| ▲ | TekMol 5 days ago |
| "Privacy by default" I don't know. To me, requiring me to give them my email and then having all my searches associated with that email is the opposite of privacy to me. Yes, Google, Bing, Perplexity and Co could do fingerprinting and try fuzzy matching to cluster my searches. But at least that would be fuzzy and against the law in many places. While with Kagi, every search of mine would be clearly labeled as coming from me. |
|
| ▲ | dharmab 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is a feature where you can search anonymously, using IETF's Privacy Pass standard: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html |
| |
| ▲ | TekMol 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That looks super complicated. And hard to tell if the cryptography works as intended. Why would I go through all that hassle if I can just type my query directly in other search engines? | | |
| ▲ | mjamesaustin 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because the other search engines offer no privacy and relentlessly track everything you do across the internet? | | |
| ▲ | TekMol 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you know they do that? And how do you know Kagi does not? Whatever the engines secretly do, why would I use one where on top of that I have to actively tag every one of my searches with my email? | | |
| ▲ | eitland 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > How do you know they do that? Because it has been widely discussed for years. > And how do you know Kagi does not? Because the source code of that feature is open and you can look into it I guess | | |
| ▲ | TekMol 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Because it has been widely discussed for years. That Google does fingerprinting across searches to cluster them and pinpoint them to a person? Are you sure you are not confusing this with cookies? Cookies are under my control. I can decide to not store them or just delete them. > Because the source code of that feature is open and you can look into it I guess You can't know what source code that is running on the server which you send your queries to. | | |
| ▲ | eitland 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think it is interesting that you think everything Google does is kind of more ok just because you think it is limited to cookies while simultaneously being extremely skeptical towards Kagi, not giving them the slightest benefit of doubt. > You can't know what source code that is running on the server which you send your queries to. Based on my (admittedly cursory) reading of the ideas behind it, the idea of the IETF standard they implemented is that one does not have to trust the server. | |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, even if you clear your cookies: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/02/google-now-al... i quote:
“With all these pieces of information, it’s possible to create a unique fingerprint by which websites can recognize you, even if you clear your cookies. They will even be able to make an informed guess if you visit the same site with a different browser.” i urge you to consider how google makes money. it’s not at all surprising really. | | |
| ▲ | tempest_ 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Aha has this person never seen the JS google/CF run for bot detection? The browser APIs spit out so much info about the host system on demand and that doesnt even consider the other tricks they use. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Duckduckgo and yandex are search engines. |
| |
| ▲ | dharmab 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, it's pretty easy to use. It's a toggle switch in the UI. | | |
| ▲ | TekMol 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If it is a switch in the UI, then that is just trusting the site. If you trust companies with what they say they do, then why not enter your query in any search engine that does not require a login? Afaik none of them say that they will try to apply fuzzy fingerprinting to cluster your searches into a profile. | | |
| ▲ | hobofan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Honest question: Is private search achievable with your worldview? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Wilder7977 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't give them "your" email. Give them a mail alias, which I am sure as a privacy conscious person you already have, and you are good. They also recommend to do so themselves. However, the most important argument here is not the fact that they are legally bound to those privacy commitments (they are), but that their business incentives are fundamentally incompatible with tracking users.
For a very niche business with an extremely narrow and homogeneous user base, if they would get caught doing so, it would be game over.
The privacy pass feature is available if you don't trust, and you can verify since everything relevant happens client side. |
|
| ▲ | fancy_pantser 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe their privacy pass is useful then? https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html |
| |
| ▲ | mrtesthah 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately the assistant officially does not work with Privacy Pass, for some inexplicable reason. |
|
|
| ▲ | flexagoon 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How is requiring an email "the opposite of privacy" when making a one-time disposable email takes like 5 seconds? |
