Slashdot Mirror
AOL Subscribers Sue Over Release Of Search Data
An anonymous reader points out an AP story indicating that AOL hasn't seen the end of its own public embarrassment after airing some dirty laundry on behalf of its customers. Excerpted from the story: "Three AOL subscribers who suddenly found records of their Internet searches widely distributed online are suing the company under privacy laws and are seeking an end to its retention of search-related data ... The lawsuit is believed to be the first in the wake of AOL's intentional release of some 19 million search requests made over a three-month period by more than 650,000 subscribers. ... Filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., the lawsuit seeks class-action status. It does not specify the amount of damages being sought."
1) Scaring other ISPs and related companies into better privacy safeguards
2) Hastening the timely demise of AOL
What is this AOL you speak of?
Since search inputs are sent over the internet as plain text, and there are often warnings generated by browsers to explain that this isn't secure, I wonder if AOL has done anything illegal and/or anything that they can be sued for in civil court? It was an error that should cost them customers, but I don't see why there should be a class-action lawsuit. They did not release the names of the people searching, and anything linking the searches to the users was a direct result of the search terms they sent across the internet in unsecured form, by choice.
first off, why anyone would enter their social into google. Also, isn't there a way to get an update on what is being searched in google at all times? I know this isn't quite the same thing as being identified with a number, but really, if people are entering their socials into aol search, most likely they are with google as well, and if my memory serves me right, there is some way to get an up to the minute/second listing of what the world is searching using google?
Besides these AOL users shouldn't get too worked up. They couldn't possibly be too concerned about what anyone thinks about them or they wouldn't be using AOL in the first place. The rest of the Internet wasn't particularly surprised at the contents of that search data -- we were all working under the assumption that everyone on AOL was searching for pictures of poo and instructions on how to murder people anyway. The data in question simply confirmed that suspicion.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The amount being sought is a blank check from Time Warner.
"We want 37 kajillion dollars."
They must have been the only 3 AOLers who met both of these conditions:
a) They weren't searching for "hot kiddie lolita horse love" and were consequently unafraid of that search rearing its ugly head in open court.
b) They were aware enough of the wider internet to know their data had been released in the first place and the implications thereof.
Three? Yeah, that sounds about right.
But those results made for hours of good times on various forums! I can't tell you how many times I found threads where people circled the funniest entries in red, and everyone wondered who would possibly search for gorilla pr0n or Why Their Job is So Bad. Yeah, I have no life.
1000 free hours of AOL!
My parents use AOL - have used it since 1996, IIRC. Can we attach to the lawsuit? If so, how does one go about doing that?
IANAL....
AOL, like most ISPs, has a privacy agreement, which states when and how your information may be distributed. Most call this 'personally identifying' information. That would probably include search terms, especially when grouped by a unique identifier, that would personally identify you.
How AOL obtained that information (plain text over the internet or otherwise) is not relevant - if they agreed with you that they would not share it, then they can't share it.
What I'm curious to see here is most of these agreements also force binding arbitration - if that is the case here, can you even have a class action lawsuit based on the privacy agreement?
And if not, are there any actual LAWS violated here? I don't see any legal culpability. If you tell me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, and I tell someone else that you told me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, that wouldn't be actionable. And that's basically what happened here, only in a large volume: People told AOL what they wanted to seach for, and AOL then passed that information to others.
Unfortunate, yes, but there isn't any inherent legal obligation for a 3rd party to hold information you give them in confidence (with certain specific exceptions, like healthcare workers, grand juries, etc, of which AOL is none).
paintball
not claimed by the people who did the lolita type searches? Even if was dumb enough to submit that in a search engine I certainly am not going to step up and say "Yep. Those are my searches" to claim a share. I guess the searcher could use the settlement to hire a criminal defense attorney though.
I sure hope they win! Don't want to back this unreasonable disclosure of personal information with a court order, that AOL and other ISPs can wave around to justify abusing the trust of their customers, thank you very much.
my capcha was condom
http://www.aolsearchdatabase.com/search.php?page=1 &textfield=&textfield2=cancel%20aol
They just have to prove they were the ones searching the terms. I'm not sure anyone would fess up to browsing unscrupulous websites.
God spoke to me.
I'd sue too if they outed me as user of AOL.
Damn, that would be really, really embarrassing and my l33t status would be called into question.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Does this mean we'll find out the identity of the guy who asked the AOL search engine "do (racial slurs) have x-ray vision?"
AOL's releasing of the data was a very good thing, in that it raised people's awareness of the sheer quantity and potentially embarassing nature of search-engine records. With this data being made publically availible, people can now make informed judgements regarding the tradeoff between privacy and national security (or whatever justification is used for the retition of this data).
This sort of lawsuit had to happen at some point; better soon rather than later, and, better that it come out of the incompetance of search-engine administrators rather than the abstract fears of the privacy-inclined.
It's the company that makes Winamp. They used to be in the free backup diskette business.
810565: Online privacy laws
810565: privacy lawyers
810565: Online privacy
810565: EFF online privacy
810565: lawsuit online privacy search
810565: sex with domesticated animals
810565: pictures of sex with domesticated animals
810565: privacy data retention
810565: privacy search data
810565: privacy search data law
. . . all the slashdoters can kiss my ass.
You first.
KFG
Politicans have already been found and identified in the database.
If you want to find prominent people, just search for terms that only they would use.
Here are some that work:
congressionalfcu, wright patman, rotary club, kiwanis, security clearance, pentagon federal credit union.
There are lots more! Find a list of every elite private school, country club, social club or credit union with restricted membership and try them all. Have fun.
Speaking of legal problems, a few months ago in AOL search I entered "George Bush", "buffoon" and "retarded chimp" in sequence.
Does anyone think this could get me sent to Guan
This will be really interesting to watch. I mean, AOL has dirt on everyone - I can imagine it will be hard to have a court case against them when AOL can come back and say "Oh here you are searching for child porn, illegal song downloads, etc." Unless they don't have anything to be ashamed of I can see it being a very difficult case for the plaintiffs.
or else!
"Yeah, see, my name is Joe Blow and I was trying to find my sister's MySpace page. Her name is Lolita. I know she used to work at a race track so I did a search for her: Lolita Blow Job Horses. What's so wrong with that? Now give me my share of the settlement."
- Hi, my name is John Smith and I have been an AOL user for 6 years...
- Welcome John and thank you for coming. If you feel up to it perhaps you could tell us all about the first time you realised that your AOL membership was a problem?
3) making people aware of what their ISP / anyone with (or even without) a search warrant, can find out about them by just combining their non-anonymous search history.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I stopped right there because your advice is only worth what everyone's paying for it. You are answering the question by saying you don't know WTF you are talking about. :)
In the end.... There can be only one.
If telling people that you told me that you like to have sexual relations with farm animals is not actionable, than certainly telling people that you asked me about information regarding sex with farm animals isn't actionable either. (Assuming, of course, that you had actually done both, if I just made it up, then depending on the circumstances it would be actionable.)
paintball
...since so many places are always asking you for them.
paintball
It does not specify the amount of damages being sought.
It'll be a drop in the bucket compared to something that would actually hurt AOL, lawyers will be able to buy more yaughts, and no 'victim' will actually get anything significant out of the deal.
Haven't we seen enough of these class action suits to know how it goes already?
Latewire
The justice department will file a friend of the court brief urging the judge not to impose any limitations on data retention. In fact, while a monetary penalty for releasing the information is in play, the idea that they could shorten or in anyway affect the retention of data is so contrary to the desires of people like Rumsfield and Gonzales that it will never happen.
Privacy is anathma to control and this administration loves control.
its so-oo-oo simple. http://www.blackboxsearch.com/
speculate but several jurisdictions recognize the tort of public disclosure of private facts, where truth is not a defense. In fact, the Valerie Plame lawsuit which exposed truthful information that Plame was a CIA agent relies on just such a tort. To prove such a tort, the elements are that the private information is not of a legitimate concern to the public and must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. What a private person searches for on the internet would count for me as a colorable claim.
If I remember a Wired interview from a couple years ago, there is a large display up in Google's headquarters that displays these results in real time. Employees are able to watch the board and track the user to see what the individual actually went to (in the article an individual was Googling for suicide help, and they were able to tell he got to a site that would help him/her).
816597 aol
816597 aol evil
816597 sue aol
816597 lawyers to sue aol
816597 evil french free pc
816597 aol sucks
816597 make money by suing aol
816597 class action lawsuit
816597 cookies
816597 hide porn from girlfriend
816597 clear cache
816597 stupid aol
816597 games for people from the midwest
816597 Adult bookstores near Dayton, OH
816597 fake ID
816597 search for embarrassing stuff online
816597 have my innermost thoughts and desires posted online for the world to see
816597 ?????
816597 Sue AOL - PROFIT!!!!!
Mozy, free online backup service
--