Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Promises To Anonymize and Limit User Data
quarterbuck writes "While Google is saying that personalization is the key to search, Yahoo is taking a different view of the topic. Yahoo announced plans to retain user data for no longer than 90 days and to anonymize data. Even if Yahoo is not your favorite search engine, it is a good move in the direction of online privacy if it will force others to follow suit."
Reader Mike adds "Yahoo did say, however, that it will keep some data for up to six months for security and fraud reasons, as part of some 'specific and limited exceptions.'"
The problem with personalization is that it's an extremely sensitive topic for 1% of the population (us, the geeks), but 99% of end-users couldn't care less.
Google is in the very risky position where the wrong move could destroy the positive image they currently enjoy.
Do the right thing: there needs to be legal means by which I can obtain, verify and erase all personal data associated with me. Voluntary programs from corporations are not good enough. Privacy policies can and do change, based on the corporations' financial interests. It doesn't mean the government needs to be involved, real contracts could do the trick: just get rid of the "we reserve the right to change those terms any time for any reason and steal your house as well."
I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but at least they never owned any private data on me. Remember the outcry when it was discovered that Windows may sometimes phone home? With Google, it never phones home, you are using Google's phone to place your calls :-)
--
iPhone Apps review site looking for bilingual testers
I promised not to use yahoo.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Yahoo! is exactly what the ladies say when they see my 'private dataset.'
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Well. It seems like Yahoo is trying to actually not do evil and Google is trying to talk about not doing evil while making it palatable for the masses. Or something. (Insert witty statement illustrating contrasting styles of Google and Yahoo here)
My humor is probably your flamebait
The problem in IT today is that contracts give companies the power, not the end user. If you want to level the playing field, what we need is for the user to make contracts and exceptions about how their data is used, and then legally enforce it. In short, a user's union. We could design plugins to our browsers to eliminate companies from consideration that do not adhere to our privacy requests -- in effect, blackholing them. Since our private data is considered to have value, we want something back for it -- so we'd organize together to give that data out in exchange for monentary compensation.
that said... It would never work. People don't care to organize to protect their rights. They're quite happy with the current state of affairs.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Yahoo is still keeping the user's name, contact info, preferences, favorites, and other items, just as is Google, MSN, and any other online service/portal you sign up for. What they aren't keeping (after 90 days), or rather are not associating with the individual user, is the information that they could/did use to target advertising to the user.
Google is retaining it and probably charging more, or at least getting a better response rate, for their advertising because of it.
Given the way things are now I don't see how anyone could have the expectation that anything you do on the web could possible be anonymous. Just browsing a site takes your request through any number of different systems any one of which could be logging the information and using for who know what. At least with the Googles, and the Yahoos you have a reasonable idea of what they are keeping and how they are using it.
Yahoo needs to improve the search results quality. Without competition, it doesn't matter much what anyone thinks about Google's plans. I can usually find what I'm looking for with Yahoo, but there are many more junk results and the interesting pages are rarely listed on the first page. So I keep returning to Google, even though I think that the agglomeration of search engine, ad broker, maps hoster, email provider and web statistics service is a major threat to the privacy of all users, even those who make an effort not to use any of these services directly.
So yes, I hope it will be optional, so that I can put some distance between myself and the easier targets, but that's not really a solution. At least one of the other search engines needs to get its act together and provide a competitive product, or it will be Microsoft all over again.
that would have been the gnu way, if it hadn't been besmirched buy the greed/fear/ego based softwar gangsters. better days ahead.
...who has actually stumbled across products and services that I find extremely useful due in no small part to Googles targetted ads?
I mean, is it really such a bad thing? No matter what ad is showed to me, its still my choice to click on it or not. If they're going to be there, they may as well be things I may find interesting.
Most people may well be happy with the current state of affairs... however I think you've it upon the catalyst that has potential to change everything:
monetary compensation
If word were to get out to the masses that "you will get money", you'll have droves of people stepping over their own mothers for it. Of course this depends on the amount of money... but you get the idea. Bring up the word money, the people will follow.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Intercept everything.
PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout
ixquick recives privacy award from eu
http://us2.ixquick.com/uk/protect_privacy.html
Ixquick's position:
You have a right to privacy.
Your search data should never fall into the wrong hands.
The only real solution is deleting your data.
We delete our users' privacy data within 48 hrs.
We are the first and only search engine to do so.
Our initiative is receiving an overwhelmingly positive response!
I would like the data collected about me to be portable and under my control. I would like to be able to create an identity online that I can use to login to any website I desire. Data collected would be stored against this identity. Every identity should have access to the data stored against it and have the ability to control who has access to that data. This would put the control of my personal information in my hands. I don't have a problem with collection of anonymized data. Currently the internet seems to work backwards. I create a separate identity on every site I visit and that identity essentially belongs to the site rather than me. This fragments everything about me online making it impossible to control and secure. An obvious downside to this is that if anyone ever gets control of my identity they have access to everything. But an easy solution is to be able to create as many identities as you like. This way you can keep one for sensative accounts such as banks and another for sites like /. and wikipedia or however you desire.
Everyone could have their anonymous identity that allows them to troll and blow whistles.
I don't see this comming around the corner anytime soon if ever but the ablitiy to control your data and link your identities seems pretty important overall.
...it is a myth. It no longer exists. Get used to it.
Do the right thing: there needs to be legal means by which I can obtain, verify and erase all personal data associated with me.
You really want the government to be involved in the means to your privacy? Wouldn't you just be begging for some warrantless wiretapping? The problem with your proposal is the enormous likelihood of corruption that comes with government involvement in services such as this.
The right solution is something like a VeriSign for privacy. Independent competing organizations demand privacy practices and transparency from companies in exchange for their "seal of approval". By having competing organizations, you minimize the risk of corruption. Best of all, no rights are violated in the process.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How does this relate to such programs as NSAs Echelon and wholescale tapping of fiberlinks in major switching centers such as at AT&T. Incidentally most of the current effort in surveillance goes on industrial espionage and the monitoring of 'activists', ie people who speak out against the government.
http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LDk6jxcSDlQ
,br>
davecb5620@gmail.com
Yahoo announced plans to retain user data for no longer than 90 days and to anonymize data.
They've been doing that to groups.yahoo.com for years... just kidding (sort of)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The data should not be stored at all and just be used for the user's query and then dumped. They don't need the data for any reason.
Well then all you're asking for is a false sense of security, because the opportunity for corruption is ridiculously high. (Bernard Madoff comes to mind)
You are correct about the potential for a false sense of security but don't mistake incompetence of regulators (the SEC) with corruption of a trusted agent (Madoff).
I consider myself part of the 1% population that is deemed a geek.
However, I really could care less what information Google has on me. I actually find it very convenient when I see a google ad that is RELEVANT to something I like. There have been several times where there would be links to websites that I actually enjoy.
To be honest, I would rather Google collect information about my search patterns and display relevant ads, then use another search engine and see ads that simply do not interest me at all.
It is not like Google stores your credit card number, social security number, bank account information, and your address. They store what websites you visit and things that you search. Is this really such a big deal?
You need to keep up on the news. Madoff's niece is a lawyer for his firm, and she's married to an SEC investigator.
That's not evidence of corruption. Conflict of interest maybe but absent additional facts that is not sufficient grounds to level a charge of corruption. The SEC has plenty of investigators and their real problem is that they lack the funding and manpower to seriously fulfill their job of regulating financial institutions. Furthermore the SEC has freely admitted they dropped the ball and that so far there is no evidence of malfeasance by any SEC employee. Furthermore the husband of the niece in question left the agency in 2006. If you can point me to a news article illustrating that there is any clear evidence that this niece unduly influenced investigative proceedings then I will gladly concede the issue.
Just because someone could potentially act unethically doesn't automatically imply that they did in fact act unethically. I know it makes for a nice conspiracy theory but let's get some actual evidence first shall we?
Google is not the only offender. In fact if you read TOS and privacy policies for many other companies, like AOL (owns ICQ), you will see that many popular products are quite dangerous to anybody who is concerned about privacy. For example, an ICQ account cannot be deleted. You can only remove information in the account and that is that. However, since Google is just a major player it simply shows on the tip of the iceberg.
I bet most people who read /. know that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet. Privacy is only limited by the amount of resources available to private companies or federal agencies and in fact most of the network traffic can be recorded if necessary. Of course whether such recordings will be useful is not clear, but it is still possible. If a DA has thousands of well paid investigators and a budget to enforce every single law, you bet your sweet ass many of us will be wiretapped and charged with stupid shit like violation of TOS (horray for Lori Drew's case, the PATRIOT act and other sweet by-products of 9/11.). The only question is what you, a private citizen, can do about this?
Ideally, I would like every service provide to clearly state that personal data about me will be stored on their system and for how long. If anything, users should have an option to permanently delete their information without a trace. Also, inactive accounts should be automatically deleted. This already happens in real life where stores are required to shred credit cards lost on their premises if the owner of the card does not claim it within a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately these policies will only add additional burden on companies and not being able to mine your private data is going to be a disaster for some.
Apart from sometimes being very inconvenient given how a small number of mega-corps tend to own the vast majority of communications and commercial infrastructure these days, and it's often extremely difficult if at all possible to get certain services without signing away ridiculously one-sided agreements in favour of a corporation, this only works so far.
A lot of the data that companies hold about me will be there through no doing of my own whatsoever. They have it because someone else decided to send me email using their webmail account, or because someone decided to use an online service for storing contact information about me, or because they have security cameras pointing at the street that I happened to walk along, and so on.
Personal responsibility certainly plays a part, but I do think there's a place for legislation to govern what organisations can legally do with people's personal information that they hold.
Unless your in China- then your data will be Sold. I mean- yahoo has to justify its price for Microsoft somehow- right?