Google tracks you. We don't. An illustrated guide
donttrack.us
donttrack.us
Referrers are a part of the way the web has worked since before Google existed. They're a browser-level feature more than something related to specific websites. But if referrers bother you, just use the SSL version of Google to prevent referrers from being sent to http sites (or change your browser not to send referrers at all).
The corresponding sentence even for a website that strips referrers would be "When you search on domain X, and click on a link, your browser & computer info is sent to that site, which can often uniquely identify you."
Read more carefully in that light, the first sentence is really saying that third-party sites that you land on after searching or visiting a domain can track you. That's independent of whether you came from Google or any other search engine, of course.
By getting rid of that header I think we take away a lot of private context, i.e. the actual search terms that landed you on that page, which in and of themselves can provide a lot of background into what was personally going on with that person on that page.
So yes, the first sentence is all about the referrer header. And yes, it is just one piece of the privacy puzzle, but it is one that I think can certainly be solved. It is also a piece I feel the average person knows nothing about.
Here's the original post when I made the change to make searches externally anonymous: http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/duck-duck-go-sea...
I don't begrudge you trying to make privacy a selling point for DDG, but donttrack.us felt like trying to paint Google with a pretty broad brush. Honestly, it reminded me of when Privacy International decided to give Google a worse privacy rating than any other company. Here's how I responded to Privacy International at the time: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/privacy-international-loses-al...
The fact is that Google has a good history of supporting privacy, from fighting overly broad subpoenas from the DOJ to SSL Search to creating a browser plugin to opt out of personalized advertising: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/pluginfaq.html .
Personally, as you can gather, I don't think SSL search is enough (or browser plugins). The average person doesn't know it exists and so it essentially doesn't "exist" for most people. If you made it the default, or did something like what we did by dropping the referrer header, I think it becomes moot (at least the first sentence).
I'm really not trying to say Google is all bad or anything. In fact, I use a lot of Google services myself, e.g. Gmail. And I know you take privacy very seriously. However, the ad networks and other aggregators are starting to do some pretty scary stuff, and so I think you need to do more faster to catch up, or stay ahead of them in the privacy arena.
Is there any evidence to suggest the average person really cares about privacy online to such an extent?
"90% of respondents said they pay little or no attention to online ads."
eg the respondents are in no way a representative sample.
It also sounds like an entirely loaded poll - eg "Would you like more ability to opt out of online tracking".... "um... yes? I guess".
There's so much FUD around the issue - "should advertising networks be allowed to target products to you based on tracking". The term 'tracking' sounds bad. It sounds like they are monitoring everything you do, when in fact they're just storing a cookie and noticing which other sites you visit that also carry ads from the same network.
But more generally, I don't know if there is any poll that would satisfy you. I've been watching you make these comments for years :).
I think generally though, a very very vocal minority make a ton of noise about privacy.
Look at adblock. If you were a newcomer to the net and just read comments here or at reddit, you'd assume everyone uses it. But the figure is more like 1 or 2% at most have adblock or similar installed.
There's this big elitist movement that supposes that only idiots click on adverts, that they only click because they're confused, that adverts are all bad and irritating. But there's no real evidence to back that up.
Nearly everyone clicks on adverts. Nearly everyone buys stuff as a result. Consumers find stuff via adverts, Sellers sell stuff via adverts. They work.
I appreciate what you're trying to do though, and hope it does pay off for you, the time is right for some google competition.
I'd be satisfied I'm wrong if adblock usage jumped to 50%+ or if more than a few thousand people used Tor or whatever the usual figure is (extremely low).
When I install/fix a machine, I always load Firefox with adblock plus due to the amount of harassing nasty ads. Being the location where I do the majority of my business, they are almost exclusively on dialup, so even a 100kb image add is literally 25 seconds extra load time.
Now, am I anti-capitalist? Not quite. I agree that someone doing work for money (be it a sole proprietor or company) has a right to 'hang their shingle'. I most certainly do. However, when I look at content, I do not want myself distracted from material that has no bearing on what I am looking at.
And yes, I full well understand that ad-click and purchase is what increases revenue for content based websites. I also know, from the many articles here, that google is THE player in this sphere, along with their multitude of complaints.
I also, control my network connection from my side. I also control my CPU, what resides in ram, what lands on my screen, and what I choose to not display. As I look at it, we have dealt with nearing 15 years of increasingly hostile ads. I'm only reacting in kind by being hostile to them. And I attribute banners and such like the 'last minute' sale grocery stores attempt by putting candy in the checkout lane.
Yes, I do know that my viewpoint is a minority. But I also recommend goods and services to others. So, yeah, don't abuse us and we'll pass on the sales.
Just to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't targetted ads be more preferable then, since they WOULD have a bearing on what you're looking at?
99% of the time im on the internet, I am NOT going to buy stuff. I'm going to forums that I attend, getting email, working to help that ubuntu works better (by bug reports and fixes), and researching on more stuff that I can do in IT
And as we all know, there are absolutely no adverts to do with that.
My observation is that more than 90% computer users don't have a clue. They don't know how computers work, what they store, and what they send. I've even seen computer engineering students that don't know that Gmail does semantic analysis on their e-mail, despite the presence of targeted ads and a very good spam filter.
Now, of the 10% who do have a clue, most don't know the exact nature of each threat to their privacy. They just know they are being watched by Big Profitable Companies that sell each other their data. They don't always know that they can protect themselves from some of those threats, let alone how. Even when they do, it requires some effort up-front, and the benefits tend to be long-term and invisible.
Therefore, the extremely low percentage of people who use adblock, noscript, Tor or whatever isn't the result of most people doing a rational cost-benefit evaluation based on informed opinions about privacy on the internet. Indeed, I suspect that among those who do an informed opinion, very few have deliberately chosen not to use privacy helpers like adblock, noscript, or Tor.
My comment isn't that people have an informed opinion about privacy, more that it's a moot point to them. It's like asking them their opinion on a new fuel injection component.
Users rightly assume that their personal details will be kept securely by any website they give them to.
> " Indeed, I suspect that among those who do an informed opinion, very few have deliberately chosen not to use privacy helpers like adblock, noscript, or Tor"
BS. Try using tor for a day. It's useless, ridiculously slow, and means things don't work properly. Also I tried adblock for a day, and I hated it. I want to see the internet uncensored. If a website pisses me off with popup ads, I'll just not go there again. I think that's pretty typical behavior. NoScript is an even stupider idea. Who in their right mind would disable javascript? Pretty much all websites will be broken. The only people who would install noscript are the analy OCD afflicted control freaks.
> BS
Ah, that is a meaningful disagreement. Well, you've just treated me of an OCD afflicted control freak, along with Eben Moglen. :-) By the way, the majority of the web site I go to (mostly from HN), work like charms, and I don't often have to enable Javascript. Tor doesn't work, true, and that's why I intend to run an exit node very soon. It'll be a drop in the ocean, but we gotta start somewhere. I liked Adblock while I used it, but animated ads stopped bothering me since NoScript.
The evidence is that the masses don't care. They just want stuff that works and solves problems for them. Is it open source? Why would anyone (apart from a geek) care?
Same goes for free software: more casual users (probably) would use more free software if they knew about it. And the bit about it just working is mostly FUD.
The reason why the masses don't care is because they don't know why kind of havoc this sort of lack of privacy can cause. I for one am glad someone is educating the layman in an accessible and non-condescending way.
Also afaik health insurance is mainly a US phenomenon thank god.
There are lots of ways this could play out. If you go to the site and register (increasingly likely), they might be able to detect you individually. Secondly, providers are starting to line up data by email address and other personal facts, so they may be able to match you like that. But even if they aren't absolutely sure it is you, they can still use the information to put you in different initial pools that could be used, for example, to ask you more specific follow-up questions that then put you in different risk pools.
If you're endlessly searching for cancer cures, perhaps they should be aware of that.
Of course the solution is the US is universal health care for all. But that's never going to happen.
Most people (in North America anyway) don't appear to care much about their health, either... that is, until they are diagnosed with cancer or suffer a heart attack.
I will point out that there is nothing wrong with that. Google is not for those with strong privacy requirements, just as all popular operating systems are not for those with strong security requirements. Google falls at one point on the privacy/usability continuum and DDG falls at another point. But as far as the article being unfair to Google goes, I'll have to disagree. You are identifiable with Google's data and that's a reality.
When Google switched to AJAX-based search, that temporarily stopped sending referrers, and lots of people screamed bloody murder. For example, http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-searc... said "So what can we do about it? If you run a blog, write about this. Submit this story or your own story to large tech blogs like TechCrunch, CenterNetworks, ReadWriteWeb, GigaOm, etc - no large site has written about this yet, and one of them needs to. ... Do anything you can to spread the word and let Google know that this is not acceptable."
Or see http://www.seobook.com/Ad-Networks-Partners-Hoarding-Publish... or http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/3240-google-ajax-bad-news-fo... or http://blogs.sitepoint.com/2009/02/04/google-update-breaks-t... . So we heard lots of complaints.
SSL as an option provides a nice choice for people who care about these issues and don't mind taking a tiny hit in latency.
In particular, GMail initially had SSL configurable, but then moved it to the default: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... . Apparently they don’t think the latency is a problem—or if they do, that it’s worth it to get the security benefits of HTTPS.
The articles you reference speak to the problems for advertisers and related interests. They do not address issues of web user privacy.
Don't get me wrong, Google is in the difficult position of balancing the display of results based on advertising revenue with the display of results based on utility to the user.
What I see Google facing is that given their market share and mind share and the typical web user's tolerance for providing information it is probably easy to make a business case for skewing the balance. The problem is that there is no precedent from which to draw long term conclusions about loss of anonymity at the scale at which it currently occurs.
The concern was that people might click into SSL mode, forget they were in SSL mode, and complain because they didn't see Images or Maps or whatever search mode they wanted.
For smaller websites, switching on SSL mode can be pretty easy, but we've still got changes going in to improve various rough edges on SSL search.
DuckDuckGo, AFAIK doesn't log your searches or correlate your searches with a user account.
So I don't see how that sentence is even fair at all, Duck Duck Go might stop the search term from being sent (and as a webmaster I'd hate that as it makes it harder to figure out how users are getting to my site), but they can't stop browser and computer info from being sent.
Other info, like your IP address (which they partially anonymize after... 9/18/24 months (conflicting details)) and cookie[3] (which you can clear / block), is still stored. Odds are DDG does this too (edit: they don't, see replies), as it's mostly useful for overall statistics.
[1]: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer... [2]: http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=... [3]: http://www.google.com/privacy/faq.html#toc-terms-server-logs
You could have checked this assertion by reading DDG's plain-language privacy policy:
When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address.
Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all. This is a very unusual practice, but we feel it is an important step to protect your privacy.
Edit: TOS -> privacy policy
So I was close. They even admit the odds were in my favor. Thanks for the fact!
Since you're going on the offensive, a defensive move might be in order: no, I wasn't. I said "odds are", not "DDG does", because I didn't know for sure and did not intend to claim to. The odds are in my favor, the fact is an aberration on otherwise almost-uniform behavior by search providers.
The odds would have been in your favor if you have said "odds are a search engine chosen at random does this too".
But, instead, you said: "odds are DDG does this too", thus binding the odds to DDG.
Since the general stance of DDG is pro privacy, you should have reasoned that the odds were in favor of DDG NOT doing this.
(Not to mention that posting that you "were close" didn't provide anything to the discussion --apart from some ill-conceived face saving from your part).
I used it to say "thanks", which was the primary reason for me. The rest was perhaps ill-conceived, but it has been amusing to see the spikes up and down in its rank - it went > +10 for a while.
Solved everywhere, of course, by anonymizing your IP address and blocking the cookie. And as you give your IP to the site you visit through DDG, as well as to their advertisers if you're not proactively blocking them (and those tools can fail / be nullified by a server transmission), extreme measures are the only effective means of actually protecting your privacy. As such, I don't find those two steps to be at all unexpected for someone who actually wishes to guard their privacy.
* Adioso vs. Bing: http://blog.adioso.com/sorry-bing-adioso-is-still-the-worlds...
* Posterous vs. Tumblr (and others): http://blog.posterous.com/hey-tumblr-users-got-comments-want...
Setting aside whether or not you want to be perceived as cutthroat or just straight-up douchey, the real question is whether or not this the most effective spin.
I think it might be better just to talk about how great privacy is at DuckDuckGo, perhaps in comparison to other search engines in general.
DDG calling out Google individually, Adioso calling out Bing individually, or in the case of Posterous, calling out other startups, isn't how I would play the game.
Except there are no other search engines, in practical terms.
Second, for most people, Google is search. So not talking about them in the context of search is almost useless. In other words, there is no real way to talk up DDG privacy without explaining what happens when you use Google. It just isn't meaningful because most people don't know what the baseline is.
I really dislike the style and "atmosphere" of that site. The images are seemingly unordered and could use some borders. The images of the dog biting the women or the predator disgust me. Then some "motivationals" and memes that do not help the case.
This site gave me mental stress (the left-alignment of varied sized text and images maybe, maybe the white, maybe the images) and overall broke a chunk off the good impression the DDG creator gave me so far. I'd suggest either not making such weird site or at least make it properly designed.
(When I clicked the link I expected it to be related to the http://hackademix.net/2010/12/28/x-do-not-track-support-in-n... disaster which dramatically "uniquifies" your browser fingerprint so I started with a bad feeling. Thanks for adding ad-blocking recommendations though! And even more so: Tor!)
Personally I hate disgusting images, and didn't think those two rose to that level. If anyone has suggestions for equally good replacements, I'm fine with that too.
Whenever anyone begins with "That site turned me off," it may be a good idea to hear their feedback, but it does not necessarily follow that they deserve an apology or that you need to act upon that feedback. I think you're dealing with an outlier, and we already know what trying to please them can lead to.
If anyone has suggestions for equally good replacements, I'm fine with that too.
Don't change a thing.
As Edward Everett said to Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
Take it easy, man! I mean, whatever...
So while there's not yet a company collecting, collating and selling this info from all the various sources the database that company will eventually sell is already being built.
(Many people in the ad industry assume the WSJ's spreading such FUD because the WSJ as a premium brand benefits disproportionately in a world with dumbed-down ad targeting. I don't have any evidence for this - but it would explain the WSJ's vituperativeness.)
To me, this looks like you've just reproduced the WSJ's FUD, since the FUD just happens to reflect favorably on DuckDuckGo. That's not exactly laudable, although it is understandable.
I know of at least two start-ups that are currently building advertising revenue streams on facebook apps and twitter that are also data mining like crazy. The goal is to replicate your "facebook friends" data and have it accessible on-demand without needing facebook. They also plan on extracting all your likes and interests. Then, if your friend (who is uniquely identifiable) buys something and its within your "liked" interests, you get a micro-targeted ad telling you your friend has bought it.
So, sometime soon, the Beacon-scandal from facebook (a few years ago, if people can remember -- users said that facebook "ruined christmas") is going to play out again on the greater web. And there will likely be no opt-out.
The company Gabe is afraid will come to be is already in the process of an alpha test. Consumers are largely ignorant of how powerful data mining software can be, and will continue to be until its "too late".
A browser signature is somewhat akin to a physical finger print.
bigebonybooty.com can sell your data too.
Most of the features that are called out as making up your browser's 'finger print' actually change fairly regularly on most users machines. Using these features, your finger print would change anytime you update your browser, add a new plugin, or disalbe an old font.
In my opinion (using my designer side) the site lacks basic design, the text is well written, and the images make it really easy to read, but its missing some eye candy. Something to do would be structure each argument as a page/slide, and make the reading more like slides or a book.
In my opinion, -quite ironic- you should have a look (copy format) from Google's 20thingsilearned [1], the book format, with the beautiful design and the animations would make the site stand out and more attractive to be read than it is now.
But dont do as them, there is a pretty good job done keeping the text short and concise but informative and clear.
If the site is kept well formatted as well as structured and 'playful' will continue to be a pleasure to read.
Good luck with the campaign, happy to help to my default search engine :)
Whenever I see someone doing a slideshow-type presentation, my immediate assumption is that they are just dragging me through the process so they can get more eyeballs for their advertising. (Cf. much of Cracked.com and other "Top x Lists".)
There are things that could be done to make the page more appealing, if you're not into the lowdef look that I think they're going for intentionally, but breaking it into multiple pages if it does't really have to be is just obnoxious.
In light colors avoiding the darkness but funnier to scroll
Anyway, A/B test should give him the answer to which is the best way to aproach the Google non-techy crowd
For Gabriel's intended audience (presumably social media) the simplicity and silly cat memes probably work perfectly well without attempting to make it beautiful.
For me, all the FUD simply makes me think "hang on, even if I use DuckDuckgo the site that built the Herpes landing page, optimised it for health advertisers and probably has Facebook widgets too gets all that information, and is far more likely to sell their data than Google...". I don't think HN is the target audience for that page.
Given the recent spate of articles on how scraper sites that DDG blocks pollute Google results, I'd think a similar info page about how DDG's spam blacklist would go down nicely now though...
But - if you are so focused on not-tracking then how do you know if an advertising campaign such as this actually works? Presumably this is not the only campaign you are currently running. Must be the referrer string from donttrack.us, which is so amusingly ironic that I can't help but twist the corner of my mouth into a smirk.
Nice site, by the way, I found it clean, clear and readable. Scrolling and justification are no matter to me, I liked the simple single-page look.
!gm is a bit shorter and also goes to Google maps.
I use "m" for searching Google Maps, "im" for Google Images, "w" for Wikipedia, "dict" and "thes" for dictionary.com, "bt" for searching torrents, and the list goes on. Just yesterday I added one so that I can type "to 123 Main St 12345" in the Location Bar and it automatically gives me the Google Maps driving directions from my house to the indicated address.
It's as simple as right-clicking a search box and selecting "Add a Keyword for this Search...". Use it :)
Add Keyword Search In Chrome: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=95...
Add Keyword Search In Firefox: http://lifehacker.com/397071/easily-manage-firefox-3-keyword...
Enjoy!
edit: found it
A federal judge in Los Angeles last week ruled (PDF) that a computer server's RAM, or random-access memory, is a tangible document that can be stored and must be turned over in a lawsuit.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/us-ruling-makes-server-ram-a-documen...
Perhaps in heavily regulated industries such as banking that might be different but search engines are not government regulated (for now).
There was at least one court case where a judge felt this was enough to say "you have the document, you must make a copy at my request". I don't remember the details of the case, and don't remember how it ended. I hope that sanity prevailed and the "thou can not be compelled to create a document" policy was reinterpreted in a more reasonable manner.
What scares me the most sometimes is when I think about how ubiquitous Google's ads network and analytics network are. Most of the websites I visit use AdSense and/or Google Analytics. Some are using Google's copy of popular javascript libraries like jQuery. This means that when you are moving from site A to site B to site C, there is a good chance that even though A or B or C does not know about it, Google knows your full browsing path and even how you move from one to another. I am not saying that Google is actually doing it, but it is scary someone has the capability to do it and to know more about you than the government and your mother do. It is important a significant portion of the website and our browsing activities are outside of Google's networks.
Wrong.
When a browser gets a request for a JavaScript file that it has seen before, it returns a cached copy from the local hard drive rather than sending out a request to the website. Therefore sites that use Google's copy of jQuery are maximizing their chances of having browsers not make a round trip, rather than giving Google something that they can use for tracking.
Uh, eddieplan9, you know that ISPs not only have this data but also your identity? Or that some ISPs sell that data to metrics companies? Here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/03/isps_selling_cl/
It's always strange to me that people worry about Google, when ISPs have a superset of the data that Google sees, plus your identity.
ii) Adblock et all: By advising users to use Adblock, once again you are encouraging users to do something that can cripple the web as we know it.
That's the point.
Of course, this is regardless of Google.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/microsoft-goog...
"User foobaz123 logs in from IP u.v.w.x. Here we have a no-cookie session from IP u.v.w.x. This is probably foobaz123"
Any identity management system of modest complexity can do this with fairly good accuracy. So while they don't have you confirmed via an authentication cookie, it's certainly a far cry from total anonymity.
"and potentially show up in unwanted places, like insurance, credit & background checks."
yeah, i'm pretty sure that's not a thing that can happen.
also, if you like the internet being free then you shouldn't mind seeing ads for your demographic that get a better roi and make more money for publishers of the content you don't pay for.
Absolutely, those are entirely different. But you do seem to be defining "providing a service" as not-paying. If you go down that route, why do houses cost money? You are paying the builders for their service, but if that's not-paying, then you're just giving away huge sums of money for zero value in return. Tangibility isn't a defining line, or utility companies would be out (they don't provide water, they bring it to you. An intangible service.).
The service in these cases being fewer "enlarge your breasts/penis" ads for the wrong sex, or anything you may find offensive, replaced by ads which (ideally) would help you discover things you want which you may not have found otherwise. You're paying the ad services to be your personal product investigators, and they return value by providing relevancy.
edited to add more. I'm done now!
In that same way if you search for Herpes and then are directed to a web site they'll have your IP and maybe a cookie. If you then go to another site and log in with your Facebook ID they'll have your IP, Name and Facebook ID.
So all it would take is an industrious list broker to start combining that info like they already do with offline info (and in fact probably combine that with the offline info to get even more comprehensive lists)
Their whole privacy series (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-pri...) taken together is what inspired this page. I urge anyone interested in what is really happening to read all the articles (13 so far).
Implementation details aside, this page must exists and I applaud Gabriel for making it. Why? I must have been living under a rock, but I for one have never heard of https search for Google -- and I'm not exactly a computer newb.
Privacy should be the default, so "use secure Google" is a ridiculous response to legitimate privacy concerns.
Feedback:
1. I really appreciated how fast information is delivered. "One thing leads to another." And its very clear up to...
2. You lost me after the "Your profile can also be sold," with lolcat material. It really threw me off and I almost forgot what I was reading about. On my first run through the page, did not absorb ANY information past that point.
3. I only noticed the multiple (happens) links on the second run. Noticed one somewhere along the way on the first run, but not the reast. This is the important part. It tells me that this isn't a list of "imagine these unlikely events and fear", its a list of "did you know this actually happened."
4. The images establish pace for the reader, but, I can't stress it enough, they must communicate additional information. Up until the parental control cat we get a visual of what happens. I can also relate to the images because I've seen ads for "wacom tablets" follow me for months after I bought the freaking thing and I've seen the Google Analytics control panel. The image of the woman signifies that her profile is slowly building up. What information does the parental control cat or austin powers communicate?
5. The design is a little too bland, but as noted above, that's not the biggest problem. I wanted to link my friends to the page, but then got to the images and felt that the message would be lost on them as it was lost on me.
Hope this helps and thank you for making the page.
Also there is a Chrome extension for Google SSL Web search: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/lcncmkcnkcdbbanb...
But then, why should we have to opt out of this instead of opting in?
Isn't Google's tracking a _good_ thing in many ways? I want sites to know what I've come searching for so they can present me peripheral content I want and I want Google to know my interests so that they show me ads related to those interests.
I agree Google could do more to alert users about what privacies they are giving up, and I'm glad there's good alternatives if you don't want that info tracked. I think not enough is made of the good side of Google's personalization, however.
Edit: Looks like yc cut off my link there--copy and paste the full thing.
They also need to make sure they use an implementation that doesn't suffer from exponential time[1] regular expressions.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=python vs http://www.google.com/search?q=rails
I rest my case. Don't get me wrong. I like DDG but this campaign seems like spreading FUD. BTW, I use https by default.
For instance, I forwarded the entire page as-is (Cmd-I in Safari if you have Apple's Mail configured) to my little sister.
I saw something about adding affiliate links to Amazon results. What else?
I like the search engine and I wish them all the best (seriously), but this method of advertising is bad.
ddg rules and this finally puts my pov into nice, simple, pretty pictures.
W00t!
I presume referrer headers existed even before google and this privacy outrage. The thing I do not understand is, why this sudden conciousness about some database of what you searched online?
These kind of glib assertions play much better when they are factually correct.