Slashdot Mirror
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."
First they demote him from being a lt. commander. Then they attach him to AOL. Somewhere Lore must be pulling the strings.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Perhaps because being fired is a whole lot worse than quitting voluntarily... and more importantly, lets them avoid giving you the severance pay they would otherwise owe.
Personally, I know that if I were told by my boss to do something and then got fired for doing it, I'd be extremely pissed!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
who else would have the phenomenal insight to give us such gems as
l /8-21-06_21.gif
l /8-13-06_26.gif
l /8-21-06_9.gif
http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevi
http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevi
and of course
http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/08/docevi
The main point really is that he believes he was fired because he is being blamed for something that is not his fault: He did what he was told, and what he was told was authorized by his bosses and the appropriate people. Blaming the mailclerk for the mail isn't good policy. (He's a little more involved then a mailclerk I assume, but how much I don't know.)
Then, if he doesn't want to work there, he can quit. There is a huge difference in being able to tell a prospective employeer that you quit because of the culture of blame-passing, and having to tell them you were fired because you released private data to the public.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
I bet they have a stamp that says that.
-Dave
That's a bit cynical, don't you think?
If they really wanted to make the most money possible, they would have sold these logs (non-anonymized) to the scores of direct marketers that I'm sure would love to have this data. Instead, they packaged it up and tried to make it available to academic researchers. These researchers honestly just want to make better search engines that run faster and return better results. Furthermore, when academics come up with a great new idea, it gets published so that anyone can read it.
Every once in a while, someone suggests an open source search engine. Check out Nutch if you want to see work in this area. However, if open source search solutions are going to be any good at all, they'll have to rely on the decades of public, published information retrieval research that's already out there.
We are entering a time when companies are capable of totally outpacing academia because they have query log data, so they know exactly what users actually do. There is no way that an academic can get this kind of data unless a company releases it. Researchers at AOL, in good faith, tried to release data so researchers could have a chance at success. Ultimately, of course, that's good for AOL since they're not in the top three search engines out there. Public research can only help raise AOL's standing by helping to level the playing field. But, it's good for you too, because you can build your open source solution based on this research too.
Yes, the release was botched, and yes, the long term user identifiers were a mistake. But don't make AOL out to be some evil company that was only out to destroy your privacy. They made a mistake!