What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
64 Comments
- 42kami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's some amazing insight.
Comparing all of those, AOL has unquestionably the most privacy-friendly policy -- which I find amazing.
They all log searches to IP's -- AOL gives users the ability to delete that data from AOL's databases, or to turn off the functionality entirely.
Time to switch... - Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yup, when it comes to their users privacy, AOL and Microsoft = good, Google and Yahoo = bad.
I'm starting to have second thoughts about Google, and not just because of this. - inerte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great answers by the AOL rep:
Q: Can you produce a list of IPs that searched for term "X"?
A: No.
Q: Can you produce a list of terms searched by an IP number?
A: Yes
WTF? Or did I get it wrong?... - timewarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone needs to know this.
Digg++ - StanrickKubley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm always baffled by this "privacy" hype. What's the problem again with *gasp* logging information?"
Hypothetical:
You wrote an interesting article that criticized the president's (any president's) policies, and it put you on their ***** list. They go through your search queries. It turns out you searched under "military" and "explosive" and "Hitler" in the past few years. Maybe you were doing research. Suddenly you're a terrorist suspect, they have probable cause, and the FBI seizes your computers.
But it doesn't end there. They find some porn on your computer, along with a program you downloaded and don't have a license for. Well, now you've been looking to distribute porn, and you're software pirate. Forget the terrorism stuff; that charge wouldn't stick anyway.
To answer the question, the concern is that privacy is privacy. We all want to be able to be free in the privacy of our own homes, including our surf habits. The problem is that what we do in the privacy of our own homes is being watched. That's bad. If that info is in the hands of the wrong people, it's only a matter of time before they start looking for ways to use it. Not to mention the fact that I want to be able to read, watch, and listen to whatever the hell I want - in privacy. And these days I get to material via search engines. - unholy1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@3lite: I agree
IMO Google actually sounded the spookiest there... I wonder how much longer they'll "do no evil" - dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Based purely on how well they answered the questions (not what the answer was):
Microsoft answers = A-
Google & AOL asnwers = C
Yahoo answers = F-- - DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. Digg+
http://www.google-watch.org/ - SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You're not going to jail for searching bomb making once. But if you make a habit of it, maybe you need to be investigated."
Oh? What's the threshold? Any other things that I should be investigated for?
One cannot infer another's intentions by looking at a record of search terms, library books checked out, or anything else. Sure, you know I searched for those things/read the books, but you have no idea WHY. - mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Found the answer to my question:
http://sp.ask.com/docs/about/aj/privacy_policy.htm#1 - frozendice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm supriesed that AOL is so privacy concious. It's a little disconcerting that google keeps data for as long as it's nessicary. That could very well lean towards google mapping data to 'make a better experience for our customers'. I wish there was a way to be able to use google becaue of it's simplicity of use and overall decent search results without having my searches recorded. At least I have settings to disallow the cookie and take tracking info out of links.
- mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder about Ask Jeeves . . .
- wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Check this out too!
http://www.digg.com/security/5_Ways_To_Keep_Your_Google_Searches_Private_ - sakuraevolution, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gotta love Yahoo's spokeswoman Mary Osako *^^*
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Companys?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't anyone know how to use plurals right? Companies.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thats enough for me. bye bye gmail hello yahoo mail. its better already just not as fast and pretty. but that will change when i get in on the beta or it goes public.
- Meow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, very interesting. AOL give you the option to turn off their IP Search Term logging? Good one AOL! This is enough to make me try their search engine.
- colebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you do all you're searching and hacking through your neighbor's network... Well, that just sucks for your neighbor. I'd be willing to bet that more substantial evidence would have to be presented for law suite or criminal convictions.
A single incident from a single user on a single IP wouldn't go very far. If the same user and same IP made the same requests over the span of several weeks, that's cause for a red flag. Same with music; the same username and same IP (or from the same subnet) was making available songs over a period of time.
You're not going to jail for searching bomb making once. But if you make a habit of it, maybe you need to be investigated. - LooterMcBeer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First person to make a search engine that remembers and tracks nothing but produces google type results will make millions.
- gayle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Great answers by the AOL rep:
Q: Can you produce a list of IPs that searched for term "X"?
A: No.
Q: Can you produce a list of terms searched by an IP number?
A: Yes
WTF? Or did I get it wrong?..."
That kinda jumped out at my too, but it's possible.
You could create a one-way secure mapping from IP address -> id. So when you want to know what was searched from an IP, you map that IP to an id and then see what that _id_ queried.
However, if you want to know what IPs searched for "sex", you can get a list of the ids, but the ids don't tell you the IP address. There's no way to get from the ids to the IP address. - Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tin Foil Hat Alert
- Meow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uh, AOL.com's search results are powered by Google. This article makes no sense.
Oh and companies claiming that IP addresses aren't personally identifiable information are liars. Most ISPs keep logs that will tie your IP address to you. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ mrstandridge Good link...I may be using that service INSTEAD of google. Note to Google: have fun with your data, because less of it will belong to me!
- myuu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wtf? So AOL wins? Huh, interesting...
- Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Kind of funny, Microsoft and AOL provided the best answers.
The one from AOL was so nice it almost makes me want to switch my default search engine from Google to AOL.com. Damn you AOL! Must...resist...switching...
- Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting read. Cut the man some slack, it's just a typo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Companies"
- riah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i don't mind google keeping the data so long as it is used to improve their engines, and only that.
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"For example, we should have the right to refuse giving our identification to a police officer after a speeding violation"
That and the "maybe all possible illegal activities should go unchecked" arguments are not comparable. Searching for search terms is not illegal. I break NO LAWS by searching for bomb making equipment, grow-op equipment, religion, facism or anything else.
I'm not defending privacy rights after you've committed a crime. I'm advocating privacy rights when you haven't broken any laws. - 3lite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Undoubtedly, AOL has the best PR speaker of all search engines. Whatever that means.
- colebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But you are also innocent until proved guilty, and if there is a suspicion of a crime committed there needs to be a means by which further investigation can be conducted. In this day and age, internet records can aid in that type of investigation.
I'm am not defending the act of rounding up all the people who search for bomb making and slapping them in jail. But I would not be opposed to requiring ISP's, search companies, etc to release information on John Doe's internet habits if he's suspected of blowing up a car. In that instance, the practice of storing these records and handing them over to authorities is critical.
To make myself clear, blanket profiling on search terms would be inherently wrong. It would be crazy to think that it would truly hold up in any court. And I'm sure you and I both would be the first to protest if something like that did happen.
My only point is that the requisition of internet records is not bad/evil in every instance. We have to allow for it while at the same time restricting the ability to do so. - a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sounds like a good reason not to use Google...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>I'm supriesed that AOL is so privacy concious.
Well, for better or worse...they have been around the longest... there was "AOL" before there was the internet. - cmykx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow. Talk about the blowoff from Yahoo. This is really interesting to read!
- hordak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> gotta love Yahoo's spokeswoman Mary Osako *^^*
Tell me about it! So hush hush! - jlylereeves, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*feels so exposed now*
- mrstandridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Those concerned should be--and should check out Clusty. It has better results and interface while not logging you. There's even a firefox plugin.
http://clusty.com/privacy
"when you click on an "organic" (i.e., non-advertising or non-revenue-generating) search result, Vivísimo Web Search Services are not contacted and do not record any information whatsoever" - midorigin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm always baffled by this "privacy" hype. What's the problem again with *gasp* logging information?
- jnorris441, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uh oh, the government's going to find out I like Stephanie Swift...
- dudinatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seriously...are you that concerned about Google having your information? If you're searching for stuff like "how to make a bomb" in attempt to blow up your neighborhood post office, you deserve to be linked to it. Personally, I don't ever expect to do anything that would require legal representatives to go through my search history. Nobody cares about what you searched for unless you're breaking the law in the first place.
I'm sure there are many of you saying "but I look for torrents" and other stuff along those lines. However, you most likely use content-specific engines such as torrentspy for those queries, and Google for the rest of your normal searches.
People don't care about you as much as you think. You're a single drop of water in the lake. If you're that concerned, perhaps you should rethink your morals before questioning your search engine preference.
+digg for the interesting article. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0companIES.
- agentbad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you forget that your ISP logs every where you go on the net anyway so this really isn't a big suprise at all.
- colebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're right... We shouldn't be required to identify ourselves for any purpose. For example, we should have the right to refuse giving our identification to a police officer after a speeding violation. He has no right to investigate why I was speeding because he doesn't know if I had good reason to or not. It could have been a private matter of which nobody has any business knowing.
On the same token, maybe all possible illegal activities should go unchecked because the intentions behind them could be justifiable. In fact, we should also do away with background checks for school teachers because that's obviously a breach of personal privacy.
What's the threshold? I don't know, that's something that would have to be figured out. But there's a big difference between investigating activities carried out over a public medium and the police knocking on your door and invading your privacy for NO apparent reason.
I'm not up for opening this kind of stuff wide open, but I honestly think (and you may disagree) there needs to be some checks available if (and only if) the a legitimate needs arises.
What is the threshold, and what could be classified as legit? I don't know, but it's foolish to say that in every instance this is an infringement on our personal privacy rights. - mesostinky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Nobody cares about what you searched for unless you're breaking the law in the first place."
Your an idiot. I only hope that your only 12 or something and not an actual adult. That way at least eventually you'll see how naive and foolish that line of thinking is. No educated person thinks like that. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Suddenly I don't feel as comfortable using Google. Maybe I should try something else.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is