What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
50 Comments
- kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27Worse than Yahoo who released the name, ip, mac address to the Chinese govt of a blogger leading to a 10 year jail sentence?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23@little, that CIA thing is a load of crap. Google fought the government when the government wanted to seize its search records. The "CIA partnership" thing probably relates to the fact that In-q-tel, the CIA's venture capital arm, was one of many investors in Keyhole, which Google later acquired (i.e., bought them out). Keyhole was the original version of Google Earth. So yes, there's a tenuous CIA link, and I'm sure the enterprise version of Google Earth is bought by many parts of the government. But that's not a partnership in the sense that's implied. Not by a long shot, nor have any of the allegations in that post been confirmed with even a single named source.
As for Google and the privacy issue, there are bigger issues than just retention of search histories, though I agree that's got to change. It basically comes down to whether or not people are treated as first class citizens, or we're just data to be mined. But we have to resolve this question across the board. We essentially need a new right to be formally established, that we own all data we that generate about ourselves, period.
I don't want to ramble on. There's more here if you're interested: http://www.brownianemotion.org/2007/06/08/g-privacy/ - consonance, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17And Google is better than AOL, which released the search records of millions of numbered users, thereby allowing anyone with enough time on their hands to find out the identity of a person based on their search histories? Anyone remember Somethng Awful's review of those logs?
(Warning: Very NSFW)
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/aol-search-log.php
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/aol-search-log-2.php
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/aol-search-log-3.php
Seriously? Google is worse than THAT? What kind of ***** group is this? - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17@joe, syxle below is correct. Their slogan is "Don't be Evil," not "Do no Evil."
And it means, in essence, don't act like Microsoft, with predatory practices and market FUD.
It doesn't mean that you or I will like everything they will do. However, one thing Google has to wrestle with is putting their users first, even ahead of business interests. - ggidster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Exactly.
>>The company says its stockpiles data to help its search engine better understand its users so it can deliver more relevant results and advertisements.
You agree to this when you use Google:-
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/privacy.html
The fact that they combine this data is not in itself a privacy issue. It only becomes a privacy issue if that combination of data is used for something other than that which you agree to.
>>can it maintain it's edge by not pinpointing each users search habits and history?
Probably not, no. But are they really doing harm in collating that data? Google are quoted in the article as stating that they delete the data after 12 or 24 months.
I'm surprised that AOL are not in the list. Not so long ago they published about 3 months worth of entire user search history.... - Ratatosk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12first I wanna point out that search engine land has a very interesting article on that which looks profoundly at the release:
http://searchengineland.com/070610-100246.php
- IPs are here to be stored; they were invented to identify a users pc + they change from time to time. It's not that big a deal
- google was the only search company to fight the DOJ request, the other's didn't
- google let's you opt-in to webhistory (not opt out)
- with feedburner you can opt-out before the acquisition takes place
- they show you very clearly in the toolbar at on desktop what advanced features are (not the usual tadada).
If they were evil, they would make it seem like a usual tadada, but they tell the people what the risks are, because they have nothing to hide. They make you avare of privacy.
- same with gmail, they make it very clear that your emails are being scanned for ads. And I like this, no I even love this, because I prefer those scanned emails (who are scanned for spam anyways and only by machines), becuase they give me some serious ads and not the hotmail live blinking banner crap. And if you don't want it, don't use it.
- they were the only major search company to ristrict the keeping of the logs for 18 months or so. It may seem long, but at least they doing something instead of keeping them forever. People worried about this, but before it was worse. So basically:
Google: "hey, we only store it for 18 months now"
privacy freaks: "OMG 18 MONTHS OMG"
Why don't they first look at the companies who store that forever before going nuts?
I think the reason google was the worst in this study is, that if this privacy whatever company publishes it like that, they get a lot of publicity and attention. Nobody would have bothered much if MSN live was at the bottom, but now with google it's big news.
I am just so thankful to have gmail and other great free products and not have to rely on some other stuff anymore! - quietcynic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Brilliant logic, linkin1. And in that line of reasoning, I hereby declare Sweden to be the most egregious offender of human rights and state-sanctioned pedophilia, because we have no idea what they may have already done. Down with the Swedes!
- scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8At least they don't steal my mail like the post office.
- Sep11insidejob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9No, I consider Yahoo the worst because their protocols have caused innocent people to go to jail for a ling time. I have boycotted Yahoo because of that.
- theOster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6i love that google handles my info the way it does. i still know enough to log out and run thru proxies when i search for bombs and poisons.
now if you'll excuse me, there's someone at my door. - albiniak, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10and the award for "free shameless promotion of the month" goes to....
Privacy International!
if you don't want the convenience (or invasion of privacy) Google offers, don't use their services. use a mix of other less credible, less public companies, that have less liability to trust your information and provide you a second-rate service. have a ball. - smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11buried as inaccurate. they keep emphasizing how "low" the rating is and how "dangerous" google is, but it's hard to take them seriously when they provide absolutely no information in the article about what specific complaints there are against Google.
sure, Google collects a ton of user information, but they respect user-privacy in all the right ways. they don't peddle malware or use or support spam like other large corporations. they don't sell user information and haven't leaked any user info to the government or by accident.
personally, Google is the type of company that i would trust with my search results because they've demonstrated that, unlike AOL, they can be trusted with it. also, they actually have good reason to collect this info and they do it for the user's benefit. i want them to record my searches to refine/personalize search results. as long as they don't sell the info the other companies or hand it over to the government, i'm fine with it. if they want to apply an algorithm to my search history to target the ads displayed to me, so what?
as long as they make sure that no human being has access to my search records and that the data they store won't be used against me, what do i care? how does that violate my privacy in any way? i have a far bigger problem with them helping China with their government censorship. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6FTA: Privacy International is particularly troubled by Google's ability to match data gathered by its search engine with information collected from other services such as e-mail, instant messaging and maps.
Google is in a class by itself, can it maintain it's edge by not pinpointing each users search habits and history? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7It's "Don't be evil"
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3We have met the Big Brother, and it is Google.
- jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2google's PR setting up a smear campaign doesn't help matters.
http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Smears_Privacy_International_After_Terrible_Privacy_Score - littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -15/+17Yes, and what about this?
"Former Agent Says Google and CIA in Partnership"
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4774 - sunshinelife, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I have had it with Google.
- consonance, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@lightspeed
Google wasn't a part of AOL's decision to public their search data. There is no guilt by association.
Also, calling Street View an invasion of privacy is laughable. If you drive down the street and look out for window, is that an invasion of privacy? Is it an invasion of privacy if you take a photo in public? If you're worried about having your photo taken in public, maybe you should be more careful about what you're doing in public. - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@lightspeed
Everyone loves privacy, some just don't know it yet. I've seen a whole generation be brainwashed into believing its cool to put everything "out there". But they're going to experience the consequences of that a few years down the line.
When we go out in public the expectation for privacy is merely diminished, it is not vanished.
Sure, the people on that street or in that park with you are going to see what you're doing, but that doesn't mean the whole world gets to. - scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The trouble is that all corporations are evil by definition, in the meantime some of us need to send email.
- controltheweb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Google didn't respond to their request for information. Same problem Google had in Brazil with Orkut---they shot themselves in the foot by not responding. Typical big bureaucracy response.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3hexel i completely agree, and I still laugh at all the idiots who say "dont do something in public you want private" well sorry, i didnt ***** expect a google camera man taking photographs and putting them on the ***** internet
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4scabbers: "The trouble is that all corporations are evil by definition, in the meantime some of us need to send email."
There's something very profound to this statement. In an advancing society, refraining from using these technologies is not a real option. When your boss says "send me an e-mail", one cannot be expected to explain one's own objections to the various e-mail systems and their respective privacy policies.
We are forced to work with these technologies, and these technologies and services should be forced to adapt to our Rights, rather than our Rights having to adapt to their business models. - StanleyKoolPrik, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7The people defending Google's blitzkrieg on its user's privacy rights are ***** fools. You're nothing but brand slaves -- idiot consumers who create an idealized image of certain corporations, like Nintendo, Google or Apple, then devote themselves to the service of those corporations. In your minds these companies can do no wrong, so you gladly suffer any encroachment, no matter how egregious, and then hit the net and try to defend it. You deify these certain companies, worship them as if they were gods, and demonize their competitors as if they were devils. How pathetic is this?
You are nothing but hyper-consumerized drones. Bow down to your corporate gods, suckers. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@spirontas
never try to make another analogy ever again - smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6seriously, this entire thing reeks of FUD created/motivated by anti-Google business or political interests.
- geddon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2So it goes in the United Corporations of America. As the people continue to lose both faith in interest in the government which defines our freedom, our consumerist addictions rise even higher to defend the corporations which are buying those freedoms out from underneath our noses.
- Ratatosk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2what you are telling controltheweb could be true, though have you seen the actual report of this Privacy watchdog?
it's a chart. a pathetic chart that randomly puts in some stuff some companies have done against privacy. I mean, u can easily find a bunch of thing if google offers 30 or so products. And then, you won't find that many things with BBC, because who has accounts there?
It's a total wrong comparison and it doesn't properly weight the different aspects. It also doesn't tell major hickups like AOL releasing data and stuff. It seems like they just grabbed a bunch of data, put it into a chart and said: well, looks like google has the most of the stuff in there, what rating do we wanna give? ehm, let's give them a black...
this wasn't done seriously and profoundly at all - sunshinelife, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It is really scary to see that Google knows who every ones of us is (by IP). Since Digg uses Google ads on the sidebar Google easily tracks every IP number, every page view, every click, every comment. Combing this with Gmail, Google Search etc it's easy for them to fugure out just excactly who you are.
Google therefore knows everything YOU have ever done on Digg.
Dear Kevin Rose - I would appreaciate it if you would remove Google's ability to track my every move here on digg. Thank you. - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Just because some people don't value their own privacy doesn't mean they have a right to destroy the privacy rights of others.
If Google is ignoring its own privacy agreements and cooperating with government agencies to spy on Americans and other peoples from across the globe then YES, it is evil. - jellystones, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I believe nobody outside of your immediate network can see your MAC address.
- torched, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Google definately does have too much information but they only fight the government about user information when exposing such data would be against their own interests. For example when the DOJ wanted search queries google said no not to protect its users but to protect its trade secrets. Remember that google is a pretty big company that services millions of users in many different ways every single day of the year, you would have to be insane to think that they don't recieve tons of requests from police/fbi/cia/courts every single day. There is no way they would put up a fight against all of those requests and i'm sure sooner or later some college kid that uses gmail and google toolbar will get arrested because he was heard talking bad about the bush administration one day then looking up the white house on google maps the next and that alone would be enough to stick a conspiracy charge. I don't think its wrong for google to collect data I just think its wrong for them to want so much and store it for so long.
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4excellent post. that "Watchdog Group" has just discredited themselves completely with this accusation which seems contrary to all evidence and likely motivated simply to create FUD against Google.
- esta411, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"I imagine this must have hurt Yahoo's profits to no end."
It's less a matter of affecting their profits and more a matter of refusing to participate in the practice. By using a companies service, your in effect endorsing their practices, either actively or passively. One person not using Yahoo's service may not affect their profits, but at least that person can sleep well at night knowing they in no way are responsible for the actions of that company. - xcbxcb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4The more you tighten your grip, Google, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0For once, I'm glad I live in a developing country where no one gives a ***** about you.
- TrophyGeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0An excellent analysis of Privacy International's report.
http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Bad_On_Privacy_Maybe_It_s_Privacy_International_s_Report_That_Sucks
Now, if only news agencies would do some analysis instead of just reprinting everything.
You know, sometimes I wonder if they even *read* the reports before quoting them. - duffman03, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Buried as inaccurate. That company Privacy International just wants attention.
- Kickboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Biggest piece of FUD I've ever read.
Since when is gathering information about users, and providing personalized results based on that information, a threat to privacy? It would only be a threat to privacy if this information were being gathered without the users consent, which is not the case with Google. Additionally it would only be a threat to privacy if said information was given to government agencies or other companies, which is not the case with Google. So I ask again... how is this a threat to privacy?
Google's Personalized Search has been invaluable to me. I use it on a daily basis, and half of my searches would turn up useless if I had turned off Personalized Search. I have absolutely no problem with Google, Yahoo, AOL, or even Microsoft knowing my search habits, as long as they don't use this information for malicious purposes, or make that information public. Yahoo broke that user trust when they turned over records to the Chinese government, without so much as a fight. So I no longer trust Yahoo with my personal information. Microsoft has close ties with both the US and Chinese government, so I'm not too sure I trust them; though I admit there hasn't been a direct public case such as Yahoo's. AOL released loads of user-specific search data to the public, so they no longer have my trust with this information. Can anybody think of a single case where Google has broken that same user trust? When the US government wanted search records, Google fought them to the bitter end.
Claiming Google's privacy policy is worse than Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft is absolutely ridiculous. Especially considering all the "reasons" detailed in the article are also common practices at Yahoo and Microsoft. Did you know Yahoo and Microsoft have Personalized Search algorithms too? No way! I thought that was Google only!
Anyone who buys into this article is a sheep. End of story. - thingylab, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Ok, Google keeps a lot of information about its users.
Being one of them, I don't care because I have never received spam because they sold my email address to some spammer, and I don't remember of any mass leak of user information from their servers.
So I'd need a bit more information about how the survey was made, and (conspiracy theory aside) who funded it. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4@consonance
yes google is worse than that because they own 5% of aol. btw they keep invading privacy with street view, and now this watchdog group has shown the public even more.
and at the fag who said "i have boycotted yahoo to no end" yea, im sure they were very affected by your nerd ass boycotting them. - psu001, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: "All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." The more google concentrates information and data on individuals through their own products and through acquisitions, the more opportunity for that to be use against us. In general, though, these things work themselves out. Few businesses grow without bound and when the get too big, there are a bunch of lawyers waiting to start the lawsuits to get in on some of that cash.
- spirontas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I don't get it.
Suppose you own a record shop. You keep statistics of your sales and realise that Rock sells more that RnB in your shop, so you order more Rock CDs that RnB. Are you violating your customers' rights?
Furthermore, say you have some regular customers. You notice that customer A buys all the records of artist X, so next time he shows up you offer him a newly released single by artist X. Should he sue you for violating his privacy rights?
Are TV ratings a violation? Box office numbers?
I'm guessing this is the beginning of a corporate war against Google becoming too big & powerful.
Personally, I couldn't care less.
All that matters to me is loads of useful *free* tools by Google that make my life easier. As long as they stick to their privacy statement (which I'm supposed to have read and accepted), all's fine with me.
--By the way, I've been using both Gmail and Yahoo! mail for ages. Although Gmail is my primary tool, it's Yahoo that's always full of spam e-mails... Indicative I suppose... - Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3"I have boycotted Yahoo because of that."
I imagine this must have hurt Yahoo's profits to no end. - joe361, on 10/11/2007, -23/+20"Do no evil" *****!
- dpvu, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Privacy is overrated.
- sarge96, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Sounds like more Europeans pisses off because they can't get a successful startup like google going.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3@quietcynic...
yea we do know what happens in sweden, infact there are many european inspectors, free media..etc that will pass on any information.
so your point is retarded :)
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is