Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Google's Data-Storage Fuels Privacy Fears 127

Posted by CmdrTaco from the something-to-think-about dept.
taoman1 writes "Facing worries about its tracking Web surfers' every move, Google Inc. is now offering a feature to track Web surfers' every move. Its free Web History service is strictly voluntary — Google users can sign up to have the Internet giant keep detailed records of every website they visit so they can easily find them again later. Web History's quiet debut this week came as privacy advocates continued to raise alarms about the prospect of Google combining its collection of information on individuals with that of DoubleClick Inc. Google has agreed to acquire the New York-based company, which distributes Web ads and tracks where the majority of people go on the Internet, for $3.1 billion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Data-Storage Fuels Privacy Fears More

Google's Data-Storage Fuels Privacy Fears

Comments Filter:

  • Stricly Voluntary (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's strictly voluntary. Privacy advocates should put their tin foil hat back on and switch off their computers.

    • Re:Stricly Voluntary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hennell ( 1005107 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:44AM (#18831345) Homepage
      The privacy advocates arnt worried about themselves. They're making a scene because they want to make sure people who do 'volunteer' know what they might be signing away.
      Some snippets FTA: -
      "most Google users don't know that their search queries can be tied to them"

      "When Google users were asked whether they believed that the company captured data that could be used to identify them, 77% said no."
    • Two points:
      1. Many people who volunteer will not understand the full ramifications of doing so until it's too late. Privacy advocates want to make as many people as possible aware.
      2. When enough people opt-in it becomes really easy to justify making it more "opt-out" than "opt-in" since there is a great mass of people who will shrug their shoulders and give grief to those that want out. (e.g. People who refuse to give their address before making a purchase at a retail store.)
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Because as we all know... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hpavc ( 129350 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @10:27AM (#18831959)
      Its an awesome feature, by looking at the history its obvious what content I researching and what content I am interested in on a daily basis for work and play. I cannot wait until the next step where it can use this data to refine my actual searching using this, my gmail, and bookmarks ... or maybe a personalized 'news' portal, effectively like a digg.

      I am glad Google has the balls to be the one who is honest about having it and bold enough to display a tool for it.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I profoundly disagree, and not for privacy reasons. In fact I wonder if they are really that smart
        at Google because the idea is terrible. A shared computer, as many family computers are should not
        become associated with any identity, Period. In fact, even a single user workstation should never be
        treated as such by a server application. When I am searching I don't want a search engine making
        assumptions about my focus based on previous searches, just as a logical matter of fact. Today I am
        interested in the xy
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Great. I'm looking forward to searching my history, and getting advertising tailored to my interests.

        Oh, wait. I spend most of my time switching back and forth between slashdot and 4chan. Turns out I'm mostly interested in guro, linux, and trolling. Now those "sponsored links" can be even more horribly accurate.

        "Do you need a life? Click here for more details!"
        "Nude Vampire Carcass. Find what you're looking for on ebay!"
        "Is the MPAA in league with extraterrestrials? Read the shocking truth!"

        And so on.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "What are we going to do today, Brin?"

      "Same thing we always do, Sergei ... try and take over the world."

  • Google says you can opt in for this. They suggest other great ideas to opt in for:

    • Extra Fuel Burner - Your car uses twice as much fuel as the stated MPG
    • Credit Broadcaster - A great tool to notify internet users about your credit rating, account balances, and account numbers
    • Wife Notifier - lets your spouse know every chat room you go to

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Windows Genuine Advantage fits right in among those suggestions. /melot

  • Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:32AM (#18831275)
    I've been suspicious of Google's "do no evil" motto from day one, but my suspicions were confirmed when it was announced that Google Mail would be storing your emails ad-infinitum even if you deleted them. It is quite clear and obvious (and it has been for a long time) that Google is in the datamining business, the targeted advertisement part of which is only the tip of the iceberg. Anybody who's surprised by this announcement has been living in a cave...

    • Re:Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dissy ( 172727 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:40AM (#18831317)
      but my suspicions were confirmed when it was announced that Google Mail would be storing your emails ad-infinitum even if you deleted them.

      And this announced policy outrages you more than the fact governments want the same exact thing forced upon all ISPs?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WED Fan ( 911325 )

      Google is Evil!

      I've got 5 GMail accounts, including this one, that I use for the sole purpose of spam catching. If Google wants to archive all my spam, great. I check the accounts on the order of once or twice a month and have yet to see their spam filter work efficiently.

      • I have a few email accounts for different purposes (eg, usenet, official correspondence, etc - see, i don't want people whom i have official correspondence with find out my views on all things by google my usenet posts), and google freaked me out when it merged all my account so that my real name from the official correspondence gmail actually showed up on the account for the usenet nonsense stuff! I can not remove it, there's no setting for it, eventhough I'd set name and whatever it is that's in the prefe
        • and google freaked me out when it merged all my account so that my real name from the official correspondence gmail actually showed up on the account for the usenet nonsense stuff! I can not remove it, there's no setting for it, eventhough I'd set name and whatever it is that's in the preferences/settings it still knows it's me.

          I guess that's another good argument for not keeping cookies. Yes, I know lots of Slashdotters will go on at length about how cookies are only considered harmful by, well, cookies.
      • I've had the complete opposite experience, I've never, if hardly ever had spam not filtered correctly. Are you purposefully signing up for newletters, or even reporting spam to Google in the first place? It seems that your 5 accounts speak volumes to the answer to that question, imo.

    • Re:Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by electrosoccertux ( 874415 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:49AM (#18831369)

      I've been suspicious of Google's "do no evil" motto from day one, but my suspicions were confirmed when it was announced that Google Mail would be storing your emails ad-infinitum even if you deleted them. It is quite clear and obvious (and it has been for a long time) that Google is in the datamining business, the targeted advertisement part of which is only the tip of the iceberg. Anybody who's surprised by this announcement has been living in a cave...
      So, I've seen the thing work...in quite a spooky way...first hand...several times...

      The search? Various hot women by their name. I did a search once for pics of and it came up with 3-4 pages of results, and only one or two pictures of interest.

      Skip forward several months (I haven't deleted the searching history) and I do another search for Eva Longoria I think it was, and on the first page was the --entirely unrelated-- picture of that other woman I had searched for earlier. I've seen this happen on two different occassions before when searching under the same category. Very interesting, it's like they programmed it to know when you were searching for a hot celebrity and to insert previous pages you had visited under the same category in that search. Depending on how you look at it, kinda useful, but nonetheless creepy.

      • Creepy is as creepy does. (Score:5, Funny)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @09:02AM (#18831455)
        Depending on how you look at it, kinda useful, but nonetheless creepy.

        Almost thirty years, back in the Apple ][ days, ago a friend of mine was playing a text adventure game (I forget which one). So, after he played the thing for a while, it asked him a question using his first name. He got all freaked out, "How did it know my name?!!"

        I told him "Because when you started the game it asked you for it."

        "Oh."
      • Maybe many other people searched for Eva Whatzisname then your second celebrity in quick succession (do they look the same, share similar features?) Enough people searched for two different people in successive visits that datamining software made a link between the two. Could be an alternative explanation.

        I'm unsure how Google could reliably track an individual across a time period of months or even weeks unless one of the following is true: 0) IP address is same on both visits; 1) Google retrieved cookie

        • I'm unsure how Google could reliably track an individual across a time period of months or even weeks unless one of the following is true: 0) IP address is same on both visits; 1) Google retrieved cookie from previous visit; 2) User was logged on with Google Account during both visits; 3) User has Google Toolbar or some other software on top of the browser. So, if this is really a worry (and it would surely be detailed in their privacy policy), just use Google without being logged in, without any Toolbar software and clear cookies after each visit. As long as they don't deploy additional covert measures and as long as everything the do operate is outlined it the privacy policy, they 'do no evil' line cannot be called into question.

          They're only rolling out the search history stuff for those^^^ people.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
          Or maybe that site just used "SEO" to spam itself into all search results.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
        Hmmm... I've noticed different results when I use old Netscape 3 (which I do most of the time, and nearly always with Google), and Mozilla. And I think it's because however Google sets their ID/login cookie does not happen automatically with NS3. (*IF* I log in manually, then it sticks for a few weeks, but then goes away by itself.) Whereas when I use Moz, I'm obviously logged in all the time whether I did it or not -- it IDs me by my gmail address.

        And I think it's reasonable to assume that search companies

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Idbar ( 1034346 )
        No worries, they will be soon having control of your webcams, so they can get also pictures of what YOU were doing while watching those pages you were browsing ;).
    • Ummm where does this come from? I cant seem to locate any statements to support this and the gmail TOS seem to indicate that the email is deleted permanently. So please backup your statements and don't spred rumors.
    • Whether storing your email forever is evil depends on what they actually do with it. Do you have any evidence that they're doing more than data mining? Or that they're doing something more with the data they extract than using it to ensure they give you relevant advertising and better services?

      Please do enlighten us as to what you think the rest of this 'iceberg' consists of. Personally, I'm off to sign up for them to remember everything I do with my browser. If I want to do anything which I'm bothered abo

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @10:35AM (#18832009)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • I'm missing why keeping your data for services you choose to use while knowing the terms you're using them under is considered "evil".

        Your argument would be feasible only if "knowing" actually meant "being aware of all the consequences of your action"... Well, if you are powerful enough, you can manufacture consent [wikipedia.org] . Google is.

        Just having the data is not evil in itself.

        So your data being in the hands of a corporation, whose sole duty is to make profit, doesn't worry you? See, manufacturing consent really w

    • No news here indeed. First, they have introduced their toolbar - anybody who'd think they don't collect data with it is very naive. Then there was personalized search - again it gets enabled only when you sign up. However, Google users are a vast group of people whose tech savviness varies a lot - there will likely be people who don't give it a thought. The right thing to do for Google would be to warn the users of their toolbar and personalized search about their data collection policies, how this data wil

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ady1 ( 873490 )
      1. At anytime you can delete your google account. here: EditServices [google.com]

      2. The search history feature is for your ease of use. They could've (read must been) simply stored your history without letting you use it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mutende ( 13564 )

        They could've (read must been) simply stored your history without letting you use it.
        They did. After I enabled web history for my Google account, I could see web history dating back to from before I enabled it. So the change only means that I have access to the data now.

    • Re:Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Puff of Logic ( 895805 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @11:39AM (#18832467)

      I've been suspicious of Google's "do no evil" motto from day one,
      Indeed. Every time I hear something like this about Google, I have a vision of an old decrepit geek sitting inside a tin shack fifty years from now. In the light of flickering screens that cut in and out as the pirate net connection goes in and out, he regards the semi-circle of small children who have come to hear him regale them with tales of how it used to be. "Tell us again, Grandfather, of the days when no-one was tracked on Googlenet and anyone could say anything," they cry in Los Angeles pidgin, a mix of English, Spanish, and Mandarin. The old man smiles but his eyes look haunted. "Oh children, once there was a time when the network wasn't even called Googlenet and the Watchers were just a company called Google! Back then, they had a motto: 'Do No Evil.' If only we'd known, little ones. If only we'd known what was coming and that they meant to stop anyone from doing 'evil'". The old man reaches up with a shaky hand and rubs his fingers over the scar where his Googlenet access chip was forcibly removed. Almost inaudibly, he whispers "Who knew that protesting the government was evil?"

      And then sometimes I just get a vision of the Deathstar with a giant 'G' on it and the Imperial March playing, which is a bit more amusing.

      Hmm, perhaps I think about this stuff too much!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rm69990 ( 885744 )
      When was Gmail messages stored forever announced? Could you provide a link?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You didn't read the privacy policy closely enough.

      "You may organize or delete your messages through your Gmail account or terminate your account through the Google Account section of Gmail settings. Such deletions or terminations will take immediate effect in your account view. Residual copies of deleted messages and accounts may take up to 60 days to be deleted from our active servers and may remain in our offline backup systems."

      (From http://mail.google.com/mail/help/privacy.html [google.com] )

      In other words, t

  • Privacy Advocates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gravesb ( 967413 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:32AM (#18831277) Homepage
    There are far worse threats to privacy than Google. Watch out for continued government laws that require ISPs of all flavors to maintain data for long periods of time, and to turn it over to law enforcement for less and less stringent requirements. If you are worried about your privacy, don't sign up for the stupid service. Rotate your search engines. Use random Wi-Fi hotspots. If people want their privacy protected, they need to take responsibility for it. You reduce your privacy, and you get free services and make some services easier to use. Most people are ok with that. Whether its because they don't care about their privacy or they are stupid doesn't really matter. They made a choice, they don't need advocates fighting to put the cat back in the bag. They most certainly don't need corporations looking out for their privacy interests, unless its a selling point. Businesses provide services and make money. They don't take care of you. Take responsibility for yourself.
    • Exactly! Everyone should take care of their own privacy. What pisses me off, however, is that if you don't care about your privacy, every American thinks you must be a moron and stupid. I really couldn't care less if they have all my browsing history, including all porn sites that I visit, my present and past phone numbers, times I go to the toilet and similar... I just don't understand the American obsession with privacy; in Europe we don't have such problems. (that is why Yanks can't understand how we all

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        You know, it's not that I think Google is evil for offering this as an opt-in, that's not my problem with it. My issue with it, and the reason I won't use it even though I would actually like to, is that you never know when you might get accused of some bogus crime here (after all, we love making people felons here in the US) and my Google history data could be subpoenaed, taken totally out of context, and used against me. It's not that I don't trust Google not to abuse the data, it's that I don't trust m
    • You can elect your government.
      You can at least hope that they will use a proper legislation framework for the acess of the data.
      With google, you _know_ they will mine it to make as much money as possible.

      Its still evil, from the government. But its worse from a private coporation.
      • You can block advertisements and scripts, you can't block your government, at least not without being arrested. On this note, Google is voluntary. However, Hewlett Packard burning your CD-RW drive's serial number on the CDs you just burnt or the serial number -in code- of your printer on the back of the paper you just printed -in code-, are not at all voluntary. CNBC ran a good special [google.com] on such things. Watch if you dare, because it IS on Google Video...oh no there is a Google Advertisement at the top of the
  • I might have to...

    Clear My Cookies!!!!!!!!!

    Y'know. You don't have to use Google and you don't have to retain all the cookies your machine is sent.

     
    • Actually, I've found that Yahoo lately has done a much better job of crawling my website, all 1700+ pages of it. Google has gone to Hell in this regard. When the world finally figures this out, Google is dead. I don't care how many free services they offer. They are a search company, and they are beginning to fail miserably at it.

  • Why can't I (Score:3, Funny)

    by gitarman ( 643115 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:50AM (#18831373)
    Why can't I get the same storage service Alberto Gonzolez gets at the RNC?

  • Sorry folks, if Google pays 3.2 billion to obtain DoubleClick for any reason, that's just evil, because DoubleClick has ALWAYS been evil. So? By correlation, I guess that makes Google evil too, huh?

    methinks so. I sure as Hell ain't trusting Google with my data so much as I can help it.

    Like Capitalist... --in collusion w/ da Feds'-- Big Brother needs a name?

    ----

    vote with your default search engine of choice [apache.org] folks

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Torvaun ( 1040898 )
      Faulty logic. By that reasoning, Australia is full of criminals, because that's how it was years ago when the British Empire dumped them there. When the United States and it's manifest destiny started moving out to absorb the 'Wild West,' that was just the beginning of the end for civilization, because you have to average the levels of civilization, rather than accept that the acquirer will adjust the acquiree to be more like itself. What I see from this deal is a probable decrease in the number of flash
  • The web history feature is completely consistent with what Google has been striving for - i.e. to provide smart services operating at large scales, in exchange with the role of the 'indexer' of all internet experiences.

    And you forget - that this feature us purely voluntary, and by default is set to off.

    • No be default it is set on. People have reported that when they have turned on this feature, they've discovered past search information.
      • The article is talking about web history information not just search history information. Web history information can only be sought if the user has a toolbar installed and has given his/her consent.

  • PR Decoy (Score:1, Troll)

    by delire ( 809063 )
    What a relief. The option to be voluntarily surveilled proves they weren't already doing it. Those silly tinfoils hats were bent all along.. Phew.. I knew it!

  • CustomizeGoogle (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22, 2007 @09:31AM (#18831613)
    For the paranoids I'd recommend the CustomizeGoogle [customizegoogle.com] firefox extension - among other things (like removing those pesky ads) it can reduce the ability for Google to track what you are doing.
  • You can alway just type "ctrl+h" (ctrl+shift+h" for IE) (or click the button at top of your browser)and get your history of sites visited... Heck, Both IE's Firefox's are even searchable.
    • People would use it for the same reason they would use any web service - It is accessible from anywhere.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by pasamio ( 737659 )
      Because some of us use more than one computer. Like on my desktop I use Epiphany for regular stuff and Firefox when I need to do web dev stuff. Then I have my Mac, which is Safari and Firefox (same rule, spend most of my time in Safari since I go to multiple networks). Then when I go to work I (funnily enough) work on items that are personally interesting (I love my job) so sometimes what I search at home is relevant at work and vice versa, some times what I research at work is relevant to things I want to
  • So the question is: How is Google planning to get away with selling this information to companies?

  • Beagle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22, 2007 @09:36AM (#18831651)
    How is this different from the Search tool in Gnome called "Beagle". Sure I realize Beagle is stored locally on "your" hardware, but remember when you get in trouble there is no more "your". A raid at your residence, or a court order to google / your isp gets you in the same place at the end if you are indeed "evil". In the US the SS is always in power ladies and gents. If your some kind of hacker of some sort where you need to protect yourself and privacy because you are engaging in illegal activities on the net, you have got major problems to begin with. If your connected to some sort of maffia, you have got major problems to begin with as well.

    It IS 1984 in all respects of the book and film. You realize the net tracks everything and knows everything about everyone. Unless your living up in Montana, working at the local grocery store getting paid in cash off the books (no credit card, no phone, no electricity etc...) you have NO PRIVACY already.

    Good luck on ranting about teh Google, they are simply making it easier for you to research your search history on the net.
    • WTF? Beagle at least doesn't call home, like Google Desktop Search and Yahoo Desktop Search (a.k.a. X1 Seach) do. What difference would it make on an unencrypted drive whether you have desktop search software installed or not? If the gendarmes kick down your door, and they want to search your drive, they can mount an image of it and point their own search tool at it, be that a desktop search tool, or forensic search software like ilook or Encase--not having Beagle installed isn't going to save you.
    • "It IS 1984 in all respects of the book and film."

      So you are saying that there is a constant war between three "continents", where two are always fighting against the one that is currently winning? I must pay more attention to those news broadcasts; I've completely missed global war.
    • One difference is that no one actually uses GNOME
  • "We see here that 10 years ago you searched and perhaps retrieved an article about xyz. Yes, do we realize it was legal information at that time, but it is not currently and you might have retained that knowledge. Please come with us."

    "We see that 10 years ago you did a search on such and such item. Yes, we realize you may never intended to have acted on this information at the time, but the laws have chagned and we can now arrest you under the new 'homeland security intervention intent act'. Please come

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If the 'laws' have changed that much in 10 years, I doubt google giving up search info is going to be least of your worries.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ColdWetDog ( 752185 )
        Yeah, it's going to be the videos you uploaded to YouTube (remember those videos?) That'll get you hosed....

  • Look at DoubleClick's IP - it gets clearer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Patent-Monkey ( 1036772 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @09:47AM (#18831721) Homepage
    Key DoubleClick assets from a recent post we did:

    US Patent 7039599 - Automatic Placement of Advertising [patentmonkey.com]
    Highlight: Claim 1. "A method for advertisement selection, comprising: (a) receiving from an advertiser Web site feedback representing user transactions at the advertiser Web site, the user transactions resulting from user response to at least one of a plurality of direct advertisements; (b) receiving a request to display a direct advertisement to a user; and (c) selecting, in response to the request, one of the plurality of direct advertisements for display based at least in part upon the advertiser feedback."

    Analysis: This patent has a priority back to 1997 and allows for advertiser feedback from users on a website. Given Google's move into CPA, this patent would clearly provide added leverage to allow more data to flow between the advertiser and Google's system to optimize which ads should be displayed at a publisher.

    US Patent 7085682 - Analyzing Website Activity [patentmonkey.com]
    Highlight: A large number of independent claims covering the tracking and reporting of user activities to provide analysis of event level detail, which includes the addition of the retaining details of users' adding products to shopping carts, and repeat usage of a client site.

    Analysis: In addition to the above, Google's analysis and reporting features for a tool like Analytics for a CPA advertiser become even more robust allowing for unique visitor tracking and loyalty. A robust addition to Google Analytics to be sure.

    US Patent 5948061 - Delivering, Targeting and Measuring Online Ads [patentmonkey.com]
    Highlight: What all consumer privacy folks have feared for the last 12 years. The tracking of user specific information and the performance and ongoing management of ad delivery based on user information.

    Analysis: Whether we like it or not, Google retains a lot of information about our searches connected to our profiles. This technology does what the original vision of DoubleClick was built on: user-level targeted ads.

    This announcement was easy to see coming.
  • What exactly are people searching for that they are afraid of having tracked? I use google all the time, the more it tracks my searches, the more it seems to know what I'm looking for. For instance, google suggest has gotten excellent at guessing what I want to search for.

    I just don't understand the fear you people have of someone knowing what you searched for. And so what if they buy DoubleClick? I don't consider google ads to be intrusive in the least and with adblock I don't think I've seen a doubl
    • Its all the 13 year olds searching for porn that don't want their parents to find out.

    • In case you haven't noticed... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...the government is actively maintaining and expanding the "enemies of the state" lists, and you can get on it for some pretty tame stuff. The outward manifestation that has made the news is the "no fly" list, or "fly, but you'll get scrutinized heavy for hours and maybe miss flights and they'll toss your luggage or just steal it for analysis".

      And yes, it really IS an "enemies of the state" list. And it's political, just going to an anti war demo or publishing anti administration or anti war stuff has gott
  • I signed up for it this week, to give it a trial run. Well, actually I've been using Google's Search History since its inception and I really like that. Being able to find things I searched for in the past makes my life a lot easier sometimes. I know it could potentially be a big privacy problem for me but it's something I choose to do and I know the risks. Anyways, Google Web Search, their new feature, requires the Google Web Toolbar, which I don't use on any of my computers, because I never really saw

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @10:33AM (#18831993)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AlHunt ( 982887 )
      Or ixquick.com?

      Ixquick's position:

      You have a right to privacy.
      Your search data should never fall into the wrong hands.
      The only real solution is deleting your data.
      We delete our users' privacy data within 48 hrs.
      We are the first and only search engine to do so.
      Our initiative is receiving an overw

  • ...Before getting all pissed off about privacy violation? Google has always logged your web history, the only thing really new about this is the fact that you can view it all from one page and, more importantly, you can choose to delete your entire history and pause it indefinitely. Explain to me how adding this is a bad thing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by KixAre4Kids ( 1090793 )
      But the user-facing web history has nothing to do with the internal data Google is keeping about your searches. The internal data has much more detail: where you were coming from when you did the search, which ads and links they showed you in the results, which you click on (and which you *didn't*), whether you came back later for more. All of this and more! And believe me they do *not* delete it when you delete your web history, or cookies.

      It is the cost to you of having access to so powerful a tool.
    • You can choose to delete your history? Wow. You can choose to delete your mail from Gmail too, but they state upfront (well, buried in the T&Cs) that that in no way means that they delete the information. See the problem?
  • These companies only care about aggregate data, not your data. That use doesn't violate any individual's privacy. On the other hand, aggregate data is all about "violating" collective privacy, what people in general want, what will push their buttons to get them to buy/use something. Of course there are others who would be interested in data on individuals, but they probably have their own arrangements with ISPs already.
  • This can be done without centralization, with a firefox extension, maybe even something pcap/ethereal based which records even what torrents might have been downloaded, rss feeds that might have been read through an rss client, etc... This needs to be a feature of the OS or my browser or my rss client or my bittorrent client, not a way for Google to collect data. Clearly, desktop search hasn't gone far enough if there actually is a demand for this sort of a feature. If the privacy concerns get loud enough,
  • I am starting to feat that the real issue with google is not that they want to spy every move we make but that they actually tell us about the way they handle our information.

    What if the other web services do things that endanger our privacy in similar or worse ways without telling us? Reminds me of the AOL data leak...
  • Look, any deleted e-mails can be found if you searched hard enough. I talked with a recruiter for an e-mail security firm, and he confirmed this statement. Maybe Google is eliminating some of the detective work involved in this issue, but otherwise they're not offering anything a good Computer Forensics or Information Networks course can't teach you.

    And also, most of the money Google earns is through advertising. The better and more accurate it can advertise a product to you, the better job it's doing, a

  • at least they are open about it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nanosquid ( 1074949 ) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @12:50PM (#18832913)
    There are probably half a dozen institutions collecting this kind of data about you: your ISP, a couple of federal and state agencies, several advertising networks, etc. At least Google is open about it and you can have a look at the data.

  • TrackMeNot (Score:4, Informative)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@u m i ch.edu> on Sunday April 22, 2007 @01:22PM (#18833119) Homepage Journal
    Another reason to get the TrackMeNot Firefox extension [mozilla.org], which performs random Google queries constantly in the background. It frustrates attempts at identifying a user through search term frequency analysis.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by asninn ( 1071320 )
      Yeah, great idea!

      1. Sign up and opt in to use this feature
      2. Use TrackMeNot to make it useless
      3. Profit!

      Seriously, wouldn't it be easier to, you know, just refrain from opting in?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mochan_s ( 536939 )

      Also suggest FoxyProxy and Tor for Google searches.

      Though the problem is sometimes you connect to german or chinese google site and your results are skewed in the native language. However, reading Google ads for strange strange things is priceless.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dognuts ( 699368 )
      Why would you waste your bandwidth on such a useless extension. Get DSL & power off your modem every day or two for about 30 seconds, you'll get a new IP address making Google tracking useless, whether you opt-in or not.

      clear your temp files at the same time!

    • That's great until the random search terms somehow manage to incriminate you.
  • I'll be dramatic: Google is a huge threat to human freedoms.

    And now defend it:

    Google is effectively an information black hole - collecting information and letting it back out for more money. They are now sitting on $12B in cash to buy other information collection systems (companies). Most founders and owners can be bought for much less. The one with the most information almost always can win any game/competition.

    Unfortunately, the problems that google will be able to cause people/companies are enormous,
    • "Eventually, there needs to be some capitation on capitalism for the world to be truly global and to balance local interests with common global ones."

      It's a little too late for that, as soon as we as a culture accepted capitalism and allowed no limits on earning power and allowed corporations personhood it was game over. People who have the gold in this world make the rules and unless you threaten them with death they are not going to change for you.

      Many ancient societies knew they couldn't let wealth conc
  • The voluntary part is only about whether you want to see your web history or not. Search history is already stored, whether you wanted it or not.

    On first login you'll see all the past search queries you made starting from some 2-3 years back.
    However, after signing up, you can clear your entire search history or selectively delete certain queries.

    And with Google toolbar installed, you can have it track not only search queries but also all the web pages you'll ever visit.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by si618 ( 263300 )
      Actually, I can't see my search history because I've "paused" all of the collection of my web searches. All the search results in web history come up empty, it's even got a "resume" button waiting for me to click.

      So unless google is lying and is secretly stashing my search history somewhere else, it is voluntary.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Gubbi ( 965203 )
        Now isn't that kind of bullish? I mean voluntary is supposed to imply opt-in to the service, not opt-out. I have paused mine too.
  • Google and AOL we salute YOU! http://www.blackboxsearch.com/ [blackboxsearch.com]

  • use a proxy (Score:2, Informative)

    by talledega500 ( 994228 )
    heres an easy to use one.

    http://www.mysecureisp.com/ [mysecureisp.com]
  • No, I don't think Google's data mine fuels fear so much as it fuels envy. Just think of the corporations and government agencies and ... well, just about everyone who would like a fat pipe right into the GFS root. Yeah. I know I would.

    I've always maintained that when you start concentrating something, anything, at a certain point it becomes dangerous ... if nothing else, to the status quo. Now, having said that, there is Bill Gates, who has accumulated a lot of money, and is doing his level best to maint
  • You know all those club cards people sign up for? Not to mention the records of your credit card purchases and god knows what else? All that data is munged together by companies like Axiom and Experian, who use that data to create extremely details profiles about individuals, and then sell that data to marketing firms. And this has been going on for decades.

    Seriously, anyone afraid of Google, today, simply hasn't been paying attention.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close