Privacy-aware search engine to replace Scroogle

[Tom T.]

https://scroogle.org, the privacy-protecting method of using Google, had numerous outages last week, saying that Google had blocked them as being a bot, despite the fact that they were only 0.035% of Google's traffic, and that almost all of their users were humans sitting at keyboards.
Now, Scroogle has been out of service completely for several days in a row, which sounds like either having been shut out permanently, or just given up.

I've looked at https://duckduckgo.com. No cookies. No scripting required. No ads, most of the time. Results are said to be as good as Google's or better.

They claim that not only do they not retain user data such as search terms and IPs, which Google does for 18 months, but do not even record such things. This requires a deliberate reconfiguration of almost any web server, which usually log IPs routinely. If true, a mark of good faith.

Feedback from others who try duckduckgo is welcomed here. In the meantime, as you may know, Google has changed its (non-)Privacy Policy such that any information that they obtain about you from any of their services, including subsidiaries like YouTube; the searches themselves; their geolocation of you; Plus1; Gmail, etc. etc., can all be collated to build a dossier on you, which they may then use for whatever purpose they desire.

The choice is a no-brainer to this writer. YMMV, though it's difficult to imagine why.

[Identities Infinite]

I think DuckDuckGo might use JavaScript. I think this because JAWS says 'Unlabeled 0 javascript:' promptly above the search field. There is an unlabelled button before 'javascript:'. Why does it have this? NoScript does not need to allow anything for it to work which is how a search engine should be. I remember you mentioned in another thread there is a Firefox plug-in for it. Can you please link to it?

[Tom T.]

I think DuckDuckGo might use JavaScript.

It offers a script, but you don't need to allow it. Mark it as Untrusted if you don't want the audible warning.

Why does it have this?

One reason that search engines may use scripting is for auto-complete suggestions as you type the first few letters of your search terms.

I remember you mentioned in another thread there is a Firefox plug-in for it. Can you please link to it?

Duck Search plugin here.
Interesting statement at the Scroogle plug-in:

*** Update: Feb 22, 2012 ***
Unfortunately, Scroogle has shut down permanently. Between Google gimping them, and a sustained DDoS, they have decided to close for good.

DDoS is Distributed Denial of Service attack. This means that many computers, possibly compromised and controlled by one remote hacker, are continually flooding the site with requests, exceeding its capacity, and effectively rendering it unavailable. Wow, I surely hope that Google isn't behind that.

[Identities Infinite]

One must allow it on the whitelist to modify settings. I tried it without JavaScript enabled and it said I need cookies and that to modify settings so I had to at least temporarily allow it till I collected all the cookies whose expiration dates I would then manipulate.

Oddly enough I hope they are. If they are and if that is uncovered the owner of Scroogle can not only get sufficient money to fund more servers but possibly shut down or damage them or make them look publicly distasteful more so than they already do. I do hope they are forcefully put to rest one of these days. It should not be legal to do what they do with extremely personal information [e.g. e-mails and possibly documents] but I guess that is another thread.

[Tom T.]

One must allow it on the whitelist to modify settings.

I did not think of that, because I didn't need to modify any settings.

[RE: Google]
Oddly enough I hope they are. If they are and if that is uncovered the owner of Scroogle can not only get sufficient money to fund more servers but possibly shut down or damage them or make them look publicly distasteful more so than they already do.

If they were, I'm sure they'd cover their tracks well. They're experts.

It should not be legal to do what they do with extremely personal information [e.g. e-mails and possibly documents] but I guess that is another thread.

The European Union has, or had, a lawsuit against Google regarding data policies. The EU laws are much stricter. Data privacy laws in the US are almost non-existent, except for medical information and a few other special cases. Congresspersons receive campaign donations from the companies who would be affected, so do the math...

[yegg]

Hi, I'm the founder of DuckDuckGo. We've tried to create a very readable privacy policy that also serves the purpose of educating on search privacy: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html -- this also points to two infographics we've made on the subject at http://donttrack.us/ and http://dontbubble.us/

You don't need JS to use the service as we have two non-JS versions at https://duckduckgo.com/html and https://duckduckgo.com/lite -- however, I do recommend the JS version since it has more features and settings (https://duckduckgo.com/settings.html).

On settings, they are set by cookies but you can use URL params instead: https://duckduckgo.com/params.html

We welcome feedback of all kinds so don't hesitate to drop us a line: https://duckduckgo.com/feedback.html

[Identities Infinite]

I already submitted my feedback and Gabriel Weinberg replied. I have accessibility issues with the JavaScript version.

[Tom T.]

@ yegg:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. One other accessibility issue, which we've recently discussed here, is at your donttrack.us site.
There are no "title" attributes for the images, comparable to what in the old days was the "alt" attribute in IE.
Therefore, for sightless users like Identities Infinite, the graphics are meaningless.

It would take only a few minutes to add title attribute to each of your cool pix, so that those who rely on screen readers know what the image is, and get some idea of its content or meaning. At least, they would know that they are *not* missing anything, too.

Also, ScriptNo is quite inferior to NoScript, and we have had many long discussions of that here. It gives a false sense of security.
Chrome finally provided an API that has the required hooks and infrastructure for NS, so Giorgio Maone is currently working on porting NoScript to Chrome.

Please check out NoScript's Force HTTPS feature. (NS Options, Advanced, HTTPS) It renders the HTTPS Everywhere add-on redundant.

Thank you again for the service, and for your links to help, features, tutorials, and other material to enable users to get the most from DuckDuckGo.
And for your efforts in general to reduce the massive privacy invasions on the Web.

- Tom

[Identities Infinite]

I had to disable the images because they confused me all to hell. I never noticed they are missing the alt attribute. I never liked onmouseover attributes because it is difficult for me to simulate mouse-clicks [I do it as a last resort using JAWS's key combinations]. [Edit: I misread Tom's reply; he was speaking of another site which I should read.] Another thing I reported was the unlabelled button before the edit field. If that is the Submit button it should be after or below the field and definitely have a label. There is also 'javascript:' immediately following that and I have no knowledge of what that is either.

On another note, I noticed something interesting in my Google Accounts settings yesterday. It seems they simplified the page and I actually found a link to permanently delete the Web History function. Previously it was paused and I never saw this before. This obviously does not mean they deleted it from their machines but it is a little welcoming to know I did this before 01 March although I am still not near safe.

[Tom T.]

I never liked onmouseover attributes because it is difficult for me to simulate mouse-clicks.

I despise most onmouseover things, except as a means of determining target URL of a link, or of useful tooltips that help identify the function of a graphic image, be it link or action. For example, in the smileys to the right of the compose box, mouseover of each produces a tooltip identifying the meaning, such as "very happy", "twisted evil grin", etc.

Mouseover menus, especially when hidden, are a bigger pet peeve than missing title attributes. It's quite visually distracting to be moving around the page, and suddenly have a huge menu jump out and get in the way. This hidden type of thing was called "mystery meat navigation" by http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/. I'm sure it's even more difficult for JAWS.

Of course, where there is a clearly-defined text label, or a known logo, especially with a title attribute, then this is OK. In fact, one formerly had to click the NoScript logo, or a down-arrow next to it, to open the menu. The option to open the menu onmouseover was added by user requests. It is configurable in Options, General, and checkbox labeled "open permissions menu when mouse hovers over NoScript's icon."

By the way, you may now use those formerly moderator-only shortcuts that we discussed. I'll be posting about that later, but if you move to the right of the compose box, there are three rows of smiley-faces. Immediately under those rows is a link to the table of shortcuts. All must be wrapped in squiggly brackets.
Does jaws know these characters: { and } ? ... I'll post a text list that will be simpler than the table, and will omit those that have no use for other than the support team.

Another thing I reported was the unlabelled button before the edit field. If that is the Submit button it should be after or below the field and definitely have a label. There is also 'javascript:' immediately following that and I have no knowledge of what that is either.

I'm sorry, I don't know what site we're talking about here, or what page or feature.

[Identities Infinite]

Whenever JAWS reads anything with the onmouseover attribute it says 'on mouse over' all the time and although I can configure that it gets annoying when I want verbosity for all pages. Correct me if I am wrong but all images should have the title attribute to give it a title and the alt attribute to give it a description. JAWS will read both if each is different and having title plus description is a dream for me but I guess it can still come true one of these days. People neglect to make their images descriptive by use of the tags. If nothing is specified it can either speak the image's SRC or the anchor; I have it to speak the SRC.

I was referring to DuckDuckGo's JavaScript version. They have some weird layout on top of the page.

[Tom T.]

Correct me if I am wrong but all images should have the title attribute to give it a title and the alt attribute to give it a description.

Per discussion with jeno, alt attribute is deprecated, and mostly IE-specific. Title attribute can be anything. It can be the title of the image, or, as in the case of www.xkcd.com, it can be the extra joke line in the resultant tooltip. So it can fulfill both needs. And we've already agreed that all images should have title attribute. Make your opinions known to webmasters whose sites don't comply. They probably aren't aware of how much the sightless need this, and are probably just reluctant to encourage the sighted majority to block images. The former trumps the latter, and I'm sure no one would turn you down. If you are part of a community, make it a community project to advocate to all non-compliant sites you encounter. Perhaps the Internet standards could even make this a requirement?

I was referring to DuckDuckGo's JavaScript version. They have some weird layout on top of the page.

I see nothing of the sort on the home page. The settings page has an image of a duck just before the search box. Mouseover reads the duck image as merely pointing to the home page, which is simple enough. Exactly which sub-page of duck?

[Identities Infinite]

I did not know alt is deprecated. Why do not people use it any more? Screen readers heavily rely on it as a default setting. It would be really nice if I could direct my concerns up the W3C latter and have strict image standards implemented for screen reader advantages.

The main page of DuckDuckGo. There is an unlabelled button then 'javascript' right next to it and under that is the edit field. I might be noticing extra code if you do not see it. You might have to allow it temporarily on NoScript's whitelist but I hear it regardless.

[Tom T.]

It would be really nice if I could direct my concerns up the W3C latter and have strict image standards implemented for screen reader advantages.

You'd think the people who sell screen readers would lobby the W3C people for such standards. Try suggesting that to them. They have a large profit motive to do so.

The main page of DuckDuckGo. There is an unlabelled button then 'javascript' right next to it and under that is the edit field. I might be noticing extra code if you do not see it. You might have to allow it temporarily on NoScript's whitelist but I hear it regardless.

From the source code, it looks like an Apple Touch icon, so maybe that is why I don't see it. The main Duck logo is clickable, which I did not realize. (do you now understand why we commonly use the term "link" only for textual hyperlinks, and "button" for clickable images, even though they too may be links?) It leads to something about the site's first birthday.

I don't know what you mean by edit field. Do you mean, the search box, in which one types the search query?

[Identities Infinite]

I thought the sighted always notice when a graphic is clickable. I did not know it was a 'box' because I do not correlate text edit fields with a physical shape. Multi-line text edit fields are labelled 'textarea' in HTML code but I can not recall the single-line which I think this is.