In Mexico they have topes (pronounced TOE-pace). When we were working at a new factory there my boss hit one at speed that had been constructed that day after he arrived at work. He was airborne for at least 40 feet. His email to the rest of the team ended with “don’t rent the blue Corolla” 
3 Likes
absolutely right. I was searching for the right expression, you nailed it. It is now a disgrace and Google is really quite dangerous and a trap.
I should probably change my statement to this:
“Most people are not ready to trade convenience or money for privacy.”
I know a lot more people are aware of the privacy problems nowadays. But seemingly very little would prioritise it over almost anything else.
1 Like
I do agree with you but…
I believe privacy should be free, it should be guaranteed, by law if necessary. If you can only have privacy if you pay a fee it would mean people with less financial resources would not be able to have privacy. Also paying for a service (like) google would probably not make it more private, they still use your data for their services. I might pay for a service because it would then show me less advertising, but still my data will (probably) be used in other ways which are not in my interests per se.
Convenience and privacy are not mutually exclusive, there is a difference in using your data to give you convenience (better search results) and selling your data to make profit.
I agree. And if all the governments in the world make laws to guarantee privacy then future generations will benefit. We won’t. Credit card companies, merchants, local and state governments, phone companies, etc. have been selling our data for decades.
If Google closed their doors tomorrow, there are still thousand of other companies, etc. collecting using, and/or selling our data. And we would still continue to give up our privacy every time we sent an unencrypted email, regardless of who’s service we use. The world isn’t designed for privacy, and our data has already been “published”.
Passing laws to protect privacy will almost certainly mean the end of free services like Gmail and Outlook.com, etc. Someone has to pay. Maybe our governments could decide to provide basic internet and services for free. That would eliminate the middle man when they surveil everything we do online. 
Or am I being too cynical?
1 Like
I think not. Pandoras’s Box has been opened, and there is no shutting it now.
Totally agree, the internet should be in the public domain as it were. Since we built it and created it in the first place especially. How it became privatized is, actually, something of a mystery: nobody seems really to know how it happened. Not if full view for sure.
There are companies making money on the internet without selling personal data, so it seems possible. It’s just harder and probably less profitable. Laws could help ‘force’ companies to handle personal data in a way that protects the user by default. But I agree that internet without companies abusing users (data) will probably never happen… if only because governments are not setting a great example in general.
1 Like
Can you name some, who don’t monetize your data, and also don’t get paid by at least a part of the user?
1 Like
I am in doubt, that this poll (or anything like this) is really able to get a valid result!
The answers are (at least more or less) given on those polls.
Almost everybody want to live in a secure environment, and so, if those people where asked those questions, it should be clear in advance, that the majority of the people are looking for a secure way for living.
If in those cases also the questions are in relation with major companies, there is a additional reason to vote like that, because a lot of people, are not comfortable with the idea, that a large company would have to much power.
There are too many movies, who work with that picture…
But I would also expect, that the vast majority of those people voted for a higher security for their personal data, are on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, use everything Google offers and so on!
So, while the vote for data security, the same people given away their data with open hands to those companies using their data to make money of them!
Those people are not really interested in the privacy of their data, they just answer a poll, as it has to be expected!
That’s the whole key. If it’s a company, they have to have money coming in from somewhere. Theoretically a company could run completely privacy-compliant ads, but those would be just about worthless since “privacy-compliant” would negate tracking, almost all click-through data, session data on the website side, etc.
It would literally be “here, have some money for some ads that we can’t measure the success of in any meaningful way”. Want to guess how much that type of advertising sells for, and how many of them you’d have to have to run a company the size of Google? 
1 Like
I’m confused. To me, it seems that the core of the Internet is as free (or free-er) as it’s ever been. Servers have never been free. Networking and telephony have never been free. And in the early days of the Internet, that was (painfully) understood by everybody. But costs for all of that have plummeted since the inception of the Internet.
Anybody with the knowledge can set up a server, for a vanishingly small amount of money compared to when the Internet came about. And that server will have positively obscene amounts of bandwidth compared to the telephony system that existed at the Internet’s inception.
It’s also infinitely more accessible. When the Internet came about, it was a project that was barely available in limited sessions on college campuses, at research institutions, and at government offices. Now the average person has a little device in their pocket that connects them to it.
E-commerce has certainly driven the development of the technology, and has contributed toward driving infrastructure costs down - but I don’t really think the Internet itself is significantly less “public domain” than it was back in the day.
3 Likes
I think the specific issue with DDG in this case is about lack of transparency . AFAIK Google has been very upfront about what data they are going to collect, you can use your account management page to drill into a lot of details (and can opt out in some cases). For DDG, they brand as protecting privacy but on the backend doing deals that is not aligned with their branding
I would disagree with you. Your post also makes a lot of assumptions about why people do things with no real evidence. Gallup have been fairly well trusted over the years.
My own opinion is that many people I know would secure their data if it was easy to do. But it is not. Just try setting up s/mime pgp email. Yes services can be paid for but that’s not in everyone’s budget. The people I know use social media to stay connected. They are assuming it’s a safe platform (and are surprised when told it’s not). They don’t frequent forums, they don’t read tech blogs, they’re happy that there are free services that allow them to stay connected to family and friends. They also feel they have nothing to hide and believe they are inconsequential so who would target them? Plus social media companies use just enough security language to make them feel secure. And who these days actually reads a privacy policy? That route leads to the termination of all services! 
What I’m trying to say is that people are not saying they don’t care, they often just don’t know and there is no easy how.
1 Like
alternative: Whoogle
I use Whoogle (self-hosted) to do my searches
You can deploy it very easily in docker or using one of the other options outlined in the readme.
I’ve found it works very well, is quick, and search results are quite accurate.
I host this on a linode vps and point all my devices to this for searches.
Me! 
But yes, you are probably right with your conclusion!
A result of the overall extrem low (and going further down) education standards.
3 Likes
By ‘public domain’ I meant ownership. As you rightly point out ‘free’ is another matter altogether.
In fact much of the R&D, as you point out, happened with public effort and money other than, it is often pointed out, Bell Labs which were, in my view a Government protected monopoly allowed some ‘free space’ as it were for the R&D which disappeared, along with the over charge which paid for the labs, on breakup.
In PA there is actually a law, sponsored by one of the cable cartels, Comcast preventing municipalities from running broadband services.
Here though is a screenshot of today’s Science: The advert is ‘relevant’ but still dominates the page, along I admit with my toolbars etc… You can click away to a full page article with some effort.
Unfortunately that is pretty common.
1 Like
Yes. This site is an ‘users’ and fan site in some sense, I am one myself as are you; unlike you I am not quite a power user these days and I am trying to be careful not to take the discussions too far into the ‘Apple as corporation’ area. I am finding it harder though as time goes on: that might be me. Thanks for that link, very useful. I pay nearly 200 buckaroos a month for communication to Verizon.
1 Like
Interestingly, I think that still indicates that the public “owns” the Internet space, since otherwise the legislature wouldn’t be able to regulate it - and a sufficiently-large public backlash could logically get rid of that law. But I do agree that they’ve made a bad decision.
Is the advert part of the Science webpage? Or are you suggesting it’s being inserted by your Internet provider?