>> (3) One of Duck Duck Go's providers/suppliers/vendors/etc is secretly cooperating with the gov't, and/or the gov't has compromised DDG's operations without DDG's knowledge. This is the way I think it will go if enough people start to make moves in this direction.
>From what I have already seen, this is the most common scenario. Just think of the organizations that we already know for sure have been contacted by the government and cooperated. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Verizon, AT&T, every other telco. These represent most of the US-based internet, and virtually all data passes through or near them. *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market…* On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > if [Duck Duck Go is] lying, it is very > > big and bald, and will bite them soon enough. > > You keep asserting that bad behavior will be punished. Are you > living on a different planet than I am? Because from what I've seen, > it's more often rewarded. > > > And, since they state openly that they don't store any personal info > > Yahoo doesn't collect any personal info if you don't enter it. DDG > just doesn't have all the places to enter it that Yahoo does. I > suspect the type of person likely to use DDG is unlikely to > accidentally register themselves at Yahoo. > > DDG also says they don't track IP addresses, which is interesting. > I wonder what their plan is to counter abuse. > > > ... if the government is > > getting data from them, it's a realtime stream - they might as well > > *be* the government. I think that fairly unlikely. > > You think it's unlikely the government has equipment in datacenters > sniffing communications lines? Despite endless news stories about how > they're doing just that? > > I see the following possibilities: > > (1) Duck Duck Go simply isn't big enough to be a threat yet. I > consider this the most likely. But this means the only way Duck Duck > Go can sustain operations is if they don't experience success -- a > catch-22 if there ever was one. Might actually be possible, though, > given that it appears most people just don't care that much. > > (2) Duck Duck Go is secretly cooperating with the government. > Possible, but seems unlikely. I expect they'd just shut down before > cooperating, the way several others have. > > (3) One of Duck Duck Go's providers/suppliers/vendors/etc is > secretly cooperating with the gov't, and/or the gov't has compromised > DDG's operations without DDG's knowledge. This is the way I think it > will go if enough people start to make moves in this direction. > > (4) The gov't decides to respect people's privacy. [pause for laughter] > > In the above, substitute "giant corporations" for "government" as you > see fit. > > > "Fighting against the massive amount of surveillance data collected > > about us as we surf the Internet is hard, and possibly even fruitless. > > But I think it's important to try." > > from > > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/03/changes_to_the.html > > Hey, if it's a gesture, more power to you. > > -- Ben > > >
