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."
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.
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
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
Anyone have any actual suggestions for what to use instead of google though? What about a server to interrogate google for results, without disclosing ur IP. (ie, it's IP will be logged, not urs - simmilar to a proxy, but more active.)?
What is...?
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.
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.
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.
"Google doesn't HAVE to save everyone's search and IP in order to provide their service and stay in business."
First, Google doesn't 'search' IPs...beside the point, though.
It makes perfect sense for Google to store searches because I'm sure their targeted advertising system (read: the way they make $$$$$$$) depends largely on some sort of advanced analysis of "your search history + what you are currently searching for = what you're most interested in buying". Even if I'm completely wrong about the previous statement, stored results also allow them to analyze popular subjects to evaluate new or strong markets/technologies that they should be involved in developing or maintaining. All large businesses love using data analysis to find trends and they literally have the largest data set in the world which is equivalent to having the largest balls...ever.
Keep in mind that attempting to single out an individual (accurately) or even 'flag' search results is way too ineffective because, as previously stated, too many false positives exist (unless all someone searches, ever, revolves around one specific topic...in which case, that someone sucks at teh internet). However, to analyze a market your only concern is popularity and you filter according to your business' particular goals or direction.
It is all part of the 'Google > all' strategy...they have everything that is most important to the entire world at their fingertips because of it. They can analyze by region and subject and determine when, where, and what they should focus on.
I say it is just absolutely fucking brilliant business.
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.
There is always more people interested in, for example, bombs, than there are bombers.
And then there are the clever bombers. The dangerous ones, that don't use Google or Ebay.
The imp hits!
That's true, but I'm not worried about them finding out that I once read up on explosives. In fact, I'd be just fine if I trusted that they were only finding bombers with that stuff.
I'm more worried that some day I'll be a reasonably successful businessman (however unlikely), with a big mouth. Then they'll go find all the most vulgar shit my friends and I have swapped via email and use it as a, "look what a f'ing weirdo this guy is... lets have DCFS take his kids because he replied 'ha ha' to that awful video way back in 2002."
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?