DuckDuckGo browser seemingly sends domains a user visits to DDG servers(github.com)
github.com
DuckDuckGo browser seemingly sends domains a user visits to DDG servers
https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/issues/527
488 comments
DuckDuckGo staff here. As mentioned in the linked page, the purpose of the request is to retrieve a website's favicon so that it can be displayed in certain places within the app or on the results page. We use an internal favicon service because it can be complicated to locate a favicon for a website. They can be stored in a variety of locations and in a variety of formats. The service understands these edge cases and simplifies retrieval within our apps and our search engine.
Like our search results, the favicon service adheres to our strict privacy policy[1] in that the requests are anonymous and we do not collect or share any personal information.
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
Like our search results, the favicon service adheres to our strict privacy policy[1] in that the requests are anonymous and we do not collect or share any personal information.
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
There's an interesting disease showing up here in the responses.
I accept DDG's statement that this is about a favicon and that they "do not collect or share any personal information", and despite that, I also agree with others that DDG should be on the safe side and just stop doing this small thing. It's just the safer and more moral thing to do (So DDG, as many are suggesting, plz stop doing it. Today is good).
But... the reaction here is "they made a mistake, let's pile on like kids in a playground" ignoring the genuinely huger issue of the amount of info and mining that google et al. do. There's no measure of proportion in the responses, someone is making a mistake then there's a wolfish, pack-like desire to get stuck in and hurt someone.
Which is why politicians rarely admit mistakes, because it's taken as a sign of weakness, not strength, to admit you were wrong. DDG isn't the big evil on the web but from reading some of these you'd think it was the 2nd google.
This isn't about DDG, just the proportionality of responses in public errors and what society you'd like to have.
(no affiliation to DDG)
I accept DDG's statement that this is about a favicon and that they "do not collect or share any personal information", and despite that, I also agree with others that DDG should be on the safe side and just stop doing this small thing. It's just the safer and more moral thing to do (So DDG, as many are suggesting, plz stop doing it. Today is good).
But... the reaction here is "they made a mistake, let's pile on like kids in a playground" ignoring the genuinely huger issue of the amount of info and mining that google et al. do. There's no measure of proportion in the responses, someone is making a mistake then there's a wolfish, pack-like desire to get stuck in and hurt someone.
Which is why politicians rarely admit mistakes, because it's taken as a sign of weakness, not strength, to admit you were wrong. DDG isn't the big evil on the web but from reading some of these you'd think it was the 2nd google.
This isn't about DDG, just the proportionality of responses in public errors and what society you'd like to have.
(no affiliation to DDG)
Ubiquity did the same thing with their routers. They couldn’t understand why users had such a problem with their phone home feature that was on by default when the purpose of it was to ultimately “improve” the user experience. I didn’t buy their router as a result. I also removed kaspersky from my computer because I didn’t like their phone home feature. Turns out they were selling my data despite holding my trust as a security company. DDG, don’t turn this into a PR nightmare. We don’t trust anyone anymore. Privacy policies are worthless. Nobody cares about favicons anyway.
Source: https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/07/ubiquiti_networks_pho... https://palant.info/2019/08/19/kaspersky-in-the-middle-what-...
Source: https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/07/ubiquiti_networks_pho... https://palant.info/2019/08/19/kaspersky-in-the-middle-what-...
This is a bad look for a company that is trying to build its brand on privacy and trust. Even though I don't use the DDG browser I hope they own up to this, rectify it quickly, and learn from it.
The favicons on the duckduckgo browser are often worse than other browsers in my opinion. For example the BBC website where DDG interestingly enough just uses /favicon.ico and the other browsers use the apple touch icon. (Information I found from just looking at the pages headers)
Don't really understand why they do extra work to get worse results... This feels to me slightly worse than just a privacy concern, it's a misunderstanding of their domain which leads me to the question of what else do they not fully understand.
The good news is that you can have the DDG search engine as a default in other browsers.
(I understand that the DDG browser is probably not their main focus and any lack of knowledge can potentially be just on their mobile browser.)
Don't really understand why they do extra work to get worse results... This feels to me slightly worse than just a privacy concern, it's a misunderstanding of their domain which leads me to the question of what else do they not fully understand.
The good news is that you can have the DDG search engine as a default in other browsers.
(I understand that the DDG browser is probably not their main focus and any lack of knowledge can potentially be just on their mobile browser.)
Very weak argument for why they do it. Using a service to retrieve a favicon? Surely there's a way to implement the same logic locally.
Looks like this was an issue posted in 2019. From the looks of it, the code remains unchanged.
https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/blob/b2131d7d2f47fb09d...
https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/blob/b2131d7d2f47fb09d...
Product description (play store):
"Tired of being tracked online? We can help."
And then they track you.
Yes, that might not be intentional and is used "just" for the favicon, yes they might not use the info on the domains you visit for tracking you today, but the data is there.
Why not use that data tomorow "just" to see what kinds of pages their customers (browser users) are visiting so they can better place their ads.. and then maybe some other idea.. this is a path that many such companies went ("don't be evil").
You either respect the user privacy or you don't - there is no middle "just for this little feature" ground
"Tired of being tracked online? We can help."
And then they track you.
Yes, that might not be intentional and is used "just" for the favicon, yes they might not use the info on the domains you visit for tracking you today, but the data is there.
Why not use that data tomorow "just" to see what kinds of pages their customers (browser users) are visiting so they can better place their ads.. and then maybe some other idea.. this is a path that many such companies went ("don't be evil").
You either respect the user privacy or you don't - there is no middle "just for this little feature" ground
Seems a bit much, but k-anonymity could work here. Hash the domain, take the prefix, get a batch of favicons back. They won’t know which you visited, but still get the benefits of consistent favicon support.
Formerly worked with DuckDuckGo
My advice:
Install ungoogled-chromium: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Install these extensions: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/ilGur1132/Smart-HTTPS
There is also a Chromium extension that lets you install from Chrome Web Store: https://github.com/NeverDecaf/chromium-web-store
Set duckduckgo.com as your default search engine with a blank home page. But you could also use @pkrumins home pages of https://techurls.com or https://finurls.com as nice home pages.
Use Mullvad VPN: https://mullvad.net/ (They are EVEN available on F-Droid now, which is AMAZING)
Security harden your Android device: https://niftylettuce.com/posts/google-free-android-setup/
Security harden your Mac: https://gist.github.com/niftylettuce/39597a7b3bc0660ffe1e09d...
P.S. If you need email forwarding for your domain name, you can use something I made. https://forwardemail.net - it is 100% open source.
Follow me @niftylettuce on GitHub and Twitter for more
My advice:
Install ungoogled-chromium: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Install these extensions: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock https://github.com/ilGur1132/Smart-HTTPS
There is also a Chromium extension that lets you install from Chrome Web Store: https://github.com/NeverDecaf/chromium-web-store
Set duckduckgo.com as your default search engine with a blank home page. But you could also use @pkrumins home pages of https://techurls.com or https://finurls.com as nice home pages.
Use Mullvad VPN: https://mullvad.net/ (They are EVEN available on F-Droid now, which is AMAZING)
Security harden your Android device: https://niftylettuce.com/posts/google-free-android-setup/
Security harden your Mac: https://gist.github.com/niftylettuce/39597a7b3bc0660ffe1e09d...
P.S. If you need email forwarding for your domain name, you can use something I made. https://forwardemail.net - it is 100% open source.
Follow me @niftylettuce on GitHub and Twitter for more
This is concerning because it indicates a lack of care in terms of privacy and understanding that the best privacy is achieved by knowing the least. Does this approach permeate their backend as well?
Speaking of leaks, I never understood why people use DDG's bangs.
By using bangs you're sending your search history to DDG even when using search engines that aren't DDG.
By using bangs you're sending your search history to DDG even when using search engines that aren't DDG.
> At DuckDuckGo, we do not collect or share personal information. That's our privacy policy in a nutshell
Except that you do, exactly in the way that the reporter of the issue explained to you.
But you choose to patronize them and ignore the issue.
Except that you do, exactly in the way that the reporter of the issue explained to you.
But you choose to patronize them and ignore the issue.
Haha, amazing to witness. This is the problem with catering to this crowd: your audience is suddenly full of people who just want to see you fail. Good luck, DDG.
I think we're due a full disclosure on this favicon service, what information is collected and what is stored.
DDG has repeatedly said that they have "not collected any personal information".
For example,
1. Does the service store the fact that it got a request for a domain?
2. Does it store any ID along with that information and if so, how unique is that ID? How is it generated and what is it linked to?
3. What other information is stored along with the request?
4. How does DDG process this information?
5. Who has or can get access to this information?
DDG has repeatedly said that they have "not collected any personal information".
For example,
1. Does the service store the fact that it got a request for a domain?
2. Does it store any ID along with that information and if so, how unique is that ID? How is it generated and what is it linked to?
3. What other information is stored along with the request?
4. How does DDG process this information?
5. Who has or can get access to this information?
Something is not adding up. Why would you go through so much trouble and over-engineer a favicon retrieval service? Really, favicon? Since when did they become so essential?
I'm pretty sure 90% of websites provide one in a standard way. If not, just draw a letter there, or anything.
But I don't know. I think that either there is more to this story, or DDG team completely lost common sense.
I'm pretty sure 90% of websites provide one in a standard way. If not, just draw a letter there, or anything.
But I don't know. I think that either there is more to this story, or DDG team completely lost common sense.
I don't want to have to trust everything follows a policy.
It's much easier if I don't even have to trust you. Please change this.
It's much easier if I don't even have to trust you. Please change this.
Nevermind privacy. How are favicons so complicated that they need a special service that understands edge cases. Just do it one standard way and if a minority of websites don't work, then exclude them. We've been through this mess before with all kinds of web standards devolving into mess.
[deleted]
DDG mobile apps ~= Web Browser or == Web Browser
I think that distinction needs to be made. I think DDG should treat this app as a web browser which means phoning home to this endpoint is unacceptable.
I think that distinction needs to be made. I think DDG should treat this app as a web browser which means phoning home to this endpoint is unacceptable.
[deleted]
Whoever ever put their trust into American for profit companies which use slogans like "private secure and fast" should not be surprised at leaking all their data.
I never got how people trust companies like ddg or Brave. If you don't trust Google and Apple why would you trust a smaller company in the same jurisdiction. They will be forced to hand out all data as well regardless what they say.
I never got how people trust companies like ddg or Brave. If you don't trust Google and Apple why would you trust a smaller company in the same jurisdiction. They will be forced to hand out all data as well regardless what they say.
From st3fan's links, this[0] seems to be something that DDG developers can use. Took me about 30 seconds to dig it up from the repository.
[0]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/tree/ma...
[0]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/tree/ma...
This doesn't seem like an issue to me.
It is a hilarious excuse for DDG to claim they are doing this for a favicon. Even if DDG is legitimately not using the data they are definitely collecting the data.
The problem with that is that it requires users to "trust" DDG, which is not how the world works today. If you are a company that collects info, and you expect users to trust that the info will remain safe, secure, and never get misuse that is downright foolish for anyone to believe a word of that.
We all know that DDG cannot claim it's impossible for them to get hacked and have all that data leak out. Hacks happen all the time and so the solution for DDG is to simply NOT collect the data, rather than collect and claim it's all secure.
And we all also know DDG has (or will) get a NSL (National Security Letter) from the NSA to secretly turn over the data anyway, and when that does happen the DDG employees are not even allowed to admit it ever happened.
The problem with that is that it requires users to "trust" DDG, which is not how the world works today. If you are a company that collects info, and you expect users to trust that the info will remain safe, secure, and never get misuse that is downright foolish for anyone to believe a word of that.
We all know that DDG cannot claim it's impossible for them to get hacked and have all that data leak out. Hacks happen all the time and so the solution for DDG is to simply NOT collect the data, rather than collect and claim it's all secure.
And we all also know DDG has (or will) get a NSL (National Security Letter) from the NSA to secretly turn over the data anyway, and when that does happen the DDG employees are not even allowed to admit it ever happened.
seems like the ticket author found this by reading code (presumably was grepping for duckduckgo.com URLs)
this would never happen with a consumer-facing product from apple or google; someone would have to MITM their whole OS to discover phone-home
this would never happen with a consumer-facing product from apple or google; someone would have to MITM their whole OS to discover phone-home
Do they release the source of the webservice? Seemingly not. This is extremely shady.
By now it has been sufficiently proven that it is physically impossible to even exist without sending surveillance data to someone on the internet. We should probably update the laws of thermodynamics to include that.
If DDG cannot fetch the favicon in different, reasonable way, then the question is whether or not the ability to display a favicon in search results is really worth it.
Personally, no.
Personally, no.
I’m new to this issue and happy to commit us to move to doing this locally in the browser and will have us move on that ASAP.
That said, I want to be clear that we did not and have not collected any personal information here. As other staff have referenced, our services are encrypted and throw away PII like IP addresses by design. However, I take the point that it is nevertheless safer to do it locally and so we will do that.