Slashdot Log In
Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data
Journal written by leamanc (961376) and posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Mar 15, 2007 06:31 AM
from the poof-you're-gone dept.
from the poof-you're-gone dept.
Google's official blog states they are on an effort to anonymize their search data after 18-24 months. After previously fighting turning over search data to the feds, it looks like they are striking another blow to the "think of the children" crowd. Any bets on whether MSN or Yahoo! will follow suit?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The real WTF is.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is - as far as I can see - no rational argument that has to do with improving search results because you have them tied to individuals.
And yes, keeping tabs on half the globe is evil too...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The real WTF is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Studies have shown that 43% of all people who search for "Donkey Love" will buy our product within 3 years if they see our ads.
Parent
Re:The real WTF is.. (Score:4, Funny)
Studies have shown that 43% of all people who search for "Donkey Love" will buy our product within 3 years if they see our ads.
...and that number rises to 98.3% if we mention we found that item in their search history.
Parent
ADVERTIZING (Score:3, Insightful)
It Is About Context (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Insightful)
I know where you're coming from, but that would kinda fuck with their targetting advertising business model dontcha think?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhm (Score:4, Insightful)
Historical data that identifies a unique user is extremely useful. I do the same thing with our Intranet search and report tools. If I want to improve something, oftentimes the logs will give a very telling tale. (This accounting department employee searched for "expense", then "expense excel", then "expense spreadsheet", then "expense log", finally getting his document. I can then add the keywords 'excel' 'spreadsheet' to the actual document entry.) That said, you don't actually need to know who the unique user is, for all intents and research purposes, User5486734067 is just as useful as an IP+Cookie.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There are two good reasons to keep the data, as far as I can see, the first is to avoid sending
the same ad to someone twice (but for that you only need a history of what ads they've seen, not
what they have searched for, though of course that does help to tag a user as a 'programmer' or
an 'accountant'), the second is when you go in to the massive selling of profiles business.
There are some companies that do this (Schober comes t
Mine already is (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mine already is (Score:5, Informative)
I guess that's what happens when you Slashdot before caffeine. I'm sorry.
Parent
Re:Mine already is (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
How about (Score:2)
anonymizing it straight away! That would be an even quicker solution to the problem.
0 months? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:0 months? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google's primarily a media company... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Shouldn't be collecting that info anyway (Score:2, Informative)
There is no need to collect the IP addresses of searchers that haven't opted in to Google's personalized search. There is no law, that requires it.
There is no need to store the IP addresses of individual visitors to websites when
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your whole you "we have privacy" bit, sure you do. In your own home while using your stuff. The moment you sent your request out over the internet in plain text to a third party (that is a corporation out to make money you kno
No Consent (Score:4, Interesting)
"The moment you sent your request out over the internet in plain text to a third party (that is a corporation out to make money you know) you lost that."
Not so, the law says we have to consent and we didn't consent!
And what about when that party isn't Google? Google analytics is not on Google's site, it's embedded on third party sites, Google's adsense is on other people's site too. I didn't consent to handing my data to Google when I surfed to third parties site, Google took that data and recorded it in violation of EU privacy laws.
This has also been sued for before resulting in Doubleclick backing down over exactly this issue.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/28
"A California woman has filed suit against DoubleClick, accusing the U.S.-based online advertising company of unlawfully obtaining and selling consumers' personal information, according to a statement issued by her attorney's office."
"Hariett M. Judnick filed the suit in Marin County Superior Court in California, on behalf of the "general public of the state of California," the statement said.
The suit alleges that DoubleClick employs Internet cookies to identify users and track their movements on the Internet. The company tracks and records the sites an individual visits, as well as the information transmitted on the sites, such as names, ages, addresses, shopping patterns and financial information."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Searching will only get more and more complex as time progresses and things like automatic language translations finally start to appear. Privacy on one hand or the search engine adapting to your search style, not really as clear cut a choice as
According to TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I need another cup of coffee.
It's there servers (Score:2, Troll)
I should point out that your google query goes over plaintext HTTP so anyone inbetween can eavesdrop on your queries.
Tom
Re:It's there servers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying people shouldn't have privacy, I'm saying if you export your secrets outside of your domain, you shouldn't expect privacy.
You don't do your personal finances on a city bus do you?
Re:It's there servers (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny - my computer is in my house, behind locks and blinds too. Hey Google's computers also are behind lock and key, and they even have security guards and alarm systems. I don't ever remember giving Google permission to disclose any information shared between them and I - oh and heaven forbid I go around giving away the information Google found for me - I'd get sued!
Why would the whole world automatically be party to the information Google and I shared one evening? My computer sent that information to a specific internet address, and the answer came back specifically to my computer.
Not so out of context...
Parent
Re:It's there servers (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming you're not trolling...
When you send a query to google, it goes over the "internet" in the clear. That is, not encrypted. Anyone who can see it can read it. Well who can read it? Turns out a lot of people. Between me and google are probably 10 different boxes. 5 of which are just my ISPs routers. The other five are boxes on other networks, not even related to Google.
There is no inherant requirement for privacy like there is with telephones (maybe their ought to be one). But that said, you're giving your data to Google, willingly no less. That gives them every right to record it. You gave them permission by using their service, I guess you never read their TOS [google.ca] which is your fault, not theirs. Think about the analogy in the real world. This is like you handing your drivers license to every stranger you meet, then getting upset when some of them write it down.
If you don't want your assets [IP, location, name, platform, etc] leaked to Google you should use an anonymous proxy.
Tom
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
When you use language like "caught" you are obviously not referring to Google, but rather some external agency (i.e. the government) rather than by Google. You are changing the parties involved to strengthen your argument.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah while we're there we can install the webcam in his bathroom and broadcast on the net every time he takes a crap. I have a pair of guys willing to do the commentary on wiping techniques to add to the video...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me?! I live in America and if I want to research the results of the search terms "jihad death to american president" I'm well within my fucking rights.
Fuck you for saying otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is within their rights to gather as much information as you feed them (your ip, time of day, host strings, query string, etc).
My point was if you were planning on committing crimes, you shouldn't use google to find tips.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
I see the problem now; you clearly don't understand the extent of Google's monitoring. They're not logging just IP address', they're logging people. The AOL data that came out showed how you could follow tracking cookies to see exactly what people, not IP address', were searching for.
I don't see why you have such a problem with it anyway. Many people around the world asked fo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google logging all your queries: Not a privacy problem.
Bank leaking your SSN via stolen laptop: Privacy problem.
AOL knowing that you like midget porn: Not a privacy problem.
Government using sub-standard contractor to manage passport data, later turns up on broken into computer: Privacy problem.
By screaming wolf every time "data" is mentioned you desensitize people to real privacy problems.
18-24 months? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah Right (Score:2)
You won't be anonymous, and it doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it will mean much unless they publish their anonymization technique. Even Google seems to have doubts about it, and considering the resources of some attackers (e.g., national governments), if the anonymization can be broken it will be.
But Google's anonymization does not have to be perfect: Google isn't the only place your google.com activity is recorded: There's your personal computer, possibly your ISP, other sites (referrer links show Google search terms), etc. As long as Google makes their anonymity difficult enough to break that it's significantly easier to go elsewhere for the information, they've done their job. If you need to be anonymous, I hope you are taking other steps.
I, for one, welcome the merciful intentions of our benign new overlords.
Things That Bit Butts, Part Deux (Score:5, Insightful)
List of nifty little phrases that have bitten their speakers in the ass:
Now Google brings us:
Let's just be less evil, now that we've been caught.
127.0.0.1 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:right.... (Score:5, Informative)
The data retention directive only applies to ISPs, and only deals with who you "communicate" with. It does not explicitly say that a record of which websites you visit should be retained, and it explicitly says that the content of the communication must not be retained.
However, as for all EU directives, it only contains the baseline of regulation. Directives are never law themselves, but have to be implemented in each respective member state by each respective legislative body. These, in turn, are free to implement whatever they want ABOVE the baseline, so some member states may have longer retention periods for this data, some member states may require ISPs to retain additional data.
The deadline for this directive is September this year, but if you read it, a few member states have reserved the option to postpone parts of the directive, typically of the internet-related traffic. This basically means that they recognize the difficulties in implementing it, and want more time to think about on how to do it, or possibly obstruct it.
What all of this boils down to is that maybe, sometime in the future, if you have an European ISP, they may be required to store all the URLs that you access. Google search data is transmitted as querystring parameters that are part of the URL, which means that your search data may be stored by your ISP, in a non-anonymized way. There's nothing in this possible future that Google has to comply with, as long as they are not an European ISP.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because they do business in Europe?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you mention that, I was searching just the other day for "sofa porn" and "kinky Goldfish covers"...
Re:Hash the IP addresses? (Score:5, Insightful)
(If your solution is to increase the space of inputs by adding a variable salt value, please explain how this allows them to use the resulting hashes for aggregation.)
Parent