Amazon's A9 Drops Retained Data Methods

eldavojohn writes "The recent update to Amazon's A9 service has removed its ability to record searches. A9 (which now uses Windows Live & Alexa) used to tout the ability to save every single search the user made, which required a login. Now, they no longer require you to log in and have dropped the recording of searches from their toolbar. What they added was aesthetic changes to the search site. What they dropped was the A9 Instant Reward, the A9 Toolbar, the A9 Yellow Pages, the A9 Maps (including Block View), the user diary, bookmarks, and history. Although they claim that A9 is merely 'shifting its priorities to areas where it can provide the greatest benefit for customers,' this smacks of a move to avoid the ethical controversies and pressures that come with retaining your user data. What does the rest of Slashdot think about retaining search data? Is it a liability or an asset?"

Comments

Depends...

[EaglemanBSA]

I suppose that depends on what data is being stored, and why...in the case of Amazon, I personally could care less if someone else could look at which CD's I'm interested in. I think the decision should be left to the end user.

Instant Reward dropped?

[iamjoltman]

So are they saying that you no longer get the A9 discount at Amazon if you use the search page? That's the only reason I was using it! Without that discount, I, and I'm sure others, will no longer use their search.

Asset, under certain circumstances.

[Chrisje]

Let's assume I'm not searching for too outlandish things. Let's pretend I do not look for 70's pr0n featuring dogs, or if I do, that my fiance is aware of it and condones it. Being fairly normal and open means I have nothing to hide. They can retain all the data on me they like. It's no skin off my back, if you will.

The only but in that statement is that I don't want them to retain search- or private data under two circumstances:

1) If the search data affects the answers given in future searches
2) If it results in spam or theft of any kind

Now, providing it's securely stored, doesn't affect answers to future queries and helps them enhance their services, I really don't mind.

Re:It just goes to show..

[iamjoltman]

Hey, when you have a family to support, every penny counts! And besides, I hardly ditched Google, I just sent a search through there once or twice a week just to keep the discount active, then I usually ended up putting the same search into Google anyway :P

Re:And If the Government Asks?

[LordEd]

The government> I accuse Mr. White in the Conservatory with the CD!

A search is not a purchase. For purchases, there are already records. It doesn't matter if you're searching for that new-fangled satanic rock and roll. If it matters at all, it will be if you purchase (or download) the CD.

It should be the consumer's choice

[davidwr]

Web sites that do collect "non-essential" data should give the customer the opt in or opt out, depending on the nature of the site. Sites like banks that must create audit trails for certain transactions need to have full disclosure.

Slashdot gives me the option of posting and submitting stories under my user-id or anonymously. Everyone knows that I, davidwr, posted this message at the time indicated above. Any paying subscriber can look up "davidwr" any time in the future and see all the messages I posted. If I wanted to be private, I could be "Anonymous Coward."

I avoid newspaper sites tha require a login because I want to eliminate the possibility they will tie what I read today with what I read tomorrow.

Re:It just goes to show..

[bigbigbison]

When A9 first debuted, it used google results, so it didn't really matter. Now it uses msn's search, it isn't nearly as good, but once or twice a week instead of typing in a url, I'll just search A9 for the title of the website.
1.5% may not be much, but it takes so little effort that it is worth it.
I just checked and the pi/2 discount is still in effect, so I'm not sure if that actually is going away or if they just aren't promoting it any more.

Slashdot blinders

[deblau]

What does the rest of Slashdot think about retaining search data? Is it a liability or an asset?

This is a classic case of Slashdot blinders, thinking the entire world is black or white. Here, let me help you:

Retaining data is obviously a liability. It's invasive of my privacy. It gives companies data on me that they can sell to other companies without my permission, and those other companies send me annoying pre-screened offers of credit. My info will eventually end up in a big database in the basement of the FBI, where they'll try to link me to terrorism by playing a big connect-the-dots game. 'He searched for the Anarchist Cookbook and Catcher in the Rye. Arrest his ass.'

On the other hand, retaining data is obviously an asset. It allows companies to cater their services to my personal needs. It lets them suggest products that I may not have even known existed. My information builds company worth, which stimulates the economy and provides employees with jobs. It facilitates retailer/customer trust and loyalty, which benefits both parties.

I'm sure I could go on and on with more arguments for both sides, but I hope you've gotten the point by now: the world isn't black and white, business decisions are hard, and the rest of the world already knows these things.