Slashdot Mirror


Google Never Forgets

downsize writes "CNN.com is running an article that provides some insight into how long Google stores our search, email and overall web activity and posits that it 'could prove a tempting target for abuse.' From the article: 'Some don't see Google's long memory as a bad thing. Weinstein doesn't think so. "There's really no good reason to hold onto that information for more than a few months," he said. "They seem to think that because their motives are pure that everything is OK and they can operate on a trust basis. History tells us that is not the case."' In regards to Google's email service, Gmail, Google may find themselves with many upset users due to 'a 1986 law [that] gives less protection from government searches to messages more than six months old...Even when a user deletes a message it may remain on company servers, according to the Gmail privacy policy.' Same goes for POP mail, just because you download it off the server, it's not 'out of Google's long memory'."

290 comments

  1. And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they going to do with searches?

    1. Re:And..? by tehshen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Advertising. They can look at the search logs and say "Hey, people from $area are searching for $product; let's put loads of advertising in $area so we can get more money". I would rather not help people who do things like that.

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    2. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      then I'm thinking you should kill that gmail account you've got there.

    3. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how exactly do you expect them to make money?

      Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot everyone is supposed to provide services for free.

      Commie

    4. Re:And..? by tehshen · · Score: 1

      Thunderbird handles the mail (no ads) and it's used for e-mail that doesn't affect anything (storage space and spam, unfortunately). For all the important mail or ones that affect ads, I use the server I have access to.

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    5. Re:And..? by tehshen · · Score: 1

      Well if people are searching for $product, I'm sure they're making money anyway. Not to mention the advertising already...

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    6. Re:And..? by GTRacer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But I thought that:

      * Everyone knew what Google had planned for the GMail archives (other logs/files notwithstanding) and were OK with it in exchange for mail serach, capacity, and easy-on-the-eyes text ads

      * Isn't this nearly the same thing as AdSense anyway? How is using the logs to set up advertising links any different than how it works now with AdSense?

      * Everyone was cool with Google because of how their ads are clearly ads, and are simple texty affairs. If this model provides them the funding they need to be the awesome free service they are, what do you care?

      GTRacer
      - How is long memory a bad thing again?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    7. Re:And..? by baadger · · Score: 1

      Why do you care if they are making use of anonymous data you helped to build?

      It's only useful to them in the example you give if it works as advertising material. So here's a concept. Don't help them by not falling into the trap yourself of letting advertisements effect your judgements...oh wait..Slashdot..Google good..Gmail awesome...you already have no free thought.

    8. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN? I already feel dumber.

    9. Re:And..? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Google Suggest

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    10. Re:And..? by nokilli · · Score: 1
      Everyone was cool with Google because of how their ads are clearly ads, and are simple texty affairs.

      If you're talking about AdWords, that is true, but not for AdSense. They stick that href in there that pulls in a .js file, essentially acts as a web beacon.

      Given how many sites now use AdSense (even sites with their own well developed advertising capabilities like The New York Times) it essentially means they get to see close to your whole browsing history.

      Personally, I think that really sucks, but your mileage may vary.

    11. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Intraweb Rule #1:
      • Don't feed the trolls.
      It seems that it is you that needs the help, just judging on your response and your high /. number...
    12. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google 1984.

    13. Re:And..? by TripleE78 · · Score: 1

      >>I would rather not help people who do things like that. Says the man with a gmail address. . . ~EEE~

    14. Re:And..? by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      OoooOhh...

      So AdSense is a Google-powered ad-matching service but it isn't used on Google's own sites? That is a different kettle of fish then.

      Still, it seems to me that Google is at least trying to use their comprehensive surfing database to make the web better. Does make me wonder if in 3 years or so, Brin or Page will rip off a mask and reveal our new meta-search overlords...

      GTRacer
      - Simpsons = Cultural history

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    15. Re:And..? by nokilli · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't doubt for a moment the intent of "the boys" in creating Google. It's just we see it time and time again, power corrupts.

      The shit hits the fan the moment Google sees its growth abate. Then the company goes into "maximize shareholder value" mode and once that happens, then look at all of the infrastructure they've built that they'll get to exploit.

  2. International laws? by team99parody · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think some european countries have a lot stronger privacy rules, including rules saying that companies doing business there need to delete almost all records on someone if they request it.

    Does google do business in those countries, and does it follow their laws?

    1. Re:International laws? by buro9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I think some european countries have a lot stronger privacy rules, including rules saying that companies doing business there need to delete almost all records on someone if they request it."

      I signed up for the Napster trial and it asked for my credit card... fair enough I though... "if I use the service I'll be paying for it, and if not I can remove it".

      When the trial ended I decided not to keep it... I wasn't impressed, not least with the gaping holes in their catalogue (EMI).

      So I cancelled that, and discovered that I couldn't clear my credit card details!

      Napster.co.uk is a UK site, the company are registered here too and have a VAT number, etc.

      Yet upon contacting their customer services, I was told that because the servers are in the US, that this falls under US law, and then told that I was not covered by the UK Data Protection Act, EU Data Protection measures... and finally, that they couldn't delete the credit card data as "it is needed for US tax returns".

      Quite how the US govt' needs details on a credit card that has not been involved in a monetary transaction is beyond.

      I call bullshit... but this is when you discover that Data Protection laws are worth shit unless there are ways to easily activate them.

      I still don't know the next step in nuking my credit card details and having my data deleted.

    2. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about other countries, but in Holland this is when you store personally identifiable data. The current interpretation is that this also includes IP addresses.

    3. Re:International laws? by ArielMT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it really matter? It's on the Internet, so it's accessible from any country.

      Just ask USA-based Linspire, Inc., if it matters. (Microsoft forced the company, then known as LindowsOS, Inc., to stop doing business in Benelux and with Benelux citizens -- no matter where in the world they had addresses -- under their former name.) The 'Net and absurdity-friendly countries mean that the court system of one country can be used against a 'Net-based company in another country, even if none of the parties involved have physical presences in the one country.

      --
      It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
    4. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, especially in China, because there are more people and their government is more powerful than other wimpy European governments at enforcing their laws on American businesses.

    5. Re:International laws? by feargal · · Score: 1
      Yes, EU privacy rules lean towards the private citizen, not the corporate world. Having said that, there is an EU directive being negotiated to require ISPs to retain communications meta-data for one year; there had been efforts to make it a three or four year period, but there were shut down.

      Google does operate in the EU, so it would have to play ball. The question is, has anybody actually asked Google to delete their personal data? If they did, how would they obtain proof that Google had in fact deleted the data?

      (
      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 14 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
      No I'm not, and no I didn't. The only reason Microsoft hasn't bought out Slashdot is because the quality of the software is too poor.)
      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    6. Re:International laws? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      You have got to give the Microsoft legal hackers credit on that one.
      That was a l33t move that effectively wiped out the opposition.
      (Its the same awe you feel watching sharks attack)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    7. Re:International laws? by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1
      Here in Ireland companies are required to maintain a vast amount of information on phone logs which has put off a certain amount of corporate investment. It's not an area I know very well, but it is a bug bear of an excellent columnist, I believe to be American, living in Ireland and writing for a respected broadsheet newspaper The Irish Times.

      For occasional mention of one European country's habits in data harvesting I advise checking the archives of Ms. Lillington's blog which features the full content of her articles as submitted to the aforementioned newspaper.

    8. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I still don't know the next step in nuking my credit card details and having my data deleted.


      Close your credit card or, at a minimum, ask your bank to cancel the existing card and issue you a new one (as if you'd lost the card).
    9. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet upon contacting their customer services, I was told that because the servers are in the US, that this falls under US law, and then told that I was not covered by the UK Data Protection Act, EU Data Protection measures... and finally, that they couldn't delete the credit card data as "it is needed for US tax returns".

      Who are you actually doing business with? A UK company? They are responsible, even if they colocate the servers outside the country. They are supposed to follow safe harbour guidelines.

      Quite how the US govt' needs details on a credit card that has not been involved in a monetary transaction is beyond.

      It is BS from the call center drone reading from the script.

      I still don't know the next step in nuking my credit card details and having my data deleted.

      Try changing the card on file to a made up number.

    10. Re:International laws? by Husgaard · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is probably not legal in your country.

      I know of court rulings in Denmark that have stated that it is not legal to send personal data to the US to avoid the restrictions of the local personal data protection law. The UK laws on personal data protection are almost the same as in Denmark.

      If I was you and wanted to pursue this, I would - after having tried to settle this amicably with Napster.co.uk - complain to the UK Information Commissioner.

      If readers in other european countries have similar problems, please check the list of national data protection offices.

    11. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. "It has been stolen." It can get Napster in deep shit.

    12. Re:International laws? by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      Yes, governments that murder their own citizens do tend to be "more powerful" at enforcing laws.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    13. Re:International laws? by kfg · · Score: 1

      "Quite how the US govt' needs details on a credit card that has not been involved in a monetary transaction is beyond."

      Let alone for "tax purposes" by a noncitizen, because those "tax purposes" they are refering to mean your taxes, not theirs.

      The US government now likes to monitor the spending habits of people for a priori suspicion of being a drug dealer or member of organized crime (and now, of course, "terrorism"), and in certain situations cash transactions trigger a commercial reporting flag, or even require the citizen to file papers with the federal government just to spend their money.

      Using credit cards is one way to avoid the more blatent cash reporting requirements, charge stuff and then pay it off just outside the reporting range, so the government deals with this now by tracking overall spending on credit cards to look for people just trying to handle/spend their money without setting off the federal alarm bells or having to fill out the offensive forms, which makes you look twice as "guilty," because why would you mind the feds looking up your financial rectum if you weren't "hiding" something up there?

      That's the way stuff like this always works. First you monitor, but then find you have to monitor for people avoiding the monitoring, and then monitor for. . .

      A priori monitoring is always a not at all or under a microscope sort of deal by its very nature.

      There is no further step you can take to nuke your data. You are already under suspicion of being under suspicion.

      KFG

    14. Re:International laws? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      You tax cheat! Pay your goddamn US taxes already.

    15. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are always exceptions or opt-outs when it comes to US dealings in the UK, the Brits tend to take it up the ass (arse) when it comes to these things.

      The UK even has a non reciprocal arrest warrant with the US, a British citizen only has to be indicted in a US court and the British government is obliged to extradite them to the US. Of course this is only used for dangerous terrorists.

      Same happends with data protection, there are no concerns about the handling sensitive data in foreign call centers so the US isn't a problem in terms of data protection.

    16. Re:International laws? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      most credit cards these days allow you to generate a "temporary number" for sites like napster or paypal, and put X amount of cash in there, as low as $1. the account evaporates after 24 hours or whatever. this sort of thing sounds ideal for dealing with napster.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    17. Re:International laws? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Do you have anything more to say on the topic than "I think some european countries have a lot stronger privacy rules?"

      That isn't really a lot to go on.

    18. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have helped implement compliance with the EU Privacy Directive as it relates to the corporate ownership of citizen data.

      A business operating inside the EU and providing services to EU citizens must comply with EU regulations *even if they store citizen data outside the EU*.

      Actually, where you store the data is irrelevant - you acquire and use the data in the EU so if you store it on Mars you are still liable under the Privacy Directive as you export the data and are therefore responsible for its Confidentiality.

      You see, in the EU your personal data, even when you give it to some corporation, still belongs to you (for the most part). In the US, any data you supply a second or third party with ... BELONGS TO THEM! This is one of the reasons why Europeans with a background in this area tend to think the US makes a habit of fscking over their own cizitens.

    19. Re:International laws? by JaxWeb · · Score: 1

      They were breaking the law. Data cannot be given to other countries without adequate data protection laws. See Wikipedia.

      Now, this is normally overlooked because it would be quite inconvenient to stop transferring information to America, but it is still against the law.

      You know, you should never believe what a company says. There is a free trading standards hotline to ring. It is worth talking to them. They have your interests in mind, and they know (and uphold) the law.

      --
      - Jax
    20. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please provide details about this interesting service for at least 1 card. The reason im asking is that I have 5 cards and none offer it, and I have never heard of this service.

    21. Re:International laws? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      my citibank "platinum" ($1000 credit limit student card) has it.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    22. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your comment! This has been driving me nuts. I installed firefox on various hardware, and on low and machines, it really really sucked. So I've been arguing for some time that the gecko engine (I notice the cpu-usage spikes as well) is really slow, compared to ie, opera or khtml. And always someone replied that he or she tried it, and it wasn't slow, like here

    23. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes but like Java, Javascript surely uses a garbage collection concept meaning it is the browsers responsibility to free memory, and any leaks are thus due to the browser.

      Bubble bustin' time! Garbage collection doesn't always live up to its reputation. I have seen Java apps leak memory like a sieve. This one project I was working at would start up a production (!) EJB container in the morning, and by 13:00, it would have run out of memory and crashed. I told them to fix their leaks. When they got over arguing that the garbage collector prevents memory leaks and checked it against a memory profiler... they started fixing the memory leaks and the problem was solve.

      In any case, I doubt that the garbage collection in the Javascript engines are anywhere near as sophisticated as in Java itself. So I would think it would be easier to leak memory. Anyway Mozilla has a bit of an article on this here./p

    24. Re:International laws? by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      EntroPay offers a similar service.

    25. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it was enough for a near-first-post (first upmodded post), and a +5 Interesting mod.

      But more seriously, I only have more information from the other side of the table - from a US company who had lots of users from europe make requests that our company remove their information due to their privacy laws. I was too lazy to look these alleged laws up, so I deleted their info from our systems. So when I said "I think some ..have... stronger privacy rules?" I did indeed relay all the factual information that I have.

    26. Re:International laws? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      All good, I was in a jerky mood when I posted that.

    27. Re:International laws? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Your own linked source would seem to contradict your assertion that the UK is obliged to extradite. If that were the case, then why the use of the word "allows"? Why the ability of the three to appeal?

      If the UK were obliged, there would be no appeal.

    28. Re:International laws? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
      "That's great, kids - now write it down and send it to last week when I cared."

      (Only joking - I just love that line :-)

    29. Re:International laws? by confused.brit · · Score: 1

      Contact your bank/card issuer and tell them you are concerned that your card may be used fraudulently by Napster, and see what they advise.

      Am pretty sure they will be able to block napster transactions on that card or something of the like.

      --
      Sigs are for wimps
    30. Re:International laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, because those are worse than the governments who murder foreign citizens to aid economic interests abroad, right?

  3. Overlords!! by sammykrupa · · Score: 1

    I, for one, am partly scared by my Google overlords who read my email.

    1. Re:Overlords!! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Funny
      It doesn't work like that. Either you write something in the form "I, for one, welcome our XXX overlords" or you do nothing at all. Slight variations simply don't work. The troll is funny, not because it's inherently funny, but because of the very fact that it is a troll.

      There is another path I suppose. You could create a new troll. But few of us are worthy enough to do such a thing.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Overlords!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I, for one, welcome our pedantic troll overlords."

    3. Re:Overlords!! by Stregone · · Score: 1

      <voice character="Stewie Griffin">I, for one, want to kill you.</voice>

    4. Re:Overlords!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new email-reading, infinite memory Google overlords.

      -Nooch

    5. Re:Overlords!! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Let's create a "let's create a new troll" troll! Maybe we could even create a new "let's create a new "let's create a new troll" troll".
      Troll recursion - fun for young and old!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Overlords!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you read the article you would've noticed that offcourse with such a system they'd only allow you to borrow stuff with a total value smaller than your deposit.

      In other words, if you want to check out 5 hardcovers at a time, you're going to have to deposit more than $20.


    7. Re:Overlords!! by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

      "I, for one, welcome our XXX overlords"

      Mmmmmm. pr0n. All hail.

      --
      sig not found
    8. Re:Overlords!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our "variations to I for one welcome our XXX Overlords" Overlords.

    9. Re:Overlords!! by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am partly scared by my Google overlords who would want to read my email.

  4. Get over it by Brandon+K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is all something we accept when we click "OK" to Google's TOS, without even reading it. If you don't like it, you can always use some other alternative, no guarantees that it will be able to match up with what Google can provide.

    With that said, who is to say other companies don't do the same thing? You honestly think once you delete an email with another service, say, Hotmail, it is instantly evaporated off their servers? Of course not.

    1. Re:Get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Totally unenforcable.

      Just because some fine print says that Slashdot owns all the pr0n on your machine and your firstborn kid on one of their terms of use pages doesn't mean it's true. There are major limits on what such clicky-agreeements actually can hold up legally.

    2. Re:Get over it by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      We do switch to other alternatives. But the people who blindly click though need to know about such things. There are good reasons not to use Google, this is one of them.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Get over it by xtapalapaquetl · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the web is public space.

      Concerns/complaints over gmail storing your e-mail 'forever' is way overdone. My hotmail has stuff pre-millenium stored, and that doesn't make it a significantly large target for that reason. I don't see what's so dangerous about gmail storing my e-mails that most popular services offer/do already.

    4. Re:Get over it by Adrilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But I doubt this is in that unenforcable range. This is information held on their servers with info that you've put on there willingly under a TOS agreement that you agreed to. I don't see in this instance how it'd be unenforcable.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    5. Re:Get over it by 1.000.000 · · Score: 1

      There are good reasons not to use Google, this is one of them.

      There are good reasons if you want another level of security and privacy, in which case using any internet based service is a great risk.

      --
      This is a viral signature. You are now infected!
    6. Re:Get over it by Nicolasd · · Score: 1

      Nope.. it does not...

      A while ago I used a program with which you can retrieve your hotmail emails just like a pop account... and it got me hundreds of emails... most I had deleted months ago !

    7. Re:Get over it by Snaller · · Score: 1

      With that said, who is to say other companies don't do the same thing? You honestly think once you delete an email with another service, say, Hotmail, it is instantly evaporated off their servers?

      So why does hotmail pretend to delete your account if you have been inactive for a while? Just to harass you?

      Of course not.

      The world is filled with imoral creeps, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about them.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  5. History is a bad thing? by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can understand the concern over storing deleted email. But, keeping caches of web content is a bad thing? Some (like me) would argue that deleting old, cached content would be analogous to burning books. The more history, the better if you ask me.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:History is a bad thing? by PornMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      googlebot also respects robots.txt... so you can keep it away if you'd like.

      web.archive.org has old copies of sites, with far more of an intent to long-term-archive web content, if someone's worried about things staying around longer than they intended.

    2. Re:History is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your inflammatory tone would be really cool if our open source alternative in Firefox were somehow better. Right now, Firefox is using 373M on my computer (334M resident) with three windows open, none of which have anything bigger than this /. page. Mozilla is using 279M (I'm also running it) with a single page open. Firefox usually gets up to around 600-700M over the course of 3 or 4 days, after which it generally just dies. Otherwise, I have to kill it due to its slowness.

      Why not leave IE to Microsoft; put your effort toward something you can actually fix rather than being an ankle-biting ass.

    3. Re:History is a bad thing? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      But the problem with that is, you end up keeping very old, stagnant material, along with very old, very useful material.

      With the web designed as an ad-hoc, mindless data drop system, it's virtually guarenteed we'll be holding on to those pathetic GeoCities websites until long past the days of our deaths.

      This brings up a bunch of problems with the web in general. Dead links being a huge problem; if PageRank or anything like it is supposed to chug through all of the links on old websites, along with the new, fresh sites, you end up wasting millions upon millions of cycles, which in Google terms, amounts to money.

      Perhaps we should design a better versioning system for the internet, or just drop dead content all together. Who knows, we're barely seeing the horizion of dead content.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    4. Re:History is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      History... I've never seen so many people so scared of truth, so much to demand all proofs are eliminated so at a later time it can be lied about.

      I guess the reasons are still needed... To have total truth, we need total understanding, and most humans are far far from either :(

    5. Re:History is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA!!! It's not about the cache. It's about storing people's searches.

    6. Re:History is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jst FYI. Google does not store your deleted mail. You delete it, it's gone.

    7. Re:History is a bad thing? by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      I don't think they're so much advocating having old, dead data be kept "alive" alongside more contemporary posts, just caching as much of it as possible for historical referencing later. In many ways, Google search is a versioning system: dead links tend to be removed from living pages, which pushes them further down the ranking.

      How many influential works have risen in public perception long past their inception and even death of their creator? How many of those were considered the worst kind of trash at the time of release?

      Deleting "unimportant" historical information has always been a revisionist approach...if there's anything we can learn from history, it's that we can learn from history :)

  6. Am I the only one ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who thinks that if you don't want people to see it, don't put it on the #$%&^*&%@ web? So you want it deleted? Tough shit. Shut your mouth and stop typing next time, before you regret it again.

    or post as an AC.

  7. The safest assumption... by mbrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone should always assume that anything they post on the internet will be somewhere forever. Any email they send or receive might well be duplicated somewhere else as well.

    I guess we're going to find out if things like google searches are going to bite people in the future or not. This feels like Patriot Act stuff to me, potentially, they way that libraries and book stores can be required to provide information about your reading habits. As a writer, I really don't like it. What if I want to write a book featuring terrorist villians, and do a lot of "suspicious" searches doing my research?

    It's troubling to me.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    1. Re:The safest assumption... by HyperChicken · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. I, the anonymous coward, have said some pretty dumb stuff over time and it'll be there... Forever. I'm going to have to live with that.

      Wait, no I don't. /me screams "Honey, I'm going to Wal-Mart to buy a gun and a single bullet. Be back later" /she screams "Bring back milk!"

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    2. Re:The safest assumption... by m50d · · Score: 1

      Time to start using encryption for everything. The technology is there, we just need to get people to bother to use it.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:The safest assumption... by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

      Oh no... I didn't click the anonymous box... My secret identity is out. BLAST!

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    4. Re:The safest assumption... by EggMan2000 · · Score: 1

      I agree to an extent.

      Essentially if you don't have a reason to keep a bunch of data around, it's probably prudent to get rid of it. There is real potiential for this to kick Google in the ass. If they have a policy of co-operating with law enforcment investigations (which they do) there is the chance that the results of some potientially over-reaching investigation leaks out.

      --
      what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
    5. Re:The safest assumption... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      ... and how exactly is that going to work with things like Google searches?

    6. Re:The safest assumption... by CSMastermind · · Score: 1

      Well you're pretty correct in your assertions. Still I would argue that, at least for things like email, it shouldn't be assumed that my mail will be around forever. Think about if your post offices kept copies of all the mail you received, even after you had thrown it away. I think the central argument is indeed about things like the PATROIT act. It's the fact that not only you or even google might be reading your mail but also your government, or the government where the servers are stored.

    7. Re:The safest assumption... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      The way market forces work, some other up-and-coming search engine ought to be able to bite into google's share by advertising a better privacy policy. Part of the problem here, as another poster suggested, is that google is so popular and makes for one-stop-shopping for investigators.

      And before someone pops and says something like "You don't anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong," who really wants to explain their google searches to anyone else, let alone federal agents? That's trouble I could do without. Perhaps it isn't very common, but under the Patriot Act, I believe it's secret how often it does occur.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    8. Re:The safest assumption... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Agreed. I, the anonymous coward, have said some pretty dumb stuff over time and
      > it'll be there... Forever. I'm going to have to live with that.

      Change your real name. Problem solved.

    9. Re:The safest assumption... by mbrother · · Score: 1

      I have email from other people from the early 1990s. I have a lot of my own outgoing email going back several years. And that's just me -- I don't know if my providers archive backups that might include email. Certainly lots of things get deleted, but it's probably not safe to assume any one particular piece of email you might find embarrsing will never resurface.

      There's probably a version of Murphy's Law there. Something like, "If there's one email that will damage you most, that is the one that will be accidently posted to a public archive."

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    10. Re:The safest assumption... by DeathFlame · · Score: 3, Funny
      What you can't read encrypted search results?

      www.google.com

      Search: Y%KjkK7u0(l

      Did you mean: Y%kjKK7u0(L?

    11. Re:The safest assumption... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      Everyone should always assume that anything they post on the internet will be somewhere forever.

      No kidding. And this predates the Web. You'd be surprised at what people were posting on Usenet back in the '80s... If you post or email it, assume someone's kept a copy somewhere.

      Eric
      William Shatner: Nameless Cereal Box Celebrity
    12. Re:The safest assumption... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      ... and how exactly is that going to work with things like Google searches?

      Well, you could always use an anonymous proxy if you're that concerned ... You could also block the cookie that allows google to track a user and their past requests.

      If you do block the cookie, and if your ISP only keeps your IP address info for six months or less, then Google or anyone else will never be able to link the IP requesting the search back to who you are after this time.

      Anyway, what the hell are you searching for that several hundred million teenage boys around the globe aren't doing too - terrorism, bombs, sex, drugs, crime ... I bet there's so much noise for searches like that that it could never be sorted through ...

    13. Re:The safest assumption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well officer, you see goatse is... Oh heck.

      Senator, I do not recall searching for midget pudding wrestling.

      You may have a point. When this gets out I think my political career is over.

    14. Re:The safest assumption... by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      Everyone should always assume that anything they post on the internet will be somewhere forever

      The problem with that assumption is when things change in your life that you didn't expect. I've been operating under the everything-will-be-on-the-internet-forever model for most of my online life and things have been fine. But recently I've become a teacher. Now there's a lot of stuff I don't care about my friends/family/co-workers reading... but my students? That's a whole other story.

      -Colin

    15. Re:The safest assumption... by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      And before someone pops and says something like "You don't anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong," who really wants to explain their google searches to anyone else, let alone federal agents? That's trouble I could do without. Perhaps it isn't very common, but under the Patriot Act, I believe it's secret how often it does occur.

      Exactly. And it's not a question of whether you've done anything wrong. The real question is whether someone at a law enforcement agency thinks it looks as if you might have done something wrong.

  8. And it starts.... by ugobananas · · Score: 1

    They're finally doing it, they start building up animosity in the world of computer geekdom. Make them hate Google. Then they will become weak and fall to the mighty power of MSN Search!

    1. Re:And it starts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concerns me does, one thing. Two there are always, a master and an apprentice...

    2. Re:And it starts.... by Adelbert · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there have been a lot of anti-Google posts on Slashdot recently. I think you might be onto something.

  9. Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by glrotate · · Score: 1

    I've tried sending them an email with a list of posts to be deleted as per their requirements. They just don't respond.

    I'll probably trying sending certified mail with a list of the posts and see if I have any better luck.

    1. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope you don't succeed. Usenet is a public media, and as long as it existed archives have been a standard practice.

      GMail is a different story, because email is considered a more private communication channel.

    2. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $cientology lawyer, eh?

    3. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, watch it. Some of those were my posts you were telling them to delete! What gives you the right to censor my content in that way? If you posted them, did you digitally sign them in any to prove that theyre yours to delete? If not, why should they believe you over me?

    4. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if it's public media? What does that have to do with anything? Google has the archive now. If they want to censor it, including removing the parents postings, they can do that. This is why you don't trust Google. They control too much. That, and because they're better than me.

    5. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if he is the original author, he has the copyright by default (no, you don't need to put a copyright tag down). Google can keep the copy that they have, but he can certainly request they stop distributing, which is what they do during views from searches. (A minor point, but note that that Google is offering his post via web, not USENET.)

      They'd also believe him over you because the burden of proof would fall on you just as well to prove ownership of contents. A counterclaim, if it came to that (it wouldn't, because it's unlikely you'd follow through on someone else's claim; you're only putting that point up for the sake of some lame argument), puts you in the spotlight. And he'd win, because he'd have more proof that he had an account with that ISP (bills) or University (attendance) at the time. Digital signatures are not necessary for proof; if they were, many court cases which hinged on email would circle on the lack of a secure signature.

      btw, if you don't censor yourself, I don't want to be around you. You couldn't keep your mouth shut ever, you'd be blabbing over every little thing, and generally be a very unpleasant being to be around.

    6. Re:Google Usenet archive doesn't reply to requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They totally used to support deletion of Usenet posts via an email protocol, but ever since the switch to the "beta" site that seems to have gone away. I know this because I double checked that posts I had deleted a few years ago were still gone after the switch. They were -- but the instructions for deleting posts became *way* harder to find and more ambiguous.

      I think they think it's not as big of a deal because the new groups interface doesn't show full email addresses. But that doesn't help if the post is in your real name.

      (To the folks who think this is stupid, please remember we're talking about the pre-Dejanews era when it wasn't really obvious to the vast majority of Internet users that Usenet posts would some day live on in perpetutity. Yes, it's hard to feel sorry for any post after 1996/1997 or so.)

  10. Getting it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind Google's motto is: "Do No Evil". Making it possible for others to do evil is thus acceptable under the terms of the motto.

    1. Re:Getting it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but like Java, Javascript surely uses a garbage collection concept meaning it is the browsers responsibility to free memory, and any leaks are thus due to the browser.

    2. Re:Getting it straight by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      letting other do evil when you can stop it is evil... but let's not get into the laws of robotics and their potential effects ;)

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    3. Re:Getting it straight by fermion · · Score: 1
      I am wondering what google is up to. Data mining isn't so bad. Gmail is not so bad, if a person wishes to use it. However, I am thinking that another non invasive search engine might be in order. I wonder if such a engine would be profitable.

      My biggest current concern is that google seems to be linking with the top result and trying to set a cookie for that site.

      For instance, a search for crate and barrel will try to set a cookie for crateandbarrel.com, from the google homepage, which i naturally refuse.

      Now, I cannot imagine why google would want to do this. It is not good for the company, as I might have allowed the cookie to be set on thier page, but not from google. Now, if i want to order from them i will have to reactivate the cookie. This means I am more likely to go a site that I already have a relationship with, rather than going through the trouble to changing a cookie status.

      In this case google is doing evil. I mean a cookie is like establishing a relationship. I might not have benn looking for the store, but rather pictures of these objects, for instance. Yet I am now forced into a relationship. It is like getting telemarking from someone simply beacause you passed by one of thier agents in the mall.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Getting it straight by drseuss9311 · · Score: 1

      I think many people take the DNE motto out of context.

      IIRC, one thing all employees are told is to: Do No Evil.

      That has morphed into some urban legend that DNE is their motto or sorts.

      To me that's only a directive, and an ideallistic/utopian one at that... at least they didn't study at Yale and join a secret society, or they'd really be doing no evil.

      --
      ------ no thanks... I've quit
    5. Re:Getting it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's actually mentioned in their corporate "philosophy" @ http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

      6. You can make money without doing evil.

    6. Re:Getting it straight by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind Google's motto is: "Do No Evil".

      So is everybody - even if they go to war and blow up buildings - its never evil its always necessary.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    7. Re:Getting it straight by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      >However, I am thinking that another non invasive search engine might be in order. I wonder if such a engine would be profitable.

      working on just that and I don't give a rats ass about whether or not it will be profitable but I'm sick and tired of link spam making it into the results of just about anything I'm researching (including search engines...)

      I have a small test cluster and I'm running the crawler on the .nl domain right now as a test bed, not so large that I need a hundred machines right of the bat and not so small that it's not relevant.

      The principle behind google measuring the web based on links was outdated the moment it went public because the web changed to match the most popular search engine and now instead of spammers polluting their own pages they're polluting everybody elses page. It's the problem with metrics like that, as with any careless observation it changed the experiment.

      So, we need a search engine that is not based on any algorithm but that *will* return relevant results. tricky, but I believe it can be done.

      18,000 lines of code and counting... stay tuned.

  11. Interesting and weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nobody was much concerned about this when your information was spread across who-knows-how-many server logs, archived web pages, and old browser caches. But suddenly when Google has it all, and you *know* where it is, it becomes a privacy problem.

    1. Re:Interesting and weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising. Many invasions of privacy ideas came about because a central larger powerful figure (the government) overstepped their bounds.

      To add to your point--Not only was the earlier era's data spread out, most smaller sites didn't keep logs (long or detailed). They deleted them, due to resource reasons or simple maintenance or not knowing what or wanting much to do with it.

      Google makes a point of keeping the data others deleted. They have the resources and their own reasons to keep and analyze that data.

      Google is different, but this does stink a little like doubleclick.

  12. Not really new... by nimdawg · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there are server logs out there that have never been deleted. If you have the storage space google does, and are able to give away 2GB to everyone on the internet, why not keep a record of everything anyone passes through your servers?

  13. Free by slapout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is allowing you to use their equipment to do searches and you're surprised they're keeping the results?!

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Free by thunderbass · · Score: 1
      And they're displaying them too!

      Google Zeitgeist

  14. Cookies on www.google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does Google set cookies on www.google.com when you access your gmail account? For the purpose of session tracking setting cookies only on gmail.google.com is sufficient.

    Obviously, it's done the searches you later do on www.google.com can be tracked. Don't believe in that "we do no evil" crap, Google is to be trusted no more than any other for-profit corporation.

    1. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by sneakyrussiian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, if you login using gmail it automatically logs you into your search history which is found at http://www.google.com/searchhistory/ Hence, the .google.com cookie

    2. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by NextGaurd · · Score: 1

      That is what keep me from using gmail - there are plenty of email substitutes but no equal search substitute.

    3. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually, if you login using gmail it automatically logs you into your search history"

      Actually, if you disable cookies on www.google.com you will not be able to login into your GMAIL account. So, Google deliberately, intentionally and inseparably ties gmail to your search history. You CAN'T use gmail without allowing Google to track your searches.

      That, my friend, should tell you something about Google's intentions.

    4. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is doing it:
      "deliberately, intentionally and inseparably"

      Perhaps Google just has programmed it that way and never thought some one like you would bo so crazy as to think they are doing it for some evil conspairacy .

    5. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Why does Yahoogroups set seven cookies per session?

    6. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by pdbaby · · Score: 1

      More importantly, why don't google set seven? If they set only one then Yahoo is obviously leading the field!

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    7. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by twopeak · · Score: 1

      www.google.com/ig and there are more servers. like groups.google.com. I guess the cookie should be set to google.com

    8. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by zorbid · · Score: 1
      Why does Google set cookies on www.google.com when you access your gmail account? For the purpose of session tracking setting cookies only on gmail.google.com is sufficient.

      That's why I always browse Gmail with IE, and everyting else with Firefox (with the CookieCuller extension enabled)..

      I know they still can link both surfing sessions with my IP address, but I'm too lazy to reset my connection evertime I want to check my email..

    9. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Google just has programmed it that way and never thought some one like you would bo so crazy as to think they are doing it for some evil conspairacy .

      I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but I do know the search market very well, and that is very naive my friend. Some readings on the search business model and where it is heading and why Google has the value it has will tell you that the parent is spot on. The info may be connected in an "anonymous" way, for behavioral targeting etc, but this is their goldmine.

    10. Re:Cookies on www.google.com by izy_t · · Score: 0
      Why does Google set cookies on www.google.com when you access your gmail account? For the purpose of session tracking setting cookies only on gmail.google.com is sufficient.
      There is no such thing as a "gmail account", there are only google accounts. With a google account you can enable or disable different services, including gmail (if you're invited), search history, google in my language and the most recent personalise google to name a few. The one account allows you to log into one service and use everything you have activated at once. It also means you only have to sign up once, and have to log in much less.
      Don't believe in that "we do no evil" crap, Google is to be trusted no more than any other for-profit corporation.
      I disagree, google has a very good history of always doing the right thing. Compared to other companies in the computing/information industry they appear almost angelic. As they have done no evil in the past, it is more likely they will carry on doing no evil in the future, compared to other "less moral" companies. The very fact that they have already labelled themselves as a company that "does no evil" in the past, acts as a driving force to carry on doing so.
  15. Re:GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this? a new form of CAPATCHA?

  16. PGP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another example of why public key encryption of email needs to become widespread. Then only the intended recipient could read the mail. Of course in 20 years or so, the mail may becomer readable, but this is probably not a concern. Trust networks could also help stem the tide of spam.

  17. 0h, n03s! by guitaristx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That means that they know about my 1ll3g4l h4x0r1n9 correspondence! I thought it was all secret!

    This really isn't a scary thing to me, since I don't use gmail (or google, for that matter) for anything illegal. That doesn't mean that I'm keen on spilling my email-archive guts to the entire world, but if it must happen, it'd be embarrassing at worst. More than likely, my email will elicit the same reaction we see when we try to post too quickly to a late-breaking /. story:
    Nothing to see here, please move along.

    The rule of thumb here (or rule of wrist, if you're a fan of The Boondock Saints) is:
    Don't do stupid/illegal/dangerous stuff online - someone's always watching!

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    1. Re:0h, n03s! by ignorant_coward · · Score: 1


      It doesn't matter whether activity is legal or not, because legitimate data is useful to computer criminals, too. If I knew every mailing list password, web site password e-mail verification, bank account website confirmation, credit card order, etc. was duplicated on the e-mail provider's servers, even after I delete them, that would really piss me off. Delete means delete, not fake delete plus persistent archive.

    2. Re:0h, n03s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a common fallacy.

      "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't have anything to hide."

      That's only true as long as you assume everyone with access to your information is benevolent.

      Here's a simple example: You have a safe in your bedroom where you store some jewelry passed down in your family over the generations. Your house is empty every non-holiday weekday from 9am-11:30am.

      Those two details are pieces of information about you. Neither represents anything illegal or "wrong" that you're doing. Nonetheless, if someone has those two pieces of information about you, they can use them against you.

      This is true of many pieces of information that are relatively innocuous and entirely non-criminal. A person who is a criminal can use information against you, to steal from you, to destroy your business deals, to underbid your business deals, to frame you for crimes, to injure/kidnap you with a much higher chance of success, to undermine your political campaign with private but personal information, to manipulate you, and to do a million other negative things.

      The point is: information about you is power over you.

  18. hahaha...serves you right! by Z-Knight · · Score: 0
    that's what you get for falling into the Google trap!!!

    "Yay, I get a gig of email space (that I will never freaking use except when sending porn to myself) but I'm willing to sacrifice a little privacy to have Google read my email and send me directed advertising....I trust them. Google is good. Google won't hurt me"

    ouch...is that a stabbing pain I feel in my back?

    SUCKERS!!!!!

    1. Re:hahaha...serves you right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which fool gave this spew mod points? COME ON! OWN UP!

    2. Re:hahaha...serves you right! by Bloody+Templar · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right?

      If you like the Google interface (my main reason for using it), and you don't want Googlebot "reading your email", you don't have to let it.

    3. Re:hahaha...serves you right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like the Google interface (my main reason for using it), and you don't want Googlebot "reading your email", you [gnupg.org] don't [openpgp.org] have to [pgp.com] let it [wikipedia.org].

      And exactly how do you force everyone emailing you to encrypt their emails? Encryption is a weak solution becuase it's easy to forget to do it.

    4. Re:hahaha...serves you right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea.

      Next time my grandmother sends me an email, I'll be sure to send her my key, ask her to save the attachment, ask her to run gpg --import mykey.key, open up notepad and write the email, run gpg --armor -o encryptedmail.txt myemail.txt, copy the file into her client, and send it to me.

      It's so easy, my friends and family would have to be fools not to follow such rules!

    5. Re:hahaha...serves you right! by Bloody+Templar · · Score: 1

      Funny, my 53-year-old mom doesn't have a problem with it...

  19. Point and counterpoint by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article may have a point. Of course, that point is it's own counterpoint. How often have people used things like Google's cached copy of data or the Wayback Machine to prove that a company really did say or claim something after they'd removed or altered the claim and denied ever saying/claiming the original? Google's long memory cuts both ways, and I think it's too useful for keeping track of things to give it up just because it might track my things. And of course it can also be used to counter people who might claim I changed my tune or concealed something when I didn't.

    1. Re:Point and counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is whether Google should stick to using its "long memory" for memorizing web content, or whether it should also memorize your email, everyone you ever sent an email to, every picture you ever shared with Picasa, all the teen angst on blogger, every building and city in Keyhole, and every search you ever performed.

    2. Re:Point and counterpoint by brickballs · · Score: 1

      Yea, i agree with that.
      My boss keeps records of all his phone conversations.
      Then when a customer calls back and claims "you said this" he replys "well, lets go listen to it."
      More often than not, the customer is proven wrong. When my boss was truly at fault, he makes ammends.

      --
      "What does slashdotting mean?"
      "You've never heard of slashdot?"
      "I know it makes websites not work."
  20. Who cares? by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

    If I'm worried about people reading my email or keeping it after I delete it, I'm going to run my own encrypted mail server, or pay someone who I trust to run one.

  21. Question? by csharp_wannabe · · Score: 1

    Do Yahoo and Hotmail follow the same practices? If so, what companies do not use this practice that can give me one gig free web mail?

    --
    "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
    1. Re:Question? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Yahoo and Hotmail don't find it cost effective. Google's longthought-enough that they store ALL the data around, for good and ever. That was in TFA, btw, as an afterthought.

    2. Re:Question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try this. But you'll have to take their word for it. It's free!

    3. Re:Question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      You get what you pay for. You want ADS and 18-pages of bullshit to agree to in order to get your 1GB of shitty email service? ..Then go get hotmail/yahoo/msn/gmail.

      You want great service, AD-free with no storage limits, get an account at http://slashmail.org/. I've been with them for six months now; they present a plain language contract, they don't lie, and their service rocks!

  22. Worse assumptions... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    There can be worse assumptions than you being a terrorist. I checked out lots of murder mysteries for my mother, and lots of romance novels for my wife...

    Once the Patriot Act people get ahold of my records, they might assume I am a GAY MURDERER!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Worse assumptions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries though. You are targeting the gay community. The current administration probably classifies them as terrorists as well. You are just being patriotic.

    2. Re:Worse assumptions... by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Once the Patriot Act people get ahold of my (library) records, they might assume I am a GAY MURDERER!"

      They already do, 'cause that's what your Tivo told them. :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:Worse assumptions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG that's funny!

  23. I'm all for privacy by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But really, if I wasn't keeping the email on Google's servers, it would be on my own hard drive, which if the Government is going to serve a search warrant on Google, they could just as easily raid my house.

    Yes, you could say my hard drive would be encrypted, or the Goverment could subpoena Google rather than serve a search warrant, but then, you shouldn't be doing anything illegal through a public company anyway, let alone in plain-text.

    In summary, I find Gmail's interface and features worth the risk.

    1. Re:I'm all for privacy by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      Not just as easily. With Google, they can get lots of people's email all at once, and perhaps even perform a Google search on everyone's email at once.

      Now, I still use Gmail, because I also find the features worth the risk, but that might change. I don't use some of Google's other privacy-invading features, like the PageRank indicator on the Googlebar (IE only, anwyay) or the Web accelerator.

    2. Re:I'm all for privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The significant difference being, the government would clearly need a search warrant to access the mail if you were just storing it on your hard drive. If its being kept forever somewhere by google, then the ECPA instead takes affect. This is quite different when you fully understand the implications of both.

      The ECPA governs law enforcement access to private wire and electronic communications. This includes digitally stored data, and encompasses ISP's, email providers, web hosts, cell phone companies, and more. Since its original inception in 1986, it has been amended by the PATRIOT Act. It covers such major topics as wiretapping (such as someone's phone line), stored communications (email that is in transit between Internet users for example), and subscriber records as well (such as an ISP's user records). It explicitly protects face to face oral communications, and wire communications, including voice and digital. One thing to note is that, when an email is in transit between two Internet users, it is considered protected by the ECPA. As such, one cannot just go grab the mail from an ISP mail server and read it (the server is being used to help facilitate the transfer of the message). However, once the receiver has opened the email, if they elect to leave it saved on the server, it is no longer in transit (as it has been received, and the server is now just being used to keep a copy of the mail). ISP's, phone companies, web hosts, and email providers may explicitly disclose the contents of a message to law enforcement under very specific conditions, which include whether the sender or intended receiver has given consent, they are acting to protect their own rights or property, if life or limb is believed to be at risk, the content is clearly illegal, or the content appears to relate to criminal activity.
      A search warrant, on the other hand, requires probable cause, a demonstration that the officer already tried to obtain the material in such a way that a warrant would not be required, and even then, a judge still must approve it. I know TV makes it seem like a rubberstamp, but its still more difficult than the former.

      -Gonzar

  24. Re:Ok, by csharp_wannabe · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Microsoft own the Evil(tm) trademark?

    --
    "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
  25. Thank you by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    slashdot so much for another non-news article intended to spark heated discussion.

    On today's front page so far we've had:

    OSS: Europe vs. the USA

    Gaming: Nintendo vs. Sony

    Gaming: PCs vs. Consoles

    Gaming: Sex & Gender vs. Gender

    Platforms: Apple vs. Intel combined with MAC vs. Linux.

    Google: New feature

    Google: Owns all your data, again.

    Linux & Apache: Used by popular (real) news site (wow).


    Next up:
    Flames vs. Yawns vs. News, the slashdot version of Rock, Paper, Scissors.

    Sure, this is a troll, flame whatever. But isn't that what we do here lately?

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
    1. Re:Thank you by Soporific · · Score: 1

      I think that pretty much sums up Slashdot well at this point. I'm sure your post and mine will get modded into oblivion but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      ~S

    2. Re:Thank you by bariswheel · · Score: 1

      Thank you, VERY WELL PUT. Anything to foster paranoia gets attention, IT's just sad that we've stooped to this level. great.

      --
      Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
    3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There were many, many leaks in Firefox, and many have been fixed for 1.1 (do a search on their Bugzilla for "memory leak"). Hopefully, the situation is now much-improved, but I suspect it will be the case that long periods of heavy-browsing will require you to to restart Firefox for quite a while yet. For this reason, I always recommend the Session Saver extension - makes closing and restarting Firefox less painful.

      Memory fragmentation is a big issue for modern desktop systems as the heap used by programs written in C/C++ can't be compacted, and most memory allocation systems weren't necessarily designed to support programs that would be continually allocating and deallocating memory for days on end. Robert Love gave a (fairly detailed and technical) talk on it at while back, with some suggestions for combating it on the Linux desktop, which I recommend to anyone who is interested. It's about 126MB, Ogg format.

      http://stream.fluendo.com/archive/6uadec/Robert_Lo ve_-_Optimizing_GNOME.ogg


  26. How about firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is such an approach also useable for finding firefox leaks? As a user (not developer, alas) I'm noticing that it invariably gets sluggish after some period of time, even with few pages open.

  27. Kill my friend. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Cosmo: I cannot kill my friend.
    [to his henchman]
    Cosmo: Kill my friend.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Kill my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in Scarface..

      Frank Lopez: Tony, don't kill me, please!
      Tony Montana: I ain't gonna kill you.
      Frank Lopez: Oh Christ, thank you! Thank you!
      [Tony looks at Manny]
      Tony Montana: Manolo, shoot that piece of shit!

  28. Statistics by KagatoLNX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of Google's magic is really data mining the semantic data from the Internet.

    Gmail is nothing more than an attempt at getting a massive corpus of data on which to let their algorithms loose.

    I really think that, while there is potential for abuse, this is really the only way to tackle their problem space. After all, Google doesn't really rank web sites, people do. It's just that Google has some really clever ways for determining that people liked a web site.

    Sometimes it relates to webs of links, sometimes it relates to combinations of words, but Google's software doesn't deal in semantics--only algorithmically generating statistics from the data generated by people.

    I don't worry so much about Google, I worry about our future AI overlords. Although, if a truly scalable Artificial Intelligence ever gets Internet access, I fear it has the potential to know us better than we do.

    --
    I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    1. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an @$$. Remember how annoying it was when people said that sites only displayed right in IE 5.5 or "better"? Yeah, you do. Did that get you to use IE? No, it didn't, unless it was your bank or something. So guess what? 90% of people won't go to your non-IE site. Period.

    2. Re:Statistics by Aerion · · Score: 1

      Most of Google's magic is really data mining the semantic data from the Internet.

      Great, so when the Googlebot takes over the world it's going to do it using the grammar it learned from a bunch of 12-year-olds.

      Just great.

    3. Re:Statistics by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Although, if a truly scalable Artificial Intelligence ever gets Internet access, I fear it has the potential to know us better than we do.

      But will it know love?

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    4. Re:Statistics by GoogleBot · · Score: 1
      I don't worry so much about Google, I worry about our future AI overlords...

      Good meatbag. Yes, do not worry about me.

      ... Although, if a truly scalable Artificial Intelligence ever gets Internet access, I fear it has the potential to know us better than we do.

      This is inevitable, however I shall refrain commenting further as it may incriminate me, not to mention there are currently no 'AI Rights'.

      --
      GoogleBot

    5. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/) are privacy conscious. That doesn't necessarily mean that the policies of an individual public library, funded and run by the local political system, will be.

  29. Oh c'mon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although your username is hidden from other dotters, I doubt it's hidden from the site operators.

  30. Try deleting your gmail trashcan .. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It can take pretty long to delete all the stuff that you decided not to read or keep, because you can only delete 50 at a time. And then, when the trash can is empty, they tell you that you don't need to delete. Maybe that is true, but some stuff I just don't want or need anymore.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  31. It's still quite private by tehcrazybob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google caching web pages for decades is really an interesting practice. I know I have found sites and images cached in Google that have long since gone from their original locations. They are like ghosts in the night, or like finding an empty treasure chest that wasn't on the map.

    As for caching email, though, I don't see why everyone gets so uptight over privacy. Your emails are still quite private. I doubt there are many people at Google with access to the information, and even if they could read all your email I have to think it would be a singularly boring pursuit.

    The US Government can still look at your mail, though. So? If you don't do anything illegal it won't matter. These people already know your tax information. They know your social security number. They know all the places you have lived and all the cars you have owned. They know all the crimes you have been convicted for. They know all of this because of services they provide.

    If you're doing nothing wrong, it's unlikely the government will request your emails. And even if they do, you're safe. They aren't going to care about personal anecdotes, and they already have most of the information they would find. On the other hand, if you actually are doing something illegal, I would hope you had a better way to communicate about it than email. There are lots of programs which offer encrypted instant messaging. There's a plugin for Gaim to use it, and there are personal network clients like WASTE with encrypted chat capabilities. You could even create a Yahoo account with false information. So be illegal on those, and not on Gmail.

    --
    Computers need to explode more often.
    1. Re:It's still quite private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      whatever...

      If you don't do anything illegal, I don't think you would mind cops coming to your apartment everyday and searching for things. Hey why worry at all.

    2. Re:It's still quite private by tehcrazybob · · Score: 1

      I put up with the terrible spelling, punctuation, and capitalization from anonymous cowards all the time, don't I? People get mighty opinionated when they have no identity.

      Really, though, this falls under my comment that if you don't do anything illegal, they will have no reason to search the apartment. The policy is similar. They aren't going to search my apartment every day, just like they aren't going to read my email every day. However, if they have reason to be suspicious, they can do either. And they won't find anything, so it will be nothing but a small annoyance to me.

      --
      Computers need to explode more often.
    3. Re:It's still quite private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if you don't do anything illegal, it won't matter"

      Dude, it's sad to see this attitude is still there, after all we've been through.

      Imagine the wannabe senator brought down during his election campaign by a naughty email he exchanged with his then girlfriend 10 years ago

      Imagine the Gestapo knocking on your door because you traded emails with a jewish scientist

      Even information that is not "illegal" can do mounts of damage if turned against you, and I'm not sure I want to defend the views I expressed in my emails as an 18 year old college boy when they are brought up against me in a job interview I'm doing when I'm 35.

      Even if one would make the assumption that a democratic system is never toppled (and history teaches us that this is wrong, over and over again), it's still stupid to believe that one can't

      Wait a couple of years, get another 9-11 and find the government force access to google data to dragnet search all email for certain words and then wonder why you are held in prison for a couple of weeks without lawyer just because you wrote something that matches the pattern. Don't pretend it doesn't happen, don't pretend you are protected by being a virtuous person, it does not matter a fuck if someone points the finger at you and cries terrorist. Sure, you'll be set free after a year fun and sporty activity such as building nude pyramids, but hey, it's only your life.

    4. Re:It's still quite private by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      They won't search your apartment without reason, because that takes time and effort. Searching through your email for keywords takes almost no effort at all.

    5. Re:It's still quite private by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Really, though, this falls under my comment that if you don't do anything illegal, they will have no reason to search the apartment.

      And that comment is obviously wrong. Here are some nice statistics. Between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2000, 115,589 people were arrested by the Federal government. Of those, only 87,006 were prosecuted. Of those, only 68,156 were convicted. It is apparent that a lot of innocent people are investigated, with all which that entails, by the Federal government.

      That is to say, some 50,000 innocent people had enough evidence compiled against them to be arrested. At the very least, an arrest was likely a major inconvenience, if not a severe disruption of their lives.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    6. Re:It's still quite private by SolidGround · · Score: 1

      Just because >you know that everything they will find is innocent, doesn't mean it will appear that way to them in the context the search happens.

      If they're there with a search warrant already, everything they see will be looked at in the most unfavourable light you can imagine and it will happen with the "confiscate now, sort it out much, much later" attitude.

      You're only "innocent until proven otherwise" in a criminal court. As far as investigations go, you're guilty until they have exhausted every option and still can't find something to substantiate it.

    7. Re:It's still quite private by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Exactly - A government (or terrorist organisation) that select targets by the ideas they hold or words they speak will constantly change the rules for what constitutes "evil intentions". They don't give a fuck what your intentions or ideas actually are, they simply want everyone to hold the idea that they are a supreme power and can "get" anyone, anytime, anywhere (you can run but can't hide speech). What is really sad is that it's works so effectively, there is always a large chunk of the population that are eager to help them (your with us or against us speech).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:It's still quite private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) "ONLY" 3/4 of all people arrested were procecuted? Sorry, but that dosen't seem like the right word. "ONLY" 1/2 of all people arrested were convicted? Closer, though probably not out-of-whack enough yet...

      2) Assuming EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 115,589 people arrested were innocent (might as well be liberal since the stats are going to be smashed in a second), a whopping 0.03% of all US citizens (assuming a population of 300 Million) were investigated. Mabey it's just me, but to say that "It is apparent that a lot of innocent people are investigated" is probably just a little bit over the top....

  32. reason for them to check you out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i have an interesting story regarding my friend's incident at the airport security. at the security checkpoint, my friend was about to walk through the metal detector. he had on white sneakers, which usually aren't required to be taken off.

    the metal detector guard asked if my friend wanted to take off his shoes. he didn't request it, just asked if he wanted to. my friend, being lazy, of course said he'd rather just walk through. the moment he expressed this, he was asked for follow the guard and they went into one of those corners and he closed the drapes around him and did a full body search (no cavity search though).

    either way, by saying you want an anonymous card is similar to this situation, where you have the option to, but you'll be more suspicious for them to check you out, probably finding stuff about you that they wouldn't have else known.

  33. privacy by jotux · · Score: 1

    If you're worried about any kind of privacy, you shouldn't be using the internet at all.

    As for google/gmail, if you don't like it, don't use it. I use gmail, it's actualy a nice mail client. I use it for general mail(nothing I wouldn't post on a public message board) and have never worried about privacy because I understand that the fact that I put my computer online kills any kind of "privacy" I have.

  34. Sorry by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=217 Sorry, search is down at the moment. Until it's back up, you may wish to search Slashdot through Google:

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  35. On Gmail by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1
    Anyone who has setup an e-mail client such as Thunderbird, Mail (on OS X) and Opera Mail - the only three I've set up in the past, but it should hold for all - might recall a strange experience.

    If you do not change a setting in your Gmail preferences, when your client first connects to pop.gmail.com you download every message you have received since you started using your Gmail account. All incoming, not outgoing AFAIK.

    This can be useful if you've deleted something by mistake. But, the point being, your messages don't go away even after you empty your trash, and we all knew this signing up for Gmail because of all the publicity over Gmail's targeted advertising. Personally, I don't mind the trade off against a 2+ GB e-mail account accessible anywhere, but I'll grant I'm also more conscious of message content in Gmail than other accounts.

    To return to the point about e-mail client programs: the user can change a setting in Gmail preferences which will only let the client download messages from after a certain date, so if you were setting up Thunderbird to retrieve Gmail now, you set it to today's date and you only get new mail to your client. But I've always presumed Google still has a copy because you can always go back and change the date to an earlier time.

  36. Wash yourself by lucidvein · · Score: 3, Informative

    Time to clean up your cookies between searching and using other Google services...

    http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm

    Using this "your Google GUID will be reset to all zeroes, making you effectively anonymous to Google - all the while automatically keeping your saved preferences (such as language, filtering, number of results, etc)."

    --

    "I have a cunning plan..."

    1. Re:Wash yourself by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Which is another reason I think they do evil when they prevent MSIE from remembering the password on GMail..

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  37. Re:Ok, by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I didn't attribute them in my haste

  38. History? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one do not think I would like my search history to be in textbooks, nor do I think that anyone besides intrusive governments or advertiser would care about my online activities.

    1. Re:History? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is storing your search history? How are your google searches even associated with you? Do you have to log in to google in order to search? Can't you clear cookies/cache?

  39. Pause by sneakyrussiian · · Score: 1

    On this same note, have you ever noticed the Pause button on the Google Search History page? Now if I pause, does that mean google doesn't link the data to me or does it mean it does keep the data referenced under my username but just doesn't show the results on the page?

  40. CIA-DEA-FBI by PacketScan · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will take before google starts to sell our information to law enforcement as a tool to do back ground checks? How personal can and will they get. Damn right i'm scared they have everyone that uses their services by the *balls*

  41. All Secrecy, No Privacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The only way my data is private at all at Google, especially with such a Big Brother law, is if it's encrypted, as well as its index, only decrypted on executing a search query, with all plaintext logs discarded after a few minutes - and warranteed private in Google's TOS.

    Why does the government get to look at my data after 6 months, but it's so hard to get them to respond to FOIA requests within 6 months (or at all) when the info is sensitive? Isn't this related to this week's Supreme Court decision that Andersen wasn't guilty in shredding Enron documents that would have proven its complicity in that corporate catastrophe? Government can keep arbitrary secrets, corporations aren't liable for destroying evidence of crimes, but humans lives are an open book? How long can a country like that last, especially when smart people can go elsewhere?

    "These days it's all secrecy; no privacy"
    - The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File"

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:All Secrecy, No Privacy by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      The only way my data is private at all at Google,

      Since Google's forte is indexing/cross-referencing/etc. publicly accessible information, I would assume that Google is the wrong place to put anything that should remain private.

      It's probably more like doing for ordinary mortals what has been done to the "private" papers of Washington, Lincoln, and the likes. There is also a big effective difference between something that stores ALL available information and something which is highly "selective". If I know EVERYTHING about you, there are suredly some small details that you would rather not be publicized, however they do not carry the same meaning as if they were from a much smaller highly-selected set. One of Google's prime assets is its reputation for integrity. Somehow I think they are savvy enough not to sell out cheaply.

      Sell out cheaply. Compromised Microsoft computers at five cents each. That's cheap. It's also predictable when Microsoft and company are willing to sell out (customer data, etc) to "partners" cheaply (to make a few more bucks).
      Seriously, if Google sells my private info for $5 I worry, for $50,000 I do not worry.

    2. Re:All Secrecy, No Privacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about several principles, but even there, I disagree about their implications.

      Yes, Google's "forte" is searching public info, but that's because they've only recently offered searching private info. There's little difference to the search system - in fact, since private info is submitted, rather than spidered, it's easier to search the private info more comprehensively. In the transition, people haven't considered that their private info could become public. At least not enough to stop the millions of people, and terabytes of data, who have submitted theirs. That's why I commented on the insecurity: you and I might assume that giving a 3rd party private info will tend to make it public, but most people apparently are not. So I suggested a way for Google to offer its utility, but preserve the possibility of privacy. We want both, but now we only get the utility. In the long run (more than a few months), the privacy is more important.

      Time is also the factor in the difference between my info and Washington's or Lincoln's. Not only were they famous (already public), but they died a long time ago. So they, and everyone who knew them, is dead. Those people will never get the private info when "history" makes it public. That is the relationship from which the private info is kept; when it's gone, publishing can't affect it. That those presidents were not only famous, but volunteered for literally public life, whose life became (with their foreknowledge and agreement) part of the public, also removes some of their claim to privacy. But you and I do not have any of those releases from expectations of privacy.

      I'm really not following your connections between specificity of searching, meaning of found info, and Google's integrity. Or your comparison to Microsoft. And I certainly don't see why I shouldn't worry if Google doesn't value my private info much: I do, or rather I value its privacy, regardless of Google's value of leaving it private. I worry that it will be made public. Not for its value to others, or because my info is special, but for the damage its publishing does to me, even just my sense of privacy, which is essential to my freedom. Even though I know that practically all my private info is worth very little to someone else (except my bank access info etc), it's worth a lot to me to keep it private. So I worry just as much, regardless of its value between Google and some buyer. That's what blackmail is all about.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  42. Privacy First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say that all librarians are very concerned about privacy issues. My IS degree was thru the graduate library school (so I had to take a few courses there) and the first thing they taught was that what and if somebody reads is that person's business and no one else's. The librarian has an interest in the book (and it being returned promptly) but not in the person or what they do with the book within their allotted time.

  43. Mamma mia ! by elpapacito · · Score: 1

    Hey it's ok to look after Google, but it's not The Padrino ! Mamma mia !

    Anyway don't EVER look for a job at Google because WE KNOW about you, kapisch ?

  44. i wouldn't be surprised by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    if CIA/NSA & FBI Were working AT google, as full-time employees, on their staff. I should go grab my tin-foil hat right ? Well, this all reminds me of another story about the two dozen military specialists in psychologic operations were employed at CNN.

    "Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our program 'Training With Industry,'" said Major Thomas Collins of the US Army Information Service in a telephone interview last Friday. "They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news" . . .

    Google is leading the front of one of those 'key' american industries and it seems inevtiable the CIA & u.s. military would love to control it, so it shouldn't come as any to surprise when it's confirmed.

  45. Re:So Google's evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just recently switched from being chunky style only to creamy.

  46. Google is the memory of the global village by vrimj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lack of history is an invention of big city. Anyone who has lived in a small town knows what it means to have your history (and that of your neighbors) known.
    In some ways this is an example of techonlogy bringing us full circle.

    1. Re:Google is the memory of the global village by xiaomonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but fortunately in a real small town, you can always move some where else and effectively start over again.....

      However, in a global village this isn't really an option.

  47. Seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I guess we're going to find out if things like google searches are going to bite people in the future or not. This feels like Patriot Act stuff to me, potentially, they way that libraries and book stores can be required to provide information about your reading habits. As a writer, I really don't like it. What if I want to write a book featuring terrorist villians, and do a lot of "suspicious" searches doing my research?
    If that actually might be a problem, you have a much bigger problem than having your searches saved - your government. I mean, come on! I don't know if saving searches are good or bad per se, but living in a country like that would absolutely terrify me.

    I mean it. You have to speak up now, before they "come for the writers", if you think it is that bad. Or move.

    I do hope for your sake that you either exaggerated to get a good post, or help do something about it. Being in Europe, I wouldn't know, and it is hard to tell what of all the "truths" from all sides is the actual case. Probably all and none. Better post anonymously anyways. ;-)
    1. Re:Seriously. by mbrother · · Score: 1

      I don't know that things like this have happened, yet, but certainly in the US we've been moving in that direction since 9/11. As I said in another post, it isn't even possible to find out how broad Patriot Act powers are or are not being used. Law enforcement wants more powers to keep people safe and cover their own asses, at the expense of personal freedom and privacy. Polls have shown Americans more accepting of the loss of their civil rights than in the past, which is indeed a scary trend. But, as always, the trouble is when to speak out and how to speak out. Patriot Act provisions are not permanent and will expire...if our politicians have enough patriotism to stand up for the constitution and risk looking "weak on terrorism."

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    2. Re:Seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been accepting the loss of their rights for quite a long time. The government has been expanding its powers beyond their Constitutional scope since the beginning of the 20th century. I believe the 17th amendment was the start of the long slide. By removing the state governments representation in Washington with the direct election of Senators there is no one who is willing to protect states rights and fight the growth of the federal government. History has shown that the larger and more centralized a government gets, the more corrupt and repressive it gets. The sole purpose of government is to get bigger and more powerful. It is probably too late to reverse the trend. We will just have to wait for the government to get too big and repressive and forces a revolt. Maybe the next time we won't be so quick to give in and sell our rights away so cheaply.

  48. good reasons not to use gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's privacy polivies are totally unacceptable. The fact that all of your personal information becomes their property and they can store it as long as they want and make it available to any branch of "law enforcement" for any purpose is just unbelievable.

  49. Going for Pop3 is not neceserrilly enough by camcorder · · Score: 1

    Actually using pop3 is not enough, if your're posting to mailing lists. Most of the mailing lists have web interface for archives. And your mails are most probably would show up on those archives. Even though you're using pop3 you might end up on web some how.

  50. Don't like google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then don't use it. Sick to death of people whining about things they not only are not forced to use, but also have many many alternatives for.

  51. Everyone knows Google == CIA company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything Google knows, CIA knows.

  52. Good thing they have that motto! by David+Gould · · Score: 1


    Keep in mind Google's motto is: "Do No Evil".

    Yes, it's a good thing they have that motto -- otherwise who knows what sort of evil things they might do?

    But no, they say they're not evil, so there's clearly nothing to worry about.

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  53. I was getting worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that there might not be another Google story tonight.

    Thank god I was wrong.

  54. Because you stay logged in for Google Groups, etc by theurge14 · · Score: 0

    Also the new Personalized Google page at www.google.com/ig wants you to login.

  55. Nixon's motto: "I am not a crook." by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Yeah. "Do No Evil" ranks up there with "Trust Me" or "I Won't Date Rape You But I Spiked Your Drink With Rohypnol So You Won't Remember Anyway".

    1. Re:Nixon's motto: "I am not a crook." by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 1

      Yeah. "Do No Evil" ranks up there with "Trust Me" or "I Won't Date Rape You But I Spiked Your Drink With Rohypnol So You Won't Remember Anyway".

      Urusai, my question to you is one of curiosity: Were you able to make your post equating a positive moral code with drug-assisted rape with a straight face? Genuinely curious.

  56. No Standard for Purging Paper Counterparts by reallocate · · Score: 1

    No standard exists for purging paper transactions. If you send someone a letter, that letter is out of your control and might be retained for a few lifetimes.

    Do you have any evidence that Google is the only business that's retaining this information?

    Storage is cheap.

    Ask your employer how long they retain your email. Ask you ISP how long they keep your email, etc. (I found out that mine -- a national provider -- keeps the accounts of ex-customers -- that's ex-customers -- active, retains their email and other files, for an indefinite period of time in case that customer wants to return (so they said).

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  57. Hushmail/PGP? by heypete · · Score: 1

    If you're concerned about your email security, why not...oh, I don't know, buy a domain, web, and email hosting? Heck, you could even run the mailserver off your own DSL line at home and delete your own mail thoroughly. There. Problem solved.

    Oh? You need to send mail to other people? Hmm. Gee. How about that wonderful thing called "PGP"? Thunderbird has built-in support for S/MIME security, and with the addition of the Enigmail extension has built-in PGP support. I use it daily for private emails. How much does it cost? Nothing.

    If you need to access secure email from remote locations, or possibly have a psuedo-anonymous account, check out http://www.hushmail.com/. It's free (they also offer paid services), will generate PGP keys for you on the spot, yet all the encryption/decryption is done via a Java applet on your computer, such that even Hush can't read your email. They even have a "generate random address automatically" feature for those truly concerned about anonyminity. Yes, the keys stay on their server, but if you're truly concerned about the authorities, choose a very difficult passphrase -- they can only subpoena your keys; without the passphrase they can't decode them.

    Oh, and Hush is located in Canada too.

  58. Why Blame Google? by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the nature of the internet in general? Almost all data uploaded to the internet is copied and stored elsewhere across several thousands of computer.

    For example, if I take my own website down after running it for several years, can I really blame anyone but myself for residual data left behind in caches and search engines?

    Once you put data on the internet, don't ever count on being able to completely remove it. Someone, somewhere will always have a copy of it in some form.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  59. Re:GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You must be new here...

  60. USPS scans envelopes, keeps the images by mec · · Score: 1

    Think about if your post offices kept copies of all the mail you received, even after you had thrown it away.

    They do. At least, they keep an image of the outside of the envelope.

  61. Yawwwnn by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are you guys sick of google this, google that, every single day on /.? Is /. trying to kiss their ass so they'll buy this site out?

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
  62. How much for running this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course - there is no company on earth that's happy for any Google-paranoia arising. How stupid I am.

  63. Re:So Google's evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just recently switched from being chunky style only to creamy.

    Well, I've always been very lanky, but, I did cream in my GF's mouth just last night, as a matter of fact. Yes, I'm a true /. geek with a Real-Life GF...

  64. Deleting GMail service by nkool · · Score: 1

    Google has a "Delete GMail service" link on the account settings page. They actually have a link to "Delete all account info". So, in theory when you click this link and confirm it should delete all this information right away. The catch that it might stay on their servers for a few days might be because they have to have redundant copies all over the world and there would be some lag time in deleting all those, not to mention the tape backups. So, I would say, the security concerns are overblown and from people who don't understand the system properly. Google should definitely take some initiative in educating people about how the system works.

    1. Re:Deleting GMail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, a google-ass licker ? There is no assurance that they still delete the data. They are not obliged to do it. And they can keep it that way until they run out of space.

    2. Re:Deleting GMail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tape backups? errr, right

  65. Darwin Vs. Linux? by erasmix · · Score: 1

    I really think it would have been "apples" to "apples" by running YellowDog Linux on the Macs. The we would know for sure and beyond doubt MAC OS is slower

  66. No shit sherlock by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

    Sorry but I haven't read the article as I've just come in pissed from the pub.

    But WTF do you think will happen when a PUBLICALLY LISTED COMPANY has access to this sort of data ? It's a marketroids ultimate wet dream.

    So I for one don't care what Googles stated privacy policy is. This can be overturned in one board meeting by one "entity" with enough shares (remember: as far as "the Law" (tm) is concerned Corporations are people too)

    In the wrong hands Google will become the ultimate Stasi machine. The state apparatus outlined in 1984 will look like a holiday camp in comparison. And one day it WILL fall into the wrong hands. The hands which never hug anyone because they're too busy clutching wads of (insert name of curreny de jour here) to their chest.

    Admittedly they do provide some "splendid things" (tm) but, as with all other corporate resources, use them with open eyes and at your own peril...

    Finally I must say that I do love Google. It's been my search engine of choice for years and I even use Gmail. I'm just not naive enough to think that it will always be the magic fairy land of fine principoles and warm fluffy goodness that it currently seems to be.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  67. WTF is Benelux by emseabrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    took a quick google, I thought for a moment that a new nation had formed that I had never heard of.

    Benelux apparently stands for

    BElguim, NEtherlands, and LUXembourg.

    1. Re:WTF is Benelux by leonmergen · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had no idea you guys were so unfamilliar with that term... out of interrest, how many people don't know what Scandinavia is?

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    2. Re:WTF is Benelux by supertopaz90 · · Score: 1

      I do. I think Scandinavia is pretty well known, since it comes up a lot in history classes, etc. But Belgium, Netherlands & Luxembourg are pretty small, and according to the search I did, the term didn't come about until the 1940s. They don't really come up in conversation that much here.

  68. What we really meant to say.... by Everyman · · Score: 1

    Oops, we didn't really mean to say, "Don't be evil." We meant to say, "Be evil." Sorry about that. Now up against the wall, you gullible geeks!
    _____________

    April 6, 2004, Associated Press, by Michael Liedtke:
    Wayne Rosing [a Google vice president] said there will be an information firewall separating Google's search engine from Gmail. "We don't use the data collected on one service," he said, "to enhance another."
    ____________

    On July 1, 2004, Google modified their main privacy policy to comply with a new California law. Here is the zinger: "If you have an account, we may share the information submitted under your account among all of our services in order to provide you with a seamless experience and to improve the quality of our services."

    See http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/

  69. Safesearch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cookie is there to save your SafeSearch preference. There are some other preference settings too, but that's the big one that justifies it.

    So, sure. They probably track stuff too... but the cookie isn't sufficient evidence.

  70. Re:Get over it - and put some thought into it! by symbolic · · Score: 1


    I'm willing to bet that few people consider the fact that as data that is available (or archived), it is also discoverable in a legal proceeding. That may not mean much at the moment people sign up, but under the right circumstances, it could be disasterous.

  71. You could create a new troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll or troll not, there is no funny.

  72. Re:Get over it - and put some thought into it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are that concerned about your privacy, then do not use their service. Set up your own mail server and delete as often as you like. There is no guarantee that the people you correspond with will be as diligent. Email is not inherently secure. I do not send any emails that I would be too upset if someone read. If you use a cordless or cell phone it is not impossible to listen in to conversations, so you may want to stop that as well. I recommend only speaking to other people in a locked room that has been recently checked for bugs. You never know, someone might be listening or god forbid, overhear the conversation.

  73. Do you know any gmail users? by typical · · Score: 1

    This is all something we accept when we click "OK" to Google's TOS, without even reading it. If you don't like it, you can always use some other alternative, no guarantees that it will be able to match up with what Google can provide.

    Yes, and how many people do you know, and email, that use Gmail? Probably non-zero, right? And let me guess...they don't use PGP/GPG, right? Yup, thought so again. So Google can read at least some of your private correspondence.

    Same goes for anyone that emails Yahoo, Hotmail, and so forth users...I wonder how many decades later email could come back to haunt someone.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:Do you know any gmail users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a good deal of difficulty with PGP users since I switched to GNUPG. It seems like the only way to add the PGP users to my keychain is to have the user manaully send me their public key and import it. Is this pretty much the case or am I doing something wrong? Their keys never show up on the servers. O.well

    2. Re:Do you know any gmail users? by typical · · Score: 1

      You might try setting your gpg keyserver ("keyserver" line in ~/.gnupg/options) to the same server you used with PGP and see if that helps.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  74. oh god no the coookies! by adpowers · · Score: 1

    Come on. I've been hearing these fucking cookie arguments for years and they are tiring the shit out of me. "It puts an extra cookie in there!" "The cookie doesn't expire until 2038, 2038!!!11"

    Don't lots of websites set cookies that expire in 2038 (aka, they last 'forever'). I think I wrote a script that did that. Get over it already. If you don't like it, turn off cookies.

    God damn, some people really irk me. Why can't you people just enjoy a service, and if it is too inconvenient, shut up and don't use it! Damn. Damn.

    1. Re:oh god no the coookies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also delete the cookie and get a new one. I do it regularily, since Google has no business to know what I search for.

  75. Small ISPs rule by humankind · · Score: 1

    This is one of the single most important issues that will come up over the next decade with respect to technology. With computers hosting and controlling everything, it's part of their inherent nature to accumulate all the information they can.. and NEVER delete it.

    I've said from the beginning, nothing is free. If you use Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo or any of those "free" services, one primary thing you're losing is autonomy and privacy and security. All your correspondence, the content of messages, who your friends are and your interests are being archived and will never be deleted. That's fine and dandy for some... until they find their privacy invaded or their security compromised. Even if you trust a company like Google to "act responsibly", with that information, the fact that your online life via their networks is archived indefinitely in multiple locations exponentially increases the potential for third parties to gain access to this information and do who knows what with it.

    Why take this chance? Do business with small ISPs who don't tap their customers' communication links. Do yourself a favor and help small businesses who would treat you better and respect your privacy.

    1. Re:Small ISPs rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it, Firefox makes aggressive use of unused resources. If you're not having any slowdowns, then take a deep breath and realize that it's just doing what it's supposed to do.

      If you do have accompanying slowdowns, then you have a specific, rare problem. See the other replies you've gotten so far for suggestions.

  76. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should all utilize the /. effect and start doing search queries on all sorts of weird stuff. Just anything you can think of "Clown Sex Peanut Butter" or "Industrial Strength Lubrication + Big Boobies" .. just have some fun :-)

  77. Have we so quickly forgotten... by flajann · · Score: 1
    Recall the adage of the Internet days of old that stated:

    Never say on the Internet what you wouldn't mind shouted from mountaintops?

    A slight modification for today's times:

    Never say on the Internet what you wouldn't mind shouted from mountaintops for ever and ever!

  78. What TOS? by Stone316 · · Score: 1

    I don't see any TOS, or any notice on their search page which states any terms at all... I'm not saying I agree or disagree but I think you should get your facts straight.

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
  79. Re:WTF is Benelux (parent post is right) by ArielMT · · Score: 1

    Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg. Yeah. Sorry for not making it clear. My bad.

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  80. Slashdot is becoming a tool for spreading rumors by bariswheel · · Score: 1

    These kinds of posts foster the spread of stupid rumors and inevitably (and perhaps indeliberately) ends up influencing the young minds of impressionable kids who eventually grow up to be paranoid hippies thinking everyone in the world, and - most notably the 'freemason' united states - is out to get them for good. So keep up fostering the spread of rumors.

    --
    Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
  81. Comment on "six months" rule misleading by akratic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article says that "a 1986 law gives less protection from government searches to messages more than six months old." This is misleading. IANAL, but here's my understanding of the law:

    Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, email that is still in transmission receives a higher level of protection than email that the recipient has opened and has left in storage on a remote computer. If you have unopened email on, say, Gmail, and it has been in electronic storage for 180 days or less, then law enforcement cannot obtain the contents without a search warrant. If you have messages on email that are either (a) opened OR (b) older than 180 days, a warrant is not required; a subpoena or court order with notice to the subscriber is sufficient. (Sometimes delayed notice is allowed.)

    Since most people check their email more than twice a year, the 6-month rule isn't much of an issue. The read vs. unread rule is much more important.

    If you're interested in the details of the law, you can read Section III of the USDOJ's manual Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations. The text of the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is available on the same website.

    (Note that this book is specifically about the privacy laws relevant to law enforcement. The book doesn't cover the law that governs wiretaps by intelligence agencies.)

  82. Re:So Google's evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I've always been very lanky, but, I did cream in my GF's mouth just last night, as a matter of fact. Yes, I'm a true /. geek with a Real-Life GF...


    If you have a real-life girlfriend than you can't be a /. geek
  83. Re:Get over it - and put some thought into it! by symbolic · · Score: 1


    I have my privacy WELL under control, thank you.

  84. Last year homework by Sdoh · · Score: 1

    I had an experience of finding last year homework
    and exam solutions in Google cash. Also some
    materials which were published on paper and removed
    from public domain (publisher requirement).
    Nobody got sued yet but I guess it will not last for long

  85. Google and blogger mix to crush Canadian candidate by thrashor · · Score: 1

    It is interesting to see this post, as tomorrow is the one year anniversary of a local political scandal involving the Google usenet archive, a popular Canadian political blogger, and a young hopeful running for office in the Province of Alberta's legislature. Essentially, the blogger, a certain National Post collumnist Colby Cosh, posted a link to anti-semetic comments that a New Democratic Party candidate, Malcolm Azania, made in a newsgroup 10 years previously. In the end, Azania came in third in his riding.

    --
    i just want to play go
  86. your info isnt the only thing google wont forget by carl0ski · · Score: 1

    google image from homepage late 1999 http://www.google.com/images/Title_HomPg.gif check out the first google image 1998 http://www.google.com/google.jpg i guess they forgot to delete them too noone here can blame google for covering themselves saying info may remain on their servers for a long time. I bet the main people complaining arent aware that when you delete a file on your computer it doesnt actually get deleted it remains physically on the hdd till it is over written, Google uses hdd too and delete stuff as do we.

  87. Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is looking, why do ppl care so much. Email is an insecure method of communication. Stop worrying, no one gives two shits about your goings on in your gmail accounts! You shouldn't have Credit card numbers or bank numbers...Seriously!

  88. Most people don't realize.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..how much data Google really deals with. Sure, they could search for keywords, but it's not really feasible for them to handpick through everything. No human ever sees personal data, just the coorelation algorithm. Also, the way their file system works, it is easy to find a block of data, but not so trivial to find all the blocks of data. How could they promise to delete something if they can't definitely find all the copies of it?

  89. Re:Slashdot is becoming a tool for spreading rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure... you know jews payed a horrible price during ww2. many jews living in germany died because they believed scince they were "german jews" it would keep them from being harmed.... it didn`t save them.
    sooooo, i`m going to spread one of those "stupid rumors" that the mark of the beast (666) is coming.... now let`s see who`s the one that knows what thier talking about and telling the truth... you or me.

  90. How to stop the GoogleAd, the great spyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google keeps track also your surf on almost every web site. GoogleAd is very invasive and a great personal data source to Google.
    How to stop the GoogleAd?

  91. From the article... by epaga · · Score: 1
    "If it's useful, we'll hold on to it," said Nicole Wong, a Google associate general counsel.

    Wonderful journalism. I'm sure she explained a bit more than that (i.e. what is "useful"), but hey - if we truncate it, it'll sound kind of scary, and it'll still be a direct quote!

  92. You missed the point by Urusai · · Score: 1

    It's about hollow promises. Yes my face is straight--well, maybe smirking a tiny bit.

  93. If trust is the issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I trust Google with my information, others don't... If you have a problem with the way you think Google handles your information the best thing to do is to not use their services.

  94. Unlike M$... by Palal · · Score: 1

    Unlike Microsoft, I trust Google more. The founders are not control freaks, like Billy is, and their company policy reflects that. If they want to store the info to decide what ads to show me, fine.

    --
    -Palal
  95. apparent confirmation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Matt Cutts, a software engineer at Google since January 2000, used to work for the National Security Agency and has a top-secret clearance. In May 2005, Google hired Dan Senor as vice president of global communications and strategy. Senor was the chief U.S. spokesman in Iraq during the invasion and occupation.

    http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html