What MSN, Google, Yahoo and AOL Know About You

hotgist writes "America's top four Internet companies, Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft's MSN, promise they will protect the personal information of people who use their online services to search, shop and socialize. But a close read of their privacy policies reveals as much exposure as protection. The massive amounts of data these companies collect, which can include records of the searches you make, the health problems you research and the investments you monitor, can be requested by government investigators and subpoenaed by your legal adversaries. But this same information is generally not available to you."

Cum on, sue me

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

Ok, if I can't find out what records they are keeping about me, but legal adversaries can, someone please sue me and then subpeona them for me.
BTW, TFA appears to have gone though a buggy porn filter. It has words like "cir*****stantial" and "do*****ents"

Re:Cum on, sue me

[Otter Escaping North (945051)]

Ok, if I can't find out what records they are keeping about me, but legal adversaries can, someone please sue me and then subpeona them for me.

Try downloading some music - I hear that works pretty good.

Re:

[networkBoy (774728)]

I like the open/close quotes disparity ``" :-)
Yeah, we need to get a subpoena ring together. I'll subpoena your records, you subpoena mine...
There needs to be a code of honor though, else I'm in for some trouble.
-nB

Re:Cum on, sue me

[Qzukk (229616)]

BTW, TFA appears to have gone though a buggy porn filter. It has words like "cir*****stantial" and "do*****ents"

Yet "child pornography" and "sex partners" had no problem. Fascinating priorities for words to censor by a porn filter, there.

surprised

[hobo sapiens (893427)]

yawn...nothing you do online is private. The real problem here is that people *think* they cannot be seen.

TFA made an interesting point, though...searches are as close to reading our thoughts as is possible. That is pretty scary. I'll bet there's all kinds of predictive software that could use that search data to profile us, even anticipate our next move. That's pretty scary.

Re:surprised

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

yawn...nothing you do online is private. The real problem here is that people *think* they cannot be seen.

Ceiling google is watching you masturbate?

Re:surprised

[blueZhift (652272)]

Absolutely! There is no such thing as anonymous on the net. So the real solution is not going to be getting Yahoo, AOL, or whoever to stop collecting data. They never will because it makes them too much money. The real "solution" is spreading the word to users that they are not anonymous and behave accordingly.

BTW, the Chicago Police already use an Oracle based data mining system to produce crime forecasts for the city that they use to decide how to deploy forces from day to day. I first learned about this system years ago, so it may be safe to assume that there have been improvements since that time. The future is now.

Re:surprised

[LordOfTheNoobs (949080)]

It's a bit muggery out there today folks, with a thirteen percent chance of homicide over on 5th. So remember to don those kevlars. Back to you, Tom.

Re:

[Billosaur (927319)]

...searches are as close to reading our thoughts as is possible.

I knew you were going to say that!

Re:

[hobo sapiens (893427)]

now that you mention it, I just have to...

obligatory Simpson's quote:
"I know you can read my thoughts, boy! meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow..."

Re:surprised

[ozbird (127571)]

TFA made an interesting point, though...searches are as close to reading our thoughts as is possible.

So mess with their heads. For example, go to MSN's search page and enter: Microsoft Vista class action lawsuit...

Re:

[hobo sapiens (893427)]

right, almost forgot. Thanks for including that!

Google allows you to see past searches...

[garcia (6573)]

If you're logged in and you have it enabled, you can have Google tell you all of your search history. I disable that and generally block cookies from being stored by Google. I sometimes, depending on what I'm searching for, use inurl:nph-proxy.pl and find a random open proxy to search through or use a public facility like a SurfThing enabled coffee shop or library.

If my legal adversaries want to find out that I searched converting 3.5 tablespoons to teaspoons while cooking on Saturday, good for them. The rest of it is protected.

Now, what the general public does (like the moron that got busted for searching for how to commit undetectable murder and then poisoning her husband) is another story. No matter what, there will always be idiots that don't know how to cover their tracks regardless of the "privacy policy" of third parties.

Re:Google allows you to see past searches...

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

If my legal adversaries want to find out that I searched converting 3.5 tablespoons to teaspoons while cooking on Saturday, good for them.

Except when they list also includes "fertilizer" or "ammonia" and some guys end up locking you up and throwing away the room.

Re:Google allows you to see past searches...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that Google doesn't keep track of your past searches, just because you disabled it?

Re:

[mwvdlee (775178)]

3.5 tablespoons of crack? I guess "teaspoon" is slang for syringe?
I wonder what kind of searches you want to keep private!

Re:Google allows you to see past searches...

[Billosaur (927319)]

If my legal adversaries want to find out that I searched converting 3.5 tablespoons to teaspoons while cooking on Saturday, good for them. The rest of it is protected.

Which brings up an interesting idea - fake search patterns. On the one hand, you could perform all sorts of irrelevant, meaningless searches to clutter up your search record. On the other hand, imagine you wanted to make it appear that someone was searching for certain information, information that might prove incriminating. Assuming you could somehow gain access to their computer(s), wouldn't it be possible to "plant" searches in a person's search history? How many people who use the major search engines every day know they are being tracked?

Same problem, new technology

[loafing_oaf (1054200)]

Were things really much more private before the Internet as we know it today? You had to approach actual experts like doctors for any questions you had. That leaves a trail. And if you had checked out library books as research, I'm sure the government could trace those records as well, even before computerized systems. Technology simply makes the process shorter.

Re:

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

And when the process is shorter, it increases the scope of abuses. Imagine if 1940s Germany had the ability to find all the jews? It's not so farfetched to beleive the US would ask google to run a find_all_arabs() function in the event of a second terrorist attack.

Re:Same problem, new technology

[lawpoop (604919)]

"You had to approach actual experts like doctors for any questions you had."

Yes, but a doctor isn't allowed to blab to anybody about your medical problems. If somebody sues you, they aren't allowed to subpoena your medical records.

Not very surprising

[skoaldipper (752281)]

You can find out more about me by rummaging through my trash can - quite legal too. Just make sure you get it off my lawn first, or say hello to my boomstick.

Re:

[tgatliff (311583)]

Yes but you cannot datamine a trashcan over several years without a considerable amount of effort. Meaning, there is an inherent cost in digging thru millions of peoples trashcans, including probably getting shot by some for intruding on their property. From a search engine companies perspective, there is no inherent cost of gathering this data. It is simply an benefit of their business model.

To me this is a failure of congress once again. In no way should they have allowed companies to keep this inform

diversify

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

This is why I use different services for different things. While I absolutely love gmail, I don't use it for my primary webmail account. Instead, I use Yahoo! (though I hate those ads at the bottom of messages). This is because I use Google as my search engine of choice. And for messaging, I use AIM. I don't want companies to be able to attach seemingly disparate portions of my life together into a single profile. Sure, it can still be done, but diversifying makes things that much more difficult.

Rehash of old news, let me summarize

[vivaoporto (1064484)]

The Aol "accident", government trying to subpoena search results, etc. Big companies whose source of income is to store and analyze massive amounts of personal preferences to sell targeted advertisements effectively store and analyze personal data. This article is a complete waste of time, don't bother reading it.

Which is why I suggest "GoogleAnon"

[I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I (447961)]

Copy the code below and bookmark it as if it was an ordinary url. Then, when you visit google the next time, anon your google.

javascript:x='Nothing';y='preferences';try{if(conf irm('OK: Zero it\n\nCancel: Do_'+x+'_(e.g._already_zeroes?)\n\n'+unescape(docu ment.cookie.replace(/;/g,'\n'))))h=location.host.m atch(/\.google\.((off|com?)(\...)|..|com)$/)[0];do cument.cookie='PREF=ID=0000000000000000:LD=en:TM=1 115409441:LM=1129104254:S=kSuablMgN8pP9-91;expires =Sun, 17-Jan-2038 19:14:07 GMT;domain='+h;location='/'+y+'';alert('Zeroed:\n\ nNow_reset_your\n'+y+'\n\n')}catch(e){alert(x+'_do ne\n\n(e.g._not_Google?)\n\n')}void(0)

Or else, google for GoogleAnon :-)

Most people dont value privacy

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Most people just dont care. People carry frequent shopper cards for their regular grocery store. Tagged to a real name, not some pseudo handle, tagged to a real address. And they fill their prescriptions there too. All for what? 25cents off a loaf of bread. Even on line people just dont seem to care. The kind of information people post in Facebook and other places, the amount of information they reveal in their blog, using real name that any prospective employer can search for...

They (my nephews and nieces) look at me as though I am an brontosauraus wearing Sanjaya's fauxhawk when I talk to them about the dangers of "overexposure" (both literally and figuratively) in the internet.

Re:Most people dont value privacy

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

I picked my frequent shopper card up out of the parking lot in front of the grocery store, so while it is attached to a real name and address, god alone knows whose.

Re:Most people dont value privacy

[frdmfghtr (603968)]

Actually, I tend to save a couple of dollars every trip to the grocery store with it, and if the grocer knows my grocery habits, I really don't care. I'll spend time and energy protecting info that NEEDS protection, like bank account numbers and credit card numbers, not my preference for whole wheat bread over white or rye. If I don't want a particular purchase "remembered," I don't use the card and pay cash. There's a concern for privacy, and there's paranoia.

I'll agree with you though as far as Facebook/MySpace type sites go...before you post it on a web site, ask yourself this: Would you post it on a billboard along the freeway? Ask that, because that is exactly where it is going--on a billboard along the "Information Superhighway."

I really should worry

[SmallFurryCreature (593017)]

My grocer already knows my order when he sees me coming. Not that he gets them then for me. He already has gotten them ready because he knows when I arrive.

Invasion of privacy OR bloody good service I happily pay his slighly higher then average prices for?

God I love corner stores.

Re:

[fatmonkeyboy (257833)]

If you're using anything but cash to pay at the grocery store, they can already store all of this information about you.

You swipe your credit/debit card and there's nothing to stop the store from recording your name along with everything you purchased in a database. Your address may not be on the card's magnetic strip (but I wouldn't be surprised if it were). My billing ZIP code has been checked at the register before, so its either on the card or (more likely) can be retrieved and/or checked by the softwar

Re:

[The Great Pretender (975978)]

"wearing Sanjaya's fauxhawk"

My god! I know what he's talking about, I'm doomed!!

Additional Problems

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

There are other online data problems besides the main computer companies. You also have to worry about companies like USSearch, PrivateEye, and so on which basically allows anyone to find out tons of stuff about you for a nominal fee. USSearch's FAQ even says

"Can you search for minors or public figures?

No. In order to protect the identities and safety of minors and public figures, US Search does not provide searches for these types of individuals."

So, they understand the danger. They just don't care about the danger posed to the "proles".

Data retention really is the stealth liberty issue

[MikeRT (947531)]

Look, I know that we don't have to use these services, but that doesn't make this sort of policy any less dangerous to the public in general. The Bush Administration will not be the last time we will hear about data retention policies [codemonkeyramblings.com], and if these services keep maintaining such detailed records, it's only a matter of time before the government gets full access to them. The privacy implications for that are that it'll be the first major step toward a total surveillance state for modern communications. A fir

oh no, they store our searches!?

[physicsboy500 (645835)]

I hoped they purged my request to find "the clitoris" on google maps

Not Surprising

[madsheep (984404)]

Well I do not find this surprising. You should just use the Internet and associated products with the assumption of no privacy. If you do not have this assumption, you should read every line of the privacy policies. Even then make the assumption you are not safe. Mistakes and screw up happens. Hackers happen. "0day happens." Even if that information is "protected" it might still get out anyway. Assume they are collecting *.

They're all probably collecting tons of stuff, but I for one will not use G

Is this covered by UK DPA?

[LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407)]

I'd be interested to know if this information is covered by the DPA for UK residents. Does search data count as personal information if the data is linked to an IP address rather than directly linked to my identity?

If it is then presumably I should be able to make a request under the DPA (without a court order) and they would be required by law to provide me with all information they have pertaining to me for a nominal fee within a certain time-period (I forget exactly how long).

Clearly IANAL and I don't know nearly enough about the DPA or international law to know if this applies. Any actual lawyers about there who can clear this up?

Re:

[jank1887 (815982)]

Any actual lawyers about there

Clearly you are new here...

What MSN knows about me

[metamatic (202216)]

I'd be surprised if MSN knows anything about me, given that I never use MSN for anything. I only have one friend who uses MSN, so it's never been worth abandoning my principles and signing up.

People who use MSN are the kind of people who refer to their web browser as "the Internet".

Does Track-Me-Not help?

[sphealey (2855)]

Does anyone have any information on whether or not Track-Me-Not (which runs random searches against the big engines at random intervals) helps to confuse the trackers or not?

sPh

A way out

[Yurka (468420)]

There are precedents for suing yourself [theregister.co.uk], so the door is open a crack. Actually, no matter what the TFA implies, I imagine that search history wouldn't be the most interesting piece of information you could find about yourself, if you arm yourself with a good subpoena against yourself.

What works for me..

[mulvane (692631)]

I have a VPN tunnel to a hosted dedicated server I setup as a proxy to my home connection. All my home traffic first passes through it encrypted. I share this box out to a few people. To establish connection with the proxy requires secure vpn. At home, I have 2 firefox items in my menu. One for my casual browsing, and another that connects to the proxy and request it to even anonymous communication even further using tor. This, plus not saving cookies beyond session helps me feel at least a little more secu

Re:

[jc42 (318812)]

I have a business T1 link from AT&T ..., but I'm under no illusions that AT&T won't still keep track of stuff.

Maybe they don't, but I have to assume that they do.

One of the bits of advice from very early in the history of the Net is: Forget about network-level security; the only way to prevent unknown others from copying and analyzing your traffic is to do end-to-end encryption. Even then, they can learn some things by analyzing your packet headers, which can't be encrypted. And, of course, the

Trademark

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

It is time to trademark all the things about you that make yourself unique. Then, they cannot buy or sell your info without your expressed permission, which you don't do,

My identity is not for sale, thank you very much. My personal details, aren't for sale, thank you very much.

The next question

[HomelessInLaJolla (1026842)]

Everyone concentrates so much on which services are collecting information and what information they are collecting. The next, and more important, question is rightly,"What are they doing with it?" I'm not talking about the generalized vague notion that everyone has: they're selling it. Yes, of course, but to whom are they selling it? Do they portion it out or do they sell the entire database in raw csv format any time anyone asks? Is there a subscription service to receive weekly or monthly updates to the dataset? Is there any effort made to screen the people who offer to buy the dataset to ensure that they will similarly protect the privacy and security of the consumers represented within it? Are there services which will cross-reference the various databases to infer data which cannot be directly collected for legal or technical reasons? Are there services which buy these datasets which offer to correlate them with tax records, grocery card clubs, and DMV records?

The answer to all of the above questions, of course, is "yes--to the worst extent possible and with absolutely no conscientious consideration for the consumer from whom the data is being mined". Take it for what it's worth. Twenty years ago the hospital kept records, the insurance companies kept records, the banks and retail outlets kept records, but they weren't so ready and apt to cross compile and sell those records to hundreds of political and fringe religious groups posing under infinitely ambiguous names such as International Financial Consultants, Ltd.

Muddle the information

[MooseTick (895855)]

It wouldn't be too hard to create a script to randomly search on 5000 different terms a day from a dictionary. Then it would be nearly impossible to see that you were searching for actual info or an automated script did the searching.

and cookies too

[homer_ca (144738)]

Don't forget to clear your cookies or block them from Google. The default Google cookie doesn't expire for 30 years, and with it Google can track all your activity on Google sites, from maps to gmail to search.

Re:and close browser too!

[redelm (54142)]

You can also be tracked by unique URLs with embedded keys.

Clearing cookies is great, but I'm not sure whether you're clearing cookies that will be saved, or cookies already saved.

The cookie may last for 30 years -not the computer

[vinn01 (178295)]

Good luck finding a home computer that will host that cookie for 30 years.

Re:

[Ngarrang (1023425)]

If Google really wants to keep on record and ill-tempered sea bass, they are more than welcome. Maybe I am being pessimistic, but I have given up on any true sense of privacy. One week after I purchased my house, I got an unsolicited sales call.

I asked, "And how would you know about me just buying my house?"
She replied, "It is a public record."
"Oh, and did it also indicate that I wanted your stupid unsolicited sales call to wake me up at 9 *AM*?"
"I am sorry sir..."
"Just remove me from your list and never

That happened to me....

[StressGuy (472374)]

I was in the process of refinishing my basement. It had existing cinder-block walls that I chose to leave partially bare along with conventional sheetrock walls which I added. So, not being clear if the same Latex based interior paint would adhere equally well to both types of walls, I googled for "Latex Bondage"

I got a lot of unrelated hits......