Decius wrote:
] ] My Search History lets you easily view and manage your
] ] search history from any computer. This feature of Google
] ] web search enables you to find information you thought
] ] you lost. And over time, you'll see an increasing number
] ] of relevance indicators in your search results that help
] ] you find the information you want.
]
] So, Google retains all of this data whether you like it or
] not. If they are going to do that, its nice to be able to
] access it and put it to use. So this feature isn't really a
] bad idea. However, I'd rather have some local software doing
] this kind of profiling for me and have google politely toss my
] search history in the bin.

This is a BIG red herring. They are not giving you your entire search history. They are giving you a limited amount of the actual data that they collect. You can turn this feature off, or pause it, or leave it active. But know that the fact of the matter is that they collect much more data on you than this leads you to believe.

I posted about this on slashdot recently: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146731&cid=12292095

And the discussion went further in the binrev forums: http://www.binrev.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12014

I really think everyone should read them both to see the facts behind the story.

StankDawg wrote:
] I posted about this on slashdot recently:
] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146731&cid=12292095

The only thing I'd dispute is that this occured around the time of the IPO. This has been a problem all along. Google's management simply does not understand that the kind of data retention they are doing fits under the "evil" category.

It doesn't matter that other people retain data like that too. In fact, MemeStreams retains all of its logs. Whats important is that the role that Google plays on the Internet puts them in a unique position to have an unusual amount of information about whats going on in people's heads. People are not careful about what they tell Google because they don't really understand that its all a permanent record. Google's privacy policy might resolve this for them legally, but it does not resolve it for real. It is a ticking timebomb and it will eventually explode.

Now, I ask, what search engine doesn't keep all of that data? Who has GOOD policies?

Decius wrote:
] StankDawg wrote:
] ] I posted about this on slashdot recently:
] ] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146731&cid=12292095
]
] The only thing I'd dispute is that this occured around the
] time of the IPO. This has been a problem all along. Google's
] management simply does not understand that the kind of data
] retention they are doing fits under the "evil" category.
]
] It doesn't matter that other people retain data like that too.
] In fact, MemeStreams retains all of its logs. Whats important
] is that the role that Google plays on the Internet puts them
] in a unique position to have an unusual amount of information
] about whats going on in people's heads. People are not careful
] about what they tell Google because they don't really
] understand that its all a permanent record. Google's privacy
] policy might resolve this for them legally, but it does not
] resolve it for real. It is a ticking timebomb and it will
] eventually explode.
]
] Now, I ask, what search engine doesn't keep all of that data?
] Who has GOOD policies?

They're biding until they have enough to blackmail the whole world.

Decius wrote:
] management simply does not understand that the kind of data
] retention they are doing fits under the "evil" category.

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."

] It doesn't matter that other people retain data like that too.
] In fact, MemeStreams retains all of its logs. Whats important
] is that the role that Google plays on the Internet puts them
] in a unique position to have an unusual amount of information
] about whats going on in people's heads.

I think the new change is the policies of customer personalization.
Initially, Google just saved all their queries, probably with IP
address, but unless you are surfing from a very specific terminal,
they probably weren't interested in figuring out what you were
looking for. They were looking for what the popular queries were,
and making sure that those had good results.

And then they started setting cookies. Customer optional -- just
set your browser policy -- with the slight benefit that you could
have custom languages persist. Mostly, people just didn't notice.
That gave them customizations per IP-session

And now you can log in to Google. They've wanted this forever,
because now they can observe from multiple IPs, multiple browsers.
But evil?

I found it far more questionable that memestreams had to record
not only sessions but click throughs. While logged in. Had to, necessary evil, but as I used to point out to Bucy, he would never
put up with it for a site he didn't personally know the operators
of.

Where is the evil? Search for "google evil" on your search engine
of choice. What you'll find is a growing sentiment that Google is
evil.

Google is the Evil Empire now not by actions but potential. Same
deal with Starbucks -- actually good corporate philosophies, but
too big, rich, powerful.

This post concerns MemeStreams and privacy. Its long, and the MemeStreams specific discussion is at the end. If you are concerned about privacy please read it.

dmv wrote:
] They probably weren't interested in figuring out what you were
] looking for.
] But evil?

I want to make it clear that I'm not particularly concerned about how Google plans to use the data Google is collecting. I'm sure they are merely interested in providing the best search experience they can provide. I don't think Google is "evil." I agree that the people who are spreading the "Google is evil" meme are usually exaggerating and typically think when companies become too large and successful they become evil by virtue of their success. I do not share this point of view.

However, I DO think Google is negligent. I'm concerned about how OTHER people who access this data use it. If you have a static IP, or if I know your Google cookie, or if I have information from your ISPs logs about dynamic IPs assigned to your account and the associated timeframes, I can subpoena all of Google's logs of every search you have performed going back as long as Google has been around. This isn't hypothetical. People are actually doing this.

Google, and most other search engines, refer to the webserver log information they retain as anonymous information in their privacy policies. This is misleading. This information is not anonymous. It is possible to tie it back to individual people accurately.

Because Google is such a good search engine a lot of people use it frequently. It is their gateway into the information on the Internet. They tell Google everything they are looking for. By looking at this log information I can get a pretty good idea of what those people have been thinking about. This is incredibly invasive. Big brother is recording everything you search for on the Internet. In certain circumstances this information will be revealed, particularly when you are a defendent in a civil or criminal proceeding.

While the same sort of log information might be obtained from any other website on the Internet, it is a particular concern in the context of Google, because Google is so popular, and because Google is a gateway into all of the other sites. You can learn much more about a person from their Google logs then you can from just about any other website's logs. Google is now in a unique position where their web server logs are an extremely valuable resource for surveillance if and when they fall into the wrong hands. Failing to handle that responsibility in an appropriate way is negligent.

This isn't happenning enough to have large numbers of people concerned about it, but it is happenning, and it is going to happen more over time. Ultimately, it is going to be a problem. The responsible thing for Google to do would be to expunge these logs after a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, people will eventually change the wa... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] StankDawg wrote:
] ] I posted about this on slashdot recently:
] ] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146731&cid=12292095
]
] The only thing I'd dispute is that this occured around the
] time of the IPO.

I didn't mean for that to come across as though it started at the time of the IPO. To clarify, I am saying that the IPO itself inserts the shareholder factor which could lead to the abuse of the data that has been captured all along. As soon as the profits start to fall, that data will be the first thing to be sold IMHO.

Before that it was still bad, but less impending.

Decius wrote:
] ] My Search History lets you easily view and manage your
] ] search history from any computer. This feature of Google
] ] web search enables you to find information you thought
] ] you lost. And over time, you'll see an increasing number
] ] of relevance indicators in your search results that help
] ] you find the information you want.
]
] So, Google retains all of this data whether you like it or
] not. If they are going to do that, its nice to be able to
] access it and put it to use. So this feature isn't really a
] bad idea. However, I'd rather have some local software doing
] this kind of profiling for me and have google politely toss my
] search history in the bin.

This is a BIG red herring. They are not giving you your entire search history. They are giving you a limited amount of the actual data that they collect. You can turn this feature off, or pause it, or leave it active. But know that the fact of the matter is that they collect much more data on you than this leads you to believe.

I posted about this on slashdot recently: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=146731&cid=12292095

And the discussion went further in the binrev forums: http://www.binrev.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12014

I really think everyone should read them both to see the facts behind the story.