In the U.S, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that police can access your Google searches without a warrant.
The court's reasoning: users have no expectation of privacy because "it is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data."
That's what "free" really means. The business model depends on turning your search history into a detailed profile that can be sold, shared, and accessed by third parties.
@kagihq
What about other searches, such as Brave, Duck-Duck-Go, Swisscows, when they are clearly being used in the expectation of privacy, and data protection? Or are the SC members so uninformed they have no knowledge of such alternatives?
@kagihq That is not really the rationale of the ruling. The rationale is that the user is informed of data collection in using the service, thereby ceding any expectation of privacy. It sucks, and you're right to call it out, but it is important that the rationale is clear.
Before a person can challenge the validity of a search warrant, he or she first must demonstrate an expectation of privacy in the area searched. In this case, we must decide whether a person who conducts general, unprotected internet searches has an expectation of privacy in the records generated by those searches. We conclude that the average search engine user—including Kurtz—does not.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, what matters is that the user is informed that Google—a third party—will collect and store that information. When the user proceeds to conduct searches with that knowledge, he or she voluntarily provides information to a third party. This express warning, in tandem with the more indirect indicators noted above, necessarily precludes a person from claiming an expectation of privacy in his or her voluntary internet use. Any such claim is not one that society would find objectively reasonable.
https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/pa-supreme-court-kurtz-google-search-privacy.pdf
@kagihq source? Ruling reference number or anything? I'm interested to read about this in more detail
With Kagi, you pay for search instead of paying with your data. Kagi does not attach search queries to user accounts, does not load any analytics or telemetry, and does not track which search results you choose to pick, keeping your searches private and anonymous.
Read more on why paying for search more than makes up for its value:
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/why-kagi/why-pay-for-search.html
@kagihq are there any plans for discounted subscriptions without AI?
@kagihq I noticed the lack of search history and definitely appreciate it, but as at least 1 other reply said I'd love to see less emphasis on the gen AI components that leverage search. Playing with it some seemed no more fruitful than searching myself, maybe better when you've limited queries to run on the $5 plan but mostly useless on the $10 plan.
I do however appreciate the way it's leveraged with the Translate tool, especially given how you offer multiple interpretations. I find that helpful in a way that helps make intent clear if the first translation isn't as on-point. I'd love to see more focus on Translate to include the ability to do image translation via OCR the same way Google Translate does, but with the better translations. I've found myself sometimes using it to capture characters and then paste them into Kagi Translate to get a better output.
@kagihq how about https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html ?
I'd rather use @Mojeek
