Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PRISM vs StartPage (Vanity)
Ixquick/StartPage ^ | recent | Robert E. G. Beens

Posted on 06/27/2013 10:32:35 AM PDT by imardmd1

Here's the tantalizer line on the StartPage splash page:

Take a deep breath. You're safe here.

Click *here* to learn how StartPage protects you from government surveillance.

************

Then, clicking on *here* takes you to this:

---------

No PRISM. No Surveillance. No Government Back Doors. You Have our Word on it.C Giant US government Internet spying scandal revealed

The Washington Post and The Guardian have revealed a US government mass Internet surveillance program code-named "PRISM". They report that the NSA and the FBI have been tapping directly into the servers of nine US service providers, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL and Skype, and began this surveillance program at least seven years ago. (clarifying slides)

These revelations are shaking up an international debate.

No PRISM. No Surveillance. No Government Back Doors. You Have our Word on it.

Giant US government Internet spying scandal revealed

The Washington Post and The Guardian have revealed a US government mass Internet surveillance program code-named "PRISM". They report that the NSA and the FBI have been tapping directly into the servers of nine US service providers, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL and Skype, and began this surveillance program at least seven years ago. (clarifying slides)

These revelations are shaking up an international debate.

StartPage has always been very outspoken when it comes to protecting people's Privacy and civil liberties. So it won't surprise you that we are a strong opponent of overreaching, unaccountable spy programs like PRISM. In the past, even government surveillance programs that were begun with good intentions have become tools for abuse, for example tracking civil rights and anti-war protesters.

Programs like PRISM undermine our Privacy, disrupt faith in governments, and are a danger to the free Internet.

StartPage and its sister search engine Ixquick have in their 14-year history never provided a single byte of user data to the US government, or any other government or agency. Not under PRISM, nor under any other program in the US, nor under any program anywhere in the world. We are not like Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Apple, Skype, or the other US companies who got caught up in the web of PRISM surveillance.

Here's how we are different:

o StartPage does not store any user data. We make this perfectly clear to everyone, including any governmental agencies. We do not record the IP addresses of our users and we don't use tracking cookies, so there is literally no data about you on our servers to access. Since we don't even know who our customers are, we can't share anything with Big Brother. In fact, we've never gotten even a single request from a governmental authority to supply user data in the fourteen years we've been in business.

o StartPage uses encryption (HTTPS) by default. Encryption prevents snooping. Your searches are encrypted, so others can't "tap" the Internet connection to snoop what you're searching for. This combination of not storing data together with using strong encryption for the connections is key in protecting your Privacy.

o Our company is based in The Netherlands, Europe. US jurisdiction does not apply to us, at least not directly. Any request or demand from ANY government (including the US) to deliver user data, will be thoroughly checked by our lawyers, and we will not comply unless the law which actually applies to us would undeniably require it from us. And even in that hypothetical situation, we refer to our first point; we don't even have any user data to give. We will never cooperate with voluntary spying programs like PRISM.

o StartPage cannot be forced to start spying. Given the strong protection of the Right to Privacy in Europe, European governments cannot just start forcing service providers like us to implement a blanket spying program on their users. And if that ever changed, we would fight this to the end.

Privacy. It's not just our policy, it's our mission.

Sincerely,

Robert E.G. Beens

CEO StartPage.com and Ixquick.com

StartPage has always been very outspoken when it comes to protecting people's Privacy and civil liberties. So it won't surprise you that we are a strong opponent of overreaching, unaccountable spy programs like PRISM. In the past, even government surveillance programs that were begun with good intentions have become tools for abuse, for example tracking civil rights and anti-war protesters.

Programs like PRISM undermine our Privacy, disrupt faith in governments, and are a danger to the free Internet.

StartPage and its sister search engine Ixquick have in their 14-year history never provided a single byte of user data to the US government, or any other government or agency. Not under PRISM, nor under any other program in the US, nor under any program anywhere in the world. We are not like Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Apple, Skype, or the other US companies who got caught up in the web of PRISM surveillance.

Here's how we are different:

o StartPage does not store any user data. We make this perfectly clear to everyone, including any governmental agencies. We do not record the IP addresses of our users and we don't use tracking cookies, so there is literally no data about you on our servers to access. Since we don't even know who our customers are, we can't share anything with Big Brother. In fact, we've never gotten even a single request from a governmental authority to supply user data in the fourteen years we've been in business.

o StartPage uses encryption (HTTPS) by default. Encryption prevents snooping. Your searches are encrypted, so others can't "tap" the Internet connection to snoop what you're searching for. This combination of not storing data together with using strong encryption for the connections is key in protecting your Privacy.

o Our company is based in The Netherlands, Europe. US jurisdiction does not apply to us, at least not directly. Any request or demand from ANY government (including the US) to deliver user data, will be thoroughly checked by our lawyers, and we will not comply unless the law which actually applies to us would undeniably require it from us. And even in that hypothetical situation, we refer to our first point; we don't even have any user data to give. We will never cooperate with voluntary spying programs like PRISM.

o StartPage cannot be forced to start spying. Given the strong protection of the Right to Privacy in Europe, European governments cannot just start forcing service providers like us to implement a blanket spying program on their users. And if that ever changed, we would fight this to the end.

Privacy. It's not just our policy, it's our mission.

Sincerely,

Robert E.G. Beens CEO StartPage.com and Ixquick.com


TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: government; privacyspying; surveillance
If you are only using Google as a search engine, perhaps this one will give you a little protection. Easy to install. I've been using it for about a year.
1 posted on 06/27/2013 10:32:35 AM PDT by imardmd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Unless you use a proxy to get to StartPage to begin with, you still have a problem. The traffic from your IP address is visible to have arrived there. On top of that, the backdoors built into Windows and Apple OS’s would stagger most people.


2 posted on 06/27/2013 10:38:56 AM PDT by RobertClark (My shrink just killed himself - he blamed me in his note!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
FireFox Plugin to use IxQuick in the Search drop-down.
3 posted on 06/27/2013 10:39:39 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Thanks for your post. Please see this discussion:

Alternatives to Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, etc.

http://www.metafilter.com/129454/Alternatives-to-Microsoft-Yahoo-Google-Facebook-PalTalk-AOL-etc


4 posted on 06/27/2013 10:39:49 AM PDT by Jyotishi (Seeking the truth, a fact at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
On top of that, the backdoors built into Windows and Apple OS’s would stagger most people.

I wonder if there'll be a push for new (and hopefully non-unix/linux) OSes now.
I'm reading about Wirth's Oberon and it's looking pretty interesting.

5 posted on 06/27/2013 10:41:26 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Here's another - > DuckDuckGo
6 posted on 06/27/2013 10:44:19 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
Unless you use a proxy to get to StartPage to begin with, you still have a problem. The traffic from your IP address is visible to have arrived there. On top of that, the backdoors built into Windows and Apple OS’s would stagger most people.

One advantage startpage.com has is its secoure (https) connection, unlike bing and google. Also, the results display a built in proxy link for each result. Nothing is perfectly secure, but this is better.

7 posted on 06/27/2013 10:54:46 AM PDT by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Salo; JosephW; Only1choice____Freedom; amigatec; Still Thinking; ...

8 posted on 06/27/2013 11:12:51 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I wonder if there'll be a push for new (and hopefully non-unix/linux) OSes now.

Why exclude the world's largest OS (in terms of usage)? It already has users, experts, and a lot more applications than anything else out there right now.

9 posted on 06/27/2013 11:15:07 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

cyber security bookmark


10 posted on 06/27/2013 11:31:52 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
>> I wonder if there'll be a push for new (and hopefully non-unix/linux) OSes now. >
> Why exclude the world's largest OS (in terms of usage)?

Because I hate, loathe, and despise the C/Unix philosophy.
It's seriously a pile of shit; and I'm saying this as someone who's a bit of a language geek.
There's this thread which compares Oberon to C++ and touches on the topic very well.
There's this critique of C++ (I've just started reading it, but so far it's good). Then there's always the amusing Unix Hater's Handbook, which details frustrations but manages to illustrate a good number of UNIX's design-flaws and problems with its philosophy.

It already has users, experts, and a lot more applications than anything else out there right now.

So? In all three of those categories Windows has more. So, it's obvious that those aren't the criterion I'm using.
Besides that, I'm not sure that Unix/Lunux is more secure on the PRISM-front — because that's collecting the data in whole-pipe method, any machine that data goes through can be compromised.

11 posted on 06/27/2013 11:52:49 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I wonder if there'll be a push for new (and hopefully non-unix/linux) OSes now.

I agree, but have a personal penchant for Linux for some reason. Some distros are, of course, more desireable than others. Fortunately, with Linux not packaging propitiatory drivers with the OS, it reduces the risk. I still love the Linux kernel.

12 posted on 06/27/2013 11:53:14 AM PDT by RobertClark (My shrink just killed himself - he blamed me in his note!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Because I hate, loathe, and despise the C/Unix philosophy.

OK. What "philosophy" do you like, then?

In all three of those categories Windows has more.

Incorrect

13 posted on 06/27/2013 11:57:25 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

bookmark


14 posted on 06/27/2013 12:01:00 PM PDT by Pajamajan (Pray for our nation. Thank the Lord for everything you have. Don't wait. Do it today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Commenter states:

Maybe I'm cynical but I don't trust DuckDuckGo.

Part of it is that the founder made his millions by creating a “name database” website that he sold to classmates.com. I can't believe such a person suddenly developed a deep passion for privacy.

Part of it is that DuckDuckGo is a VC-backed company, backed by a VC who backed Zynga. That's a VC who cares about cash on cash returns, not ethics.

Part of it is just a baseless suspicion, similar to the one I had when Dropbox claimed that everything was encrypted client-side. That turned out to be a flat-out lie and was abandoned once they'd reached scale (and the lie was widely revealed).

Part of it is that many of the DDG guys have a strong love of Ayn Rand, Ron/Rand Paul, and Libertarianism. I know that it's possible for somebody to hold fringe political beliefs and also be honest, but those particular beliefs tend to be held by people who oppose customer protections, and I remember that when I'm doing business with them.

And honestly, part of it is simply that DDG doesn't control their upstream networks or the certificate authorities, so even if they're operating in totally good faith, it probably doesn't matter.
posted by grudgebgon at 9:39 PM on June 26 [33 favorites]

15 posted on 06/27/2013 12:09:10 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
OK. What "philosophy" do you like, then?

I'm really liking Ada's eye for correctness.
The Ada 2012 standard introduces some nice additions: preconditions, postconditions, and type-invariants among some. (In a manner that avoids the futzing about with comments [annotations]; comparison of Ada 2012, Java/JML, and C/ACSL.) I actually like having the extra safety of having the compiler take care of what details it can.
Example: dangling-else is so trivial to fix in language-design that the only reason new languages have it is because of their ties to older syntax.

As I said previously, I'm reading my way through a book on Oberon which is apparently Wirth's simplicity/elegance taken to the extreme (I'm only on the system itself, not the language, yet). I anticipate it to be very instructive.

There's LISP, full-functional programming — this should seriously be what web-page backends were written with instead of PHP — again an emphasis on correctness.
Not that I'm any good at LISP; but I can seriously respect it.

So I'm for much more of a correct is better kind of mentality.
I heard someone once say I don't have enough time to do it quickly in reference to the amount of time lost fixing up quick and dirty solutions and fully agree.

16 posted on 06/27/2013 12:17:51 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
OK. You seem, though, to be confusing language and OS. All of that can be implemented quite easily on Unix/Linux. There are ADA and LISP compilers for Linux.

And with tools like SELinux, the OS can be locked down so tight that not even root could take it down. Why it's not more widespread is because at this point, it can be quite difficult to use.

17 posted on 06/27/2013 12:21:34 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

I’ve used Startpage for a year now too. I like that each search result has a link below where you can optionally open it in their built in proxy.

This is a good link >
http://prism-break.org/

This is the best FREE cross platform secure phone app i found so far. https://mocana.com/for-device-manufacturers/keytone/


18 posted on 06/27/2013 12:24:59 PM PDT by brandon24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
OK. You seem, though, to be confusing language and OS.

Actually no, I was talking about the philosophies encouraged by the language. (And yes, the languages used do impact the design of the system.) Because the Unix/C philosophy is a language philosophy [as well as an OS] it is valid to address it on the language side. On the OS side there's a lot of design issues that stem from the language, there's a lot of design issues period.

But, in short, unix and C can be thought of as the good enough mode of thought... and when that turns out not to be the case the result is always another kludge. (C++ exhibits the klugde-accumulation very well.)

All of that can be implemented quite easily on Unix/Linux.

I know. I still don't like using a system that seems to have the perverse pleasure of being so fragile it goes tits up on you because somewhere the owner of a file changes and calls that security.

There are ADA and LISP compilers for Linux.

There's an American Dental Association compiler? Show me! (Ironically Ada's name is case-sensitive; being a proper name.)

And with tools like SELinux, the OS can be locked down so tight that not even root could take it down. Why it's not more widespread is because at this point, it can be quite difficult to use.

You missed my point completely, it's not about what can be done, it's about what should be done.

19 posted on 06/27/2013 12:40:30 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
I see a flaw here. When I click StartPage's padlock, Chrome informs me that

Your connection to startpage.com is encrypted with 128-bit encryption.

The connection uses TLS 1.0.

The connection is encrypted using RC4_128, with SHA1 for message authentication and RSA as the key exchange mechanism.

However, when I do the same while connected to Google, I see (bold-face added):

Your connection to www.google.com is encrypted with 128-bit encryption.

The connection uses TLS 1.1.

The connection is encrypted using RC4_128, with SHA1 for message authentication and ECDHE_RSA as the key exchange mechanism.

What does this mean? It's called Perfect Forward Security (PFS). It means that, even if NSA eventually obtains Google's private key, they will still not be able to decrypt previously intercepted traffic. That is not the case for StartPage.

With regular key exchange, the client picks a session key and shares it with the server encrypted with the server's public key. That means anybody who has the server's private key or succeeds in obtaining it in the future can decrypt the session key and recover the session plain text. However, with ECDHE_RSA, the client and server use a far more devious way to share the session key, which does not require the full key to be sent, even encrypted with the server's public key. As Vincent Bernat explains:

Unlike with the classic Diffie-Hellman key exchange, the client and the server need to agree on the various paremeters. Most of this agreement is done inside Client Hello and Server Hello messages. While it is possible to define some arbitrary parameters, web browsers will only support a handful of predefined curves, usually NIST P-256, P-384 and P-521. From here, the key exchange with elliptic curves is pretty similar to the classic Diffie-Hellman one:
  1. The server picks a random integer a and compute aG which will be sent, unencrypted but signed with its private key for authentication purpose, in a Server Key Exchange message.
  2. The client checks that the signature is correct. It also picks a random integer b and sends bG in a Client Key Exchange message. It will also compute b⋅aG=abG which is the premaster secret from which the master secret is derived.
  3. The server will receive bG and compute a⋅bG=abG which is the same premaster secret known by the client.

An eavesdropper will only see aG and bG and won’t be able to compute efficiently abG.

The second E in ECDHE_RSA stands for "ephemeral", referring to the above method of sharing the session key using ephemerally chosen crypto parameters.
20 posted on 06/27/2013 12:53:30 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quimby
One advantage startpage.com has is its secoure (https) connection, unlike bing and google.

Not true. Google has been using SSL for three years now. And, as I point out in #20, Google's HTTPS is superior to that of StartPage, since at least November 2011.

As for Bing, I see a spiral staircase, but no padlock at all. Doesn't matter, since I rarely use them, except for maps once in a while.

21 posted on 06/27/2013 1:18:03 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: caww

So No No On Duck Duck Go!


22 posted on 06/27/2013 2:07:08 PM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Thank you for your observation and comment. The only thing I have been led to believe is that given in the StartPage/Ixquick summary quoted here.

I personally am not presently capable of approaching this rigorously. I was hoping that the posting of this article would draw forth a more detailed analysis, helping to place the StartPage product offering on a scaled to the needs of the ordinary user.

Again. thanks --

23 posted on 06/27/2013 7:32:57 PM PDT by imardmd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

So long as you are receiving data over the Internet your data can be recorded. It isn’t the distant end that they track. They track exactly what it coming and going from your connection. Yours. Not the website. Not a proxy server. Yours. Directly.


24 posted on 06/27/2013 7:35:56 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Not the website. Not a proxy server. Yours. Directly.

This must certainly be available to my ISP.

25 posted on 06/27/2013 7:52:51 PM PDT by imardmd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Just curious - why non-unix/linux? Just as an alternative, or is there something inherently insecure with the 2 mentioned above?


26 posted on 06/27/2013 7:56:56 PM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

“This must certainly be available to my ISP. “

This what? Knowledge? Maybe. Maybe not. Your ISP may be leasing some bandwidth from someone else. Regardless, your Internet connection is directly tapped. You have absolutely NO privacy on the Internet. None. Nada. Zip.

There is positively nothing you can do about that. Not encryption, not proxy servers, nothing. You should be pissed that the government is taking your electronic property without a warrant, affirmed by an affidavit that a crime had been committed and you were the person that did it. They simply take ALL of your electronic transmissions. All. That’s what those massive NSA complexes are about: Storing everything you ever transmit.


27 posted on 06/27/2013 7:58:05 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

<....”None. Nada. Zip.....There is positively nothing you can do about that. Not encryption, not proxy servers, nothing.”....>

That is my understanding...if they want info. it’s there to get.

However I have heard that there are certain things which raise their interest...they are ‘more’ apt to check proxy’s, encryption etc. because they figure the bad guys want to hide....also odd names ....you’re better off with simple ordinary names then some weird mixture...or odd name not common.


28 posted on 06/27/2013 8:41:16 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

I don’t know...just posted what the guy wrote.
As is see it there really isn’t any way t hide your information....just google your name and you see a hosts of companies willing to find you for a price...and all about you as the price increases.

I don’t think there’s anyway the ordinary citizen can be on line and be private...it’s just not how the internet is.

I figure just use them all...from Crome to google to bing to startpage and any other...don’t just stay with one all the time...just seems sensible but then I have no knowledge of computer security in the first place.


29 posted on 06/27/2013 8:46:47 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Darnright; ShadowAce
Just curious - why non-unix/linux? Just as an alternative, or is there something inherently insecure with the 2 mentioned above?

Well, I personally detest the design-philosophy of Unix/linux. IMO, it contributes greatly to many of the security-errors in addition to user-unfriendliness.
To understand the design-philosophy you really have to understand how deeply tied the C language is with Unix. The ties are so deep that if they were any deeper the C-compiler would be the OS, but that sort of situation actually has advantages. (see Oberon, LispMachines, and Forth)

This is actually the core of the philosophy: do things at a bare-minimum acceptable of completeness and correctness.(See the essay: The Rise of Worse is Better) Indeed, many things are left incomplete (punted on) because they are hard as a result of the details. (This is why IMO POSIX is useless: it makes a lot of demands on certain design-requirements... but those requirements are usually to broad to yield anything productive — I have yet to see anyone document it being a useful standard. Hell, Windows has been POSIX Compliant since Win2000, IIRC, and you still hear people complaining that windows isn't POSIX.) Tasking is one example, and the Unix answer Fork() is anemic and unsuited for the job [fork basically creates an entirely new process and copies the entire executable].
Wikipedia entry on fork:

In computing, when a process forks, it creates a copy of itself. Under Unix-like operating systems, this is created with the fork() system call. The original process that calls fork() is the parent process, and the newly created process is the child process. Both processes return from the system call and execute the next instruction.

The fork operation creates a separate address space for the child. The child process has an exact copy of all the memory segments of the parent process, though if copy-on-write semantics are implemented actual physical memory may not be assigned (i.e., both processes may share the same physical memory segments for a while). Both the parent and child processes possess the same code segments, but execute independently of each other.
Note how the copy-on-write, a valid strategy, is used to patch up the misdesign: the copy of the entire process in the first place!

Another thing that's bit the entire world of computing in the ass is C/C++'s notion of arrays: an address and an offset (for the element). Tn languages designed with some deeper thought an array has bounds associated with it. The Buffer Overflow attacks that you hear about as security vulnerabilities would be impossible in Ada-83, Pascal, COBOL (see TABLE data-type), FORTRAN, and so forth.

Once you get out of I just use my computer for email-style usage, Linux systems are incredibly fragile, in my experience. Especially the permission/ownership scheme for files. Heck, the permissions thing regularly bites even very-experienced users in the ass. Installing new software is a crap-shoot on messing up your permission/ownership.

I always feel like the OS is fighting me when I have to do something remotely technical, though sometimes even the mundane. (The command-line shell is particularly bad; the only thing that I'd at all miss in it vs. Win98's command-line: Tab-expansion. That's it. The only useful thing in 30+ years of development and that's it.)

In short, what I find infuriating about Unix/C's design attitude is that it pretends like it's giving to you liberally, doing great things for you, but in reality is a stingy, niggardly.


Another design-flaw is the way it handles termination:
int main( int argc, const char* argv[] )
{
	printf( "\nHello World\n\n" );
	return 0;
}
Now, you might be thinking Return code? That's nothing unusual. And indeed it might have been forgiven in back in the early days of computing before exceptions became common, but what is totally irresponsible here is the definitions of the return codes. Other than the 0, nothing is defined (exaggeration, there's EXIT_FAILURE defined in stdlib.h) — this means that all the utilities/programs are speaking different languages, like a computing tower of babel, when the program reports an error.

A much better solution would be to use exceptions to indicate some failure. Many languages nowadays allow you to tag them with a String indicating the error. Though this combined with Ada's packaging-system (assuming a tight OS/Ada coupling) could have something where exceptions are named by the programs (in those packages) and those packages could be used in the scripting/command-line environment -- imaginary Ada-based script:

With Program_Exceptions;
script Example is
begin
  Run( Some_Program );
exception
  when PROGRAM_ERROR => Put_line( "Something went terribly wrong!" );
  when Program_Exceptions.Deposit_Range_Error => Put_Line( "Someone tried to deposit a negative number in your account!" );
end Example;

30 posted on 06/27/2013 9:02:03 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: caww
Part of it is that many of the DDG guys have a strong love of Ayn Rand, Ron/Rand Paul, and Libertarianism. I know that it's possible for somebody to hold fringe political beliefs and also be honest, but those particular beliefs tend to be held by people who oppose customer protections, and I remember that when I'm doing business with them.

Wait, what? It's your belief that libertarians are more likely to want to spy on you than nannystate authoritarians?? Seriously?

31 posted on 06/28/2013 12:17:51 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 21stCenturion

...


32 posted on 06/28/2013 4:34:28 AM PDT by 21stCenturion ("It's the Judges, Stupid !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww

No one knows what department, manager, investigator, analyst, etc. might decide t do and trigger on what factors. As much as it seems a black hole and mechanical it is very human in nature.

According to law, and their own statements, none of which I believe in the slightest, they only target those for which they have warrants. We also know that to be a lie.


33 posted on 06/28/2013 7:11:55 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

My belief is clear......there is no safety on line and to think otherwise is nieve.

Who does the spying is as much unknown as known. I say this because there is a host of sub-hackers/computer nerds outside the mainstream, both single and in groups, throughout the world who connect with each other via the Interent.

Any of these can target an individual, company ,whatever at will. ...some will sell their information others will use it to affect events or situations.

BTW...if you re-read the post you will see I was quoting another person making that comment, it was not my own, rather something to consider with the topic of this thread.


34 posted on 06/28/2013 8:21:46 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Not true. Google has been using SSL for three years now. And, as I point out in #20, Google's HTTPS is superior to that of StartPage,

This is interesting, but who uses googles https? Not the average user who goes to goole.com-

35 posted on 07/02/2013 9:56:05 AM PDT by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: quimby
who uses googles https? Not the average user who goes to goole.com-

That's an interesting point.

I've never noticed a problem with that. If I go to http://www.google.com/, it redirects to the HTTPS URL. In fact, I just noticed my Firefox homepage is configured as http://www.google.com/, but I always see the padlock when I go there. In fact, I never type https: when visiting Google.

Actually, any site that really needs to be secure, such as a bank or broker, should be redirecting you if you arrive over an unencrypted connection. So, you could ask whether search engines fall into the category of really needing to be secure. I suppose that would tend to depend on what you are searching for ...

Further investigation: It turns out Google's automatic HTTPS redirection occurs because I'm signed into Google. If I sign out, the redirect doesn't happen, and I have to specify HTTPS deliberately if I want an encrypted connection. However, if I'm signed out and I use the Firefox search box, then my connection is still encrypted. This turns out to be a feature Mozilla added to the search box as of Firefox 14.

So, the question, how many of the low-information crowd are signed in or use the Firefox search box?

Encrypted searching turns out to have an impact on e-commerce sites. When a visitor arrives from an unencrypted search engine search, the headers usually include the referrer URL, from which the e-commerce site can mine and tabulate and analyze the keywords on which the visitor was searching. However, referrals from an encrypted site (the search engine) to an unencrypted site (the e-commerce company) do not include the Referer header, thus blacking out an important source of marketing intelligence.

36 posted on 07/02/2013 1:08:51 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Do you suppose the limitation of referral info is why google.com is unencrypted ?


37 posted on 07/04/2013 4:19:24 AM PDT by quimby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: quimby
I doubt it. The denial of referral info makes e-commerce outfits even more dependent on the search engines for their marketing intelligence (e.g., Google Analytics).

One estimate last March put the proportion of encrypted searches at 46%.

38 posted on 07/04/2013 12:52:44 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Hey cynwood, OT but I was going to ask your opinion on something:

Wouldn’t ‘rumors’ that Snowden was on the Bolivian plane have to start up because he all of a sudden wasn’t in the terminal anymore?

When Austria let Morales refuel, they wanted a search but only got to walk to the back of the plane and turn around, no searching. So we know Snowden COULD have been on the plane. Why Morales apologized for offering asylum today in indecipherable for me....

BUT, Snowden’s either still in the terminal, on ice in Moscow, or anywhere in the world if he did stowaway with Morales.

My current theory is he’s dead and intel needs to explain his absence (stowaway with Morales) or he’s out of the terminal via SOMEBODY’s plane. I mean, there ARE maids in the hotel he’s staying, there is now way intel CAN’T know if he’s there.

What do you think? Thank you, Sir.


39 posted on 07/04/2013 1:02:35 PM PDT by txhurl (RNC 'voter suppression': attempting to limit each voter to ONE vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: txhurl
As far as I know, Snowden's still staying at that hotel located in the "transit area" of Sheremetyevo, technically outside Russian territory, waiting to get travel docs from some friendly country. It's worth noting that Evo Morales took off from Vnukovo Airport, which on the other side of Moscow from Sheremetyevo, about a 34-mile drive down the outer ring road. So, if Snowden was on board, presumably, the FSB would have needed to give him a lift.

In 2006, Zahra Kamalfar and her two kids wound up spending ten months in Sheremetyevo while the Russians decided whether to send them back to Iran or let them continue to Canada. It was not a good time.

Snowden may get better treatment. Yesterday morning, Anna Chapman (remember her?) tweeted a marriage proposal to Snowden. Her daddy was serious KGB and a friend of Putin.

Meanwhile, Evo Morales is pissed off. Nice work, Mr Secretary of State!

40 posted on 07/04/2013 3:01:45 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: caww

Provide a link, or some kind of proof of any type of statement like that, simply saying I don’t trust them because of this that or the other, then provide some type of validation of the claim.


41 posted on 09/03/2014 10:45:49 PM PDT by lxle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lxle

I didn’t post that comment...somethings off...


42 posted on 09/04/2014 9:04:41 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson