Personalized Search From Google Now Opt-Out

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that 'Google now intends to deliver customized search results even to those searching its site without having signed into a Google account.' This may be what finally drives me to seriously experiment with cookie-free browsing. I consider non-personalized search results to be of value. They quasi-subconsciously give me a better perspective of the full range of information and ideas on the net. That, and I'm also a bit paranoid about a coming world with push-button infrastructure for personalized mis/disinformation."

Comments

oh c'mon

[drougie]

How is this a bad thing exactly? With such changes Google makes it will only help you get better search results, maybe other people get better results too somehow and it will help Google target advertisements better which benefits not just Google but advertisers and consumers too. How does this pose enough a threat for you to turn your cookies off?

Re:oh c'mon

[MrNaz]

I'd like to see Google make their far-forward cookie and personalization tracking service be opt-in. If someone wants to have Google looking over their shoulder almost 100% of the time they're on the web (remember, it's not just google.com but every site with a Google ad) ensuring that they are effectively advertised at, then it should be something you ask for, not ask to have taken away.

If they made their tracking "services" an opt-in proposition, *that* would prove to me and probably all other Google skeptics that they truly were out to do no evil.

As it stands, I'm convinced they're as evil as the next megacorp monopoly.

Re:oh c'mon

[oDDmON oUT]

"How is this a bad thing exactly?"

Two key phrases:

Uninvited opt-out "feature"
Persistent tracking

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Re:oh c'mon

[Nerdfest]

I agree that it should be opt in, but I'm for it. Ideally, when things get advanced enough I figure Google can save me a lot of work. Once they know enough about my searching and buying habits they'll be able to do both for me. Every once in a while a box will show up at my door: "You need this. We found it at an awesome price. You will be billed via Google Finance".

Re:oh c'mon

[betterunixthanunix]

"Every once in a while a box will show up at my door: "You need this. We found it at an awesome price. You will be billed via Google Finance"."

I hope you are joking, because my creep-o-meter just went off the scale.

Re:oh c'mon

[Kjella]

Might as well ask them to pull out a gun and shoot their own foot. What should be changed are browser defaults to "delete new cookies on exit", and make it a special opt-in to allow the site to set permanent cookies. If I go to the cookies page after a surfing session, there are tons and tons of sites that have no legitimate reason to leave cookies other than to track me. Permanent cookies should be handled by a info bar in the same way as popup windows, "Allow this site to set permantent cookies?". That would cut down cookie abuse massively.

Re:oh c'mon

[Nerdfest]

Your new sense of humour will be arriving shortly. Based on SlashDot posts, your old one seems to be broken.

Re:oh c'mon

[TheSpoom]

Because the FBI and others are positively *drooling* over access to a database of everyone's entire search history, and they'll almost certainly get it.

Re:oh c'mon

[Blue Stone]

Every website you visit that stores a cookie is tracking your browsing habits on its site, until you delete that cookie. What Google's doing is just the same.

http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=54048

To disable the tracking, you just delete the cookie. Set Firefox to delete cookies on exit or startup, or disallow that site's cookie and you're golden. This 'feature' from google is no different.

Just rememeber to obliterate those evil, sneaky Flash cookies too: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623

Re:oh c'mon

[thetoadwarrior]

Your ISP already knows everything you're doing and pretty much any site you visit will have your IP too and know what you did on their site. The government can already track you and may be doing so now

Re:oh c'mon

[Antique Geekmeister]

Most of us want information. We _tolerate_ advertising. By "tuning" the advertiser, they enhance the chances of their paying clients, _not their customers_, getting what they want. We as users of Google do not want the select few larger advertisers automatically getting the lion's shares of the hits.

Re:oh c'mon

[aurispector]

Mine, too, mainly because it's so *possible*. Worse yet, there's a pretty good chance it WILL be something I need. I really hate personalized results. Amazon continues to recommend music I hate simply because I bought some CD's as gifts. Sure, there's ways around it but it's a pain in the butt, and sometimes you just want to know what everyone else likes.

There really needs to be some simple way to get these recommendation engines to stop showing results for a particular category without having to get into some amazingly complex Boolean search set.

Re:oh c'mon

[Geoffrey.landis]

> ...the courts already declared that email stored on a third party server is
> not covered by the 4th amendment.

They have done no such thing.

c.f. Email Privacy Rights

Stored Communications Act

but also http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/11/cioffi-email-search-warrant-residual.html

Re:oh c'mon

[causality]

"Every once in a while a box will show up at my door: "You need this. We found it at an awesome price. You will be billed via Google Finance"." I hope you are joking, because my creep-o-meter just went off the scale.

Another generation or two of advertising and propaganda, and people will be begging for this new feature. Once conditioned to it, they will be as disappointed by companies that don't offer it as they are today at the prospect of preparing their own meals or interpreting their own information. What amuses me (despite its minor inconvenience) is the way people on this site already try to portray privacy advocates as unreasonable, paranoid, and backwards. It's as though their message is, "you don't automatically welcome every marketing effort from corporate America with open arms? WTF is wrong with you?" Since when did siding with the marketers become the default position? Ever since some of them worked for Google? Does the name really do that much for you? If so that's some effective branding, but that's all it is.

That's particularly surprising on Slashdot, with a technical crowd who should be much more aware than the masses of how information can be gathered, used, and abused. You'd think that this crowd would more intuitively understand what you can do by cross-referencing bits of information from multiple sources, like what Google is in a position to do. You'd think that because of that, there would be more privacy advocates speaking out in discussions like this. But we have our favorites and they're precious to us, aren't they? Google can do no evil because they say so, now here, look at this shiny new feature and shut up. Right? Let's also sidestep the fact that anyone could potentially data-mine if it's alright for Google to do so. Privacy is in a sorry state right now, we need some strong protections for it, and marketing efforts like this personalized search should always be opt-in. Even if Google never does any evil to anyone, you have no reasonable expectation that everyone else will be so nice.

Re:oh c'mon

[iwaybandit]

That's easy, set the cookie file permissions to read-only. I've been running the browser this way for a few months, and it has been a bit of a hassle at times. Overall it seems to be worth the trouble, since each time I start the browser, there are only the cookies for site preferences and login status.

• start browser
• go to every site that you frequently use
• log-in, set preferences, whatever it takes to make the site set the cookie that you want to preserve
• use the cookie manager to delete unwanted cookies
• close browser
• set the cookie file read-only (0400)

Next time you browse, the cookies will accumulate like always but disappear whe you close the browser. However, if you change site preferences, those changes will be lost also.

Re:oh c'mon

[causality]

Sorry but everything Google do is opt-in by virtue of the fact you are opting to use their website

and

This has no effect on their tracking as they were doing that anyway

You do know that you contradicted yourself there, right?

FYI, Google does not track me because nothing on my network loads any of their analytics tools or other tracking devices. That's how you deal with an entity that will track you whether or not you ever use their services. By behaving this way, Google themselves have invalidated the quid-pro-quo arguments that may have been in favor of their methods.

That is, the argument goes that Google is providing free services and all they want is some of your data, so therefore it is fair enough for them to have it in exchange for those free services. This argument falls apart the moment I receive a Google tracking cookie for visiting a non-Google site and, this is key, it happens whether or not I ever use any Google services. At such time, they become intrusive and, since I don't discriminate, this causes me to treat them like any other intrusive influence; that is, they get blocked.

Re:oh c'mon

[Mr_eX9]

1. Install NoScript.

2. Blacklist google-analytics.com.

3. Stop whining.

Re:oh c'mon

[HiThere]

The post didn't deserve "troll". Overrated, yes, even at 1. Possibly even at 0. But it's not a Troll, and it's not Flamebait.

P.S.: There needs to be a "meta" tag, independent of mod-points. It should be able to be applied by the post's creator, and it should be one of the filterable tags. (As in "I don't want to read any meta posts".) It should also be apply-able by moderators, as should a "not-meta" tag. And again, this should be independent of mod-points, so something could be moderated as being, perhaps, both troll and meta, but since moderators are applying this tag, it should be scored. A meta value of [0.0-1.0] seems reasonable. Given the average and the count of votes, any new vote could be scaled in appropriately:
  result = ((average * oldVoteCount) + newVote) / newVoteCount.
Here I'm presuming that each vote counts as 1 or 0.

Here

Re:oh c'mon

[ColdWetDog]

Can you give me the Google Summary (tm) of what you just said?

Just give us your credit card number and everything will be fine, comrade. Really.

Re:oh c'mon

[peragrin]

Simple, I want an unbiased source of information even if those biases are my own. I don't want results taiolered to me, as then I can't learn new things about subjects I would never have thought about search for relavant information.

In other words i don't want all my searches spoiled by my previous line of thinking. I am not a religious nutjob who can only believe what I already know. I don't want the fact that I am catholic to let google to stop searching islamic sites, or the fact that i am a man and never wear jewelry to prevent me from searching for a bracelet for my girlfriend.

By personalizing search you limit yourself to what you already have. how do you expect to grow with such limitations. Personalizing search is stupid. the problem is there are so many stupid people on this planet that it will be a big hit.

Re:oh c'mon

[FatdogHaiku]

You'd rather I left my parent's basement and went to the store for hand lotion and tissue? What would your creep-o-meter think of that?

Not much compared to seeing someone in the checkout line with half a dozen large cucumbers and a big tube of personal lubricant... and nothing else... except a smile...
(it freaks the cashiers out too)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/collecting_double_takes.png

Re:oh c'mon

[Hatta]

With such changes Google makes it will only help you get better search results

I'm not sure you will get "better" search results. Good search results are unbiased. You'll get the same results for the same terms, no matter what. If I want different search results, I will change my search terms. That puts me in control. The thought of sitting down at someone elses terminal and getting different search results from my own, or telling someone else "google this" and not being sure what sort of results they'll get is really objectionable.

I'm mainly not concerned about the privacy implications. I just think a good tool should behave in a predictable manner. No tool should ever assume that it is smarter than me.

Re:oh c'mon

[Reaperducer]

You know -- that's a great idea. Perhaps in a future version of Firefox when I Apple-Q, it would slide down a sheet with a list... "The following web sites have added cookies to your browser during this session. Delete or Keep?" with a list of domains and checkboxes next to each.

I like that. I could keep allowing Google or Slashdot or whatever to track me, while unchecking the boxes for things I don't know or recognize.

Re:oh c'mon

[Reaperducer]

nothing on my network loads any of their analytics tools or other tracking devices.

If you think cookies are the only way that Google (or any other web site) can track you, then it's time to turn in your geek card.

The only way to be sure that no web site is tracking you is to not use the internet. Every time you surf, you give up a little bit of privacy; just like when you leave your home and other people can see you on the street.

Re:oh c'mon

[RocketRabbit]

Advertising is not information. It's programming.

TrackMeNot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wonder how it'll affect users of this nice Firefox extension...

Re:TrackMeNot

[krou]

I prefer using Optimize Google (which is based on Customize Google, but that one is no longer maintained). Optimize Google enhances Google search results, but also allows you to make Google cookie UID anonymous, plus allows you to stop all cookies being sent to Google Analytics. You can also remove Google Ads, and Google click tracking. There are other options available for most other Google tools, too e.g. GMail, Calendar, Maps, Docs etc.

Re:TrackMeNot

[sakti]

I like this relatively new cookie control mechanism. It is simple but effective.

selectivecookiedelete; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11044

Scraped Google

[gzipped_tar]

I'd suggest Scroogle (https://ssl.scroogle.org/ -- Google sans the crap), but it seems down at the moment. Cue the conspiracy theories in 3, 2, 1 ...

Re:Scraped Google

[anagama]

Scroogle looks very interesting, but how do we know it is unevil? I've looked over the site moderately thoroughly and haven't found any terms of use or privacy policy. If it is there, it isn't in an obvious spot. And even if it is there, it is nothing but words.

Scroogle itself appears to be related to http://googlewatch.org/ but whois shows different registrants (googlewatch=Deng Youqian, scroogle=Daniel Brandt). I just don't really know how to evaluate a proxy such as scroogle, because my only means of finding out information is google or other search engines, not wikipedia though as the scroogle article is deleted. If I'm going to be paranoid about search, I would be naive to trust search results, proxies, or random comments on Slashdot. And since I am a bit paranoid about search (I played with the AOL data a few years back -- a real eyeopener), I feel quite lost at sea.

proxy search services

[drDugan]

I use a proxy as my default search service, like this:

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?q=google+is+collecting+your+data

There may also be others, but this one has worked for me.

Downsides: no cached or similar pages, no searchable search history, no cute math results, none of the value-add search links or maps at the top of the results - just the plain search results.

Upside: no data collection on my searches. (if I believe that the proxy is not also collecting data), you can also set it to give 100 search results as the default.

Re:proxy search services

[drDugan]

Google is not the concern, nor is their control. I have no expectation Google uses search history for any purpose other than algorithm tweaking. The privacy issue comes from ones search history collected in one place. In aggregate, the collection of all Internet search history is an extremely powerful tool for learning about a person, and possibly exposing things an individual doesn't even realize they are revealing.

Most people have never been sued or accused of a crime, gone through a trial, been deposed or subpoenaed, or have any understanding of just how bad things can get when situations really go bad. There are times when one justifiably wants to guard their privacy carefully, but typically it's difficult to always know in the moment when those times are. Realizing after the fact that you need to protect information from discovery is too late.

Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies?

[betterunixthanunix]

"Only people hiding in shacks and never speaking to other humans are vulnerable to personalized misinformation."

That really depends on how well crafted the misinformation is. If every person was given exactly the information they needed to hear in order to gossip about whatever topic the powers behind the information want them to gossip about, the misinformation would work very well against people with a lot of friends. All that you would need is a detailed enough portfolio on everyone: habits, mannerisms, interests, etc...

I Google

[delire]

This in built 'subjectivity' in the search mechanism represents a kind of fragmentation of the commons the searchable Internet supposedly represents: sometimes I want to know what other people know, what they are looking at, what is popular or interesting for them.

Secondly, grouping searches around an assumption of my interests assumes that my interests are 1/ Statistically quantifiable (solving a loathesome and boring problem may result in many queries), 2/ Particular to me (I may be searching for someone else, or my computer could be shared with another), 3/ Can be built from clear-text (sometimes I might be searching within a context do take me to a binary, like a video, arbitrarily linked in a page (like the comments for instance)).

Finally, isn't there a problem with diminishing returns here? The set that represents my interests will get 'smaller' in subject matter as I continue to search within that set.

I'll certainly be switching if Google's approximation of my interests goes under the radar, digging into cookies when I'm 'signed out'.

Re:I Google

[gbjbaanb]

sometimes I want to know what other people know, what they are looking at, what is popular or interesting for them.

so do I, but they complained and now I'm not allowed within 100 yards of them :(

Re:I Google

[noidentity]

This is an example of a computer trying to be smart. The way it behaves changes over time with your interactions with it, but this modified behavior is particular to your connection. If you go search on another machine elsewhere, you'll get different behavior, and you might not know why you aren't finding something you could find easily on your home machines. Smart computers frustrate users. Give me a dumb, predictable computer any way, then I can accuractly predict how it'll respond to my input, and this tailor my input for the exact response I want, every time.

Re:I Google

[delire]

Give me a dumb, predictable computer any way, then I can accuractly predict how it'll respond to my input, and this tailor my input for the exact response I want, every time.

Well said..

So often it's the geeks that are the real humanists - those that know enough about 'intelligent software' to be suspicious of it.

It's not just (suicidal) self reflection but a potent mix of ignorance and laziness that steers us toward Vinge's Singularity.

Re:I Google

[MagicM]

I completely agree. The privacy aspects aside, this is Google making assumptions which are likely to be wrong. It's just like with their new fade-in homepage: they assume you're there to search, but when they're wrong, the end result is just frustrating.

You know what they say about assumptions...

New Google Maps on mobile (Symbian)

[Ilgaz]

I think Google apologizers has become worse than Apple apologizers but let me try one more time.

If you install current Google maps to your Symbian phone (possibly others soon) and "reset it", it will send your personal "favorites" (read: locations saved) to Google, without even asking you. For example "Grandma's home" goes from your personal phone memory to Google, instantly.

It must have sort of "opt out" too of course but it doesn't change the fact that Google really looks like some sort of information vampire, trying to get all data from you, especially personal ones.

One day in future, looking to their horrible image among customers and several government/private investigations going on, they will ask themselves "What did we do wrong?" but it will be too late for them. My "citation"? MS history in 1990s. Quote from the book "No Logo" (sorry, double translated) "It was a cool thing to work at Microsoft but whatever happened in no time, people started to stare at us like we work for Philip Morris."

Re:New Google Maps on mobile (Symbian)

[thetoadwarrior]

If you install current Google maps to your Symbian phone (possibly others soon) and "reset it", it will send your personal "favorites" (read: locations saved) to Google, without even asking you. For example "Grandma's home" goes from your personal phone memory to Google, instantly.

I don't care if Google knows where Grandma lives. It's the Big bad wolf that I'm worried about.

Re:New Google Maps on mobile (Symbian)

[ChipMonk]

Well, now that Google knows, what's to stop them from telling the Big Bad Wolf? After all, doing that is their core business.

Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies?

[drinkypoo]

All that you would need is a detailed enough portfolio on everyone: habits, mannerisms, interests, etc...

That and competence. So far, google has demonstrated competence. If it is an arm of the government (let's just postulate here) then sooner or later it will become the government; google has always demonstrated an ability to promote efficient alternatives. The question has always been, if I might paraphrase Pippin, is whether the fornicating we're getting is worth the fornicating we're getting. I would argue that in order to successfully pull off an orchestrated yet personalized misinformation campaign on a national scale, the government would have to reinvent itself into an entity that would at least function efficiently as a government, which is about all you can ask for. The powers that be will always find a way to place themselves above the rest.

Simple solution

[Timosch]

Auto-delete cookies when closing the browser. It's not that complicated, and while it costs you some extra time (logging on etc.), it might be less than you thought it would. I've been doing it for 5 years now.

Is there no end to the data being collected?

[ValuJet]

I've had my browser cookies turned off for 8 years. I only use cash to make purchases. I don't even use the bathroom in my house because I'm worried THEY are watching what I'm eating. Sure my basement is filled with mason jars filled with crap, but it isn't as difficult as you might think. You also get used to the smell after a while. It is a small price to pay to not have the government know what I'm eating/drinking.

Re:You're not that interesting.

[gbjbaanb]

They're not spying on you for some nefarious purpose, it's to give you better results. You'd probably be a much happier person if you just dealt with it.

Yes, but if they do monitor all web surfing and searches and use the results to target adverts, they'll only be serving ads for porn from now on. How is that going to help society?

Seriously for a moment, once you got ads targetted by the site the ads were displayed on, so if I visited 'lawnmowers.com', I'd want to get ads for lawnmowers and garden supplies. I wouldn't want to get ads targetted things I've been surfing for previously (televisions actually) because I've moved on from that to wanting something new - ie. I wouldn't be getting the ads for stuff I want to buy, only those I had already bought.

Balkanization of the internet?

[GreenTom]

Someone wrote a book last year saying how more and more of the polarization in the U.S. is because people are segregating themselves into neighborhoods based on politics. Do you want to leave someplace with Whole Foods and yoga studios, or with megachurches and gun shops? This Google move seems to be taking this same segregation on-line. Google "climate change"....hmmm, I see this person's been to Fox News recently...better send 'em to a denial site. Or, more generally, once you get stuck in an affinity group, Google results are going to tend to keep you there. Seems like this is just going to amplify the echo chamber effect that lets so many people veer off into idiotic extremism.

Re:You're not that interesting.

[NoPantsJim]

I dunno, I've found Google's targeting to be pretty spot-on, with the exception of Gmail (which is still pretty accurate). I find if I search for something, I'll get ads related to that search, not previous searches.

Re: Search this!

[Geoffrey.landis]

Actually, for my own curiosity I'd be interested in the recommendations for alternate search engines that slashdotters think are good one to use, other than google. (Probably this has been covered as a slashdot topic before; so a link would be ok.)

(I can already find this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines thanks)

Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies?

[couchslug]

"Only people hiding in shacks and never speaking to other humans are vulnerable to personalized misinformation."

Does the basement of my mother's shack count?

Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies?

[Disfnord]

Allow temporarily will allow cookies for that site until you close your browser. Next time you open the browser and go to that site, cookies will be blocked again. Allow for session will always allow cookies for that site, but will delete them every time the browser is closed.

Delete cookies on exit

[Jim Hall]

Might as well ask them to pull out a gun and shoot their own foot. What should be changed are browser defaults to "delete new cookies on exit", and make it a special opt-in to allow the site to set permanent cookies. If I go to the cookies page after a surfing session, there are tons and tons of sites that have no legitimate reason to leave cookies other than to track me. Permanent cookies should be handled by a info bar in the same way as popup windows, "Allow this site to set permantent cookies?". That would cut down cookie abuse massively.

For more than 10 years now, my personal browser settings have included "delete ALL cookies on exit". For me, cookies exist only while my browser is open. Works great for browsing throughout the day while my computer is on. When I close the browser, it's all gone.

It's sometimes a pain to have to login to every web site that I use (work webmail, Gmail for my domain, my general Gmail, Sourceforge, Facebook, etc) but I think it's a bit more secure. [I know, my Flash cookies are still there...]

I originally did it because, as a laptop user, I didn't want to have to worry about my web accounts getting compromised because my laptop got stolen or lost. If the laptop goes missing, I know the bad guy isn't able to access my web accounts - and my Gmail accounts are important to me.

Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies?

[dangitman]

Your mother's shack has a basement? Ooooh, laa-dee-daaa. Be careful not to spill your caviar into your Dom Perignon.

Privacy and Security in the Internet Age

[MarkWatson]

Just some advice that I give friends and family:

        * Delete all cookies in your browser every week - it is easy enough to sign in again to web sites that require authentication. People who do not delete their cookies never see what sites are tracking them. It is easiest to do a 'delete all cookies' operation and not to try to save the 5 or 10 cookies out of thousands that are stored in your local browser data.
        * Keep a text file with all passwords in encrypted form - and, do not use the same password for different purposes.
        * Every time you use your super market's discount card (or possibly pay with a credit card), your purchases are permanently associated with you - do you care? maybe or maybe not.

I do use a lot of web services that track what I do (GMail, for example) but I make the decision to give up privacy vs. benefits on a service by service basis.