo, try using Startpage. Startpage uses Google as a backend, so it often has fresher results than DuckDuckGo.
I really want to ditch Google, but I don't see how. Except via Start Page.
This is probably too much trouble for your average user, but for me it is worth it. Once you gain a knack for it, it really doesn't expend that much time, either.
When you use DDG and Startpage you are using Google aren't you?