Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

The Face of One AOL Searcher Exposed

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Aug 09, 2006 07:26 AM
from the knew-it-wouldn't-take-long dept.
Juha-Matti Laurio writes "No. 4417749 conducted hundreds of searches over a three-month period on topics ranging from "numb fingers" to "60 single men" to "dog that urinates on everything., report NYT journalists Michael Barbaro and Tom Zeller Jr., but with a permission from Mrs. Thelma Arnold, 62. "Those are my searches," she said, after a reporter read part of the list to her, continues the article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Face of One AOL Searcher Exposed | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 315 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • What a ho (Score:5, Funny)

    by mgblst (80109) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:28AM (#15872667)
    "60 single men"
     
    At her age. I think she should be happy with a couple, but 60... gotta admire her!
    • She's not a ho! by MikeRT (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:38AM
    • SQL injection target? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chapter80 (926879) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:40AM (#15873143)
      Pretty cool seeing people get this data into searchable form, like on:
      http://www.aolsearchdatabase.com/ [aolsearchdatabase.com]

      I did a search on there this morning, and it displays the SQL statement for me, which is very handy...

      Select SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * from search_data WHERE match (anon_id,query,click_url) against ('4417749 ') LIMIT 0,30

      Interestingly, if you do the standard SQL injection, searching for something like "4417749') LIMIT 0,30; DROP TABLE SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS;--", I bet you will screw it up for them. Kids, don't try this at home. I'd never encourage people to do something illegal!

      The point of this posting is:
      Learn about SQL Injection, and protect against it.
      Don't display your SQL query to your users.

      If you don't know what SQL injection is, try a simple example: Search for "1','0" (skip the double quotes, but not the single quotes) and you'll see it in action without causing harm.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:What a ho by curecollector (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:44AM
    • Re:What a ho by Profane MuthaFucka (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:12AM
    • Re:What a ho by mazarin5 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:47AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Iamthefallen (523816) * <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:30AM (#15872674)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday March 05 2007, @10:11AM)
    User 48956332 Perl For Dummies
    User 48956332 HTML 4, whats the big deal
    User 48956332 Howto use sandboxen in development
    User 48956332 What is CSS
    User 48956332 Unit testing
    User 48956332 Spelcheking
    User 48956332 Why is Digg growing so fast?
    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:43AM (#15872743)
      User 48956332 Preventing Dupes.
      User 48956332 Preventing Dupes.
      User 48956332 Preventing Dupes.
      User 48956332 Preventing Dupes.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Hmm by pedalman (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:43AM
    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by JPDeckers (559434) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:43AM (#15873674)
      (http://www.kiobi.com/)
      Love browsing the data. As I noticed yesterday [kiobi.com], a nice trace for user 14109288 (stripped a bit for readability):

      sexual positions 2006-05-22 21:57:18 http://www.sexualpositionsfree.com/
      sexual positions 2006-05-22 21:57:18 http://www.askmen.com/
      sexual positions 2006-05-22 21:57:18 http://www.condoms.au.com/
      premature ejaculation 2006-05-22 22:20:23 http://www.webmd.com/

      Note the timestamps of the last two lines, sounds like he had, well, an evening that did not go as planned

      [ Parent ]
    • Another Hysterical One by Chagatai (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:51AM
    • Re:Hmm by Ant2 (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:27AM
      • Re:Hmm by Ant2 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:36AM
        • Re:Hmm by LHorstman (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:07PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Hmm by LBt1st (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:17PM
      • Re:Hmm by paanta (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:22PM
        • Re:Hmm by paanta (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:25PM
        • Re:Hmm by crabpeople (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @02:57PM
    • Re: I'd hate to be this guy's neighbor by Eric Coleman (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:31AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • The Beauty of the Internet by markild (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:31AM
  • Search string (Score:5, Funny)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:32AM (#15872689)
    "dog that urinates on everything., report NYT journalists Michael Barbaro and Tom Zeller Jr., but with a permission from Mrs. Thelma Arnold, 62. "
    Hmm... an interesting search query.
    But at least it looks like my code isn't the only place invaded by quote-abducting aliens.
  • Nothing we can do! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgblst (80109) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:33AM (#15872693)
    Asked about Ms. Arnold, an AOL spokesman, Andrew Weinstein, reiterated the companys position that the data release was a mistake. We apologize specifically to her, he said. There is not a whole lot we can do.
     
    What a load... there is plenty you can do AOL. You can promise not to release this data again, you can actively hunt for it on the web. You can promise to delete your copy. You can promise that you won't keep data like this anymore. You can implement better security policies so that you know where your data is, and what is hapenning with it. You can limit the people who have access to posting stuff on your website.

    Useless bastards!
    • Re:Nothing we can do! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:37AM (#15872714)
      (http://robvincent.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @01:55PM)
      On behalf of AOL, let me clarify... what they meant to say was "there is not a whole lot we could do that wouldn't interfere with the lucrative data-mining business."
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Nothing we can do! by LiquidCoooled (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:46AM
      • Re:Nothing we can do! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rifter (147452) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:14AM (#15873421)
        (http://slashdot.org/)

        The data is out there, what exactly could they do? Erase it from peoples hard drives, remove it from all the pipes that its in, drug everyone who has seen it?

        The fact they have this data is one thing, releasing it to the public is another.

        When it is data that they *care* about, corporations seem able to do plenty. If it's their source code, the code to decss, TimeWarnerAol's labels' mp3 files, the latest incriminating memos/emails ... they are positively rabid about protecting it. Cease and desist orders fall like rain, sites get shut down, people get sued for millions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if it's their customers' data, like these searches, their email addresses, their credit card numbers, etc. They just shrug and say "Oh well. What canya do?"

        It's typical, frustrating, and complete bullshit. If the privacy laws were enforced and these corporations were punished for such egregious mishandling of our data maybe then they might think they can do something. But unless it directly affects them, they just are not going to care and will continue to take no precautions.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Nothing we can do! (Score:4, Funny)

        by dourk (60585) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:41AM (#15873639)
        (http://brett.jungblut.net/)
        remove it from all the pipes that its in

        Tubes, my friend. Tubes.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Nothing we can do! by mgblst (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:45AM
      • Re:Nothing we can do! by andrewman327 (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:10PM
    • Re:Nothing we can do! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:57AM (#15872821)
      (Last Journal: Wednesday December 07 2005, @07:15PM)
      and they can pay hundreds of miliions of dollars in damages.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Nothing we can do! by gfxguy (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:48AM
    • Re:Nothing we can do! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:48AM (#15873212)
      (http://conceptjunkie.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 25 2003, @10:22PM)
      To be fair, there isn't a whole lot AOL can do about the data that's already been released. In fact, nothing. That genie's out of the bottle, and while it is totally their fault for allowing someone to make such an enormously foolish and potentially dangerous decision, they have stated that they are taking steps so that it won't happen again. Believe me, with so many people looking for an excuse to further bash AOL, they won't dare let this kind of thing continue.

      "Not keeping data like this" doesn't make any sense at all and doesn't accomplish any good for customers. Indeed there is great value in understanding what searches are made and how the search process can be improved. Keeping this kind of data secure is sufficient in my mind. The last two sentences are something I would agree with.

      I just have to wonder who would be stupid enough to not realize the ramifications of doing this. It doesn't take "thorough vetting" to figure out that this would cause a firestorm of bad publicity.

      Of course, the real lesson here is: Don't do anything on the Internet you wouldn't want your mother to find out about. There is no anonymity on the Web. It doesn't take a stupid decision by a large company to prove this.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Nothing we can do! by Megane (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:49AM
  • Torpark (Score:5, Informative)

    I guess this just goes to show that you should be using something like Torpark [nfshost.com] even when merely conducting an online search. It's a shame but if you value your privacy, I guess it's necessary.

    Keep those IPs changing so they can't track and accumulate your searches I guess. I don't want a dossier of my searches available to the public.
    • Re:Torpark by b4stard (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:46AM
      • Re:Torpark by m-wielgo (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:17AM
    • Re:Torpark (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot&nexusuk,org> on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:47AM (#15872762)
      (http://www.nexusuk.org/)
      I guess this just goes to show that you should be using something like Torpark even when merely conducting an online search.

      Whilest protecting your privacy does, on the surface, seem like a good thing, I wonder if it might count against you if you were ever suspected of a crime. We've already seen 'he has some encrypted data' used as evidence (even though the contents of the encrypted file weren't known) in one successful conviction, I suspect 'he's using privacy protection software called Tor' may go down the same way.

      Remember, only people who have something to hide care about protecting their privacy. :)
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Torpark by jgmitchell (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:10AM
      • pass the KY Jelly! by budgenator (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:33AM
      • by RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:50AM (#15873740)
        (http://tooi.org/ | Last Journal: Monday July 24 2006, @08:50AM)
        You raise an important and oft-overlooked point.

        This is exactly why I think it's so critical to evangelize with regard to using privacy measures. I want my mother, Aunt Sally, and 8-year old neice to be using TrueCrypt and Tor at a minimum (or, something providing similar functionality). Privacy / anonymity suites need to become as commonplace as antivirus, firewall and anti-spam software.

        Helping strong privacy measures become the status-quo serves other important goals too. It makes it more politically costly to try to legislate them out of use, and it reduces the usefulness of developing new data mining programs that require person:transaction relationships - both for the government and for private industry.

        In short, when everyone's Aunt Sally can be expected to have countermeasures against activity monitoring running on her home PC, the world will have become a safer place for all of us.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Torpark (Score:5, Insightful)

      by z0idberg (888892) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:53AM (#15872793)
      At the very least do your searching through an engine that is separate to your ISP.

      A customer of AOL searching through AOL has their searches linked to you as an individual. If you search through google then they get your IP address, and your ISP knows which IP address links to which individual at any one time (open Wifi networks aside). But at least the same company doesnt know both.

      The data AOL released was the equivalent of any other search engine releasing its searches with IP addresses, so the same damage could be done by any other search engines logs, but imagine how much a marketing company would pay for that info from AOL with the personal details for each user included (i.e. Age, Sex, location etc.).
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Torpark by cnettel (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:09AM
        • Re:Torpark by Kyeo (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:59AM
        • Re:Torpark by DrSkwid (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @02:59PM
      • Re:Torpark by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:58AM
      • Re:Torpark by DrXym (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:06AM
      • Re:Torpark by jagilbertvt (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:38AM
        • Re:Torpark by z0idberg (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:05AM
      • Re:Torpark by noidentity (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:08AM
      • Re:Torpark (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bob9113 (14996) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:39AM (#15874214)
        (http://www.traxel.com/)
        At the very least do your searching through an engine that is separate to your ISP.

        Your ISP has access to everything you do online unless you're using an encrypted channel like SSL. Your HTTP requests go through your ISPs routers, which see all. Not just search terms, everything. Cox will see this submission when I send it through, and has seen each preview. Cox sees every email I send, including the full content and any attachments. Some ISPs may not be recording it, but for AOL a big part of their business is selling aggregated data to advertisers, and enterprise grade storage costs a few dollars a gig. They'd be stupid to throw away HTTP requests, and I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that they are not. At least until we have laws that require them to. But then, I think we're more like to have laws that require them to keep the data. The EU already does.

        Everything you do online is watched. It's just a question of whether you can trust your ISP. We currently lack any serious accountability for privacy breaches. The public is blissfully ignorant, and the government, far from promoting privacy, actually wants the data. In fact, depending on how far you think Epic/Carnivore/TIA goes, they already have it. Your phone records are protected by federal law, and they have those. What of data that isn't protected? Do you think they don't have it?
        [ Parent ]
      • Are personal details an advantage any more? by zoeblade (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:46AM
    • Re:Torpark by Eivind (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:54AM
      • Re:Torpark by crashelite (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:11AM
    • Re:Torpark by Rebuke (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:51AM
    • Re:Torpark by infolib (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:28AM
      • Re:Torpark by KiloByte (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:58AM
    • Re:Torpark by mazarin5 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:27AM
    • Re:Torpark by xrayspx (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:40AM
      • Re:Torpark by xrayspx (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:58PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 down, 24.9999 million to go... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kafka47 (801886) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:36AM (#15872705)
    (http://covertcreations.com/)
    What about the one we really need to know?? User 17556639 [wordpress.com]!!!

    /K

  • but with permission... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Catmeat (20653) <mtm AT sys DOT uea DOT ac DOT uk> on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:36AM (#15872710)
    ... but with a permission from Mrs. Thelma Arnold, 62...

    In other words, the journalists tracked down about 20 AOL searchers, but Mrs Arnold was the only one to give permission for the article as hers was the only search term list that didn't include 'midget porn'.

  • Who uses AOL? (Score:3, Funny)

    From TFA: "a 62-year-old widow who frequently researches her friends' medical ailments and loves her three dogs.


    I don't know how the NYT reporters were able to track her down. After all, this describes most AOL users!

  • and this is why anonet exsists by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:38AM
  • Legal Standing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RagingFuryBlack (956453) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:38AM (#15872722)
    (http://www.infinitystyles.com/)
    FTA:

    There are also many thousands of sexual queries, along with searches about "child porno" and "how to kill oneself by natural gas" that raise questions about what legal authorities can and should do with such information.



    Now what kind of legal recourse can people expect from these search results? Can the man who searched for ways to kill his wife be tracked down? How about all of the paedophiles who searched for child pr0n? Oh, I can just see all of the "Come on AOL, think of the children...tell us who that was..." How closely tied are these numbers to the user's AOL Accounts, I mean, I'm sure AOL left themselves some tie to the user in their copy. What's stopping feds from making many major busts on people?

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:41AM (#15872735)
    I hope this issue brings more awareness to people about internet anonymity in general and that the government wants all your logs and that companies like Verizon roll over and let them have it.

    AOL has went one step further and given their customer's information to the world. I googled the news to see if this story is being reported in the mainstream media, and it is minimally (minimal b/c of TimeWarner?) but I have to laugh as it is characterized as a "goof" and a "gaffe". Laughably understated and nice words for something that at best can be described as sheer bumbling negligence and at worst as a breach of privacy of the worst sort.

    Even more ironic, the first news story to pop up on google has nothing to do with this but is:

    "AOL offers free security software"
    http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2161980/aol-offe rs-free-security [vnunet.com]
  • Quick! (Score:4, Funny)

    by ttys00 (235472) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:43AM (#15872740)
    Quick, make a bunch of bogus searches! That way you will have some plausible deniability when The Man knocks on your door with a list of your searches.

    "Officer, those searches can't be mine, I'm not an 18 year old lesbian movie actress!"
    • Re:Quick! by nEoN nOoDlE (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:09AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • She should stay at AOL (Score:4, Funny)

    by gorbachev (512743) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:43AM (#15872745)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    At the end of the article, she says she's cancelling her AOL account as a result.

    She shouldn't. There's absolutely no way AOL will ever do anything like that again. On the other hand, if she switches to another online provider, who still hasn't been burned, it's a quite a bit more likely they'll screw up like this as well. She'd be "safer" staying at AOL.
  • Do the search again? by ZaSz-RH (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:44AM
  • Oblig. Prisoner (Score:5, Funny)

    by ettlz (639203) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:46AM (#15872759)
    (http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
    Where am I?
    You're on AOL.
    What do you want?
    Search information.
    Whose side are you on?
    That would be telling. We want information. Information. Information.
    You won't get it.
    By hook or by crook, we will.
    Who are you?
    The new ad-funded AOL Number 2.
    Who is Number 1?
    You are Number 4417749.
    I am not a number -- I am a free gran!
  • She should sue the pants off AOL by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:49AM
  • Technology in the NY Times (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:53AM (#15872791)
    (http://www.mobydisk.com/)
    I found this interesting:
    Next Article in Technology (1 of 27)
    The NY times considers this an article on technology. Slashdot considers this an article on "Your Rights Online." That is the reason nothing will happen no matter how many times these privacy violations occur. People don't act on technology issues. They act on privacy, religion, and entertainment. I would shame the NY times that they still don't get it, but neither does most of the rest of the planet either.
  • Future of surveillance by gregor-e (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:54AM
  • won't hurt yahoo (Score:3, Funny)

    by pimpimpim (811140) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:00AM (#15872831)
    Some clearvoiant (how do you spell that actually?) already saw in advance that this won't hurt yahoo:

    21528558 http com yahoo com wont hurt wont yahoo 2006-04-21 15:31:20

    I'm amazed by the masses of stupid search strings that are given, why are so many search strings complete (or non working) http adresses? (e.g. www.yahoo.com) Seems like a lousy database to me anyway.

  • by khendron (225184) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:02AM (#15872852)
    (http://khendron.com/)
    From AOL's public apology

    "This was a screw up, and we're angry and upset about it. It was an innocent enough attempt to reach out to the academic community with new research tools, but it was obviously not appropriately vetted..."

    This is sounding very much like Dilbert's boss's public apology made years ago:

    "It was wrong for us to sell keyboards with no 'Q' We're sorry. We're morons. We're dumber than squirrels. We hear voices and do what they command. I have broccoli in my socks. "
  • by aquatone282 (905179) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:03AM (#15872856)
    4417749 numb fingers
    4417749 60 single men
    4417749 dog that urinates on everything
    4417749 landscapers in Lilburn, Ga
    4417749 bill arnold
    4417749 carpet shampoo rental
    4417749 julie arnold
    4417749 stan arnold
    4417749 homes sold in shadow lake subdivision gwinnett county georgia
    4417749 gwinnet county animal services
    4417749 stan arnold
    4417749 pecan pie recipes
    4417749 McGyver DVDs
    4417749 pet euthanasia services
  • Gran's busy by writermike (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:03AM
  • The most importane part of TFA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kent_eh (543303) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:04AM (#15872862)
    "As unhappy as I am to see this data on people leaked, I'm heartened that we will have this conversation as a culture, which is long overdue."

    Now, what can we do?
    How about making sure "this conversation" happens, and continues to happen.

    And not just here on /.

  • And people wonder... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:06AM
  • Interesting search... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:15AM
  • Anonymity? by CopaceticOpus (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:25AM
    • Re:Anonymity? by RagingFuryBlack (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:29AM
  • Privacy Advocate? by lcde (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:42AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The press can find one little old lady... by smackhopper (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:51AM
  • Nothing to see here, please move on by Rob Kaper (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:59AM
  • How to achieve change (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RagingFuryBlack (956453) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:07AM (#15873376)
    (http://www.infinitystyles.com/)
    After reading through all of the 0+ modded comments, I've seen everyone saying "God, I wish there was something that could be done to stop this from happening again". You want to see it stop? Find something that ties your local congressmen to their search histories on AOL. Contact them with that information. I can almost guarantee you that if you find enough dirt on enough congressmen/senators, you'll see legislation passed requiring that Search companies not keep records of searches. It quickly changes from "Think of the children" to "Think of saving my ass from dirt that can be used against me next election year"
  • publicity stunt by jrhollis (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:13AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Good! by stormi (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:30AM
  • Liars by Bob9113 (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:33AM
    • Re:Liars by Bob9113 (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:34PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • google cross references search, news, usenet ... by peter303 (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:33AM
  • Oh those whacky AOL users... by The Mutant (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:04AM
  • How Not To Be Seen by StopSayingYouSir (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:20AM
  • Always looking at the wrong issue? by saintory (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:46AM
  • Me by kurtis25 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:01AM
  • let's not forget the absolutely twisted people by Maznafein (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:17AM
  • http://www.metaspy.com/ by SaberTaylor (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:29AM
  • The Search Engine Time Bomb by klenwell (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:34AM
  • Google mixing directions with searches by jdb77 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:46AM
  • I wrote a little perl program to check on whether my family is in the released data.

    This is very scary data, though also chock full of interesting info, interesting taken in many different ways. It was easy to find a number of people referencing my small home town of about 20,000 people. I shiver to imagine say a wife using AOL at home and her geek husband searching this stuff at work (not my problem).

    Suffice it to say, the data is FULL of personally identifying information. AOL is not telling the truth. Heck, Google even gives you an address if you give it a phone number, people are used to typing people's names into the search box. And if you search for a given ID you can follow their trains of thought over time and it can be shattering; everyone looks for their own family online.. I even found an unknown relative that way once. AOL should hire some clueful people and get them into the loop, but it's too late for some people.

    Incidentally, I found one of the most interesting words is "should". That, and "cocktail dresses" but I'm not going to get into that one. You see it turns out that not only do people sometimes unintentionally paste info from mail or webpages into the search field, they also ask questions that normally they might just write on paper and throw in the trash, or give up worrying about. So what AOL has done is closer to taping a confessional, what someone might ask of God or their doctor, or just worry endlessly about, and release it! What infants! It seems to say something about why doctors and priests have a professional code and know how to keep things private. Here are some search phrases, I'm not putting any in that have a person's name but you can probably get the idea from this.

    what the fuck should i name my fetus
    my nose is bleeding from cocaine what should i do
    baby has something stuck in his foot what should i do
    my mom is a hooker what should i do
    how to tell a wife her husband is having an affair with you
    caught my wife cheating
    my wife cheated on me with a guy with a huge cock now what
    spy on the wife
    get revenge from a wife cheater
    catch your wife having an affair
    my cheating wife
    got caught cheating on my wife and now she trying to take my kids away
    my wife and kids are living with an ex con
    very sexy baby nice pics i wanna c more lol u should take a look at my pic s tell me what ya think if u wanna chat my yahoo is lets get it mane and my aim is mhsplaya8
    should a spouse stay married to a sex addict
    should i let my son inlaw fuck me
    i should have used a condom
    dude read this its reallllly weird body hi. my name is kimi. it's too late now. you shouldn't have opened this bulletin but since you did you will die tonight if you dont keep reading. well i'm 19. i don't have eye lashes and i dont have a nose. pr
    what should i do about heart palpitations after smoking crack
    should a man go to a strip club the girlfriend is upset
    should i see a married man
    should i tell the other man's wife
    should i confront my wife's adultery partner
    mom showed me how to masterbate
    why my girlfriend should give me head
    should i buy extended warranty on my laptop
    an employee jokes all day long what should i do
    should parents let their children become stars
    l want some pill to dead
    l want to kill myself pill sleep
    i want to kill myself
    should i kill myself
    i need someone to help me before i kill myself
    help no one loves me i want to kill myself
    best way to kill myself
    i want to kill myself indiana hotline
    god please my heart hurts help
    l need to talk with a fbi
    should informants be identified

    Now maybe people will understand what AOL has done.
    I am posting this because:

    • I want strong pro-privacy legislation re search engines and other online venues
    • The use of search engines as Voice-of-God or call-for-help is real. Search engines should be mandated to 1) not
    • Wow...! by cr0sh (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:23PM
      • Re:Wow...! by mattr (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:55PM
  • We have a winner !!! by toochoos (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:52AM
  • I didn't look because... by bitbucketeer (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @12:52PM
  • Internet Explorer Wins 100 to 1 over Firefox by 140Mandak262Jamuna (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @01:35PM
  • more scores by 140Mandak262Jamuna (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @01:41PM
  • use a search proxy by talledega500 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @02:39PM
  • AOL's query log data: useful for research by j.leidner (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @02:46PM
  • Not just people doing the searching, either by Deagol (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @03:06PM
  • I've come to a conclusion by Bryansix (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @04:36PM
  • Why? by vga_init (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:56PM
  • AOL users by max_evil (Score:1) Friday August 11 2006, @01:43PM
  • Re:This is beyond 1984 / Reality of danger, promis by jazir1979 (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:11PM
  • 12 replies beneath your current threshold.