DuckDuckGo Browser's Stricter Privacy Protection Will Also Apply To Microsoft Scripts Now (theverge.com) 22
After a revelation in May that DuckDuckGo's (DDG) privacy-focused web browser allows Microsoft tracking scripts on third-party websites, the company now says it will start blocking those too. From a report: DuckDuckGo's browser had third-party tracker loading protection by default that already blocked scripts embedded on websites from Facebook, Google, and others, but until now Microsoft's scripts from the Bing and LinkedIn domains (but not its third-party cookies) had a pass.
A security researcher named Zach Edwards pointed out the exclusion that he apparently uncovered while auditing the browser's privacy claims, and noted it is especially curious because Microsoft is the partner that delivers ads in DDG's search engine (while promising not to use that data to create a monitored profile of users to target ads, instead relying on context to decide which ones it should show). DuckDuckGo CEO Gabe Weinberg said at the time that the reason for it was a search syndication agreement with Microsoft, and that more updates on third-party tracker preventions were coming. A backlash ensued, with some seizing on DuckDuckGo's own words that "tracking is tracking," a phrase the company used against Google's cookie-replacing "privacy sandbox" ad technology. Now Weinberg writes in a blog post, "I've heard from a number of users and understand that we didn't meet their expectations around one of our browser's web tracking protections." DuckDuckGo is vowing to be more transparent about what trackers its browser and extensions are protecting users from, making its tracker blocklists available and offering users more information on how its tracking protections with a new help page.
A security researcher named Zach Edwards pointed out the exclusion that he apparently uncovered while auditing the browser's privacy claims, and noted it is especially curious because Microsoft is the partner that delivers ads in DDG's search engine (while promising not to use that data to create a monitored profile of users to target ads, instead relying on context to decide which ones it should show). DuckDuckGo CEO Gabe Weinberg said at the time that the reason for it was a search syndication agreement with Microsoft, and that more updates on third-party tracker preventions were coming. A backlash ensued, with some seizing on DuckDuckGo's own words that "tracking is tracking," a phrase the company used against Google's cookie-replacing "privacy sandbox" ad technology. Now Weinberg writes in a blog post, "I've heard from a number of users and understand that we didn't meet their expectations around one of our browser's web tracking protections." DuckDuckGo is vowing to be more transparent about what trackers its browser and extensions are protecting users from, making its tracker blocklists available and offering users more information on how its tracking protections with a new help page.
DDG is compromised (Score:1)
They've been compromised. We use Brave Browser/search now.
Re:DDG is compromised (Score:5, Informative)
Brave is an advertising company at its heart and wants you to buy into some crypto crap - what a joke. They are in it for the money, to find ways to push more ads at you to make more money. Brave's privacy stance is smoke and mirrors.
Re: DDG is compromised (Score:2)
They're in it for the money? A corporation is?! You don't say! So which browser maker isn't in it for the money?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=er... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Brave does targeted advertising, just like Google. Brave tracks you and your interests to do so, they claim to do this in an anonymous way via aggregation in the browser.
DDG does keyword advertising and tracks no one.
https://www.nichepursuits.com/... [nichepursuits.com]
Re: (Score:1)
That may be so, but until I see Brave filtering their search results to fit a narrative, I'll continue to use them. Currently Google and DDG do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be so, but until I see Brave filtering their search results to fit a narrative, I'll continue to use them. Currently Google and DDG do exactly that.
And what narrative is that? Do tell us. No reason to be so obtuse in your statements.
Battle won, war in doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Duck Duck Go has demonstrated that they are willing to say one thing in their promotions, calling themselves a privacy-focused browser and web site, blocking third-party tracking, while at the same time making exceptions. If they are willing to say one thing and do another in this instance, why would we think they will never try this kind of thing again?
Re: Battle won, war in doubt (Score:2)
and isn't bing just a web result caching service? I thought it was well known that Bing just cached Google search results and passed them along as their own, or did Microsoft finally "legitimise" Bing?
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the (lack of) quality of Bing search results, I'd say they are using the same crappy search technology that they use on all their other systems, such as MSDN and Windows itself. Try to search for anything there, and best of luck to you! You're better off searching MSDN using Google, than using MSDN itself.
Still haven't answered the obvious question: (Score:2)
Why were scripts from Microsoft ever allowed in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
DDG made money from it
Re: (Score:1)
DDG made money from it
Yes. DDG is all for privacy, except when it is profitable for them.
But the bigger problem (for DDG) is that DDG isn't a real search engine. They're just a front-end for Microsoft's Bing. If DDG starts blocking Microsoft scripts, I'm betting it isn't very long before DDG runs into problems because of it.
So what does a sane person use? (Score:2)
Presuming from yer low number that you're not trollin'...
Re:Marginal (Score:5, Funny)
No sane person uses SuckSuckNo any how.
That's a cogent, quality argument you've given there.
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I would like to avoid Goog, DDG is not the answer. Their search results suck.
Choice... (Score:2, Interesting)
on who's tracking me... MS, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Duck Duck Go, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, DHHS, etc...
I take a look at who's doing it for profit versus fun. From the list of companies above, DDG is the minimal company doing so - and is reducing their footprint. So, the least evil (not the best, just the least evil). They have to make some money. Running a company that pushes bits around costs money. Pay for services, sell advertising, sell data. No one wants t
Re: (Score:2)
On a positive note, at least they aren't selling my stuff to make a buck.
That you know of.
We are talking about agencies who have had known ties to arms/drug trafficking, political assassinations, regime changes, medical experiments on its own service members and citizens, etc.
Maybe they're selling it in an indirect way too, like "sharing" with the corporations who do their bidding in terms of spying on you in other ways. We know LEOs are bypassing the 4th amendment regularly with corporate spies. [columbia.edu] (there are dozens of examples this is just one from Columbia Law School's Human R