Slashdot Mirror
Google to Continue Storing Search Requests
isabotage3 writes "Although he was alarmed by AOL's haphazard release of its subscribers' online search requests, Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt said Wednesday the privacy concerns raised by that breach won't change his company's practice of storing the inquiries made by its users."
what does google have to do with any of this? it's somehow news that google somehow is confident that they aren't a bunch of total fuckups like AOL?
my girlfriend's cat could run an ISP better than AOL
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Everyone knows that Google is really a front for the NSA. Think about it, massive quantities of data, searches
that can be corealated and traced back to individual users, gmail storing and 'indexing' all your mail, it's
the governments wet dream.
Just wait until Windows-Live services take off , and G-Drive as well. Why not have all your data ready for inspection
by the nice people at the NSA.
'scuse me, there's a knock on the door, the folks from the black pizza van prolly wanna ask for directions.
The biggest difference is that the majority of the AOL searches were done well users were logged into AOL. Thus it will be a bit harder to trace what people search for back to themselves if they are not logged in but not impossible. Here is to hoping Google has a better lockdown policy compaired to AOL.
If the government ever does hunt for people guilty of something by searching people's searches, they are going to get a lot of false positives. There is always more people interested in, for example, bombs, than there are bombers.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm stopping using google or any other search engines that tracks my IP and connections via cookie, and compiles lists of search terms done from my home. Forget that.
Google is less useful for information anymore anyway, unless you need a device driver or a game demo download. Otherwise I check Wikipedia first. I wonder what Wikipedia's policy is. If its just as bad, I'm goign to download the WIkipedia entire database and do searches in the privacy of my own home direct from the database...
Not surprised to see the first post being a Google fan defending Google's shady business practises.
"I know this one guy who asked me to cancel his account last week, and a couple days later his mom found out about his lesbian penguin grits fetish. Now, I'm not threatening you, or anything. I'm a reasonable guy. I'm just sayin', you might want to give that some more thought, Mr. cheating-on-wife-on-the-down-low..."
AOL not only stores your search results, but they also know exactly who you are. Also, I have it on good authority that AOL saves not only your searches, but every single thing you do. Every site you visit, every click, every email you send, everything.
-AJ
I, for one, don't mind all that much if Google saves my search inquiries, just so long as they keep the information private and (hopefully) anonymous. Google has also had a pretty damn good track record at doing just that.. Comparing them to AOL isn't even apples and oranges.. More like apples and live grenades...
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
If I use gmail, then logout, the search, my cookies still identify me (although I've logged out of gmail).
Since I logged out, I didn't want google to associate me with the query. Therefore they would have to delete search history associated with me (my gmail account) if I asked them.
right ?
"We are reasonably satisfied ... that this sort of thing would not happen at Google, although you can never say never," Schmidt said during an appearance at a major search engine conference in San Jose.
.. you could if you didnt store them.
Well
Storing every single search performed by every person in the world across a whole epoch could pretty much give you the pulse of the world.
Watching as news spreads and worries and concerns grow or when good news occurs or even just good publicity, there are millions of people all adding entries into the real hitchhikers guide.
Google will be almost certain of knowing the current number one chart hit at any location on Earth at any time simply by the concentration of searches for that artist/song, it could follow gun culture or tv plotlines or anything flowing into its servers.
In the right hands, this could become an amazing asset for the whole world. I believe the current owners of google are primed to achieve such a feat.
I however wonder what will happen when Page and Brin are gone or are sidestepped by the government.
liqbase
I switched to http://ixquick.com/ which does not keep records.
Is it really that hard to turn cookies off for www.google.com in your Firefox installation?
http://www.google.com/search?q=first%20post
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
A search proxy will prevent establishign ip and user identity with search terms and tracking of results clicked on. Get hip to it. Alot of services exist. This is my fav http://www.blackboxsearch.com/
You sent it as PLAINTEXT over the INTERNET.
This [or the thing against AOL] is not a story.
I couldn't care less about Google releasing all the odd shit I look for. If I was I would find a private search engine that worked over HTTPS.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Who doesn't store requests? :)
I will change my search engine forever starting tomorrow if you can tell me who DOESN'T store this info. Fuck Google. If they want to store all the search reqests, then I will just go to the next best site which doesn't store them.
Now, just tell me the name of that site, since I am too lazy to go looking for it.
I thought it unusual that the page title of that MySecureISP ad says "No IP tracking, cookies or logging EVER" yet I see this in their FAQ.
... =)
Will My Secure ISP slow down my connection?
Probably not.
You should experience the same speed or better as your existing internet provider. You could actually experience a speed increase due to the caching done on our servers
http://www.mysecureisp.com/faq.html#5
Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here
"Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
This is to be expected, and Google is right. Of course they won't stop storing all this information about us. Sure, it can be used for all kinds of evil purposes (but they don't do evil, right?), it could be misused, as in the recnt AOL example, or it could be used for all kinds of good things, such as having a search engine that knows what I want before I have time to enter my query.
Simpy
AOL should know better... was it really an accident?
http://www.scrapbookingdirect.com/
Every search engine logs your queries. This is the way it is. If they tell you they don't log the queries, they're lying. The difference is that they don't make it available. In a previous life I worked with several search companies you've heard of on various search related technologies, and they *never* released query logs. Even cleansed the data were kept close to the chest. Queries are going to be logged with the IP address of the user. Some engines will track click-throughs on the results as well. That data is invaluable to a search engine.
AOL's faux pas here was attaching personal information to the queries themselves: once that per-user identifier was attached all bets were off.
If you are interested in working with query data, and do not work for a search company, you are shit out of luck, because you can't otherwise get this data. All of the research published on queries was done by Alta Vista, Google, Yahoo, Lycos, MSN... research on spelling correction of search queries is done by the same groups: they're the only ones with access to that data, until this AOL release (or older releases from other companies.)
Having this data is a boon for researchers, but a net loss for people.
No, Google said they would keep the mail from deleted accounts.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
BTW, what happened to Slashdot's tagging system? Most of the stories don't have tags anymore, and the ones that do add no extra information - they are simply repeats of the words in the title, or non-words such as "fud, duh, wow", or worthless words such as "no, yes, maybe". Look at every story today and you'll see.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Fact: Google has a Beta Search History feature. It's an opt-in thing, but, it's quite handy. Stores all the searches you make. Really handy if you want to find something you found a year ago. I think Google knows what its doing and how to preserve, protect, and defend its users. Otherwise, I don't think they'd risk offering the service. Now, if only our elected officials could preserve, protect, and defend that little nagging thing called the United States Constitution... and stop nosing in our searches!
Perhaps the solution to this problem is not to keep the data private, but to create a database that is meaningless. During idle time (nighttime, classtime, etc) a computer could run an automated search routine that would create search queries from perhaps, names from yellowpages.com, or topics from /. This would bury legitimate search data in a mountain of meaningless data, making the database virtually useless.
Of course, it would have the same effect if for every legit search one performs via google he/she then performs three or four bogus searches. Wonder what law that would violate.
In FireFox 1.5.x
e r=13273w er=13285
Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy Tab -> Cookies -> Exceptions
Then add the Google domains you wish to block/allow. This will result in many random cookies being generated by Google for each search done (as they will think you are a new comer each time). Personally I white-list all my cookies, only allowing the sites I trust to set cookies, which are then automatically cleared when I close FireFox.
Also do not use GMail via the web interface, it is possible to use GMail via an email client residing on your computer.
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answ
http://gmail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?ans
From there you can use your choice of email Encryption/Steganography as you see fit.
You can only be controlled, if you allow it.
You can only be surveyed, if you are unaware of or ignore it.
It's your choice.
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
... that this sort of thing would not happen at Google."
You say you are "alarmed" at what happened at AOL and say "it wasn't a good idea." But please explain what makes you "reasonably satisfied
Are there serious policies in place protecting individual privacy? Is it something actively on the mind of every employee who loads a big pile of search data onto their laptop for some work project? Are there standard tools for scrubbing indentifying information?
I'd like to give Google the benefit of the doubt here, but this is just too important to me.
They cleared that out. They said they'll keep them until they fall off the backup roll. What do you expect, that they nuke them from orbit the second you delete them ?
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
It's like some weird disjointed conversation, almost 10,000 lines and no clicks.
joe o
went thru his social sec files
friday lawn mow
do they keep prison records
say no
prisoners use to call here
they don't get no social sec
lists of them
not social security
mean no
joe to ask you
did he steal some of that money
i ask you
stole from us
kids
government would have caught
if steal from them
took from us
In case you filter out ACs and don't care to look at Score:0 comments, here it is again. In FireFox 1.5.x Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy Tab -> Cookies -> Exceptions Then add the Google domains you wish to block/allow. This will result in many random cookies being generated by Google for each search done (as they will think you are a new comer each time). Personally I white-list all my cookies, only allowing the sites I trust to set cookies, which are then automatically cleared when I close FireFox. Also do not use GMail via the web interface, it is possible to use GMail via an email client residing on your computer. http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=13273 [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answ er=13285 [google.com]
From there you can use your choice of email Encryption/Steganography as you see fit.
You can only be controlled, if you allow it.
You can only be surveyed, if you are unaware of or ignore it.
It's your choice.
--postmodern
--postmodern
Is this supposed to be a joke post mocking Linux users for rushing to suggest Linux as a solution for every problem? Or is it some kind of weird spam?
I'm going to have to start using TOR when I Google.
OK, keep the searches. Read our collective minds. Its too much fun not to. Just don't store my ip address, OK? Be Good. Thanks!
Global Thermal Nuclear War
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
http://scroogle.org/
Try the Scroogle Scraper. No Google cookie,
No Google search tied to your IP address.
No advertizements. While you're there, donate.
Although he was alarmed by Slashdot's haphazard release of its users' online replies, CEO CmdrTaco said Wednesday the privacy concerns raised by that breach won't change his website's practice of storing posts made by it's users.
... that this sort of thing would not happen at Slashdot, although you can never say never," CmdrTaco said during an appearance at a major website conference in Walla Walla, WA.
"We are reasonably satisfied
The security breakdown, disclosed earlier this week, publicly exposed about 19 million replies made by over 1 million Slashdot posters during the three months ended in May. OSTG's Slashdot intended to release the data exclusively to spammers and government spooks, but the information somehow surfaced on the Internet and was widely ignored.
The lapse provided a glaring example of how the information that people post on the website can provide a window into their embarrassing, or even potentially incriminating _ wishes and desires. The replies leaked by Slashdot included condemnations of the current government as well an infatuation with Natalie Portman and hot grits.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Why is it always the bad guys that get the benefits of all of this? Couldn't they at least offer to restore a subscriber's files from their secret cache if the subscriber's disk crashes...?
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
While no doubt many people are clambering to speak to the evils of storing search queries, it's a very useful process, and blindingly obvious that Google would keep doing it. And we're not just talking about advertising. Advertising is just a section sliced out of a very complex structure approximating the character of a user. Google has shown a consistent goal of trying to categorize and understand all the information on the web. Why would they pass on an opportunity to build a persistent model of a user? With a nice AI, you could dramatically increase the relevance of a user's queries by looking at their past records and keeping a profile.
While I am well-aware of the potential dangers of trading anonymity and privacy for a little convenience, it may well be worth it in the long run. Those concerned about governmental influence aren't seeing the big picture. If the government is determined, they'll just look at a higher level. Ask the ISP to parse the input to Google (unless you're connecting to Google over an encrypted channel? I wasn't aware any such thing existed, outside of proxying). Or simply get Google to pass along the IPs of anyone making a hot-list query, no storage required.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
That seems like a lot of work just to catalog every possible incorrect spelling of the word "pornography"
Down with L!
On a somewhat related note: i'm interested in the way Google set up their registration for Gmail. You have to be "invited" by someone else. This means that if they saved all the links between people, which i'm sure they did, they could see the network of people all around the world. They could see how many steps any person is separated from another.
Like someone said a few posts aboove, all the saved searches do amount to a very interesting sample of peoples minds. In the same way, Gmail registration data will be an interesting sample of human networking.
Waiting for you by the bridge
Storing every single search performed by every person in the world across a whole epoch could pretty much give you the pulse of the world.
What, like Google Zeitgeist?
And they already been doing that for years.
http://www.google.co.uk/press/zeitgeist.html
Deleted
It's pretty trivial to completely annonymise the search data and still make useful statistical restults from it.
You give out the user accounts, with that you generate a unique key for the individual which you don't store in the account but in a cookie you give to the client browser. You create a second account based on the unique cookie key which has all of the data you're interested in, preferences, age, sex, weight, search history etc but no names, no addresses or other identity info. Then the user has control of the link between their identity and the information trail.
The user can discard the key cookie at any time and the link is broken between the identity and the preferences/information trail. The government comes in, confiscates the computer systems and they now have two sets of account information. One set with identities (names, addresses etc) and another anonymous one with all of the search information and preferences, Google can quite legitimately say that they have no way to link the information together.
Deleted
We had a major web development conference? I work in web development... why didn't I know.... My boss is going to hear about this!
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
From this statistical analysis of similar screening systems:
Your dear Government can come and take anything it wants from you whenever it wants, in the name of National Security. I think we'd all be much happier if you only kept log data for a limited period of time, after which it was totally destroyed. Otherwise, searches from years ago will be used in the future to persecute and oppress suspected political enemies. Google will not be able to avoid doing this, because the men who come for the data will be carrying large guns and threats of lifetime imprisonment in Gitmo. The best security procedures in the world will not prevent those people getting what they want.
Executive summary:
Don't assume anything you type into a search form isn't being logged with as much information, including your IP, that they can gather. Search accordingly.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
How does Google respond to a subpoena issued as a result of a legal action. Example: Law enforcement obtains the Google cookie ID and requests information from Google in an attempt to prove prior intent for some action. What about the insurance company that wants to prove someone knew of a pre-existing medical condition, but didn't bother to disclose it?
Does Google simply fork over the information?
I hope they at least remove USPS/UPS/FedEx/etc tracking numbers before releasing the stored search data. Not much else gives away someone's location better than a tracking number reporting a package was delivered in SPRINGFIELD, KY at 1pm on 13/13/95.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Aren't these search queris part of Googles "payment" for providing the free to use search function?
What is Googles financial motivation for providing its search free of charge to the world? For all the hardware/datacentre/bandwidth to keep those spiders out there working, to rank all those pages and provide the search engine optimised so it gives good results? They dont advertise on the search page so no money there, their benefit comes from knowing what people are searching for and whether they find it or not.
If you don't want Google to know what you are searching for don't search through Google (though if you search through someone else you can bet they are keeping that info as well). You can clear cookies and change IP address etc so that your searches arent traced back to you as an individual (and Google is cool with that), but Google is under no obligation to provide their search free to the world without keeping the search info.
Isn't the search history used to tune their search engine anyway? I was under the assumption this was done to continuously improve Google ranks etc so search results remain/become more relevant.
To answer all the "what about the *Do No Evil*" questions, I don't see keeping this data as being evil. Releasing it to the public is another matter though, but just because AOL screwed up doesnt mean Google won't continue to be careful with what happens with this data.
So the news about Google today is that "Things are the way they were yesterday and there is no news."
Thanks.
Support the FairTax
This is good news for the Google query based write only file system I've been working on.
Well, strictly speaking it's not write only, because it's readable by Google, but then what isn't?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
It would be similar to how you could create such a graph from a site like MySpace or Facebook, except without the clutter and without the influence of people just wanting to whore friends.
The thought of seeing a graphical representation of this intrigues me. I can just picture what a graph overlayed on the contintental US would look like if the connections between X people were graphed to N generations, for varying numbers X and N (high X + low N, the opposite).
Last July/August the Google Search History beta was released so I love it that Google logs all my searches. Looking through my searches from months ago is pretty cool, and then I can click on the trends button to see how many searches I've made per month, per hour during the day, etc. Very awesome.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
1) Download and install firefox
2) Bring up the options form and switch to the privacy tabs
3) Turn off cookies OR add google.com as an exception to the sites that can set cookies
4) Never ever use Internet Explorer (if you are doing so now)
Simple.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
What information could Google release/lose/etc if the data was not protected? According to their privacy policy Google records the following information in their server logs:
i ght=c4171#c4171
Here is an example of a typical log entry where the search is for "cars", followed by a breakdown of its parts:
* 123.45.67.89 - 25/Mar/2003 10:15:32 - http://www.google.com/search?q=cars - Firefox 1.0.7; Windows NT 5.1 - 740674ce2123e969
* 123.45.67.89 is the Internet Protocol address assigned to the user by the user's ISP; depending on the user's service, a different address may be assigned to the user by their service provider each time they connect to the Internet;
* 25/Mar/2003 10:15:32 is the date and time of the query;
* http://www.google.com/search?q=cars is the requested URL, including the search query;
Firefox 1.0.7; Windows NT 5.1 is the browser and operating system being used; and
* 740674ce2123a969 is the unique cookie ID assigned to this particular computer the first time it visited Google. (Cookies can be deleted by users. If the user has deleted the cookie from the computer since the last time s/he visited Google, then it will be the unique cookie ID assigned to the user the next time s/he visits Google from that particular computer).
See http://www.omninerd.com/2006/01/25/news/489?highl
No matter what safeguards are in place, ANY company like this is only one stupid intern away from a similar situation as AOL faces. Even if there's absolutely no malicious intent, information like this tends to have a very low vapor pressure. The information exists, and as the AOL incident points out, people want the information (as witnessed by the incredible number of articles, websites, and discussions about the content of the AOL database).
Someone will eventually screw up. It's inevitable. It's Murphy's Law... if it can happen, it will... especially given an ample number of opportunities. And there's lots of opportunities for someone to mis-handle this data.
I'm usually fairly on top of things like this, but to be honest, until this happened, I didn't know that Google Personal Search History existed. And apparently the default is to save the history and have it attached to my gmail account. I've now deleted the history and paused the data collection, but does that mean it's really gone? How do I know... maybe it's just hidden for now and not really gone. And it's a little bothersome that the default is to keep the data. The default should be to not save it attached to any sort of personally identifiable informaion unless I give explicit, and repeated, permission to do so.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I assume they whole fuss is being made because they store the IP address with each query. Otherwise, it would not be a privacy issue. So one has to wonder: why *do* they store the IP address? What is the value to them? And if they are concerned about privacy, why not store a hash instead of the original IP, if some sort of information grouping is wanted?
So, obviously, *if* they indeed store the IP address the only explanation is that they do not give a damn about privacy and actually use that information.
BTW, I would assume that this practice is actually illegal in some European countries which have strict laws about what information can be stored and for how long and how it can be used or shared later.
Just because your data transmissions from one node to the next is encrypted, doesn't mean that the data inside the packet doesn't contain valuable information that can identify you.
... :
If you use google, it sets a cookie, the cookie and its identifying (anonymously identifying BTW **) information, get encrypted and sent over tor only to be decrypted and send to google. Nothing has actually improved your situation, google still knows your "GUID" (google unique id) searched for "bush conspiracy" and added that to your ID's already long list of porn searches.
The real problem is this
Next say you log in to google with your GMail account. Your cookie is sent to google's server and matched to your email address. So now they know that for example that GUID# 42k3j3993j3k (whatever) has searched for "bush conspiracy" and that your email address is dumbass@gmail.com. You log off that computer and go to a library and logon there. After you login there all of the porn searches are added to you, but not only that someone searched for "bush assasination" and its attatched to you, permanently.
Before I realized all of this loggin stuff was going on, I let people use my computer all the time. God only knows whats attatched to your information out there. Personal privacy is important even on web searches. My computer now has an auto lock, and a public user - so people aren't by default using my google cookie / account information - among other things.
(** The uniq id is psuedo-anonymous *** until they have a place to hang it, think of it like a random string of beads, each bead is a search. When you login you attach the search history to your account)
(*** psuedo-anonymouse cause they capture the IP addr you have - which could be attatched to you as a person after requesting information from an ISP)
-Prozacgod
It's all about levels of trust. If you want to query Google (or Yahoo) but want some form of anonymizer between the search engine and yourself, you might want to check out Scroogle (http://www.scroogle.org).
So do I trust Scroogle's claim that they delete all search criteria within 48 hours? They haven't let me down yet.
There was a previous article a long ways back about how Google tracks search characteristics by IP address. This was before Gmail came out, but I wouldn't doubt they still use it. Your cookies and Gmail are not safe.
What really concerns me is this: If someone searches for something like their SS# or CC#, thinking that someone had gotten ahold of it and posted it online. They think that the search goes into a black hole when instead, it's now going into a "memory hole," ala 1984.
Unless they drill into your connection to find your MAC address
:)
They can't. Your MAC address isn't transmitted beyond your local ethernet. To actually find something like this Google would have to either be VERY close to your network (ie: on it), or compromise your computer, in which case they'll be able to get a hell of a lot more on you anyway
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
So they likes ot store the queries ? Let's have some fun.
In addition to what you said above, Google also knows what search result you clicked on.
The biggest source of info for them is probably your "Google ID"/single-signon. With this info they can tie your search terms and search clickthrough info with:
* your sent and received email (Gmail)
* your schedule (Google Calendar)
* your purchases (Google Checkout)
* where you plan on going to (Google Maps / Earth)
* what you and people you know look like (Picasa Web Albums)
* news you're interested in (Google News)
* what you like watching (Google Video)
* what you like reading/talking about (Google Groups / Blogger / Notebook)
* what you talk to your friends about (Google Chat)
* every page you visit (Google Web Accelerator)
* all your website passwords, full browsing history, cookies, and bookmarks (Google Browser Sync extension for Firefox)
Google knows a whole LOT about you and I.
"I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
Correct me if I am wrong, but if AOL simply removed the subscriber number column from its released data, there wouldn't have been much of a story here. At least, it wouldn't have produced the giant scandal that it has. Didn't AOL release its search data as a public-spirited gesture to aid researchers?
That's not to say even releasing the data without the subscriber number wouldn't have been somewhat naive. I found the New York Times article yesterday about the one AOL member whose identity was compromised interesting in the kind of false conclusions one might draw from the search queries alone. To do this successfully, AOL would have had to have taken a lot of care -- a lot of care! -- with the data. Getting rid of subscriber number would have simply been the first step any first-grader would have thought of.
If I am understanding events correctly, I think AOL's motives in releasing the data were well-intentioned and laudable. Too bad they fucked up so majorly in the execution.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
What do you expect, that they nuke them from orbit the second you delete them
Well, it is the only way to be sure.
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
No, such a search engine would never be able to store everything about the web the way Google or any other search engine does. Such an engine would never be able to spider the entire web and store the snippets needed to allow for such a comprehensive search. Such an engine would also never be immune to the government requesting information from your ISP about where you have gone, either.
However, such an engine might give you a bit more insulation from these intrusions into our online life, and perhaps with some P2P technology thrown into the mix, maybe some onion routing or similar - maybe these individual small search databases can be linked up to provide a more comprehensive search without revealing to anyone who is searching for what, from where, and when.
Even if each box was a simple server with a 100 gig storage, and even if you might have to wait a while for a search to complete, or batch searches together (maybe even scheduled searches or search alerting?) - isn't that inconvenience worth more than the privacy invasion we are now seeing?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Configure an auto-search bot on your computer that runs a dictionary of random phrases through-- changing the signal-to-noise threshold...