Is there a safer and better Google?

I'm a bit paranoid but I really dislike having every byte I type stored on their servers indefinitely and since Google is pretty much a monopoly now it's entirely possible that they are controlling some information (other than for ads revenue).

So is there a better Google?

It might not be a search engine.

Perhaps just a forum with links you won't find on Google search or anywhere else.

( ﾟ ヮﾟ) Hacker News!

>>1
Hm?  Switching from Google will not help you any, it will probably make things worse as Google have local search engines so your data will not have to pass through as many data gathering servers (ISP routers, any outside routers).

>>1
The first question I ask anyone in your position is what compromising information do you normally search for?

>>2
( ﾟ ヮﾟ) Reddit!

>>1
And why are you asking on ``/prog/ - Programming''?

>>4
Oh sure, anybody who cares about their privacy is a terrorist.
Terrible!

>>4
And the first question I ask anyone in your position is why do you believe that we should abandon all right to privacy simply on principle that we have "nothing to hide"?

Your statement is flawed and irrational.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-personally-identifiable
A very small amount of information can be used to identify you uniquely among millions. With all the data you've typed into search engines over the years, social engineering becomes alarmingly easy.

You can often identify someone's gender from their search history, or even from web pages they've visited: http://www.mikeonads.com/2008/07/13/using-your-browser-url-history-estimate-gender/
You can get their general location from their IP address, and often also from their search terms alone. For example, have you ever looked up local movie theaters or searched for restaurant reviews? Maybe you've looked for the dates a band was playing at a nearby venue.

If you can identify who someone is, and armed with that person's search history, you can "prove" that you knew them: "Hey, John, you remember me? You were talking about building that embedded system, maybe seven months ago, I suggested getting a Beagleboard, how'd that work out?" (Suppose you noticed that they were searching for general terms one week, and then searching for more specific terms like "beagleboard price" the next. You might even take a shot in the dark and say you met him at a local restaurant, as chances are he won't remember whether or not he dined out on a specific day seven months ago.

>>9
he won't remember whether or not he dined out on a specific day seven months ago
As long as he isn't a anusdolyte.

Without a good definition of ``better Google'', I can only say there is no better Google.

There's no better %s.

Bing.



Can't say that with a straight face.

>>13
I really wish they'd called it "bang". Would have led to a lot of fun phrases.

>>14
BANG MY ANUS

And [spoiler]of course,[spoiler] we Bing. We Bing, and we Bing. Bing, ^{Bing, Bing.}

And of course, we Bing. We Bing, and we Bing. Bing, ^{Bing, Bing.}

>>4

How about this?

You are know to have developed a good on line business and your Google searches are now monitored for any new hints to some new business you may be developing.

Privacy is important.

As for a definition of "better Google"

1. Something that gives results of everything on the Internet not only the registered websiteds.

2. Something that doesn't allocate links for maximum profit but for maximum relevance.

3. Something that has no reason to hind data from it's users.

In other words I'm wishing for an open source community driven search engine to compete with Google.

I hope someone will do it in the near future.

>>18
There are many such projects. None of them have taken off because they don't have a tiny fraction of the database size that Google does.

Google got where it is by providing relevant results in a time when other search engines were frankly awful, which led to a large-sized user base, bringing more ad revenue, which they could spend on increasing storage size and adding to their processing clusters. New search engines have trouble keeping up now because all the R&D costs for good search algorithms have already been spent, and those general algorithms are relatively well-known, so the first link in that chain is broken.

You can't get anywhere with a new search engine without users. You can't get users if you don't provide results that are at least every bit as relevant and also provide some extra value beyond what the major engines already have.

my other Google