Scroogle, Privacy-First Search Engine, Shuts Down for Good
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
If you disagree with Google, don't use their services- simple as that. Use a competing search service, e-mail provider, etc. and don't just hide behind a proxy like Scroogle.
It's not my job to look out for Google's interests. "You're the product, not the customer," remember? Why should I concern myself with the quality of Google's product?
The way I see it, there are three options:
* Accept it and keep using Google
* Use DuckDuckGo, Bing or some other search engine
* Struggle to use hacks like Scroogle
Tracking users is a key part of Google's business model. If you use their services, they're going to track you and target ads to you. And they're going to keep implementing things like throttling to frustrate sites like Scroogle.
there's also http://www.googlesharing.net/ which is an anonymizing proxy service, but i think it's firefox specific.
personally, i just stopped using their other services (i tried disconnect, but vaguely remember various issues when otherwise logged in) - as far as i know, they don't track you when you're not logged in (to be more sure i also use ghostery - that, together with disconnect, prevents a lot of tracking).
[i mean, more exactly, that i have heard nothing about them updating personal information with data from searches when not logged in; i am not talking aggregate info like typical searches from geoip locations]
You sir, are an astroturfer.
Scroogle was a proxy, that is all it was. Scroogle performed nothing more than many other firewalls, content filters and proxies, including TOR, do by default.
>If you disagree with Google, don't use their services
And how exactly do you do that when all Android phones, gmail, doubleclick, and several dozen other services you don't even know you use send your information to Google?
Where is the EFF when you need them?
Yes, there are several other services. Yes, it's difficult to find alternatives to them, but it's not impossible. And if you really can't, you can build it yourself. And if you're not keen/able, let the HN community know - they love a gap in the market.
IXquick and DuckDuckGo are already viable replacements, but there's plenty of room for improvement. First it should be a better distributed service, not just 6 servers. Second it should be located outside of the USA or any other country without sufficient regulatory protections from predatory corporations such as Google, Yahoo and SOPA supporting organizations. Perhaps PirateBay, the EFF, or another consumer-oriented entity might be interested in sponsoring such an anonymizing service?
They do, or did in the case of EFF, it's called Tor.
From http://www.google.com/permissions/#tab2
We cannot approve the use of Internet domain names that use the word “Google” or some variation of “Google”. For example, we would not approve a site called googleXYZ.com or gogggles.com.
They had it sleeping for a year until they went full throttle and released the site. It became very profitable, and then one day, Google dropped their hammer on them.
I can only imagine this being just one of many stories about this.
Microsoft did the same with MikeRoweSoft.com (fascinating story if you care to take a look)
Maybe Google relaxed their stance? Still, I wouldn't bother having the word Google in a domain, just in case.
Repackage (xpi files are just zip files with a different extension) and install away. I've been running it on Firefox 8 and up for months without trouble.
Google has, lately, gotten very good at intuiting what I want to look for. It's the first time since Panda that I've noticed a marked improvement in relevance and quality in Search, and it makes both Chrome and Search more attractive.
The concern is always what happens if this information gets hacked, stolen, sold, subpoenaed, or NSL'd.
Hacked/stolen: anything I wouldn't want in the hands of criminals goes through ssl. If they've broken that, Google tracking me is the least of my worries.
Sold: I'm comfortable with advertisers being able to target me. If they've narrowed down their target market by videos viewed on motherless, I'd be damned curious to see the ads.
Subpoenaed/NSL'd: were I to engage in any activities that would give me trouble in the event of LE attention, I'd be doing it through TOR from a coffeeshop, on a throwaway netbook running Truecrypt with the juicy stuff in a hidden volume. That's not to suggest that only criminals need fear the security/justice apparatus, but if I were doing anything that could draw unwanted attention I'd take precautions.
Back when I was raiding with anon, before it had anything to do with political motivations, I was paranoid about how easily I could be doxed and took extreme measures to ensure I was unfindable. Now, I'm pretty open about most of my online activities. If knowing my interests lets Google provide better services, then they have my blessing. Should I decide to engage in activities that would run me afoul of powerful organizations, I'll take precautions.
You won't find many stronger proponents than I of the need for anonymous communication, but I don't extend that to all communication. I'm cool with getting fed ads in order to support the services I like, and if data collection means fewer ads or better services, them I'm on board.
Hacked/stolen: anything I wouldn't want in the hands of criminals goes through ssl. If they've broken that, Google tracking me is the least of my worries.
It's most likely that the information would be hacked or stolen at the point it's aggregated and stored by Google or its designated service provider, not out of the actual data stream. Intrusions have happened at Google in the past, either through Chinese hackers or rogue employees.
Sold: I'm comfortable with advertisers being able to target me. If they've narrowed down their target market by videos viewed on motherless, I'd be damned curious to see the ads.
Advertisers are far from the only ones who might buy your data. Health insurance companies, credit reporting agencies, employers, and private investigators are a few I can think of on the spot. Your search and browsing history would be very valuable to all of them. Did you search for symptoms of a disease before applying for health insurance? Rejected! Do you tend to play online games that turn real money into in-game items? Increased credit risk! Did you do an image search for seedy Japanese artwork ten years ago? You can bet that'll come up in the custody hearing.
Subpoenaed/NSL'd: were I to engage in any activities that would give me trouble in the event of LE attention, I'd be doing it through TOR from a coffeeshop, on a throwaway netbook running Truecrypt with the juicy stuff in a hidden volume. That's not to suggest that only criminals need fear the security/justice apparatus, but if I were doing anything that could draw unwanted attention I'd take precautions.
There's still the remote possibility of things that are currently legal being made illegal later on, and past search and ad behavior being used to target investigations of said once-legal activity. Target already knows you're pregnant before your family does. Who knows what kind of possibly precrime-predictive patterns will be found by present and future datamining algorithms that span multiple humanity-wide datasets?
They claimed to not keep persistent server logs, but there's no way to verify that.