Can DuckDuckGo Become the Anti-Google? (marketplace.org)

"Recently, a privacy-oriented search engine called DuckDuckGo raised $10 million from a Canadian pension fund," reports Marketplace.org, saying the privacy-focused search engine is "trying to establish itself as the anti-Google." An anonymous reader quotes their report: "So it's like Google, except when you search on it, you're completely anonymous," said Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of the company. The searches are encrypted. The site knows where you are, but only while you're searching, and it doesn't store your personal information. "We serve you the search results and we throw away your personal information...so your IP address and things like that. And we don't actually store any cookies by default. And so when you search on DuckDuckGo, it's like every time you're a new user and we know nothing about you..." Weinberg said about a quarter of Americans have taken some action to protect their privacy, and DuckDuckGo searches have been growing about 50 percent a year.
"We are proud to have a profitable business model that doesn't rely on collecting personal data," the company tweeted in June, and this week they also shared a quote from a Harvard Business Review article that asked "How far can the surveillance economy go?"

"Most consumers are either unaware of the personal info they share online or, quite understandably, unable to determine the cost of sharing it -- if not both."

Comments

Re:There's that little problem with DuckDuckGo

[KiloByte]

When intelligence agencies deliver a court- and gag-order that says they want all searches originating from a particular IP, and youre not allowed to say a word about it

That's why it's vital to do all searches over Tor -- which DuckDuckGo supports well, unlike infinite captcha loops on Google.

People prefer convenience over privacy, but once there's no convenience cost, there's no reason to not use the safer way,

So just like Google, only not remotely like Google

[dgatwood]

The problem with not knowing anything about the user is that it often significantly reduces the quality and usefulness of search results. For example, consider a search for "string".

• When I search while logged in as me, Google returns the Java String API as the second result, because it knows that this is what I am probably looking for (though admittedly, it still doesn't recognize that I'm more likely to be asking about C++).
• When I search in Safari's private browsing mode using an IP address obtained via my cell phone hot spot, the programming results don't start until the bottom few slots on the front page, and instead it talks about the textile.

Neither result set would be appropriate for both audiences. (Every now and then, this goes hilariously wrong, and I have to add "-programming" or "-science" or whatever for some search, but most of the time, it's right.)

The thing is, a lot of people complain about tracking, but the fact of the matter is that all that tracking is done to produce better outcomes for the user. Whether that data is used to improve search results or to improve ad targeting, the user benefits by getting results that are more tailored to his or her interests and seeing less crap that he or she won't have the least bit of interest in. Far from surveillance, I would call that personalization. As long as Google aggressively protects the data that they collect and keeps it private, I find it to be a good thing.

But obviously, different people have different perspectives, and some folks are more distrustful of data collection than others. For the folks on the distrustful end of the spectrum, it is good that alternatives like DDG exist. And no matter where you fall on that spectrum, I think you'll agree that there is a strong need for tough privacy laws, to ensure that if Google's management decides to retire and move to Bermuda, the next batch of execs won't be allowed to use that data in different ways that violate our privacy, such as selling it to the highest bidder, or giving it away to companies that do research for political parties, or publishing our private information for all to see.