Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Concerns On Google's 30 Day Data Policy
darkmonkeh writes ""Google Inc. is offering a new tool that will automatically transfer information from one personal computer to another, but anyone wanting that convenience must authorize the Internet search leader to store the material for up to 30 days", CNN reports. Although Google's policy states that it can hold data for up to 30 days, "Google intends to delete the information shortly after the electronic handoff, and will never retain anything from a user's hard drive for more than 30 days", said Sundar Pichai, director of product management. With pressure on Google after the request by the Bush administration for personal information, privacy concerns may be hard hitting."
Does this give Google the right to search the data for advertising purposes? Google desktop could easily have small text-bases ads relevant to data in my MyDocuments folder.
...you can count on Slashdot to re-post it every few days, so don't worry about the 30-day expiration.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
could you give this out and let people download your drive for up to 30 days?
They are going for the jugular.
Next you'll have to share your DNA configuration.
I suspect that this is just due to their data model of redundant machines. As with GMail, they can't guarentee deletion of the material in a time period less than thirty days, although it may actually be retained for much less.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Whit google already indexing the whole web, including several private ftp servers and file storage servers (both public and private) it will not be something new.
Think like a hacker, act like a hacker, but never become a hacker !
From TFA: Why exactly do any of Google's employees need access to this information? Why can't the content be encrypted by the user via an asymmetric key scheme (like PGP) and decrypted again once it's reached the target system?
I'm really not seeing the necessity for Google to have any access at all to users' information...am I missing something?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If you have privacy concerns, don't use the service. If you are stupid enough to transfer private or sensitive information over someone elses network, let alone store it on their drives, you deserve what you get. I use some online storage for information that I would not want to lose in the event of a catastrophe at my home, but it is nothing I consider sensitive. If it was, I would either store it elsewhere or use some kind of encryption on the files.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
This has nothing to do with your rights online. It's an opt in service. No one is being forced to do anything. If you don't like the TOS, don't use it.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
... http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1113
I suspect that the 30 day requirement is a matter of technical feasibility rather than "evil intentions." I seem to recall Google announcing that it could not guarantee that email deleted from Gmail would be deleted from Google's data storage system, at least immediately. When you consider how much redundant storage Google holds, and how that storage is distributed around the world, the 30 day provision may be more of a CYA from legal liability.
The policy may very well translate into "We will make a best effort to delete the information when you instruct us to do so, but we will only guarantee that the information will be deleted within 30 days."
Aren't ISPs required by law to keep generally more incriminating information for longer? Haven't multiple bank/credit agencies 'lost' the whole of personal information for tens of thousands of customers lately? Why is Google's privacy suddenly more worrying?
I work for a healthcare company, and we have already attempted to block Google Desktop at our proxies. There are HIPAA concerns with allowing users to transfer personal data between their work machines and . But we're not the only ones, banks and other healthcare companies will eventually do the same.
Hopefully this will be sufficient. If not, we will need to block access to all of Google, which would seriously upset many people within the company, and of course this will cascade to other organizations. Will Google be happy it's pissing off a bunch of Fortune 50 companies?
They have to retain it for a certain period:
1. Turn on computer A, and indicate you want to sync with computer B
2. Data is copied to googles servers
3. Turn on computer B, and your data automagically appears.
Without the google servers, both systems need to be on all the time, and data retaining issues, as well as another google tool are a non issue.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Pretty much half my life is saved in my GMail anyway, so I figure what the hell, why not? Just from reading TFA my concern would be less with the government and more with other security/privacy breaches, though.
> Whit google already indexing the whole web
That should be "whit teh google", sillyhead.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Create a tarball or zip of your home directory and overwrite the home directory with the same name on another Mac. Reset permissions if needed. Problem solved, no third party. *scratches head* Come to think of it, the only group that has problem with this is the Windows users with all of their hidden, protected yada yada directory crap.
One more area where Microsoft creates markets, sometimes for their competitors.
Now, I'm a big fan of privacy and having my data securely and tightly to my chest.
But, to show off some more latin, cui bono? What's google's gain in the game? What could they possbily gain from having access to my data? My highly sensitive christmas pics?
Hardly.
What they do get in that way is an idea where people and data travels. Information about their users. That's it. And that's by far more valuable than your grocery list or granny's phone number. IMO they don't care about your data. What they want is the information where data comes from and where it goes to. And that can be simply achived by tracking where you are when you dump the files on them, how long they stay there and where you are when you pick them up again (or, what's also possible, where the person is that picks them up).
That's the info they're after. Not your files themselves.
So why the 30 days? Well, this could be connected with their update and deletion cycles. As someone already pointed out, their servers are most likely redundant. It's not like at home, where you simply hit "del" to get rid of a file. Their array of servers first of all has to realize that the file is actually supposed to be deleted. Or it could be that they are using some nightly job to clean up and purge all the "waste" data, and that this can't be done during normal operation, not even more than once a month, simply because the servers got better things to do.
So, in a nutshell, I don't suspect "evil" in that 30 days cycle. More likely, it's simply a technical necessity, and a legal one too. So people don't start suing them 'cause the files are still on their servers 10 days after they picked them up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is basically using Google's storage as a BigAssDisk(tm) for you to move/wipe your machine. Think about what would happen if they didn't do this:
1) User "saves" his data to google.
2) User wipes and rebuilds his PC.
3) User loads his data from google, after which google immediately forgets it.
4) User realizes that his drive was set up incorrectly and repeats step 2.
5) User says, "Fuck. I thought I'd saved that!"
They're emulating a temporary backup tape in this case, so they're acting more like one. Destructing 30 days after last use is reasonable (it is a temporary tape) and indeed useful. Destructing 30 seconds after first use is potentially catestrophic.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Google is offering a desirable service by networking pc's, are they not? Similar services cost $30 a month, all Google wants is your personal information that they would have in your posession anyway.
If I asked you to hold my wallet for me, I should expect you would at least peek in to see how much cash I had on hand.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
But with extended undelete options!
Next you'll have to share your DNA configuration.
Not so bad, if you get to choose who you share it with!
Looks like there is going to be alot of DNA sharing later tonight, after all it's Valentine's Day!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
What's the likely impact on Verizon's data network if you have millions of users all over the world sending data constantly to Google's server farm for this new service in addition to the already high amount of web traffic? Verizon is going to be pissed.
ConsultingFair.com
If you read the white paper on how the google file system platform works, this makes perfect sense. The provision is a CYA to make sure that the customer knows that while google makes every attempt to remove the data quickly, the system only marks files for deletion. Files are later ACTUALLY deleted by an automated sweep.
http://labs.google.com/papers/gfs-sosp2003.pdf
Google Adresses Privacy Concerns With New '30-Day' Policy
"Following stern warnings by the EFF and other consumer groups over Google's new 'Search Across Computers' feature, the company has responded by implementing new policies aimed at protecting their users' privacy. The steps taken by the search giant include encrypting all the user's information and restricting its access to just a handful of employees. And if that's not enough to allay privacy concerns, Google has promised to delete all data within 30 days. In an industry where more extensive data usually leads to higher profits, this tradeoff made by the company appears to be placing customer priorities over shareholder priorities." Looks like someone's trying to earn back their "Do no evil" motto.
With pressure on Google after the request by the Bush administration for personal information, privacy concerns may be hard hitting.
Me: okay, delete data
Google: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that....
OR... Does it mean that they will delete your files permanently but before deleting they will rip-off all information they are intersted in?
Deleting your files does not mean that there are no information extracted from that files, right?
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
Couldn't they encrypt the data in such a way that they (Google) couldn't even read it? Perhaps data could be encrypted/decrypted client-side so the their servers never even know the decryption keys...?
So it's based on the presumption that it's easier to transfer your whole hard drive than sort through the data and burn only what you need. Even with broadband and a reasonably small (5gb) hard drive, you're talking a good day or two at constant top speed (40kbps for me). I think just a small amount of effort in cherry-picking what you really need on the other computer could easily fit on a burned cd or dvd, and take up infinitely less time.
Besides, won't Microsoft throw a hissyfit about this? Technically, if I upload my entire c:\, google now has a copy of windows it didn't pay for. Along with every other registered program in my program files directory. I can't imagine Sony would be too pleased either when they find out I rip my DVDs to hard disk and pass 'em along to google.
...why isn't this story about how great it is that Google promises to keep your data for no longer than 30 days?
30 days is not very long at all, in terms of data retention. Could we get such a guarantee from any other corporation? From our credit card companies, banks or libraries?
Well, maybe our libraries...
(First, this is not an Anti-France post.)
Google is starting to creep me out. I've been in love with them and their "Don't be evil" thing, and have adopted many of their tools, including GMail. But, they are starting to do things that make me wonder if we are the frog that is destined to be boiled.
You know:
I'm thinking we are going to turn around one day and wonder how Google got all our data. It will follow the revelation that all the data Google had was exposed to a hacker, or sold by a disgruntled employee, or accessed by Chinese Military Intel.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
you need to add the adjectives inflated and petrified.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
No matter what Google says their current retention policy is, I expect that the U.S. government will eventually require sites like Google to maintain all data on their users for a specified period, probably years. The government wants to know all about you, and under the guise of 'hunting terrorists', they'll get it.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
I want to buy stock in the company that has that account.
This is not a new function that will act as a big network based hard drive. This is simply the index that google desktop search uses that is being shared.
Google is allowing people to use their servers as a temporary holding pen for information so that you can transfer it from one machine to another. People are complaining about privacy because, um, why? Because the data isn't just on their computer any more? How does this differ from an FTP server or services like Dropload? I'm betting that Google's 30 day policy is a nuisance number designed to protect them from litigation in case the auto-wiping fails. This way they can re-image their hard drives every 30 days to protect themselves.
To be honest, I think that they should be commended for making the full disclosure. If privacy advocates are concerned, then privacy advocates should avoid using the service.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Why can't the content be encrypted by the user via an asymmetric key scheme (like PGP) and decrypted again once it's reached the target system?
I imagine they want to index the information, which they wouldn't be able to do if it was encrypted.
I agree it has something to do with legal matters, but I doubt it is about feasability.
The details are fuzzy, but IIRC, when you leave your *stuff* on their servers for more than 30 days, the police do not need a regular warrant to get at your data.
I remember this was talked about back when Google first introduced G-Mail and said "We can't promise we're going to delete your data."
Maybe someone else remembers the exact details, but I know the 30 day limit is there because it has something to do with 'possession' of the data.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Our IT guys don't want anything to do with Google. They think, rightly or wrongly, that Google is a potential IP leak. Fine, but we really need to be able to Googlelike search our network volumes. What other products can I suggest to them?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Besides FISA, I am unaware of any statute or order that allows the threshold of "probable cause" to be lowered when the police seek to access data held by a third party that is unwilling to surrender it.
Besides, your theory does not explain why the data could not be deleted sooner than 30 days, since you're asserting that the legal status changes after 30 days.
In any case, the article says Google intends to delete the information shortly after the electronic handoff, and will never retain anything from a user's hard drive for more than 30 days, said Sundar Pichai, director of product management.
I am willing to believe that Google would not intentionally misstate its policy in public. The PR and legal consequences would be interesting if they did, to say the least.
"With pressure on Google after the request by the Bush administration for personal information"
Uh, no. There never was any "request by the Bush administration for personal information." All the Justice Department asked for was a list of all search terms from a given time period. No IP numbers. No "personal information." Just a request to see what a representative time period of search terms contained.
Now, one can well argue that the gov't has better things to do than that particular investigation (and I would agree with you), but to repeatedly assert that 'Bush was trying to find out our personal information' is by this time just repeating a lie.
I'll now sit back and watch the "Chimpy McBushitler" nonsense roll in...
[I posted this yesterday, but since it followed about 200 other comments,
I'll try again.]
For the past few days, I've been doing Google searches that look like this:
"Google, what is your data retention policy?"
and
"2037: My cookie is *still* here?"
and
"Hi to my friends at NSA"
Google would notice if enough of you do the same.
I suggest doing searches on the hour: 1PM, 2PM etc., so the clustering
will draw attention. Have fun.
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
The new Dell desktops showing up at my place of work, (a major medical center), have Google Desktop installed by default. Mindful of HIPAA, I have been uninstalling just the desktop - I leave Google Search integrated with IE, mainly due to it's popup blocker. I have also notified the chief of IT security, and he tossed it back to us - asking us if it could be blocked at the network perimeter. Since I do just desktop with a tiny server piece, this is not my responsibilty, but I'm going to keep nagging them for at least a broadcast message to the entire medical center, to the effect that Google Desktop Search is non-HIPAA compliant, and should not be used. We'll see if a voice form the trenches gets heard or ignored.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Unless you don't return your books...Then they'll keep it for fifty years.
There's an older one, from one of the Harvard libraries, which was overdue by a little over 230 years. As for general library fines, I know our local library refers your case to a creditor if you're over $50, which isn't too hard to do if you lose an item. *wry grin* Or, for that matter, not being careful with videos. Videos go out for a week, there's a $1 fine per day, and there's no grace period. The maximum you can check out is 20 (NetFlix look out...), so being overdue by a week could easily take you up to $140. I had a co-worker who managed a slightly smaller scale fine ($73) and recently, I was in line behind of someone who'd racked up $232 in fines with his World War II videos. That said, a lot of small town libraries will work with you to resolve such fines. Like the banks, they're really not out to screw you over when it comes to debt repayment.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Or you could try Teoma (owned by Ask), Exalead (an up and comming French search engine with a number of cool features), GigaBlast (a suprisingly good search built pretty much by one man!) or Wisenut (a search engine owned by Looksmart).
Another good idea is to use one of the Meta search engines. Personally I think Clusty (created by Vivismo) is the best and from your persective has the advantage of not using Google data. Otherwise many people swear by Dogpile (you can switch off Google as a source for results).
Also, many people forget about directories like ODP, which for certain subjects and topics work better than search engines. And whilst on the subject of internet community created resources, more often than not I find the answers I need on good old Wikipedia.
You know it is funny, for a website obsessed with alternative Operating Systems and browsers we don't hear much about alternative ways of finding information. It seems like many people here think the web would impload if Google disappeared. Yeah they are cool and have had some nifty ideas but it is actually suprisingly easy to get by without them.
Google Is Evil.
Come on google! do the right thing! Tell bush and big brother to go eat grapes!
Cheers!
I sick and tired of everyone whining about the poor users. If they cannot be bothered to protect themselves, I will not be bothered to care one bit when it turns around and bites them in the ass.
Want my pity? *Do* something to deserve it. Lack of action on your part does not constitute a requirement for mercy or sympathy on my part. Putting your personal data on a shared computer? Yeah, that's bright. For your next trick, why don't you go play in traffic. (Not directed @ parent, but @ moron using said shared PC as a private system)
Google has been sued by the RIAA for the unauthorized downloading of mp3s from Google Desktop 3.0 users.
Seriously, how long before someone attacks google for this? It is one thing when they are indexing the internet and happen to get images/etc - but if I let google desktop index my self-ripped mp3s and google transfers them to their server.....
If you want google search functionality internal to your enterprise, consider purchasing a google search appliance for inside your organization.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
So why can't I encrypt the data I want to transfer, and then transfer it through this Google service?
That way, they encypt my already encrypted data. The government wants to see it, the "handful of employees" want to see it, it's encrypted.
Am I missing something? Does it say anywhere you can't do that?
You want to play, you play by the ref's rules. ;-)
I'm really surprised peopel are getting bent out of shape over this. There are other methods besides Googles new service. use those if you don't agree with Googles TOS.
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
When your Hotmail address gets deleted due to inactivity (or even by your request), your email is kept for 30 days in case FBI wants to take a look at it. I think there's a law that forces them to do so, so everyone else has to do it.
Plus, because the machine is mine I don't have to be concerned about privacy. I also give accounts to friends and aquaintences, allowing them access to the same resource. And, of course, to set aside any further privacy concerns files can always been encrypted before transfer.
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
Most of these concerns come down to the structure of the Google File System. Basically, files are split into chunks and a single chunk is replicated to multiple nodes. Metadata for the file is also distributed. When a file is accessed, a request is sent out to nodes where given chunks may exist and an aggregator pastes the chunks back together. If a particular machine is slow or goes down, the metadata may change to reflect that a certain chunk does not exist there when, in actuality, it does. In order to fully delete a file, one would need to identify every chunk for that file on every node. Google has a lot of nodes. So, even if you think you deleted a file part or all of it may still exist in the file system. It seems like they're putting a 30 day expiration these particular chunks, so you can be sure that after 30 days every chunk that made up a particular file is now inaccessable.
They need the 30 days so they can sell any Chinese democracy activist up the river if he or she is so foolish as to use this service.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I keep my money at the bank! The bank can be subpoenad by the federal courts and all my information gets sent to the courts.
Our privacy is seriously intruded upon by this blatant, monolithic overseeing of MY OWN PERSONAL history. Based on this I can be held accountable for my actions AND THAT IS BS!
What if I was to rob a bank and inject a large amount of cash??? They could trace me and that isn't fair!!!
So please stop all data gathering because what if all americans were terrorists then we would be all be put in jail for our actions. Or what if _I_ was a terrorist, then I would be put in jail and that is BS. Even if I wasn't a terrorist _I_ may have to go to court and defend myself and if I was maybe just a little terroristy I could be held accountable! This is BS and I don't like it, close the banks and long live leeroy.
You just register your email with a private tracker and in a few hours get your "linux distribution" as an email attachment...
http://desktop.google.com/plugins/i/foldershare.ht ml
Which seems kinda hard to force people to use.
All the articles I have read seem a bit lite on details. Where do we get the idea that this is in some way involuntary in the current google desktop? My version 3.0.128.1 does not seem to have anyway to enable or disable such a feature. Besides, if it wants to share my terabyte raid of mp3s and ancient backups in iso format, it is gonne clog up the pipe for quite a while...
Any links to real info on this?
If this is coming down the pike/pipe, then who can speak about it without violating their NDA?
All you google admins reading this should know enough to bounce an AC comment through an anon shell in europe.
What is the truth in this broughaha.
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
And it's Gooogle.
You should report the clients to review their statements in job application. You know, "basic computer knowledge".
There are even seperate standards for healthcare , HIPAA is World standard now.
I wouldn't want to work with a company allowing such morons having access to my health data. You shouldn't allow them to work there too.
I am speechless about people using 2 firewalls simultaneously, jump to web forums as "there! Spyware! It accessed the net" when a poor shareware tries to check new version and using any Google services, especially services like these.
I can't believe people still "defend" Google like they are kind of unpaid PR officials.
:)
The services offered by Google lately are... Spyware. I can't imagine the number of non US (or USA) govt. workers relying on Google for their private mail and now this, storing PERSONAL DATA on their network!
Were there a "hidden gif" somewhere on Google page that we missed? "We" as people using other search engines etc.
If there is a thing like that, please tell the address, all of this looks so surreal to me (and others).
Or don't jump up and down next time shouting "spyware!" when $400 Software package you purchased tries to access to net, to check for updates!
Remember, this service is optional. Google can create whatever policy they like... if you don't like their policy, don't use their service. Sheesh, if it is really that bad, eventually competition from other companies will change things.
FAST Search & Transfer has ESP - best search engine for the enterprise
find them at http://www.fastsearch.com/
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
What's w/the Google FUD lateley? I'm really curious; there's not a day that goes by lately without a FUD "story" appearing somewhere. It's very apparent that Google has seriously pissed off some people, as the so-called media has really been going at it lately w/their Chicken Little FUD & Fluff; sad really.
Another little rant: Google only has the info *you* GIVE THEM. I don't need GMail, nor do I need some lame Desktop search; why would I? As a professional, I need to be organized; if I need some tool to find my files, then I've got bigger problems than a few misplaced documents.
Seriously, what's the issue here? If you don't want SkyNET to have your data, THEN DON'T GIVE IT UP.
I'm just fine w/my old-school POP mail w/occasional web access while out of town, and I store my docs the same place I've stored them over the last ~20 years: where they belong, in a logical folder structure. Now before someone posts some weak, contrived example of a file that could be possibly belong in 2 different folders, I offer you the advanced technology of the 'ln' command, or its GUI counterparts.
Whew, I feel better now.
Why do you guys have Google Desktop installed on your machines in the first place? Google has been fairly up-front about what it does, in their "please this, it's not just the usual yada-yada" terms of service.
Really, what about China? Google gave into China's censorship demands without a moment's hesitation while at the same time fighting off a somewhat harmless request for information from the US Justice Department. So in all fairness I'm not worried about Google giving the data to the US government, they've already shown they won't do that.
But I am worried about them giving it to China, because they've already shown that they won't fight the Chinese government.
And no, this isn't meant as a troll or flamebait. I just find their behavior to be rather contradictory and to put it mildly, odd.
Unfortunately, TMM is now falling victim to that which he himself does. In fact, we're all guilty of this, so I don't want to single him out; but as the old cliche goes it's "coming back to roost."
TMM has become a very polarizing poster. Some people want to kiss his ass as always being insightful; others want to kick his ass not only for being little more than a "copy-and-paste" poster but also because so many people mod him up for it, whereas many others (I won't say "most") get "Redundant" thrown at them for doing the same thing.
So, to those who have been around for a while any post from him is now immediately judged positively or negatively based on one's preconception of his posts before the post is even read. That's clearly the case with the GP.
This, however, is no different at all from what TMM himself does, and thus is why he should be cut any slack.
Look at the posts that he has made. Anything -- ANYTHING -- related to republicans or ID is immediately slammed by TMM. Doesn't matter what the specific topics are. Very often, such posts are nonsensical and filled with little else except venom for anything from the current U.S. administration or related to ID. He even has tried to use articles that are several years old to justify his position on current events, which is often successfully rebuked with more modern articles. He has his preconcived notion that anything republican-related is automatically evil (which is just as unfair when republicans do it to democrats) and anything ID-related is religious propaganda, and his posts clearly reflect that even when his comments are baseless.
This is no different than what his detractors do. I'm not saying that either case is better than the other; however, TMM most certainly engages in the same shoot-from-the-hip, reactionary tactics that his detractors and supporters do. I see no reason when he should be cut some slack when he does not cut any slack for those with whom he disagrees.
I probably don't need to post this anonymously since I have excellent karma with some to spare for an occasional karma burn, but I know that his reactionary supporters will automatically give a negative mod and the intolerant, egocentric mods, regardless of their opinions of TMM, are always looking for reasons to throw an "Off-topic" even though Slashdot asks that no one use negative mod points.