Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data 151

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data

Comments Filter:
  • The real WTF is.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by b100dian ( 771163 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @07:34AM (#18360067) Homepage Journal
    ..the "off the record" button, in the first place!
  • Uhm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by giorgiofr ( 887762 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @07:34AM (#18360069)
    All they have to do is erase the logs every day or just not keep them. It doesn't "take an effort". Anonymous proxies have been doing this for years.
  • Re:The real WTF is.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @07:52AM (#18360163) Homepage Journal
    Not only that, but is the history of searches you made over 2 years ago relevant to your current searches performed today?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15, 2007 @08:22AM (#18360325)

    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.
    Anybody who remembers this incident probably also remembers the article 'Google in bed with the CIA' too:

    "Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," said Steele.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/2 71006googlecia.htm [prisonplanet.com]

    Makes me wonder how fast does the CIA anonymize their material? Ha!
  • by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday March 15, 2007 @08:36AM (#18360431) Homepage
    Well you're describing a law enforcement problem not a privacy issue.

    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
  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @08:49AM (#18360519)
    Ah, the out of context argument. My house is private by the definition that I have locks on the doors and blinds on the windows.

          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...
  • by guanxi ( 216397 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @08:59AM (#18360605)
    To quote them:
    "It is difficult to guarantee complete anonymization, but we believe these changes will make it very unlikely users could be identified."

    "Changing the bits of an IP address makes it less likely that the IP address can be associated with a specific computer or user. Cookie anonymization makes it less likely that a cookie can be used to identify a user."

    "[I]t's possible that data retention laws will obligate us to retain logs for longer periods."

    "How many subpoenas for server log data does Google receive each year?
    As a matter of policy, we don't provide specifics on law enforcement requests to Google."


    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.

  • No Consent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15, 2007 @09:02AM (#18360663)
    Exactly, it's to Google's MONETARY benefit that they record this information. The EU Privacy law says THEY CANNOT RECORD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION THAN IS NEEDED FOR A TRANSACTION. Now that it's clear that search data is personally identifiable, the EU Privacy law should be used to FORCE GOOGLE TO QUIT IT.

    "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/ double.click.lawsuit.idg/ [cnn.com]

    "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."

  • It Is About Context (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @10:30AM (#18361633)
    It isn't that Google necessarily care that it is "you" (actually they might but that is another thread...), but "you" are doing a search and then clicking on links in a particular order which is a context that is important for ranking. At an abstract level, the relationship between what you searched and the links you tried is stuff Google wants to track to help enhance relevancy and search results. The problem is that with modern technology to do this they need to know somethings that aren't anonymous which can be abused.

    If they can come up with a way to do this without tying it all back a computer and the individual who made the request then we are probably all better off not because privacy issues (but that is a great side effect) but because you get better results from removing the irrelevant data from ranking consideration. The closer they get to a true anonymous search system, the better the results should theoretically be.
  • by MindKata ( 957167 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @10:30AM (#18361637) Journal
    "Not only that, but is the history of searches you made over 2 years ago relevant to your current searches performed today"

    It is to Google as they want to know more about you, so they can build up a clearer profile about you. Just because they (say they) are going to delete the data after 2 years, doesn't mean they will not use the data in that two years to build up a profile about what you like. Then they can still keep updating that profile over time while deleting data. So even once they delete the data after two years the profile will still persist (in an ever changing and growing form).

    The whole Google "do no harm talk" sounds more like PR spin talk to cover up what their real intentions are ... its like the old saying, "Knowledge Is Power".

    From a research point of view, Google is basically a vast data mining research company. They are forever looking for more new ways to do data mining.

    So now imagine in say a few years from now, you could work out how to build up a profile of searches from a company instead of a person. Then you would be able to know what that company is interested in. Its also the logical extension of profiling individuals. But it would also be pure industrial espionage. But we are told, Google will do no harm, so its ok then. Imaging how valuable that data profiling would be to sell it to a competitor of that company.

    I think in a few years from now, we will see countries starting to create their own search engines so all their research doesn't get feed though other countries search engines, which are basically gigantic information filtering and collection systems for what people (and companies) are interested in.
  • by tim90402 ( 1040444 ) on Thursday March 15, 2007 @11:57AM (#18363095)
    What I thought was a future concern may already be happening. According to http://www.computers.net/2006/08/google_in_dange.h tml [computers.net] Google holds 5.8 billion in marketable securities. This is more than 40% of their assets, which by SEC rules means they are a "investment fund" and subject to different reporting and operating rules.

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...