FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"

Comments

If your worried

[CastrTroy]

If you're worried about how much data Google and doubleclick are collecting, then just block them from you firewall. If you never connect to their servers, they can't collect any information. If enough people start to do this kind of thing, they will have to start to find a new way of doing business.

Re:If your worried

[Billosaur]

I can see people blocking DoubleClick... Google's another story. It's ubiquity means that even if the average user has some idea how to go about blocking them, they'll hesitate to.

Re:If your worried

[onion2k]

I'm not worried about the data they collect about me, I'm worried about the data they collect full stop. A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet. That's a bad thing. There are hundreds of millions of internet users out there who are clueless about firewalls, turning off scripting in their browser, and avoiding 'dangerous' sites. I could sit back and scoff at them for being newbies, or I could make a stand from my position of (relative ;) ) knowledge. The internet will be better for everyone if we don't just look after ourselves.

Re:If your worried

[rtb61]

If you want to control google run this http://www.customizegoogle.com/ on top of firefox in preference to the google toolbar.

Re:If your worried

[Aladrin]

Seriously? You think the fact that Google bought DoubleClick will even be widely known? Or that they will suddenly stop blocking DC because it's owned by the 'good guys', even though absolutely nothing about the company has changed?

Not likely. It's much more likely the DC's mud will rub off on Google, and people will be more likely to block it as well.

Since I've got NoScript installed now, I didn't bother to unblock Google's traffic stuff. It doesn't do anything for -me-, so it stays blocked.

Re:If your worried

[CastrTroy]

But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data. How many gigabytes of data is too much? How do you control what data they are allowed to store. Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic? The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.

Re:If your worried

[davecb]

CastrTroy wrote:If you're worried about how much data Google and doubleclick are collecting, ...

You'd be surprised what "innocuous" information can be used to your disadvantage. A notable example, from right after the birth-control pill was introduced, was the DBA who did a query on a drugstore system for customers with a birth-control prescriptions, but was blocked from getting the customers' addresses. So he took the set of names from that query and did a soundex lookup for matching names on a library system, where the home addresses were not protected.

You can imagine the furor that caused at the time!

--dave

Re:If your worried

[truthsearch]

A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet.

How? If the single company isn't an ISP then they aren't in control of access. If you're worried about the government getting this information to track people then the issue is the government, not the one company holding the data.

Re:If your worried

[AutopsyReport]

If enough people start to do this kind of thing

And therein lies the problem. Enough people will not block Google et al. The Slashdot/tech will not be burdened by the fears of privacy because they are knowledgeable enough to prevent it. The general public has no knowledge of how to be shielded from watching eyes, and furthermore has no knowledge that the Google and DoubleClick merger will give a single entity an overwhelming view of person's online activities.

To reiterate, telling Slashdot to block Google is probably ineffective because those that seek to protect their privacy likely don't use Google. It's the rest of the world that should be concerned -- and they won't be because they are not aware of the implicit activities going on when you search with Google.

Re:If your worried

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Can you cite one instance where sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich has saved you from imminent danger?

Re:If your worried

[badasscat]

But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data.

With a law.

How do you control what data they are allowed to store.

With a law.

Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic?

No, Yahoo is exempt because they do not collect the same type of information. Laws only affect those who undertake the actions defined within the law.

The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.

The difference is the law. Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here.

I mean, I know the /. crowd leans towards the libertarian side of things, but some people act as if they've never even heard of the rule of law around here. I guess given our current administration, that's probably not too surprising - but the fact remains that there's no inalienable right that says Google should be allowed to collect all this data on its users, which means there's no reason not to make it illegal if that's what's determined to be in the public interest.

Who makes these determinations? The people we elect specifically for that purpose. This is why we have a congress. You can call them incompetent, you're free to dislike your representatives, but it's not like it's some big mystery who gets tasked with drafting laws in our governmental system. That is your congressperson's job. If you don't like the job they're doing, then vote for somebody else next time - but this is what they're there to do, and as long as they're there, you should use them.

I think there is also a tendency for some people to turn fairly simple questions of law into larger philosophical debates. I don't really understand the reason for that. If people don't like the fact that Google is going to be collecting all this data, then we should pressure our congress to draft a law that stops them or anyone else from doing it. It's really that simple. There's no point worrying about whether it would apply to one company or another or why it doesn't apply to government or whatever. Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues; they're not designed to address abstract philosophical ethical questions.

Re:If your worried

[hal2814]

Well there was this one time when I was fooling around with the War Operation Plan Response computer over at NORAD when it decided a war game scenario was real. We convinced the computer through some tic-tac-toe simulations that the only winning move was not to play. I guess technically it wasn't stick my head in the sand but sticking the WOPR's head in the sand certainly saved us from imminent danger.

Re:If your worried

[narenrulz]

Not even 1% of the people who are on the internet know about Adblock and customizegoogle extensions

Re:If your worried

[HellYeahAutomaton]

You can't fool me. I saw that in WarGames too. Not playing a game and hiding are two different strategies. You can't hide from Google!

Re:If your worried

[Guppy06]

"Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here."

The Census is required to ask you the following:

1. How many people are in your household? Don't count untaxed Indians
2. Of those, how many are men at least 21 years of age?
3. Of those, how many are enfranchised?

Anything else isn't "the law of the land."

Re:If your worried

[h2_plus_O]

But how do you really stop [someone] from [something]

With a law.

If it was that simple, illegal drugs wouldn't be available, would they? Murder wouldn't happen, right?
We'd need enforcement to ensure compliance with said law, which means empowering the government to inspect private company data to make sure it's not the verboten kind of data we don't want them collecting. This would require congress to grant unprecedented powers to law enforcement, essentially rendering all privately held data subject to government inspection. If you're concerned about private companies having too much information or too much power, think about the ramifications of a government authorized to access (for "verification purposes only") any privately-held business data- I respectfully submit that this would be a worse problem than having private companies legally allowed to capture public data.

There's also the question of how to differentiate appropriate customer information from the kind you want to forbid: for example, my wife owns a small business and (like pretty much all business owners) she keeps track of her customers- this includes having phone numbers and addresses in a database. For a law to do what you're suggesting, there would need to be a legal distinction between the kind of data my wife's business keeps and the kind of data you don't want Google to have. IANAL, but I'm not sure that's legally possible.

Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues

They're also highly prone, just like software, to creating unintended consequences that may be less desirable than the problem they seek to correct. Some examples:

• The income tax deduction, designed to make it less expensive to own a home, makes it more expensive for the majority of borrowers (for whom it's cheaper to take the standard deduction) to borrow, by artificially inflating the rate the market will bear.
• The War on Drugs, designed to make drugs too expensive to be used/abused, has instead made drug trade profitable; it is now the funding source of choice for organized crime and we have just as many addicts today as we did when we started.
• The law against hiring undocumented workers is intended to protect domestic labor; instead it creates conditions in which undocumented workers cannot demand comparable wages, depressing the wages domestic workers would theoretically command.
• The income tax for businesses is designed to reduce the tax burden individuals (especially the very poor) pay, by making companies shoulder some of the costs. Companies pass this tax along in the form of higher prices, lower wages and reduced profit, which impact the very poor disproportionately.
• The federal subsidy on food crops is intended to make food cheap and plentiful; however when US farmers undersell global market rates, they put foreign farmers out of work. Those workers then compete for manufacturing jobs in cities, driving down labor costs and putting US manufacturers out of work.

...when anyone blithely suggests 'making a law' to fix a problem, I generally wonder a) how we survived without one for so long, b)whether the right solution really is to expand the role of government in our lives, c) if this new law will be (like so many others) ignored, or d) if it will create worse problems than it solves.
In this situation, where the 'problem' is that a private company might have too much power, I'm suspicious of a solution that involves concentrating even more power in the hands of even fewer people.

Re:If your worried

[DrEldarion]

A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet. So the answer to keeping the internet free is to have the government step in and restrict? Or is Google not allowed to enjoy the freedom?

Re:If your worried

[mabhatter654]

you mean as opposed to AT&T resurrection of undead Ma Bell? With Google you have some choice to go to their site or not... how about ATT? They control the physical wire to your house, or the website, or the fiber in between!!!! and seem to have no issue at all with selling you out to the highest bidder (the whole NSA thing was just a bribe to get the FTC to look the other way in that HUGE merger) Where was the FTC championing our rights then? Really FTC, the Google/Doubleclick merger is silly. Or how about that Microsoft Web site that 95% of computers connect to by default.. your computer sends home god-knows-what to Bill's home office... nobody worries about THAT.

This just shows Google hasn't learned to bribe the right people yet. For all these mega corps cry about govt "interference", the largest squealers are pulling the strings to stop this merger. It's not in any interest of the "little guy" just big companies upset that Google has pulled the TIA card quicker than 30 & 90 year old companies that have been plotting for ages.

I can see it now...

[PixieDust]

There's an emergency government meeting behind closed doors...

Suit 1:"So there's this new Google deal going down. Apparently some companies have their panties in a twist because of how much information Google will have."

Suit 2: "How much information are we talking about?"

Suit 3: "Well, Doubleclick catches a lot of web traffic information, browsing patterns, etc. and Google already mines tons of data..."

Suit 1 begins crunching some numbers. "Good God! We have to put a stop to this! Soon they'll know more than we do! That's it. I want the Board (from Google) in here now. They'll be more than happy to give us wha6t we wish. After all, it'd be a shame if something unfortunate happened..."

Weird wording

[niconorsk]

The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world. Wasn't this the case for Google before they bought Google? Not to dismiss their worries(Google freaks me out sometimes), but they could have found a better way to voice them.

Re:Weird wording

[s.bots]

The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world. Isn't this going to be the case anyway? If google doesn't have access to more information than any other company, that means that some other company would have the most information. Perhaps google has access to more information than the others combined (though I can't imagine that is the case)?

Re:Weird wording

[WombatDeath]

It's a very strange point altogether. For any subject X, some company is going to have more information about X than any other company in the world. It's inevitable, unless you somehow manage to enforce some sort of weird inter-company information-sharing law.

Litmous test

[foniksonik]

Would they (FTC) force Google to spin off a section of the company IF they had developed the technology themselves?

If not then this deal should be fine. If so, well they better be able to prove why... with precedents like Microsoft still around, it'll be a hard sell.

Re:Litmous test

[Pendersempai]

There has always, always been a higher standard for breaking a company up than for allowing it to merge, since the former incurs all of the substantial costs of making an autonomous company out of a department. A better litmus test for whether two companies should be able to merge -- and the one that the government actually uses -- is whether the aggregate benefits to the consumers and shareholders (through increased returns to scale, usually, though also through synergies) outweigh the harm of decreased competition.

So.. who's number one right now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are complaining that this deal will give Google more information about consumers than any other company in the world. Now, I'm all for a healthy dose of tin-foil in my daily diet but someone has to have more information than everyone else. Am I the only one wondering who has the most information right now and why there isn't a complaint against that company already with the FTC?

Re:So.. who's number one right now?

[ookabooka]

Am I the only one wondering who has the most information right now and why there isn't a complaint against that company already with the FTC?
Well I think its more like right now Double click and Google have roughly the same "amount" of information, but since they are in different areas its hard to quantify. After the merger, when one heuristically quantifies the amount of information they have compared to other companies, one concludes that Google definitely has "more" than the other companies.

So think of it like this: Who has more fruit, John with apples, Betsy with oranges, or Fran with tomatoes(a fruit). Well they all have the same "amount" of fruit, though they are different in terms of weight, amount of vitamin C, etc. But if John and Betsy combine forces, it is easier to say that Fran has "less" fruit than John & Betsy LLC.

Re:So.. who's number one right now?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Now, I'm all for a healthy dose of tin-foil in my daily diet...

Healthy? I think I'm dying from aluminium poisoning here.

Anti-Trust?

[Mephistophocles]

My understanding is that this investigation is actually intended to look at possible anti-trust violations in light of this merger, not so much privacy concerns. Is that not correct? If it is, any attorneys out there who know enough anti-trust law to speculate on whether this investigation will hold water? At first glance that accusation seems a bit flimsy to me, but I haven't had a chance to read up on it much, and I'm no expert in anti-trust law.

Re:Anti-Trust?

[mwvdlee]

I'm just assuming Google has consulted atleast one expert in anti-trust law, and apparently (s)he saw no problems with the deal. I seriously doubt the "do no evil" company will want to risk evil anti-trust publicity.

Well, no wonder

[Bullfish]

People lie regularly on the net when answering surveys, filling out forms etc. They can still track you, but other than that, they can only have the information you give them. Survey after survey has found people lie when talking about themselves on-line etc. Not a surprise even if it really isn't all that effective. If you are really concerned, there are things like TOR that can help you be anonymous. Ultimately, people have to accept the web is not a private place. If you can see them, they can see you. Act accordingly.

I would like to see a FTC stipulation that after infromation has been "aged", it should be deleted. I doubt though that in these paranoid times it will happen though, so I can only say keep on lying and use TOR etc if you don't like the prying eyes.

As far as google not being evil. They are a business.

Re:Well, no wonder

[Skye16]

That's why I'm so sneaky. I muck up the system by telling the truth. They never see it coming, mwahahahahahahahaha!

I'm not worried...

[mattgreen]

...I'm sure someone around here will chime in with why Google isn't evil. ;)

Gotta love corporate tools.

Re:I'm not worried...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm sure someone around here will chime in with why Google isn't evil. ;)

Gotta love corporate tools.

Hear that everyone? Not calling a corporation evil apparently makes you a corporate tool!

Yeah, that's right. I'm talking to you! Not evil, huh? That's what they want you to think! And you don't want give them what they want, right? Right?

How about credit bureaus?

[Mr. Underbridge]

The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"

If that's enough to tank the merger, then Experian, Transunion, and Equifax should be disbanded. Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made, everwhere you've ever lived, etc. And the information isn't hard to get.

If the FTC doesn't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with Google+Doubleclick.

Re:How about credit bureaus?

[sangreal66]

Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.

Re:How about credit bureaus?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.

Incidentally, I have seen my credit report. Those guys keep a record of every account you've ever had. They can figure out which ones are mortgages and car loans (that's what I mean by purchases, they don't care about your grocery bill). They know your spending habits and balance on every line of credit you have. They know about every late payment you've ever made. All in all, that's *quite* a lot of information, and I maintain my general point that this information is much more dangerous to consumers (identity theft, anyone?) than what Google can glean of your search history. So again, if you invalidate the merger, shut down the credit bureaus. If we're uncomfortable with companies collecting information on consumers, let's apply the standard universally.

Re:How about credit bureaus?

[Kalriath]

You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.

Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

Re:How about credit bureaus?

[Mr. Underbridge]

You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.

Yes, I do realize that. However, Google doesn't share the info they have either, yet they're still being challenged. That was my point - Google is being attacked not for *sharing* the information - apparently for simply *collecting* it.

Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

No kidding? That sucks. Where's 'we', incidentally? Is this thing state-run?

Re:How about credit bureaus?

[Kalriath]

Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

No kidding? That sucks. Where's 'we', incidentally? Is this thing state-run?

Nope. In New Zealand, we have one credit organisation, and it's fully private. Accountable to noone too, since we have NO regulation regarding credit reporting bureaus.

Oh no!

[Dancindan84]

90% of Google users search for boobies
90% of DoubleClick's responses are people clicking on ads with boobies

Combined together, they'll know that 90% of internet users want to find booies! That's just too much power for one company to have!

Re:Oh no!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Combined together, they'll know that 90% of internet users want to find booies! That's just too much power for one company to have!

That way they can prove that 90% of the internet population is actually lonely male geeks/horny lesbians. Any of the latter here?

So?

[ShaggyIan]

What law would Google be breaking?

What competition would be irreversably and adversely affected by this merger? Is there ANY case for anti-trust? I don't see it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why the FTC should be involved because a private company may have too much web surfing info. Especially given the quantity of data your average government agency has about you that is much more damaging than your web surfing habits.

Petition Congress to make "something" illegal. They seem to be willing to do that for the right amount of money these days.

Some people just can't accept success of others

[dbmasters]

Google is breaking no laws I know of...yes, they are growing (or, have grown) into a user data powerhouse...but I am happy for Google, they are a great internet success story, put out great services for their users charge reasonable (if any) fees to use them...I use Hosted domain email, docs and spreadsheets, AdSense, Earth, Traffic, and more...more power to 'em...rock on Google. Keep giving me these great services and they can have my surfing activities logged...it's not really much exciting.

Unfair business practices

[pgrote]

I don't think Google needs to concern itself with an investigation of monopolistic practices. They do need to concern themselves with unfair business practices .

As the leaders in the internet space continue to merge and grow, they're going to need to open up their secret processes to customers and regulators. Again, this is where organization such as the EU have an advantage over the US system.

Re:Unfair business practices

[dbmasters]

Why must they open up their processes because they are a leader? I have never understood that...they don't owe anyone that the way I see it, they are still a private company...they are just winning, why punish them for it?

Re:Unfair business practices

[dbmasters]

Agreed, and I also think Microsoft has been unfairly targetted by these silly laws...Microsoft, Google or anybody else can not (or should not) be forced to open their code to anyone...they provide a set of tools to access their processes as they see fit, so whatever, they don't owe anyone anything.

Marketing companies are inherently evil

[erroneus]

Google had been the one light in the darkness... I thought their "Do no Evil" thing meant something. But as time pushes forward, I see my hopes eroding.

Google is still my search engine of choice. They help me find answers to problems that other people have published on a routine basis. For that, I cannot imagine dumping Google.

However, I have become increasingly convinced that marketers are evil and they don't know it. They cannot see for themselves that they are evil... or at the very least, facilitate evil. People who market are constant iritations on society and the world. It's "business" and so it's excusable.

Don't misunderstand. There's a place for marketing. They just need to be restricted and held accountable for the damage they cause. That's everything from actual polution, noise polution, visual polution, spam and on and on. I have been waiting for the pendulum to swing the other way ... in the direction favoring the consumer. It must be a VERY long rope.

Re:Marketing companies are inherently evil

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh, if only I were simple-minded to categorise everything into "good" and "evil". It must be bliss.

Re:Microsoft

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Indeed. Microsoft is lobbiest lobber ever to lob a lobby in the lobby-lobbing field.

i don't quite understand

[tehwebguy]

The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.

wait, so is that illegal or something?

Let me get this straight

[keraneuology]

They are concerned with Google having too much information on users but don't say a word about ChoicePoint? Anybody else feel a need to reach for the wtf tag?

Re:Let me get this straight

[techpawn]

Lots of fuss over Google handing data: maybe they shouldn't be keeping the data in the first place?
First time a sig seemed insightful...

My response to the doubleclick deal

[Lengyel]

My response to the doubleclick deal has to add the following entries to my /etc/hosts file. It's most gratifying to see blank spaces formerly occupied by distracting advertisements. Initially I defined ad.doubleclick.net to be the localhost address in /etc/hosts, and then found the other addresses below at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/categories/rant/2 002/04/23.html.

127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 img.x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 www.x10.com
127.0.0.1 x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads.addynamix.com
127.0.0.1 leadgreed.com
127.0.0.1 www.leadgreed.com
127.0.0.1 c1.zedo.com
127.0.0.1 ad.trafficmp.com
127.0.0.1 media.adcentriconline.com

Amount of data, laughable

[wiredlogic]

The amount of personal data collected by Google is nothing compared to what data aggregators like Acxiom have.

Because of laws

[jshriverWVU]

I think this will pass for one reason. Isn't it the government who wants google (every computer owner) to maintain that data? So when something comes up and they need to datamine who did what/when/where on what website they have a clean trail? A few months back, there was a lot of chatter about the government requiring people to keep lists of who's on the network (**AA), and companies to archive all email (Enron) so they could follow a trail.

Seems like catch-22 if they didn't allow it.

Just use another search engine...

[Ngarrang]

...if you are worried about Google's use of your data. We live in a sorta-free market. If you don't like the policy of a company, the theory is that you don't buy from them. Sometimes, you cannot avoid a company in some limited markets. But, the internet has many search engines.

Google is clear in their terms about what they collect, thus, no surprises. Never read the terms of use? That is your own fault. All of the big search engines collect data, and the spell that out in their terms of use. *shrug*

I do not think we need government intervention, when the consumers have the power to effect a solution.

I firmly believe it is the duty of all consumers to be smart about what they are doing. If you are buying a car, do you just give someone money having never seen what you are buying? Probably not. To want remain naive is a dangerous thing.

No Worries

[quinspr70c0l]

The title of the story is probably scarier than it is in real life. In practice, government investigations of corporations tend to be handed down to several small-time bureaucrats who don't care what happens. For a high-profle case like this, it may be different. However, I don't see how Google's lawyers couldn't deflect this.

I hope

[AVryhof]

they do find out all about my web browsing habits and what I buy.... then they'll know I don't buy much of anything, and read Slashdot regularly.... maybe I'll get a bunch of Slashdot ads while I'm browsing the net rather than the other useless shit I already get advertised to me.

*Chuckle*

[mattgreen]

I like your response. I'm just joking. Well, only halfway.

B-b-b-b-but Microsoft...

[Linux_ho]

Interesting that Google's the focus of this investigation, almost immediately after Microsoft paid twice as much money for one of DoubleClick's main competitors, aQuantive.

So what's new?

[richardtallent]

Nothing new here. Google already tracks *which* search results you click on, not just what you search for (and not just for the ads--they use a redirection to track the click). And a huge number of sites already use Google ads, so they know when you visit *those* pages as well.

My concern is that Google's data retention period is still far too long. 90 days should be sufficient for having personally-identifiable logs around to detect click-fraud, respond to court-ordered subpoenas, etc. Same goes for libraries, video rentals, non-returnable purchases, tollway passes, public security cameras, etc.

Here in the US, we really need a stronger definition for the Constitutional concept of "papers and effects" to include data hosted or trafficked through services like Google, email/IM servers, etc. where some reasonable expectation of privacy is assumed.

Re: Yahoo

[Achromatic1978]

How many times have we heard of people being arrested by Google releasing information in China?

Because, of course, we're privy to the activities and motives of the (secret) police in China, and all such cases are routinely publicized, right?

Right?

Not the FTC's Job

[IP_Troll]

The FTC _ONLY_ investigates mergers that would form monopolies which would hinder competition and hurt consumers. This merger would not hinder competition because other search engines and online advertising companies exist and compete with google. And even if google would gain a monopoly of some sort, it would have to be proven that the monopoly would hurt consumers financially, seeing how google is free... near impossible.

Guaranteed that the FTC does nothing, not it's job to worry about privacy.