search with voice

It seems it would add clutter on the result page since the X is there already and you already have a search, but on the homepage it could be pretty useful. Thoughts?

Comment

scepticra..

It would be totally cool... if it worked with Firefox. Enabling this feature may lead people to get Chrome just because it is so cool, which would help Google-which presumably DDG doesn't wanna do too much of? That's the only downside I can see, especially if it's easy to integrate!

Guest

Re: search with voice

11 months ago

would be great if this was avable on the site

Comment

opc411

Re: search with voice

11 months ago

if you get a program speak q you can do the same as that app

Comment

yegg13

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

This is live.

Comment

scepticra..

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

Seriously? Anything in particular we need to do? Or just head on over to the site and speak? o_0

Guest

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

Personally, I'm fine with this new feature (if even a bit ecstatic for what it means in the scope of Accessibility technology coming to DDG without the need for a cumbersome, adhoc 3rd party solution locally). However, I do foresee a subset of the slightly more paranoid users (and there is nothing wrong with that) taking issue with the voice search addition. Google has taken some flack from its critics because of their implementation of this. Charges of spying and doomsday Orwellian telescreen comments abound. Given the actions of Google - as well as many others - taken in aggregate, perhaps even rightfully so.

In an effort to reassure this small - yet vocal - group of people, I believe the privacy policy should be amended to reflect the recent addition of this feature to set their concerns at ease as best we can, explain the way the data is handled, length of storage, etc, the way the feature is initiated willfully and voluntarily by the end user and to better assure them that DDG has a commitment to their privacy over all.

The users which fall within this scope are not always the "tinfoil hat crowd" but sometimes, simply those less technologically savvy, general Luddites - such as myself :3 - or any other group that may be confused by a lot of the FUD floating around out there.

And for the record, I do not wear tinfoil hats. As grad students at MIT have show, they simply don't work. Instead, I wrap my entire body in a 2 foot thick Faraday cage exoskeleton.... like any respectable human.

yegg13

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

@__nil looked into this (into the code) and decided it wasn't an issue, but I'll see if he will report his findings here.

Guest

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

I totally agree that there is nothing to be directly concerned about, but that won't stop the detractors from causing a ruckus or becoming concerned and overly paranoid.

I just think the privacy policy should have a few lines (two or three at most) in the 'collected' and 'not collected' sections - maybe in the 'info shared' too - to reflect the recent change.

You can certainly place this on the back burner as I don't see an immediate need here. It will have to be addressed eventually one way or the other.

Figured better I bring it up and mention things when I thought of it, rather than a bunch of disgruntled users airing their grievances as they're wielding pitchforks and torches, while banging down the castle doors.

@__nil looked into this

Good. If they yell "burn the witch".. we can point them at Toy.

yegg13

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

Ahh I see. I wonder if we should ditch it then. What would you add?

Guest

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

hey.

I actually agree with Faraday Fred here (also, how do you know my last name?). When this feature is used, we are no longer in control of the search. The implementation contains all sorts of things in it location data, IP etc etc and the task is completed on the users machine, it cannot be proxied through DDG.

__nil

Comment

yegg13

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

OK, turning it off.

Comment

Guest

Faraday

10 months ago

I have no idea how this code actually operates, so pardon my ignorance.

If the computation takes place on the users machine, would it not be possible to strip the location data and other concerning bits from it serverside and have only the barebones needed to complete the transaction? Or is this "leakage" a byproduct of the way Chromium functions in this little "handshake"?

I don't see local data processing as a problem. Usually, users controlling their data is preferred. If it has to bounce to a third party before it touches DDG, or if the sensitive data has to be passed through to said party, then it would be of concern. Again, I don't know how this operation functions, so I'll leave the technical details up to you hackers.

As for the naming thing (: long story very short:
Yegg mentioned your handle in this thread, so I promptly went up to the tweeterz to see if any mention was made in this regard. Your twitter handle is nil and the domain listed is opensesame.st, that coupled with the fact that I have been heavily playing around with Plan 9 lately and their having a rather small wiki, I recognized you immediately.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/People/index.html
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/contrib_index#JAMES

OK, turning it off.

That's too bad. I do hope we can at least keep this feature in mind and work on it to iron out the issues if possible and technical flaws permitting.

Comment

yegg13

Faraday

10 months ago

I agree, but defaults shouldn't conflict with the privacy policy. If we can verify it doesn't or there is some way to proxy (doubtful on the latter), we could add it back by default.

pchammer

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

Or...

A way to alert of the use of this feature, allowing others to understand any risk?

Comment

Guest

Re: search with voice

10 months ago

I think a option to enable it in privacy in the settings page would be cool...

Top Reply

Response title

Attachments

New to this Portal?