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.'"

Comments

I want enforceable privacy

[alain94040]

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

Re:I want enforceable privacy

[pin0chet]

How about this: If you're worried about sensitive data getting out, don't give firms private data in the first place without checking out their privacy policy. It's actually a legally binding contract, so if a firm breaks it policy and you suffer as a result, you do have legal recourse to sue. Many privacy policies even oblige firms to inform users when a leak happens.

And if you must use sites you aren't totally comfortable with, there are tools out there to protect your anonymity including Tor, anonymous proxy servers, VPN tunneling services like Stunnel, no-log encrypted search engines like Scroogle, and Firefox add-ons like No-Script.

Re:I want enforceable privacy

[sdnoob]

the reason why "99% of end-users couldn't care less" is because they do not comprehend the implications involved with such "personalization" and retention of data. i'd be willing to wager that most of that "clueless majority", if properly educated on the issue in a way they can understand, would be shocked and outraged when they learn the real truth.

this is a good move for yahoo, and for the users; and hopefully yahoo still has enough clout to start a trend away from wholesale collection of user data.

Re:I want enforceable privacy

[wassabison]

Of course the implications could be much higher quality search results.

Re:I want enforceable privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

That there are (rather cumbersome) means to prevent Googles data-hoarding does not relinquish the companies corporate responsibility, especially considering their chosen motto.

Re:I want enforceable privacy

[vux984]

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.

99% of end-uses couldn't care less until it bites them in the ass, and then you see their dopey teary eyed face splattered all over the news when something hits the fan... "I just can't believe google/facebook/youtube/myspace had all this information about me! The identity thieves started by hacking my gmail account... and from that were able to reset my facebook password, and from there they had everything... they were able to completely drain my bank accounts, and even managed to successfully impersonate me to my parents and scammed them out of thousands... my parents said the theives used a bad quality phone line, but they didn't suspect a thing, because they new everything... they asked how Dad was coping with losing his job, how my sister was doing, they even talked about the camping trip we went on in the summer... and they got all this from the online data, reading my email, looking at my pictures, and trawling my social network... I just can't beleive this was all right there for the taking."

Then they'll say... "The government really needs to do something."

Actual versus PR speak

[Recovering Hater]

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)

Reverse contracts

[girlintraining]

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.

personalization is not always personal data

[dsvick]

I think some people get up in arms about this without realizing that, in many cases, the "personal" data being kept isn't really personal anyway. It is their search and browsing history, their clicks and the sites they've visited. It's not necessarily anything personal about that them the site doesn't already have on file for it's users.

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.

I think you may have something...

[Kabuthunk]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

privacy and not retaining user data ..

[rs232]

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>