why privacy provided by DuckDuckGo is more for 3rd-party tracking then from NSA

http://etherrag.blogspot.jp/2013/07/duck-duck-go-illusion-of-privacy.html

There have been several articles in the press recently about users flocking to DuckDuckGo in the wake of the recent NSA snooping revelations.  If you are in this category this post is meant for you.

If you use DuckDuckGo solely for the myriad of other benefits, such as reducing advertiser tracking, filter boxing, etc. move along nothing to see here.  DuckDuckGo will provide you at least that level of "privacy". 

Update: Wow, I didn't expect this blog post to spread so widely.  First of all, let me say to those accusing me of hating on DDG, I am a DDG user.  I think they have a great service.  This post is solely about the misconception that seems to have spread primarily from The Guardian article that DDG can somehow protect you from NSA monitoring.

DDG stated, "We literally do not store personally identifiable user data, so if the NSA were to get a hold of all our data, it would not be useful to them since it is all truly anonymous."  I would like to direct readers to this article which basically nullifies whatever protection DDG thinks it can provide, or you the reader think you have.

Standard Wiretaps

DuckDuckGo can easily be compelled either under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), standard court orders, or by secret orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to provide tap-on-demand.  I don't think anyone can dispute that.  If you are specifically targeted in an investigation, you can bank on the fact that all of your searches and their history "going forward" after the court order will be collected on you and stored.

Google has at least a transparency report detailing the number of non-FISA requests it receives and now a "ballpark" reporting of FISA requests.  Users should demand the same of DuckDuckGo.

Deep Integration

DuckDuckGo has made a lot of hay about their privacy, but like many other technology companies they have remained silent about their collaboration, if any, with law enforcement and security agencies.

Why shouldn't they?  They are reaping the benefits of an uninformed populace flocking to their service to avoid the NSA dragnet.  The privacy they offer is privacy from third-party advertisers and cross-site tracking.

The MarCom departments of big players like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and others are getting good at crafting extremely carefully worded denials through lies of omission.

DuckDuckGo says:

DuckDuckGo does not store any personal information, e.g. IP addresses or user agents

But what if DuckDuckGo provided a splitter-feed to the NSA?  DuckDuckGo can claim without lying that they store no personal information, but that speaks nothing of a collaborating partner storing it.

Can they refuse to collaborate with the NSA if approached?  If one looks at the recent reports about Yahoo! and others the answer is "No, you cannot".   Yahoo! apparently made concerted efforts to resist, sending lawyers into battle, and ultimately (and silently) lost the fighting the FISA Court.  "Silently" because their loss and the ruling that handed it down is also secret.

Assume, nay bank on, the fact that corporations located within the United States can be and are being compelled to participate in programs like PRISM and are legally powerless to refuse.


rest at http://etherrag.blogspot.jp/2013/07/duck-duck-go-illusion-of-privacy.html