• @LWD@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    63
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Mozilla didn’t choose privacy. Qwant sends you IP address to Microsoft when you search on their platform. If you want a more responsible search engine, DuckDuckGo is still the way to go.

    Update 3: DuckDuckGo also sends along more information than I originally noticed, including “anonymous browser and device information with our hosting and content providers for security and display purposes (for example, that you’re using a mobile device)”

    The information collected by Qwant includes

    • hash of the IP address
    • User Agent
    • market segment of a request
    • date and time of the visit
    • information of the country and the chosen language
    • search keywords
    • where a user came from
    • type of device used
    • source of visit
    • operating system
    • major browser version

    Qwant may (will) transfer to Microsoft:

    • your full IP address
    • Information about the browser you are using (the User Agent
    • The first three bytes of your IP address;
    • The approximate geographic area at the origin of the search, at the scale of a region or city;
    • The hash generated from your IP address and User Agent

    Update 2: removing name and email as that’s only for optional account creation

    Update 1: Qwant wants you to disable your ad blocker

    • MKC
      link
      fedilink
      English
      168 months ago

      doesn’t duckduckgo do the same thing at this point with tracker links? it also uses bing

      • @LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        188 months ago

        What tracker links?

        DuckDuckGo’s policy is much less specific but makes it a point that they aren’t sending your exact IP address to Microsoft or anybody else for any reason. Among other, IMO even better policies.

        we share anonymous browser and device information with our hosting and content providers for security and display purposes (for example, that you’re using a mobile device), but we never share any information with them that could tie your searches or website visits to you personally, or that could allow them to create a history of your individual search queries or the sites you browse.

        • MKC
          link
          fedilink
          English
          58 months ago

          last we checked they preserved the tracker links bing themselves would use on results, which you had to opt out of.

    • @hash0772@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      128 months ago

      I would use SearxNG instead, using a public instance like searx.be. It is really lightweight, gets results from multiple indexes and is very privacy-friendly.

      • setVeryLoud(true);
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        Honestly, I set up SearxNG on my own server, and it’s not very nice to use, not very configurable and doesn’t return high quality results. It’s also kinda slow. Maybe I’m missing something?

        • @hash0772@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          68 months ago

          It is recommended to use a public instance because it makes it harder to fingerprint you off of your searches. It gets most results from Google and Bing, so you will have similar search results. I haven’t experienced any slowness yet, so I can’t say anything about that.

        • Beam me out!
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          @isVeryLoud @hash0772 I had similar experience. I was able to resolve the slowness by enabling swap on the vps. What was worst is that over time Bing and Google API changed and it stopped working, took quite long troubleshooting. Occasionaly I would hit some kind of rate limit and got nothing from Google. It was too much hassle and not worth the vps cost.

          • setVeryLoud(true);
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Cost is whatever since this VPS is being used for other things.

            I’m a bit confused about swap solving things though since it’s unlikely to be a memory issue.

            • Beam me out!
              link
              fedilink
              08 months ago

              @isVeryLoud It was for me, I monitored the server and each query would bump up the memory quite a bit. But that sucker had only 512 MB I think. It could’ve been some issue that’s already fixed with newer Searx versions.

    • @me_ow@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      98 months ago

      I’m sorry but that is not correct. In the link that you shared to their privacy statement it is explicitly stated that they do not collect your identity when using the service. They say that your identity " is the information we use to ensure that you are who you say you are when you make a de-listing request, report or create an account. This includes: first name, last name, email address."

      Furthermore, unlike duckduckgo which to my knowledge relies entirely on Bing’s search index, Qwant does actually index the web itself and only uses the Bing index when a search returns insufficient hits from their own index. When they query the microsoft index they send the following data along: “Search keywords; Information about the browser you are using (the User Agent); The first three bytes of your IP address; The approximate geographic area at the origin of the search, at the scale of a region or city; The salty hash generated from your IP address, your User Agent and a salt changing no later than every 3 months; A random token generated by Qwant (aiming to limit data cross-checking).”

      I do not know much about DuckDuckGo, but from an initial read the privacy policy is much more vague than Qwant’s, not mentioning any specific information that is shared. As they are a US company, they are also not covered by the general data protection regulation.

      In general, both search engines seem to do a good job at protecting users’ privacy, which to me sounds like something that should be encouraged, not polluted with misinformation.

      • @LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        78 months ago

        You’re probably wondering why I say “your full IP address” versus “partial IP address”; you quote the policy correctly but you missed a separate but crucial section in the privacy policy:

        In addition, for security purposes and reliability of our partner’s services (detection of spam, automated activity, fraudulent clicks on advertisements …), Qwant may also collect and transfer to this partner [Microsoft Ireland] your full IP address.

        The transfer happens separately from searches, sure, but if two requests get sent to Microsoft at the same time and with the same parsable information (the full IP address from the security query can be used to link a partial IP address and city-level location from a search query) then it seems like Qwant is giving Microsoft the ability, even if unintentionally, to link IP address and search.

        I do not know much about DuckDuckGo, but from an initial read the privacy policy is much more vague than Qwant’s, not mentioning any specific information that is shared. As they are a US company, they are also not covered by the general data protection regulation.

        I agree and I’ll add a disclaimer or something. DuckDuckGo says this:

        In order for our product to function, we share anonymous browser and device information with our hosting and content providers for security and display purposes (for example, that you’re using a mobile device )*

        • @me_ow@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          48 months ago

          Fair points. Thank you for amending your comment 👍. I wonder in which situations Qwant sends the full IP address specifically. The wording is a bit vague

    • @FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      what are you making misleading claims about Qwant for??? if you click your own damn link you’ll see that the only case where they need to collect your name is if you make an account (completely unnecessary), make a de-listing request (to verify that you are who you say you are before removing something, otherwise i could just go and have jeff bezos removed), or if you report something.

      also, 80% of your bullet points after “user agent” are redundant because they are literally just what makes up a user agent. newsflash: every single website you ever visit in your life collects your user agent because it needs to know whether to give you the mobile or the desktop version of the site. this has nothing to do with privacy in this case, you’re just slandering to slander

  • @Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    398 months ago

    Pass. Qwant has had its share of controversies, regardless their results aren’t better than DDG.

    If Mozilla was serious about this they would run their own Searx instance and let people choose what engines they wanted to use.

    https://searx.space/

    • @LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      118 months ago

      Reading through the current Qwant privacy policy certainly doesn’t alleviate any privacy concerns either…

      Mozilla keeps building/buying, then abandoning things. I’m not sure if they’re cut out for that project, and in my experience a SearX instance’s effectiveness is mostly based on whether there are enough users for the data to be obfuscated, but so few that it doesn’t get rate limited…

      • @Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        Certainly some things are rate limited, Brave and Startpage are particularly bad for this. I omit them from my endjinns in Searx settings.

        • @LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          If you can use Google through SearX, isn’t Startpage redundant? IIRC they don’t ever claim to do anything but proxy Google results.

          • @Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            Yes, except in the case where Google is rate limited. There is/was a Searx instance that regularly got blocked by Google, I do not remember which one though.

    • @Aria@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      DDG is inherently bad because it’s hosted in the USA and has to comply with those laws and gag orders. Nothing I’ve heard about Qwant makes it seem like a worse option.

      • @Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        What I linked to is a listing of public Searx instances. You can look at the list and see things like uptime, where they are hosted, etc.

        For performance I find it much better than DDG. In the settings page you can choose which search engines you wish to use, for example Brave, Stract, and Qwant. You can also tailor results by adding things like Lemmy, F-Droid, and Anna’s Archive.

  • @akilou@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Wtf is Qwant?

    Edit: oh, OK, it’s a search engine. Next questions, what is the nature of the “partnership” and how is this better or different than DDG?

    • @RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      148 months ago

      Sometimes better search results than DDG (but about the same), EU based (France), offers a Openstreetmap based alternative to google maps (opposed to ddg using Apple Maps) and a slightly worse privacy policy are the main differences

    • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      what is the nature of the “partnership”

      The partnership is entirely of monetary nature. Like all “partnerships” Mozilla has with 3rd parties that are integrated into Firefox.

      That is their business concept. Those companies pay high amounts of money, and Mozilla adds their links into the browser or sends them “anonymized” usage statistics for advertisement purposes.

      • @akilou@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        Right, then the question is, what’s Qwant’s business model. Where do they get the money from to send to Mozilla? I’m just always so suspicious that the users are the ones getting burned

        • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          what’s Qwant’s business model.

          They sell search queries and meta data (IP address,user agent, etc.) to Microsoft for advertising purposes.

  • 0x1C3B00DA
    link
    fedilink
    148 months ago

    There’s no way Mozilla is replacing Google as the default, so what are they actually announcing here? I didn’t read any actual results thats happening. Are they just adding Qwant as an option in the search engine settings?

  • @LemmyHead@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Too bad about the choice for qwant. I’ve been using them for many years and they have big flaws: they block visits from unsupported countries, so if you’re traveling, you’re fucked. They also started blocking ad blocking users and their main webpage is full of crap that you have to disable manually. Their support is non existing. And they use the same censorship as Microsoft. I moved to brave search recently

  • lemmyreader
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

    This part of the post suggests that Qwant will not become the default search engine, but given the millions that Mozilla gets from Google it should not surprise anyone.

    Did you know you could choose the search engine of your choice right from your Firefox URL bar?

  • @Moonrise2473@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    68 months ago

    This means Google isn’t paying the millions to be the default anymore??

    Seems to be an awful news then, that money was useful for development and a default is trivial to change

    • @QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      I didn’t see a line that suggests they’re putting Qwant as default, only that they’re making it available as a search provider, just as DuckDuckGo and others are.

      They say:

      Did you know you could choose the search engine of your choice right from your Firefox URL bar?

    • @Adda@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 months ago

      I had used it for a while in the past. The results were surprisingly good. I have moved to other search engines to experiment since then, but I have nothing bad to say about my time with Qwant.

        • @Adda@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Brave Search currently, but I am still in the experimenting and search engine-hopping phase. Henceforth, Brave Search is not my final search engine, either.

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            Interesting. Which other ones have you tried? I’d be interesting in hearing what you thought of all of them!

            • Beam me out!
              link
              fedilink
              28 months ago

              @dan @Adda Brave search is getting better and better. I’m personally using combination of DDG, Google. But atm I’m testing kagi.com. I want to write post on it, once I try the 100 free queries.

              • @dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                28 months ago

                I was trying Kagi but I’m put off it now that they’re partnering with Brendan Eich. I don’t think I’d use Brave search, for the same reason.

    • RickyWars1
      link
      fedilink
      48 months ago

      I’ve used it a long time now. I find it to have much more relevant results than DDG did last time I tried.

      • @LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        That’s because it gives a whole lot more data to Microsoft than DDG does.

  • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Doesn’t Mozilla rely on Google for default search? Does this change that relationship?

    • Hal-5700XOP
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Doesn’t Mozilla rely on Google for default search?

      and money…mainly the money.

      Does this change that relationship?

      Unknown at this time.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        fedilink
        98 months ago

        The fact that Mozilla is so dependent on Google is the actual problem here, diversifying where they get funding from is precisely what they should be doing going forward.

        • @LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          38 months ago

          Mozilla has diversified… By jumping into AI.

          • Spent $65-265 million on AI that we know of
          • Bought an AI company for an undisclosed sum and funded more AI research for unknown amounts
          • Brought AI to Kenya (in a move strangely reminiscent of cryptocurrency companies trying to fix the “unranked” problem

          And shuttering previous diversification products and laying off staff.

        • @dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          I definitely agree with you, but finding another partner to get hundreds of millions of dollars per year isn’t trivial.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            fedilink
            08 months ago

            Sure, but finding more partners is crucial for long term survival, so if Mozilla never reaches out to anybody for fear of offending Google then they’re always gonna be stuck in this sort of abusive relationship. Becoming so reliant on Google in the first place shouldn’t have happened, but it’s better to start fixing that sooner than later. It’s also worth noting that the main reason Google funds FF is to protect themselves from antitrust litigation. As long as FF is around and gets a bit of usage, then Google can point to it to say that Chrome isn’t a browser monopoly.