Slashdot Log In
Search Engine Privacy Explained
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:15 AM
from the watching-the-watchmen dept.
from the watching-the-watchmen dept.
Kesch writes "Zdnet has a posted a FAQ describing the storage of personal information done by the search engines of AOL, MSN, Yahoo, and, of course, Google. They describe what information is stored, how it is stored, what laws protect it (none), how you can attempt to protect your privacy, and what Congress is doing with regards to the issue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Speak for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
They describe what information is stored, how it is stored, what laws protect it (none)
As a company operating in the UK, and as I am a citizen of the UK, m privacy is protected by the Data Protection Act [opsi.gov.uk]. I have the right to demand access to my data, and they are legally obliged to give it to me. If I find it to be incorrect, they are obliged to correct it. They can only use this data in the manner in which they are registered to use it with the Data Protection Registrar, and they can only share it with others under strict rules.
As I understand it, the rest of the EU have similar laws.
Just before anyone jumps down this fellows throat. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they have UK operations and these operations will fall under UK law. In the case of Google, trying to access google.com will usually force you to google.co.uk if it detects your IPs geographical origin as being in the UK.
It would be reasonable to assume that the UK DPA would apply to information aquired by the UK operations of US companies.
Parent
Google.nl (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has a Dutch portal and a Dutch sales office, both might make them responsible to follow the Laws of the Land.
Till now especially airlines have been exposed to the authority that is supervising adherence with this law but other companies with international operations are aware.
Teun@Tosh2:~$ whois google.nl
Rights restricted by copyright. See
http://www.domain-registry.nl/whois.php [domain-registry.nl]
Domain name:
google.nl (first domain)
Status: active
Registrant:
Google Inc.
Bayshore Parkway 2400
94043
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA
United States of America
Domicile:
Lagedijk 7
2064 KT SPAARNDAM
Netherlands
Sales Office Benelux
WTC2, Zuidplein 36
1077 XV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Parent
Re:Just before anyone jumps down this fellows thro (Score:3, Interesting)
No, not here it doesn't. You have to specifically enter google.co.uk as the address, unless they are using URL masking - which is possible as the first few results are always uk based. However, I have a gmail account so they already know where I'm located (presumably) and the first results are always paid for ad-spots anyway.
But having said that, what matt
Re:Just before anyone jumps down this fellows thro (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just before anyone jumps down this fellows thro (Score:2)
If you want to access Google US from anywhere in the world, http://www.google.com/ncr [google.com] redirects you to the US version. I'm not sure about China though.... they probably have some sort of agreement against that with them.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's "Don't be evil" veneer has worn off even quicker than I expected.
Parent
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you bet that if you invoked this, Google would say "But we're not a UK company!"
Like how Microsoft said "But we're not an EU company!" when they are being fined millions and forced to open up their protocols and file formats?
The bottom line is that if you want to do business in a particular country, you need to abide by that country's laws. Google want to do business in the UK (and China), so they have to abide by the UK's (and China's) laws.
Parent
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
Google.com (US and intl servers) is still available to China UNCENSORED by Google (at least as uncensored as the US database is). Google.com is apparently censored or degraded by China or their ISPs to the point of being painfully slow, spotty, etc..
Google.cn is the new service that uses servers INSIDE the Great Firewall, therefore isn't censored on the international pipes and is much more available to the people who need it. The tradeoff i
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Bejing is forcing the censorship. The only way Google could steer clear of it is to avoid all service to China. Who does that benefit? The Chinese people might never even hear about such a stunt.
2. All countries (even the US) have some level of censorship, so the test is not "selling out" vs. being true to some ideal. It's a judgement ca Or should Google stop service to all countries that don't meat your ideal?
3. As I said, Chinese ca
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:2)
Google's "Don't be evil" veneer has worn off even quicker than I expected.
Yeah, and all it took is your hypothetical situation of something they might do in your mind! Elementary, my dear Watson.
Worst Case Scenario (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Worst Case Scenario (Score:2, Informative)
I agree on everything else
Not Surprising (Score:4, Funny)
But it does leave a legitimate question.
Will those bastards at Google tell my wife about my chronic pr0n addiction?
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Funny)
No, but
Love,
Your Wife
Parent
Friends of progress... (Score:2)
Great........ (Score:2)
opt out... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:opt out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:opt out... (Score:2)
http://www.ghostzilla.com/ghostzilla-cd/index.html [ghostzilla.com]
Runs from a CD without installation, keeps setting and history hidden and encrypted, and coolest of all: It runs your browser inside any part of an application you're working with. If you move your mouse away from that window, the browser dissappears and your regular work returns.
Re:opt out... (Score:2)
Re:opt out... (Score:2)
Re:opt out... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Anyone entering dodge search terms (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anyone entering dodge search terms (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anyone entering dodge search terms (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, yes, the federal government (Score:4, Informative)
That would be *other* than seizing our search data to try to prove that porn should be banned on the Internet, I assume.
Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
If you recall, all information placed in memory holes was supposedly destroyed, but it turned out that the government actually retained every item, and they came in handy for interrogation sessions.
The GoogleWatch Guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Best,
Paul
Re:The GoogleWatch Guy (Score:2)
IP anonymizing is still necessary if you're on a static IP, but it's simplicity itself to refuse a cookie from google. There isn't any reason other than tracking for google to need one, so I've never accepted it.
Re:The GoogleWatch Guy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The GoogleWatch Guy (Score:2)
Most people on
However, the situation is now ripe for abuse: we have a government that is more cavalier with using its powers, and we have a citizenry who care less and less.
Best,
Paul
*Most -- quite reasonably in my opinion -- still do not think of google as evil.
can you say irony? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:can you say irony? (Score:2)
Q: What about links people click on from search engine results? Can that information be turned over too?
Yes. Through a process known as redirection [com.com], Yahoo and AOL record what links people click. Unless the companies discard these records, they would be fair game for a subpoena.
The link they give is
hxxp://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=hxxp://www.macales ter.edu/its/docs/howto/urlredirect/&siteId=22&oId= 2100-9588-6034666-2&ontId=9588&lop=nl.ex
Scope and Semantics (Score:4, Interesting)
"The threshold rule is relevance," says Paul Ohm, the University of Colorado law professor. "Relevance has been quite broadly construed. As long as you can show that something's relevant to a case or criminal investigation, I think the litigant would have a pretty good argument."
The suggestion that relevance has been broadly construed is disturbing. The erosion of civil liberties needn't necessarily follow from the enactment of bad laws, but can, just as easily, follow from too broad an interpretation of existing laws and practices.
If the judiciary restrict the interpretation of terms like relevance to as narrow a meaning as possible there is less room for abuse, but in the present environment it's likely judges, not only in America, but in the west generally, will allow broad definitions of such terms to the detriment of civil liberties.
relevance (Score:2)
Predict ( and prevent ) your future crime due to your behavior and thoughts today....
Judges can use Google too. (Score:2)
From one of the linked articles in TFA
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5211658.html [zdnet.com]
But wait! There's more! (Score:5, Interesting)
Have a look at
~/macromedia/Macromedia/Flash\ Player/macromedia.com/support/flashplayer/sys
or on Windows
C:\Documents and Settings\%UserName%\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\macromedia.com\support\flashplayer\sys
Did you know that all of that was there? Do you know what's stored in all those files? Did you know that those files are accessible by any flash applet that runs on your system and that the flash applet can and does report back to its creator?
Then of course there are the problems due to Java script. Google has one for their analytics service that's all over the web tracking everyone. It's called Urchin and it's even in this page. Just look at the source for this page and search for "urchin.js".
People don't realize that they are totally OWNED!
Re:But wait! There's more! (Score:2)
Take note (Score:2)
How long do companies keep records of my search terms?
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo all said they keep data as long as it's necessary, which could mean forever. Microsoft did add that the company is "looking at ways" to provide users with the option to delete their search histories, and Yahoo made a similar statement.
AOL, on the other hand, says it deletes personally identifiable data after 30 days.
And they identify ea
Re:Take note (Score:2)
Would that explain why AOL is pretty useless??
Re:Take note (Score:2)
Oops (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oops (Score:2)
How can I protect my privacy from search engines? (Score:2)
The Index.dat in your "Temporary Internet Files" and in your "Cookies" folders makes any attempts at privacy meaningless.
I made a simple batch file that loads on startup & deletes the Index.dat files. Works like a charm & I never have to think again about someone sniffing through my supposedly clean computer and pulling up my browsing history.
I also tossed in an extra two lines to clear my Temp folder and pre-f
Become Private (Score:4, Informative)
There are other programs and if you do not want your "private details" known then you would be wise to use them. In addition, anyone who thinks their private data that is held by organisations and government departments is safe whether there is a "Data Protection Act" or not then they should think twice for example the "National Security Agency eavesdropping on Americans incident". This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that such incidents will occur. Without being anonymous, we can never have true freedom of speech.
The reason they want to use search engine data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frist and foremost, the Internet is currently unregulated. This really bothers most governments around the world, and probably the United States most of all. They want to have more control over this medium for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is tax purposes and the ability to influence the populace. Look at what's been done with mainstream media and you can have an idea of what the powers-that-be would like to see happen to the Internet.
However, the government cannot simply arbitrarily announce they're going to start heavily regulating the Internet. That's not going to work, so the first step will be to try to use some kind of politically-correct issue, to shoe-horn their grimy hands into the issue. This is likely to be something like child pornography, which very few will have problems with. Things like COPA are good examples of regulatory laws which were passed with a minimum of opposition due to the PC-nature of the issues they addressed, but they all have the ultimate goal of setting precedents where the government(s) can tell you what you can do with your web site.
The demographic profiling done by companies like Google is a big part of the government's ability to make their case for additional regulation.
Make no mistake, this is and will continue to happen. Whether or not any of us think that it's practical to try to control/regulate what happens online, the government is sure going to try. With more and more commerce moving to the online world, and less dependence upon traditional media sources, big companies are going to want to have their piece of the pie, and they rarely play fair. We should be paying very close attention to what happens from the perspective of this plan. We should expect and anticipate a few popular scenarios to present themselves which will sway public opinion into allowing more government regulation of online activity. This may have to do with terrorism, child porn, or even spam. It's going to be an interesting time in the next decade as we watch and see how select corporate and government interests try to bully their way into having control of the Internet. Search engines are treasure troves of information they can use to prove any claim they want.
Re:Currently, it's all somewhat irrelevant... (Score:2)
Teh U.S. of A. is not at war with any country.
The sections of teh resolution(s) passed by congress that referred to the War Powers Resolution only do so in order to require the President to report back to the Congress/Senate.
Here is the link where I thoroughly refute the statement "The Congress authorized War Powers for the President" [slashdot.org]
Re:Currently, it's all somewhat irrelevant... (Score:3)