Slashdot Mirror
Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data
Google's official blog states they are on an effort to anonymize their search data after 18-24 months. After previously fighting turning over search data to the feds, it looks like they are striking another blow to the "think of the children" crowd. Any bets on whether MSN or Yahoo! will follow suit?
Why would Google have to comply with EU regulations? :?
Maybe because they do business in Europe?
My site
My guess is they don't do it immediately is because there is internal business value in mining the data. User patterns, length of stay, etc. After 18 or 24 months, the internal value has dropped significantly as things change quickly. I would have thought that the value would have dropped even quicker then that, say after 6 months or maybe a year.
I never got why google needs to keep all that history without anonymizing it.
There is - as far as I can see - no rational argument that has to do with improving search results because you have them tied to individuals.
And yes, keeping tabs on half the globe is evil too...
MP3 Search Engine
And anonymous proxies do not need to make money or provide much of a service unlike google, logs are very useful for such things.
Google plan to make it "more anonymous". Like pregnancy, data either ARE anonymous or they ain't. You can't qualify an absolute, and "anonymous" is an absolute condition indicating lack of information.
All they have to do is erase the logs every day or just not keep them. It doesn't "take an effort". Anonymous proxies have been doing this for years.
I know where you're coming from, but that would kinda fuck with their targetting advertising business model dontcha think?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If you've got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
Ignore that post above - I'm a moron. I meant to say CustomizeGoogle Firefox plugin .Get it here.
I guess that's what happens when you Slashdot before caffeine. I'm sorry.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:NOT
The data retention directive only applies to ISPs, and only deals with who you "communicate" with. It does not explicitly say that a record of which websites you visit should be retained, and it explicitly says that the content of the communication must not be retained.
However, as for all EU directives, it only contains the baseline of regulation. Directives are never law themselves, but have to be implemented in each respective member state by each respective legislative body. These, in turn, are free to implement whatever they want ABOVE the baseline, so some member states may have longer retention periods for this data, some member states may require ISPs to retain additional data.
The deadline for this directive is September this year, but if you read it, a few member states have reserved the option to postpone parts of the directive, typically of the internet-related traffic. This basically means that they recognize the difficulties in implementing it, and want more time to think about on how to do it, or possibly obstruct it.
What all of this boils down to is that maybe, sometime in the future, if you have an European ISP, they may be required to store all the URLs that you access. Google search data is transmitted as querystring parameters that are part of the URL, which means that your search data may be stored by your ISP, in a non-anonymized way. There's nothing in this possible future that Google has to comply with, as long as they are not an European ISP.
I'm between the two extremes of agreeing with you and agreeing that data needs to be retained. As any of us who have taken a statistics class (or four) can tell you, you don't need access to the whole sample to provide accurate data. So, say, for instance, the Google engineers were working on a specific niche of the web, say, dog lovers. If I were designing something to better suit dog lovers, my first step would be pulling a report on the common search patterns of people that search for dog-related topics.
Historical data that identifies a unique user is extremely useful. I do the same thing with our Intranet search and report tools. If I want to improve something, oftentimes the logs will give a very telling tale. (This accounting department employee searched for "expense", then "expense excel", then "expense spreadsheet", then "expense log", finally getting his document. I can then add the keywords 'excel' 'spreadsheet' to the actual document entry.) That said, you don't actually need to know who the unique user is, for all intents and research purposes, User5486734067 is just as useful as an IP+Cookie.
Ah, the out of context argument. My house is private by the definition that I have locks on the doors and blinds on the windows.
Funny - my computer is in my house, behind locks and blinds too. Hey Google's computers also are behind lock and key, and they even have security guards and alarm systems. I don't ever remember giving Google permission to disclose any information shared between them and I - oh and heaven forbid I go around giving away the information Google found for me - I'd get sued!
Why would the whole world automatically be party to the information Google and I shared one evening? My computer sent that information to a specific internet address, and the answer came back specifically to my computer.
Not so out of context...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not only that, but is the history of searches you made over 2 years ago relevant to your current searches performed today?
Studies have shown that 43% of all people who search for "Donkey Love" will buy our product within 3 years if they see our ads.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Exactly, it's to Google's MONETARY benefit that they record this information. The EU Privacy law says THEY CANNOT RECORD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION THAN IS NEEDED FOR A TRANSACTION. Now that it's clear that search data is personally identifiable, the EU Privacy law should be used to FORCE GOOGLE TO QUIT IT.
/ double.click.lawsuit.idg/
"The moment you sent your request out over the internet in plain text to a third party (that is a corporation out to make money you know) you lost that."
Not so, the law says we have to consent and we didn't consent!
And what about when that party isn't Google? Google analytics is not on Google's site, it's embedded on third party sites, Google's adsense is on other people's site too. I didn't consent to handing my data to Google when I surfed to third parties site, Google took that data and recorded it in violation of EU privacy laws.
This has also been sued for before resulting in Doubleclick backing down over exactly this issue.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/28
"A California woman has filed suit against DoubleClick, accusing the U.S.-based online advertising company of unlawfully obtaining and selling consumers' personal information, according to a statement issued by her attorney's office."
"Hariett M. Judnick filed the suit in Marin County Superior Court in California, on behalf of the "general public of the state of California," the statement said.
The suit alleges that DoubleClick employs Internet cookies to identify users and track their movements on the Internet. The company tracks and records the sites an individual visits, as well as the information transmitted on the sites, such as names, ages, addresses, shopping patterns and financial information."
This is why it pays to have a modicum of computer knowledge.
Assuming you're not trolling...
When you send a query to google, it goes over the "internet" in the clear. That is, not encrypted. Anyone who can see it can read it. Well who can read it? Turns out a lot of people. Between me and google are probably 10 different boxes. 5 of which are just my ISPs routers. The other five are boxes on other networks, not even related to Google.
There is no inherant requirement for privacy like there is with telephones (maybe their ought to be one). But that said, you're giving your data to Google, willingly no less. That gives them every right to record it. You gave them permission by using their service, I guess you never read their TOS which is your fault, not theirs. Think about the analogy in the real world. This is like you handing your drivers license to every stranger you meet, then getting upset when some of them write it down.
If you don't want your assets [IP, location, name, platform, etc] leaked to Google you should use an anonymous proxy.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
List of nifty little phrases that have bitten their speakers in the ass:
Now Google brings us:
Let's just be less evil, now that we've been caught.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Your IP usually isn't the problem, especially in my case where my ISP sends it all through their regional proxy anyway. What CustomizeGoogle does is randomize your Google UID. Take another look at the recent AOL breach - people weren't suffering privacy loss due to their IP address, but rather because AOL gave each and every user a number that could be tracked through the system. Thanks to CustomizeGoogle, that won't happen to me and my searches.
Just hard code the function that grabs "HTTP_REMOTE_ADDR" to return "127.0.0.1." That way the feds will think all the kiddie p0rn searches came from the computer they are using.
There's 2^32 IP addresses under IPv4. If Google is doing the hashing, then they know the hash function. How long do you think it would take them to brute-force break the hash by hashing every possible IP address and creating a map from the hashed values back to the originals? Express your answer in microseconds.
(If your solution is to increase the space of inputs by adding a variable salt value, please explain how this allows them to use the resulting hashes for aggregation.)
Studies have shown that 43% of all people who search for "Donkey Love" will buy our product within 3 years if they see our ads.
...and that number rises to 98.3% if we mention we found that item in their search history.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.