Execs at AOL Approved Release of Private Data?

reporter writes "The New York Times has published a report providing further details about the release of private AOL search queries to the public. According to the report: 'Dr. Jensen, who said he had worked closely with Mr. Chowdhury on projects for AOL's search team, also said he had been told that the posting of the data had been approved by all appropriate executives at AOL, including Ms. [Maureen] Govern.' The report also identifies the other two people whom AOL management fired: they are Abdur Chowdhury and his immediate supervisor. Chowdhury is the employee who did the actual public distribution of the private search queries. He, apparently, has retained a lawyer."

Comments

Poor Data

[krell]

First they demote him from being a lt. commander. Then they attach him to AOL. Somewhere Lore must be pulling the strings.

Personal Matters

[kurrik]

"An AOL researcher who put the queries online and a manager overseeing the project were dismissed, according to an AOL employee who did not want to be identified because the company does not comment publicly on personnel matters."

Yeah, wouldn't want anyone's privacy to be compromised??

Mr. Chowdhury is a comedic GENIUS!

[Jakhel]

who else would have the phenomenal insight to give us such gems as

http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevil /8-21-06_21.gif

http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevil /8-13-06_26.gif

and of course

http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevil /8-21-06_9.gif

Re:retained a lawyer?

[Karma Farmer]

Slashdot: why ignore the article when you can ignore the summary?

think of the children

[bigdavex]

The Justice Department has repeatedly signaled its strong interest, through continued conversations with Internet companies and members of Congress, in having the data retained to help it fight terrorism and child pornography . .

I bet they have a stamp that says that.

Re:Possible Solution

[CDMA_Demo]

Here's a potential solution to your "industrywide problem": Stop treating us (your users) as nothing more than a market. We're individual human beings. Right now, we just look like sacks of money to you and your "research" consists of trying to extract that money from us.

I agree, users are people too. To prove your point, here is a gem: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4016

It just wants to be free!

[edmicman]

Whatever happened to the "information just wants to be free" argument? Where's that now?

Re:retained a lawyer?

[ConsumerOfMany]

When you're President of the United States, you don't really have any recourse when Congress (a co-equal branch)

Perhaps someone should tell bush that congress is a coequal branch of government. Even if congress did it themselves, I'm sure there would be a signing statement to the contrary....

Freeeedom!

[alienmole]

I'd say this only proves the point - this information wanted to be free badly enough to escape from AOL, leaving a trail of career destruction in its wake!

Re:retained a lawyer?

[omeomi]

At a former job, we got a contract with the Navy to put our computer system on an aircraft carrier. One employee quit rather than work on a system that would be used to help kill people. Although I didn't have any qualms about that particular application, I understood her stand.

The Clerks argument! My favorite! Was it okay to blow up the Death Star the second time, while it was being repaired? Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? ;-)