How Should Search Engines Protect Privacy?

[dannysullivan]

Google's balancing act from News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5787483.html) from News.com is one of a latest of new articles revisiting an old theme, Google as privacy monster. Personally, I'm tired of the hype and the Google fixation. My blog post today, Moving Past Google Privacy Fears & Toward An Industry Solution (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050714-083710) references past articles and raises a number of issues, as well as my frustration that we don't seem to have progressed much since 2002/2003.

I want to move more toward what the actual concerns are across the board for search and what solutions should be considered. So please -- what worries you on privacy? What are you afraid of? What would you like to see implemented?

[Everyman]

Part of the reason we haven't seen much progress since 2002/2003 is because search engine marketers kept pooh-poohing the issue.

Danny, you say "There are real concerns. I'm not dismissing these at all. There's potential for both corporate and governmental abuse of search profiles. But what we need is less hype, less putting one player in a corner and more actual suggestions of things that everyone can implement."

This is the first time I've seen you admit, since 2002/2003, that there are real concerns. I'm not convinced that you believe it.

Your approach until now has been similar to your approach to the issue of copyright law and the Google library project. That is to say, Google is already violating copyright with the cache copy, so why worry about the library project? In fact, we should be worried about both of these. I've been worried about the cache copy since 2001, and now I'm worried about the library issue. That doesn't mean that I've stopped worrying about the cache copy.

Similarly, on the privacy issue, I've been dissed by you more times than I care to remember on the issue of Google privacy. Yes, Yahoo is doing the same thing, Yes, Amazon is doing the same thing, Yes, MSN is doing the same thing.

You ask, why single out Google? But 18 months ago there was no Amazon web search, and no independent Yahoo web search, and no independent MSN search. I was worried about Google privacy back in 2000, and I'm still worried about Google privacy. The fact that others are now doing it is directly related to the fact that I was unable to generate any concern over Google back in 2000. If Google gets away with it, one can hardly expect Google's competitors to take the high road.

And guess why Google is getting away with it? Because search engine marketers have failed to notice that there is a real problem here.

Your appeal is too little, too late, and all I can do now is yawn. However, one solution comes to mind for all engines, since you asked. We need governments to impose regulations on search engines so that data retention policies are specified by the engine, audited for compliance by an independent body, and enforced with criminal penalties. There is no reason why engines should be allowed to keep user data indefinitely. You don't need that much data, unless your intentions are evil.

And of course, we all know that Google isn't evil, because they've told us so.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Because search engine marketers have failed to notice that there is a real problem here.

I don't see how you can blame the searc marketers for that! We don't own neither the search enginers or the users mind. If users have a privacy issue they should talk to the ngines - not the search marketers. We don't have any more to say in this than any other average user.

[Chris Boggs]

You don't need that much data, unless your intentions are evil.

And of course, we all know that Google isn't evil, because they've told us so.

Please do not take this as a personal attack! This is my opinion on these issues and I strive to be frank about any subject.

Marketers need data to continue to market. If you don't like living in a capitalist world, then move to the Amazon or something. Any characterization of data collection as "evil" makes me yawn-after a laugh.

There are plenty of other resources on the Internet or even in *gasp* libraries if one is so worried about who is watching, in my opinion. This reminds me of a post that I saw yesterday on a yahoo message board which states that the only people that hate cops are criminals.

The Elanor Mills article linked in Danny's post makes me laugh too. Typical journalistic chatter aimed at getting more reads, IMO.

Assuming Schmidt uses his company's services, someone with access to Google's databases could find out what he writes in his e-mails and to whom he sends them, where he shops online or even what restaurants he's located via online maps. Like so many other Google users, his virtual life has been meticulously recorded.

hello! Any email system is subject to hackers. regular mail gets stolen sometimes too. Even a whisper can be overheard with the right equipment. I could care less if someone knows where I have shopped or eaten. Of course I am a marketer by nature, so this is probably why I take this stance.

That being said, if this was unknowingly being recorded, then I may feel that privacy was being invaded. Unfortunately, "unknowingly" often means "didn't read the TOS." Ignorance of a law doesn't make someone not subject to it, and ignorance of a policy should be the same. For example, downloading the G toolbar I should know that I am probably not getting something for totally free. From the Google Toolbar Privacy page (http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/?quick=privacy):

We believe these features will greatly enhance your browsing experience. We understand, however, you may not agree that the benefits provided by these features outweigh the information we must collect. For this reason, we provide you the opportunity to disable these features on the Privacy Information page (accessed by selecting "Privacy Information..." in the Toolbar's "Google" menu) or, for our web page-enhancing features such as AutoLink, Spellcheck and Dictionary, on the Options page (also accessed from the "Google" menu). With the advanced features disabled, no information about the page you are viewing will be sent to Google unless you explicitly request more information about that page (such as with the "Cached Snapshot", "Backward Links" or "Similar Pages" features).

From the G-Mail privacy page (http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/more.html): (just a short snippet-this entire page should be read by those worried about G-mail)

What we did not anticipate was the reaction from some privacy activists, editorial writers and legislators, many of whom condemned Gmail without first seeing it for themselves. We were surprised to find that some of these activists and organizations refused to even talk to us, or to try first-hand the very service they were criticizing. As we read news stories about Gmail, we have regularly noticed factual errors and out-of-context quotations. Misinformation about Gmail has spread across the web.


Bottom line: read the TOS or buy software to protect yourself if you are worried about your surfing habits being monitored. Secondly: If you are worried about your emails possibly being read: don't email anyone. Technology can be beaten. This is a risk that we have to take in order to use technology.

my 2 cents (I usually don't say that but I figure I might as well since this response is sure to draw criticism)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I found that the very best privacy protection is to just unplug your computer and go fishing or something :)

Honestly, I don't understand people that want to go to a party (the Web) but don't want anyone to see them (get tracked). If you don't want to play then don't. Dobody is forcing you.

Having said that, some extremes form of privacy abuse should off course be stoped - and is in fact often so. But the everyday tracking and profiling that takes place at all the best websites online today is nothing worth fighting against, in my opinion.

There are so many great things your can be real paranoid about - why focus so much on the least interesting area there is :)

[dannysullivan]

Everyman, glad you came by -- was hoping you would, actually.

This is the first time I've seen you admit, since 2002/2003, that there are real concerns. I'm not convinced that you believe it.
Not so. I have said this before. Moreover, I didn't spend all that time talking with you for the Big Brother nomination (and showing the respect for your ideas, rather than "dissing you" as you say) and writing one of the longest things I've ever written if I though there was nothing there. I treated the concerns you raised seriously, talked to you, Google, others and tried to give my own verdict on things. Those verdicts weren't necessarily pro-Google. I said things like:

For its part, Google might consider Brandt's idea of a renewal-based cookie, if only to ease concerns that some might, however unfounded those concerns might be. User preferences can also be stored in a cookie that does not have a user ID, something a recent survey found that Teoma does. Perhaps Google might allow users to accept this as an alternative to having to simply reject a cookie outright.

But sometimes you didn't yourself know what you wanted them to do:

"Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored," Brandt writes in his fourth nomination point. Proof of this? He says that a letter he wrote Google last year has never been answered.

While it would have been a good PR move for Google to have answered Brandt, this isn't enough evidence alone to suggest that Google is silent on why it collects standard web server data. In fact, Google does have a privacy policy that offers several reason why it monitors data.

So what else does Brandt want spelled out? He didn't have an exact answer to this but rather came back to the central issue of wanting data purged on a regular basis:

Other things you were clear on:

As for Brandt, safeguarding isn't enough. He wants Google to keep data no longer than 30 to 60 days, in order to prevent it from being mined by the US government.

But not everyone agrees with you on that.

Your appeal is too little, too late, and all I can do now is yawn. However, one solution comes to mind for all engines, since you asked. We need governments to impose regulations on search engines so that data retention policies are specified by the engine, audited for compliance by an independent body, and enforced with criminal penalties. There is no reason why engines should be allowed to keep user data indefinitely. You don't need that much data, unless your intentions are evil.

I hardly think it is too late. That's especially so in that Google itself, in my view, has yet to do anything wrong. You can disagree on that, which is fine. But frankly, the going back over past history is a waste of time. Search engines are still a yound industry, personalization has literally just solidly arrived and it's a good time to revisit the issue not with hype, not with scare, but with a good look at what people think should happen. I'm looking forward.

And in doing that, get more specific. Government regulation. OK, what exactly. Are you OK with them keeping data longer, if there's some auditing board? What would that auditing board do? What is OK for the data to be used for and not.

[Chris Boggs]

Interesting related read here (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=6812). especially rcjordan's post #4 discussing the Patry Copyright Blog.

Once information is made public, it should be permanently "referenceable," in my opinion. I know we are talking about content-providers instead of searchers/surfers here, but why shouldn't search user data also fall into this category? A good example would be if someone such as a child molester searches for and visits a certain chat room and a few months later is accused of attacking another member of that room. Wouldn't this visitor data be considered important evidence?

I have already refered to the idea of "opting out" of having data saved if you use the G Toolbar, or another toolbar that tracks such behavior.

Danny, has the description of cookie-based tracking that you described (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2189531) in 2003 here changed? If not, what is anyone afraid of? I know you are having a good discussion with everyman here, and I do not mean to interrupt, but I would appreciate clarification so I can read this thread with a little more background...

[GuyFromChicago]

I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t think search engines should be under any obligation to protect privacy. Being online is a choice, not a requirement. If you choose to be online you choose to give up some privacy. Just like if you choose to use a credit card, ipass, a phone or any other form of automation you choose to give up some privacy.

*Most* of the people who are frightened or scared about online privacy issues are scared because they don’t understand the online world. They have not taken the time or expended the energy to fully understand how things work in the online world. They fear what they do not understand.

The last thing the industry needs is any more government regulation or intervention. Pretty much everything the government (at least here in the states) gets involved in ends up being slower, less secure and more inefficient than it was before the government intervened.

[Everyman]

Before I can even continue with this discussion, which I probably cannot, let's dump the notion that if you don't like the tracking done by search engines, then you don't have to use them.

If you want light after sundown, you need electricity. If you want access to information, you need the Internet. Several times a day I get an answer from the Internet in a few minutes. Prior to the Internet, the same answer would have required hours, and I'd most likely have to hop in the car to drive to the library, which is bad for the environment and messes up my head because I'm too old to fight traffic constantly.

Does Google deserve the credit for this? No, the Internet deserves the credit. Google was a latecomer to web crawling and search. For a brief window, they did it better than others, but that window has passed. I can admit that the Internet has had a major positive impact on me, without giving any credit to Google.

For many people in information-related professions, the Internet is a huge step forward. I say that without any reference to ecommerce, because I'm not involved in ecommerce. But let me add that I can find out if the item I want is in stock at a local Radio Shack before I even hop in my car, with just a few clicks on the keyboard. Even for commerce, the Internet is a good thing in many respects.

Why am I blabbering like this? Because I'm trying to make the point that for many of us in many different professions, the Internet is nearly as important as power or running water.

Power and running water are regulated. When Enron plays games with deregulated power in California, the feds come down on them (eventually) and greedy traders go to jail.

I'm saying that the Internet should be regulated in terms of privacy. We are far past the point where anyone can seriously claim that if you have a privacy problem with the Internet, then stop using it. Let's drop that one right now. The Internet is a utility, like power and running water, for many people in information-related professions.

[dannysullivan]

I'm saying that the Internet should be regulated in terms of privacy.
Everyman, that's fine. Not everyone will agree that it should be regulated. But I don't think you have to feel you need to respond to that portion. I think it would be far more interesting to hear what exactly you think should be in place.

*Most* of the people who are frightened or scared about online privacy issues are scared because they don’t understand the online world. They have not taken the time or expended the energy to fully understand how things work in the online world. They fear what they do not understand.
I'd add to this that many don't understand the profiling that happens in the offline world, various databases that get combined to know a lot about you. We get concerned about the "could happen" with search engines while the "actually happening" with our offline data to me is sometimes frightening.

Having said this, just because that's the way it may be offline doesn't mean online -- or search engines -- have to be that way. I suspect there are things search engines can do to provide more reassurance to those who want to use them about privacy protection. There may be plenty they can do without government intervention, for example.

That's what I'm wondering about -- what do those who are concerned think would be good to happen. Mikkel's sort of right. You want protection? Unplug -- unplug from the web, unplug from society generally to the degree we can't. The better solution is to see what can be done to provide reassurance.

Danny, has the description of cookie-based tracking that you described in 2003 here changed?
Since then, Google has far more use of its Google Accounts, so that when you are logged in, it has a somewhat better idea of who you are -- at least the email address you provided. Delete your cookies but sign back in, and they again know it's you -- the email address.

It's still pretty impersonal, compared to the reg. data that MSN and Yahoo collect. But I'm sure Google will get more personal in its collection of data, just like the others.

The bigger issue to me is now, Google and Yahoo both have significant personalization features. And Ask and A9 have search history features. With the first two, you are creating a search profile that potentially can be used for various things. No one seems to be abusing this stuff so far. But I don't think a lot of people are aware that such a profile is being created. Moreover, last time I looked, there wasn't a lot of stuff perhaps reassuring you what or what may not happen to your profile now or if the company is sold, acquired, etc.

So with Google -- in the past, the worry was really hmm -- they've cookied you, and if someone got your computer, then managed to get to all of Google's data, they might tie the two together. For varoius reasons, this was unlikely. And Google itself said it wasn't doing anything like this on its end. Skip to today. Sign up for personalized search, and you're actively tracked. It's with your permission, of course -- but now lots of people are creating profiles that could be tapped into much more easily. Meanwhile, the same case is true with Yahoo, A9 and to a degree with Ask.

[GuyFromChicago]

Before I can even continue with this discussion, which I probably cannot, let's dump the notion that if you don't like the tracking done by search engines, then you don't have to use them.

Sorry, but I think that’s part of this discussion.

You made the comparison to power (electricity). If you want power, you have to give certain information to the company that provides it. You have to surrender some of your privacy. You can’t call the power company and say I want power at this address, but I won’t give you a name or anything else. I will show up once a month and pay you in cash. Same goes with another item that’s almost a requirement these days – a credit card. You surrender tons of information when you apply and subsequently use the card.

I know dozens of people who “don’t like the Internet” so they don’t use it. They get by just fine. It’s not a requirement – it’s a convenience.


I'd add to this that many don't understand the profiling that happens in the offline world, various databases that get combined to know a lot about you. We get concerned about the "could happen" with search engines while the "actually happening" with our offline data to me is sometimes frightening.


Dead on. I’ve been direct marketing for 10+ years. People would be amazed at what information is available to the marketer that wants it.

[Chris Boggs]

good analogy, chicago.

Danny, you said:

Since then, Google has far more use of its Google Accounts, so that when you are logged in, it has a somewhat better idea of who you are -- at least the email address you provided. Delete your cookies but sign back in, and they again know it's you -- the email address.

Are you suggesting that if I login to an AdWords account, and do not again delete cookies afterwards, that Google continues to track my info once I am out of their system and surfing another site? If so, what about if I close the browser? I am pretty sure that you are not suggesting this, but perhaps am a little more concerned if that is the case.

[Everyman]

If the power company was able to track every appliance in terms of when I turned it on or off, and kept this information forever, then I think there would a privacy issue.

There is a fairly reasonable Associated Press article on Google privacy issues (http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2005/07/16/business/local/6e43aac7f849b4c186257040000dfa34.txt) by Anick Jesdanun that just came out some hours ago. It will probably be all over the place within a day or two, but the link I gave is one of only several that I can find right now.

Danny is quoted in it. I almost got quoted in it, as Mr. Jesdanun interviewed me on June 27 for almost an hour. But then on July 6, a local AP photographer called me for a picture, and I declined because I don't want my face to end up on Google images and Yahoo images for the rest of my life. As it turns out, my name doesn't even appear in the article. However, it touches on some of the issues that I hoped it would cover.

[AnthonyCea]

It is real funny that Yahoo had it's little problem with Gator/Claira and now Microsoft is said to be looking real hard at a purchase of Claria.

Just think, with Microsoft browserless search and Claria collecting data on each click for Microsoft, we will have a data mining monster much worse than even Google can come up with.

At least everyone knows that Google is a known data miner.

How much do we know about Yahoo and Microsoft?

[seobook]

Hello AnthonyCea
a warm welcome to the forums :)

[hardball]

Its about disclosure.

Yahoo! is quite specific in what it will and will not do and they are quite upfront about it.

http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/

Google as usual is about as clear as mud.

http://www.google.com/privacy.html

When someone like google trips and makes waves the rest of the community will suffer. Ultimately the market will decide who to trust and I don't see google as winning that particular war with their top secret persona, they just play too coy for anyone to take them at face value.

[AnthonyCea]

So who are we to trust, Microsoft who wants to buy Gator/Claira :confused:

Does anyone think Microsoft who is responsible for most of the spyware that exists on the internet because of a flawed OS and IE is any better than what Google will do :confused:

[hardball]

Trust revolves around honesty. Playing dodgey doesn't endear one to trust you.

So many things are "under the table" at G its ridiculous.

Conversion tracking for example. Most marketers are concerned with sharing sales data with G but what would happen if G actually disclosed to the user that clicking on an ad would give them (G) the abillity to see what they bought, from whom and at what time for what price? Ask google what they do with conversion data. See what they say.

As a search marketer shouldn't you be concerned with your vendors activities? Do you want to be associated with conversion tracking if it becomes a public issue? Would G put a disclaimer under the ad blocks?

What about your own duty to maintain a trusted realtionship with your users, do you inform them that G is watching their transaction go through? Should you tell them?

[AnthonyCea]

I have asked you if you think that Microsoft/Gator/Claria will be any better than Google if they acquire Claria :confused:

I back any new laws that will block transmission of click data to ANY third party. :eek:

This includes, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft or anyone else period.

[hardball]

Anthony you are asking what is better; a pickpocket or a cat burglar, I really don't know, I don't want to be associated with either one of them. My understanding of privacy legislation is that it revolves around one concept: disclosure.

Disclosure (honesty) is generally believed to be a good business principle. So, how should search marketers protect their business? Maybe by demanding transparency from their vendors.

[AnthonyCea]

All search engines are data mining operations, this includes IBM, Fast, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and many others like Claria who is now getting into the search business.

What they do with this information is no different than what other sellers of data do (credit reporting data providers). They all will find a way to package this data and sell it just like D&B, Nexis/Lexis and others do everyday.

The search engines/data mining companies will sell this data to SEM's. So what are we all complaining about here?

Those who should be complaining are the consumer groups, not those of us who will make money partnering with these data mining companies.

[dannysullivan]

The search engines/data mining companies will sell this data to SEM's. So what are we all complaining about here?

Those who should be complaining are the consumer groups, not those of us who will make money partnering with these data mining companies.

That's a pretty broad statement. Take Google. It's not selling user data that I know of. It does sell to advertisers the ability to target consumers in the aggregate. Buy a keyword, you can have you ad show up for those who search. In addition, you can research most popular queries that happen. But want to buy surfing data for all those who search for cars in Nov. 2004? Something like that, they could conceivably offer but don't.

As for the complaining, some privacy groups are complaining and worrying. As typically happens, some of those concerns will spill over into more mainstream groups. Some of the concerns that spill over wil be overhyped. Some definitely not. As for marketers, we're also consumers. Just because you advertise doesn't mean you want your privacy or that of others to be reduced. In fact, some marketers may want to ensure that privacy is strongly protected, for fear that if consumers get worried, they'll abandon the medium

Take what MSN plans. They'll be showing ads based on demographic data, since they know a number of details about registered users. Great for advertisers! You can target those 18 year old males looking for music stuff. But what if those males don't trust MSN, through lack of privacy assurances. They may want to know things like that if they want to delete their search history, it really will get deleted immediately. There may be other issues. If those aren't addressed, they may abandon MSN and registration, and then you lose out on a good ability to target them.

Are you suggesting that if I login to an AdWords account, and do not again delete cookies afterwards, that Google continues to track my info once I am out of their system and surfing another site? If so, what about if I close the browser? I am pretty sure that you are not suggesting this, but perhaps am a little more concerned if that is the case.
So let's talk about what happens on Google itself. If you are signed-in, the cookie doesn't matter. Google knows you are signed in and can track you that way as you check email, do a search, visit your sitemaps account and so on. However, this might be also linked to having a cookie. If you don't allow that, it may be that you can't sign in and stay in. But delete your cookie, then sign in -- you'll get a new cookie, and Google will also know it is "you" in terms of whatever "you" is in information you gave them when registering, such as email.

Now let's talk off Google. I don't know to the degree Google may use its cookie assigned to you to track you outside of Google. I don't think it does anything with this at all. In fact, I don't think it's possible to do a cross-site cookie tracking like this unless other sites cooperate. IE, a site carrying AdSense might issue you a Google cookie, and then Google might track. Or perhaps AdSense code, when it loads, might check to see if you have a Google cookie and do something with that. I've never heard of any of this being reported.

The most significant way Google knows what you do off Google is through the Google Toolbar. If you have the PageRank meter enabled, then it knows every page that you view. Or more specifically, you as in a particular PageRank meter installation. You don't need a cookie for the PageRank meter to operate, I believe.

Yahoo! is quite specific in what it will and will not do and they are quite upfront about it.

Google as usual is about as clear as mud.

Skimming both places, I'd like to see you back this up a bit more to explain why you say it. Both seem to have lots of general statements that are at times almost sounding identical.

Google:

We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. We may share such information in any of the following limited circumstances...


Yahoo:

Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide products or services you've requested, when we have your permission, or under the following circumstances...

Yahoo does seem to have more drill-down information which I think is a result of Yahoo having had to spell out some of these things in more depth, given its longer history as a portal. It collects a lot of information and has used that information in ways Google never has.

For example, Google doesn't run web beacons/GIF trackers that I know of. Yahoo does, they were a sensitive issue a few years ago, so Yahoo has a special page about them: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/beacons/details.html

Here's the key thing. If you have questions about your search privacy, it would be nice to see commonly-asked questions of fears addressed. When I looked back in 2003, no one did this. My feeling was this was the case because unlike with things like email or cookies, people hadn't been concerned enough to make such a dedicated rundown deemed necessary by the search companies. Morever, because they really weren't doing much with search profiling, that fed into consumers not really being aware or concerned.

Everyone but MSN among the majors now has search history tracking. Yahoo and Google both do search personalization. Now our profiles are being much more used.

Looking at Yahoo today, I see they do have a page just about search privacy:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/beacons/details.html

It's pretty sparse. It doesn't say things like what happens to the list of things I've saved, when does it get deleted, how might it be shared with others. These things might get addressed in other parts of the privacy policy, of course -- but perhaps more can be done on this single page.

[dannysullivan]

Let me add one more thing. I stopped short of creating a separate "Search Privacy Bill Of Rights" thread, though I might do that going forward. But that's what I'm after.

What specific things concern you about search privacy? What safeguards would you like the search engines themselves to offer? What contract do you want them to offer you that would be binding upon management changes or acquisitions and so on? Ideally, I'd like to see some type of search privacy bill of rights that spells these things out, that the search industry would adopt.

Those types of specifics, that's what I'm most curious about. You don't even have to know if any of this stuff is actually happening. You just need to know what worries you, what you'd like to see prevented and sound off.

[Everyman]

I already mentioned data retention policies, and how Google doesn't have any. Now I'll mention disclosure.

Let's talk about Google's privacy policy. It's a joke. There's no real disclosure here that's worth anything. I much prefer Amazon's privacy policy for A9.com, which scares the hell out of me. Google tries to use friendly language, and stops just short of turning the entire policy into cute colored letters. Most people fall for this, and get a false sense of confidence from Google's language. But it's a completely worthless policy.

For example, I found these sentences in the Associated Press piece I mentioned above:

"Google says it releases data when required by law, but its privacy statements offer few details. Wong said Google doesn't surrender data without a subpoena, court order or warrant. But she would not offer any details on how many requests it gets, or how often, and federal law bars Google from disclosing requests related to national security."

This is the second time in five years that I've heard someone from Google say anything about requiring a subpoena. The first time was just last month, in an article from Australia. But guess what -- I'm not sure I believe it, because you will not find the words "subpoena," or "warrant," or "court" in Google's privacy policy. Is Wong's statement worth anything at all if this isn't in the policy? Do I have any right to sue Google if I can prove that Wong is wrong about this? No, I don't think so because all Google has to do is say, after I hire ten lawyers to go against Google's 100 lawyers, "Oops, Wong was wrong. You lose. Sorry about that."

Wayne Rosing told the Associate Press, when Gmail first came out, that there will be an information firewall separating Google's search engine from Gmail. "We don't use the data collected on one service," he said, "to enhance another." He told this to Michael Liedtke of AP on April 6, 2004. On July 1, 2004, the very day that a new California law went into effect that imposed penalties for misleading privacy policies, Google redid their policy that hadn't been updated in four years. In this new policy, which is still in effect, Google says, "If you have an account, we may share the information submitted under your account among all of our services in order to provide you with a seamless experience and to improve the quality of our services."

In other words, what Rosing said to AP about Gmail was a lie. Now do you really believe what Nicole Wong says about requiring a subpoena? I don't, I think she's lying. Why should I believe her? If Rosing, who was a vice-president at the time, can lie to the press, then why can't Wong, who is a mere associate general counsel at Google?

Google's privacy policy is worthless. And that's before I even start to dissect the implicit lie in the commonly used term, "personally identifiable information." Many privacy policies use this term to pretend that IP addresses cannot be traced. That was more true six years ago when they started using this term, but it's much less true today. If you're on AOL dial-up, it's still true. If you are surfing from your place of employment, it's not true. If you have broadband in your apartment, it's not true. These days, the phrase "personally identifiable information" should be abandoned. I've seen some privacy policies go out of their way to explain that IP addresses can be traced, but not Google. Instead, Google prefers to avoid disclosure.

Everyone thinks that Google has a good privacy policy. The current Associated Press piece makes a contribution by conceding that Google's privacy is vague on important points, and by suggesting that those who use Google and appreciate Google's services, give it a free ride on privacy. Google enjoys a high level of trust from its users because most of their services seem to work okay. This is the reason that these users are falsely reassured by a privacy policy that is altogether too vague and uses friendly language.

Google should completely rewrite their policy and get real specific. And forget that friendly language. It doesn't work for me. There's a reason for legal language. Teenagers may like warm, fuzzy privacy policies, but most of us are grown-ups by now.

[dannysullivan]

But guess what -- I'm not sure I believe it, because you will not find the words "subpoena," or "warrant," or "court" in Google's privacy policy.
Policy says:
We may share such information in any of the following limited circumstances:
With one reason being:

We conclude that we are required by law
So while the exact words you mention aren't listed, they are well covered by the idea that Google will give up info if there's some legal reason shown. And if you go to the privacy FAQ, http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html, the company says:


Google does comply with valid legal process, such as search warrants, court orders, or subpoenas seeking personal information.

But this is most important to me:

Google should completely rewrite their policy and get real specific.
So back to what I've been trying to do with this thread. What are the specifics. What do you or anyone want Google other search engines to have as specific details?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

In fact, I don't think it's possible to do a cross-site cookie tracking like this unless other sites cooperate. IE, a site carrying AdSense might issue you a Google cookie, and then Google might track. Or perhaps AdSense code, when it loads, might check to see if you have a Google cookie and do something with that. I've never heard of any of this being reported.

Danny, I have to disagree with you. I saw this happening with MSN years ago and I am sure many others do it now. I believe cross site cookie tracking is in fact one of reasons there are real concerns about cookies today. I don't personally like cross site cookie tracking but it definately happens more often than you like to think of. It's very easy and completely transparent to the average user.

Please take a close look at what happens at each redirect step in most advertising systems today and You'll be chocked of what is added, parsed and send on to the next host ... collect a little here, add it, send it on, analyse it, add some more and send it to the final destination - all within microseconds and transparent to the user.

[rogerd]

What specific things concern you about search privacy?
Search privacy alone is no big deal, since search engines don't require logins or identifying information. BUT, if you combine search data with the plethora of other data available - Gmail ID, Adwords ID, Adsense ID, toolbar surfing data, web accelerator data, Adsense cookie tracking across many sites, etc., then you have the ability to develop a very complex individual profile (all the way down to Social Security number for individual Adsense clients).

I'm not suggesting Google would ever market confidential information developed from an Adsense or Adwords business relationship, but they might decide to use some aggregated toolbar and cookie data to better target their own ads. Or, they might be forced to cough up such data by court order.

At the moment, I'd say the hacker scenario is unlikely if the data is itself distributed all over Google, but the more Google might aggregate the data the greater the risk (and attractiveness) of theft is.

Why are some people afraid of Google? I think the answer lies in Google's own technical prowess. Just as "security through obscurity" has been diminished, "privacy through obscurity" is well on its way out the door. If any company could analyze many terabytes of data and trillions of individual data points to develop a profile of an individual, wouldn't you place your bet on Google?

[Chris Boggs]

Danny, I have to disagree with you. I saw this happening with MSN years ago and I am sure many others do it now. I believe cross site cookie tracking is in fact one of reasons there are real concerns about cookies today. I don't personally like cross site cookie tracking but it definately happens more often than you like to think of. It's very easy and completely transparent to the average user.

Please take a close look at what happens at each redirect step in most advertising systems today and You'll be chocked of what is added, parsed and send on to the next host ... collect a little here, add it, send it on, analyse it, add some more and send it to the final destination - all within microseconds and transparent to the user.

Mikkel can you please provide a specific method to get a sample of this data transfer for us non-programmers? :) I would be happy to test some of this in our own accounts, but would need to know how to go about it...would it be based on viewing client logs? Would I perhaps do a test click on an AdWords ad and then look for that info once again on the client logs? Thanks!

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Chris, I don't honestly know exactly what Google is doing today but as I said, I've seen others do the cross domain cookie thing and it eally breaks down to something like this.

1) We all know most ads use redirects - the URL we see in ads are not the one we end up on. However, we never know (from just browsing) just how many redirect points we go through. Sometimes it will just be one - sometimes more, a few times quite a lot. We can only visably see the first URL we go to. In Googles case it's on a Google domain so we feel safe ...

2) For each redirect several things can happen. The most simple, and core reason for redirecting in ad systems, is to count the click. But any number of other things could happen. Cookies read from this domain could be added to the http request, active X applications could be executed (to the extend the user's browser allow it), information from back end DBs could be extracted etc - and everything could in the end be added to the http request for the next URL in the redirection chain.

3) The next URL in the chain then basically does the same - except, this domain now have all the information added to the http request from the previous domain and can use that to further look up information, analyze it, organize it and include it all in the http request for the next URL in the chain. So even though the second domain in the chain don't really have access to the a cookie set on the previous domain it still gets the data thpiugh the added information to the http request.


After a few hubs you'll see, you can end up with some really neat" information :rolleyes:

[Everyman]

So while the exact words you mention aren't listed, they are well covered by the idea that Google will give up info if there's some legal reason shown.
That's not what I'm looking for. I have no doubt that Google will cough up info if required by law. What I'm looking for is a statement from Google that says they will NOT cough up info UNLESS required by law. If you cannot see the difference, then I'll try to explain.

For example, eBay has a very loose standard that you agree to when you register with them:

Joseph Sullivan of eBay was speaking to senior representatives of numerous law-enforcement agencies in the United States on the occasion of "Cyber Crime 2003," a conference that was held last week in Connecticut. His lecture was closed to reporters, and for good reason. Haaretz has obtained a recording of the lecture, in which Sullivan tells the audience that eBay is willing to hand over everything it knows about visitors to its Web site that might be of interest to an investigator. All they have to do is ask. "There's no need for a court order," Sullivan said, and related how the company has half a dozen investigators under contract, who scrutinize "suspicious users" and "suspicious behavior."
GoDaddy, on the other hand, says this in their privacy policy:

We will not share your personal information except with a third party to assist us in the processing or securing of your personal information or when we are required by law unless we have given you notice and choice, in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary in order to conform to the edicts of the law, or we must comply with a legal process served on our web site. We may also need to give out your information if one of our partners requires it, but these situations are rare.
Google says nothing at all worth anything. Of course they cough up information if required by law. That's not the issue. The issue is, "Short of legal necessity, what is the standard for Google?" If the FBI asks Google for this or that, will Google tell them, "Go get a subpoena, and don't bother us again until you get one, and we won't even answer questions about whether that information is even available for retrieval either, until you show us a subpoena, warrant, or court order!" Or do they say something else?

I suspect they say something else. I suspect that Google has a very cozy relationship with the authorities in various countries. But the point is, there is nothing in Google's privacy policy that offers guidance on this crucial question.

[Chris Boggs]

After a few hubs you'll see, you can end up with some really neat" information :rolleyes:

Mikkel thanks for the excellent explanation. I see exactly what the process is now, even though I am "developer-mentally challenged :p ."

My next question is how much data that could be considered "private" could possibly be attached each time, and if this data keeps getting attached couldn't it slow down the process time with each additional bit of info? Wouldn't this be counter-productive in that sense?

It would seem fairly easy for me to have a law written that could limit such attached info to basic data that could be found using common analytical software that reports referring and exit domain? (of course a PPC "visit" may be allowed a few more "steps" logged - in order for both the portal and advertiser to see the exact path that was followed and track possible click-fraud) That may be enough to quell privacy uproar?

[projectphp]

If the FBI asks Google for this or that, will Google tell them, "Go get a subpoena, and don't bother us again until you get one, and we won't even answer questions about whether that information is even available for retrieval either, until you show us a subpoena, warrant, or court order!" Or do they say something else?
Good question Daniel! That is something worth asking. Required by law we give it when a legal entity asks vs we only give it when absolutely compelled by law is a huge difference!

What do you or anyone want Google other search engines to have as specific details?
1. How long they keep cookies for.
2. Will they store specifics (i.e. can they track back to me specifically) or will they use combined totals.
3. Who they will share data with.
4. Means of avoiding such issues (cookie deleting, never having cookies served etc).

On the Amazon A9.com privacy stuff, this is interesting:
Automatic Information: We receive and store certain types of information whenever you interact with us. For example, like many Web sites, we use cookies, and we obtain certain types of information when your Web browser accesses A9.com. Click here to see examples of the information we receive. If you would prefer not to be recognized on our site, we recommend that you use our alternate service located at generic.A9.com. On generic.A9.com, we will not recognize your A9.com or Amazon.com cookie. Information we gather on generic.A9.com will not be used in our data analysis (other than to detect abuse) and will not be used to personalize the services we offer you.

[AnthonyCea]

Danny, Google has a government division that sells services, it also sells services like Google maps to business users. I am sure that they will also sell data to local advertisers as the push for local search heats up, for example they will know who searches for pizza and Domino's and Papa John's will be interested in this data for sure.

I am sure if you have a few million to spend, Google will be happy to package some great data to help target the folks you are trying to sell, just like your publication provides media kits to advertisers.

On the privacy issue the following link provides some great information on the subject.

http://www.bizreport.com/news/9081/

[dannysullivan]

What I'm looking for is a statement from Google that says they will NOT cough up info UNLESS required by law.
So honestly, when they said they'd only give up information when "we conclude that we are required by law," I pretty much read that as being there's some legal compulsion to do so, not that Joe CIA agent is cozy with Larry and Sergey and so they slip them information with a wink and a nod.

Anything could happen that doesn't follow the stated policy, of course. But if you want to believe it, required as I read it means they are forced to do so, not that they thought it would be something to do just to help out.

Required by law we give it when a legal entity asks vs we only give it when absolutely compelled by law is a huge difference!
So perhaps they might change to say that, that they'll give up information when "we are absolutely compelled to" by law.

Will that work Everyman? If not, can you please say what exactly you'd like the policy to say? I feel like I'm beating my head against a table here. We can go on and on and debate and examine the existing policy. But you're being handed a clean slate to write down exacty what you'd like to see them and others do. I for once would like to know how you would do it if you were suddenly overnight appointed the Google privacy czar. I don't mean that negatively. I just honestly want to see what you'd have in place, so I can better understand possible weaknesses and problems with the existing system.

Danny, I have to disagree with you. I saw this happening with MSN years ago and I am sure many others do it now. I believe cross site cookie tracking is in fact one of reasons there are real concerns about cookies today.

Feel free to disagree -- I wasn't certain myself in that situation, and tried to make it clear. I just wasn't sure to the degree that cross-site tracking must involve more than one party.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I just wasn't sure to the degree that cross-site tracking must involve more than one party.

Actually, as I understands it cross site cookie tracking is widely done today - not for the reasons we discuss here, but because manye websites implement applications to run across multiple domains or sub-domains (for whatever reasons they have) and still need login info etc to be available in all parts of the application. If you search for the topic you'll find many detailed explanations of how it's done - including some commercial programs to help you do it.

So my point was just that:

1) It is easy to do
2) It is widely done (in general - not specificially in our business)
3) It is usually completely "hidden" for the users

Personally I don't like the fact that cookies have been devaluated by cross site tracking. In the early days of the Web I used the "fact" that you "could not do" cross site tracking as a good argument for NOT being afraid of cookies. Today that argument is, unfortunately, not valid. Personally I am sorry for that.

[AussieWebmaster]

It is real funny that Yahoo had it's little problem with Gator/Claira and now Microsoft is said to be looking real hard at a purchase of Claria.

Just think, with Microsoft browserless search and Claria collecting data on each click for Microsoft, we will have a data mining monster much worse than even Google can come up with.

At least everyone knows that Google is a known data miner.

How much do we know about Yahoo and Microsoft?
Actually they dropped the idea of acquiring Claria last week.

[AussieWebmaster]

All search engines are data mining operations, this includes IBM, Fast, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and many others like Claria who is now getting into the search business.

What they do with this information is no different than what other sellers of data do (credit reporting data providers). They all will find a way to package this data and sell it just like D&B, Nexis/Lexis and others do everyday.

The search engines/data mining companies will sell this data to SEM's. So what are we all complaining about here?

Those who should be complaining are the consumer groups, not those of us who will make money partnering with these data mining companies.
Don't think Claria is jumping into Search just yet. The Microsoft deal went south: http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3519521

Guess Microsoft did not want to have to deal with the spyware flack... as well as the scrutiny that this thread is giving Google right now.

[waN1141570]

Hello noce forum

[AussieWebmaster]

Hello noce forum
Welcome aboard WAN

[Jeff Martin]

Any characterization of data collection as "evil" makes me yawn-after a laugh. I’m not a card carrying NRA member, but many anti-gun people feel guns are "evil" which completely misses the point that it’s the people who use guns to commit crimes who are "evil". It’s the way the data is used that could be "evil".

I could care less if someone knows where I have shopped or eaten. or how much you make, what car you drive, what you pay for gas, where you buy your gas, how well do you pay your bills, do you view porn on the web... You see, once the train gets going its hard to stop. With the Patriot Act and other possible bills coming into legislation in the US privacy, especially for Americans, should be a serious concern.

Unfortunately, "unknowingly" often means "didn't read the TOS." Ignorance of a law doesn't make someone not subject to it, and ignorance of a policy should be the same. This argument hasn’t worked well for MS with their TOS' in the past. Needing to hire a lawyer every time you want to use a website is just too darn expensive.

Secondly: If you are worried about your emails possibly being read: don't email anyone. And next they can go live in a cave with no electricity and near a creek for water...and drop out of the business world altogether. I wonder if the Quakers are taking anyone in?

Being online is a choice, not a requirement. Unless you plan on joining the Quakers. I don’t think this statement will hold water for much longer, just like the use of running water and a sewer system. I could always choose to not use the toilet...

*Most* of the people who are frightened or scared about online privacy issues are scared because they don’t understand the online world. I understand it and have made a living out of it. Still scares the hell out of me to think about all of the tracking and profiling that could be done on me. This, not to stop a plane from flying into a building a killing thousands but so you know I might want the latest Usher single MP3.

I'd add to this that many don't understand the profiling that happens in the offline world, various databases that get combined to know a lot about you. We get concerned about the "could happen" with search engines while the "actually happening" with our offline data to me is sometimes frightening. Especially what the government alone could do with all the information out there.

You made the comparison to power (electricity). If you want power, you have to give certain information to the company that provides it. You have to surrender some of your privacy.[/QUOTE] To me, that’s different. That involves a financial agreement (like buying a car, for which you need a loan...unless your Danny) which isn’t the same as joe user searching for information about the Quakers he's going to need to join.

[AussieWebmaster]

Unless you plan on joining the Quakers. I don’t think this statement will hold water for much longer, just like the use of running water and a sewer system. I could always choose to not use the toilet...

Funny but it is a choice to go online or not... can you fall behind? yes but to suggest the Quakers live a lesser life because of that choice is a little narrow-minded... if anything the simpler life can be more rewarding.



.

You made the comparison to power (electricity). If you want power, you have to give certain information to the company that provides it. You have to surrender some of your privacy. To me, that’s different. That involves a financial agreement (like buying a car, for which you need a loan...unless your Danny) which isn’t the same as joe user searching for information about the Quakers he's going to need to join.
Society is a compromise of freedoms... the web - the closest thing to McLuhan's global village requires a few of them as well. Read the fine print and make the choices, but know that having and using the internet does not necessarily improve or hinder one's lot in life - it just provides services for which there are always some price.

[Jeff Martin]

Society is a compromise of freedoms Now thats scarry.

Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.Thanks Ben. Now with a marketing twist....

Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more marketing data deserve neither Liberty nor marketing data.

[AussieWebmaster]

Now thats scarry.

Thanks Ben. Now with a marketing twist....
LOL... but ultimately we do not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater (I think the example was) and equally the supreme Liberals believed everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want so long as it did not infringe on the freedoms of others... and in essence that is society!!!

Was feeling a little soap boxish....

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

and in essence that is society!!!

No, that is ONE society - more specifically the US :)

It's interesting to watch this thread and the privacy concerns raised. For many of us here in Europe, it's funny that, we "lost" a lot of the privacy you guys (and the Brittish) still seem to fight so hard for. We gave it up in return for something we think is better.

In Denmark we all have a central register number - called "CPR". You can't do anything without it - and it is issued to you within minutes of your birth. Everything we do, all bank accounts, all places of living and all contracts is tracked with this CPR number.

I have been brought up with this system - it's not new at all. I have also seen and "lived" the US/UK system and seen the differences close hand. I think you, Americans, seems to often pay a very high price for your concern for, may I say extreme privacy. Honestly a lot of things here just seems so much easier when perfect identification at all times is easy to do. People and governental offices are not so paranoid about you - they can trust you, because they can varify all details and track you down easily if they have to. OK, so it's more difficult to hide here but who does that really serve? I don't need to hide. Who does - besides criminals and highly paranoid individuals? Who does all this privacy really benifit, if I may ask?

Anyway, I am sorry if I am taking this off track. I just found it interesting to look at this discussion in this perspective ...

[AnthonyCea]

Don't think Claria is jumping into Search just yet. The Microsoft deal went south: http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3519521

Guess Microsoft did not want to have to deal with the spyware flack... as well as the scrutiny that this thread is giving Google right now.


It was quite idiotic in the first place for Gates and Balmer to consider a purchase of Gator/Claria since they are promoting their M$ anti-spyware cover up for their flawed OS and IE.

That is a public relations disaster (Windows OS & IE) and add Gator/GAIN/Claria to the mix would spell a bigger public relations problem for them.

Microsoft will find a way to lock out all other spyware vendors (Google and When U and Claria) just to engage in it their own way with Longhorn browserless search.

Funny that all these companies want access to the files on your hard drives folks, it is time we all wake up and quick.

This thread and the subject is going to be explosive more so than it has been in the past.

I see it as a great opportunity for revolutionary Linux OS like www.mepis.com to take great share from Microsoft, this OS (Simply Mepis) is catching on like wildfire in the community and will with business and consumers quickly.

PS: another article on Google privacy issues in the following link.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68235,00.html

[Jeff Martin]

In Denmark we all have a central register number - called "CPR". In the US it’s called a Social Security Number.

I don't need to hide. Who does - besides criminals and highly paranoid individuals? Who does all this privacy really benefit, if I may ask? That stems from the argument 'Why care about privacy when you have nothing to hide?"

Whether we feel we have something to hide or not, is it really anyone's else’s business if I prefer to drink Coke over Pepsi? Do they have a right to track my buying habits at the grocery store when I use my 'member's club card' if that 'right' is buried under a mountain of legalize that Joe Citizen needs a Harvard law degree to decipher? By the way that’s the only way to get the best price...what a hook.

To this day every time I refuse to sign-up for their card the cashiers always look at my like I’m weird (I mean more weird than when you tell people your a search engine marketer/optimizer). For Pete's sake I can't go to the hardware to by some tools without being asked for my phone number. What in the world do you need my phone number for...its a hammer????

I think this, however unfortunate, will come to be. Because Americans haven’t had to struggle as our Fore Fathers did to gain the rights we now have, we don’t value them as sacred as they are. So Company X says sign away some of your rights and I'll give you a break in your pocket book, then government Y says for national security we need to take away these rights. Before you know it you've given your rights away for cash and a false sense of security.

As much as I hate to say it I think privacy policies on the web will become more lax in the future. By even looking at a page in the site you will 'agreeing' to what ever their policies are.

Eventually you will not be able to separate the Internet from your everyday life...your finances, your job, government, health care, etc. and the web marketing vehicle, being what it is, will gladly swallow our information whole in order to provide " a seamless experience and to improve the quality of [their] services".

[bragadocchio]

I want to move more toward what the actual concerns are across the board for search and what solutions should be considered. So please -- what worries you on privacy? What are you afraid of? What would you like to see implemented?

In July of 1973, a report was issued by a committee from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has been commonly referred to as the HEW Report. It's longer name is Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm). For a good number of years, it influenced the thinking of the government, at least up until the passage of The USA PATRIOT Act, which has done a great deal to erode privacy rights.

The HEW Report inspired the Privacy Act of 1974 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html), and provided guidance on the use of the Social Security number, explaining the potential harm behind its use as a universal identification number.

There's a lot of great points made about privacy, and the protection of privacy in the HEW Report, and it might surprise you that a document from the early 1970s still holds a lot of relevance for today. Here's the definition of privacy that they come up with in the report:

Personal privacy, as it relates to personal-data record keeping must be understood in terms of a concept of mutuality. Accordingly, we offer the following formulation:

An individual's personal privacy is directly affected by the kind of disclosure and use made of identifiable information about him in a record. A record containing information about an individual in identifiable form must, therefore, be governed by procedures that afford the individual a right to participate in deciding what the content of the record will be, and what disclosure and use will be made of the identifiable information in it. Any recording, disclosure, and use of identifiable personal information not governed by such procedures must be proscribed as an unfair information practice unless such recording, disclosure or use is specifically authorized by law.

Privacy, under the HEW Report, isn't a matter of how much people know about us, as it is the ability for us to control what is known about us. Mikkel asks above "Who does - besides criminals and highly paranoid individuals? Who does all this privacy really benifit, if I may ask?"

The answer Mikkel, is that it empowers us to be the ones in control of that information, and not the government, nor some commercial enterprise that collects information about us, and can do with it whatever they want, without our say. We see this right to privacy in the Bill of Rights; within the first amendment which gives us the right to freely associate with whomever we want. We see it in the third amendment, which keeps us from having to quarter government soldiers during peaceful times. Justice Douglas, in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html) cited those examples, and more in describing a right to privacy:

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

It's not a question of needing to hide. Rather, it's a right to control the information about my life that I want to control. Maybe you can't appreciate that. I do. A lot of people died to earn that right, and to protect it.

But, I'm getting sidetracked. The HEW Report has some guidelines that may be appropriate here:

Safeguards for personal privacy based on our concept of mutuality in record-keeping would require adherence by record-keeping organizations to certain fundamental principles of fair information practice.


There must be no personal-data record-keeping systems whose very existence is secret.
There must be a way for an individual, to find out what information about him is in a record and how it is used.
There must be a way for an individual to prevent information about him obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without his consent.
There must be a way for an individual to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about him.
Any organization creating, maintaining, using, or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of the data.

These principles should govern the conduct of all personal-data record-keeping systems. Deviations from them should be permitted only if it is clear that some significant interest of the individual data subject, will be served or if some paramount societal interest can be clearly demonstrated; no deviation should be permitted except as specifically provided by law.

It's probably important to state that these guidelines weren't intended just for government organizations that collect information about people, but rather all "record-keeping organizations" under concepts of "fair information practice."

The Report suggests a couple of possible approaches to make sure that these guidelines are protected. One is an "a public ombudsman to monitor automated personal data systems." Another is a centralized federal agency "to regulate the use of all automated personal data systems."

The five guidelines listed above might be a framework that could be built upon by search engines to show that they are protecting our privacy. Some type of consumer advocate office, or ombudsman might help make sure that those guidelines were followed.

[Gurtie]

I'm really not sure I understand why people are so upset over what the SE's may or may not be doing, and none of the concerns people raise are, as far as I can see, Search Engine Issues.

Look. everything the SE's store personally identifiable data against you need to opt into, at the point of opting in they give you a long and in many cases (Google for example) overly cautious privacy policy to read and agree (I'm thinking specifically of how the gmail t&c explained that deletion may not mean deletion and how people got really worked up - so much for them trying to be totally honest huh? the only difference between gmail and any of the other systems was that Google were trying to explain to people that deletion can never be considered total removal, that's cya in a big way and all they got for it was abuse)

There is no 'essential' online service which requires you to have signed for any of these. Some of them make your online life more convenient, but you don't need them. If you don't want to give the data then don't. What's the problem?

As to all the theories about what the data could be used for, what could be done to it in the future, what evilness people could get up to with it - well yeah - in the UK we have something called the Data Protection Act. I suggest we lobby the US government for the same (since all the major SE's are in the US) as the US equivelant is meant to be weak and have a load of loopholes.

It isn't the responsibility of the SE's to set arbritrary regulations under which they'll operate (frankly I think we have quite enough of them setting their own 'laws' and I don't want to see more of it) it's the job of the regulatory bodies. The DPA does everything Bill setout from the HEW report and I'm sure the UK gov would be happy to make a copy available to the USA. In the meantime the SE's could voluntarily register under it. In fact I suspect that if we're in the UK and sign up on the UK sites they're required to work within it?

I am hugely concerned about privacy issues, but I'm also hugely realistic. Google et al are doing more than the majority of US corps do to make their policies clear and honest. In fact the reason that people get so tinfoil-hatty about them is largely because they point out (unlike other companies) where things people may percieve as a problem lie.

You have to remember the vast majority of internet users DO NOT CARE. The vast majority would hand over their list of passwords to Sergey tomorrow if he offered to swap it for a mars bar (http://www.bjhc.co.uk/news/1/2004/n40612.htm). The governments need to regulate this not the data collecters.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

In the US it’s called a Social Security Number.

No Jeff, It's nothing like that. Many americans think so but please check the details and you'll find that I am right. It's a completey different system

[dannysullivan]

The vast majority would hand over their list of passwords to Sergey tomorrow if he offered to swap it for a mars bar.
Well, maybe a Snickers bar with a nice special Google logo :)

[bragadocchio]

The DPA does everything Bill setout from the HEW report and I'm sure the UK gov would be happy to make a copy available to the USA. In the meantime the SE's could voluntarily register under it. In fact I suspect that if we're in the UK and sign up on the UK sites they're required to work within it?

Those are some excellent points, Gurtie.

I see that Google hasn't signed on to the Safe harbor list (http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/sh_overview.html) that the U.S. Department of Commerce has set up. Microsoft has. Yahoo! isn't listed either.

The seven safe harbor principles listed on the front page of the site I've linked to seem to echo those guidelines from the HEW Report, too.

Do any of the major search engines comply with the European Data protection laws?

[Jeff Martin]

You have to remember the vast majority of Internet users DO NOT CARE I would argue that the vast majority of Internet users DO NOT KNOW.

I know most of the people in my family don’t know. Most people aren’t even aware of the information in the HTTP headers that is sent about them.

You can't do anything without it - and it is issued to you within minutes of your birth. Everything we do, all bank accounts, all places of living and all contracts is tracked with this CPR number. I’m not expert on the CPR, however a Social Security Number is assigned to you at/near birth and you cant get a job, vote, get medical insurance (or any other kind of insurance), have a bank account, have a credit card, own or rent a home/apartment, own/rent a car, get electricity or water or cable TV and in some states I don’t think you can even be married US states. Based on that I would say it’s got to be pretty close.

It's not a question of needing to hide. Rather, it's a right to control the information about my life that I want to control. Maybe you can't appreciate that. I do. A lot of people died to earn that right, and to protect it. As a disabled veteran I, along with many other veterans, can tell you that having served to protect those rights gives you a unique perspective of them.

[Chris Boggs]

I’m not a card carrying NRA member, but many anti-gun people feel guns are "evil" which completely misses the point that it’s the people who use guns to commit crimes who are "evil". It’s the way the data is used that could be "evil".

Obviously we are in agreement here. However the classification of marketers as evil is a bit of a stretch...say like comparing the SSN to a Danish CPR. What the Danish CPR and evil marketers should maybe be compared to is that microchip that the U.S. Govt is secretly starting to implant in babies :p Marketers only have the power to market. They cannot take demographic data, for example, and send people to concentration camps based on it.


or how much you make, what car you drive, what you pay for gas, where you buy your gas, how well do you pay your bills, do you view porn on the web... You see, once the train gets going its hard to stop. With the Patriot Act and other possible bills coming into legislation in the US privacy, especially for Americans, should be a serious concern.

so this all comes down to whether you view porn on the net? ;) :p who cares? The only person I wouldn't want to know that would be my wife...I could care less who else does. That's why they have junk email filters. These arguments are all about things that you should expect to be somewhat public info when you are part of a capitalist system. I mean does your car have some sort of cloaking technology? Can you buy a car on credit without a credit report? Everyone knows everyone pays too damn much for gas, but that's another issue.


This argument hasn’t worked well for MS with their TOS' in the past. Needing to hire a lawyer every time you want to use a website is just too darn expensive.

yes but its your omen to do so if you are too bothered to read the fine print, IMO.


And next they can go live in a cave with no electricity and near a creek for water...and drop out of the business world altogether. I wonder if the Quakers are taking anyone in?...Unless you plan on joining the Quakers. I don’t think this statement will hold water for much longer, just like the use of running water and a sewer system. I could always choose to not use the toilet...


These are the funniest comments you make. Here you summarize exactly what you said earlier: that you want to live in a capitalist system without the "playing by the rules." Do you want to have a secret electricity and water bill delivered by pigeon straight from the utilities to an unknown address where your cloaked Volvo is parked in your garage bearing gas that only costs $1.59, while you watch porn on a private T1 line directly from Las Vegas?


I understand it and have made a living out of it. Still scares the hell out of me to think about all of the tracking and profiling that could be done on me. This, not to stop a plane from flying into a building a killing thousands but so you know I might want the latest Usher single MP3.

Especially what the government alone could do with all the information out there.

You made the comparison to power (electricity). To me, that’s different. That involves a financial agreement (like buying a car, for which you need a loan...unless your Danny) which isn’t the same as joe user searching for information about the Quakers he's going to need to join.

Wait a second...you just said you don't want people to know how well you pay your bills...which is it? An "average joe" cannot search Google to get your credit history. It is either done legitimately or by criminals. This is what the whole point of this thread is, however. Can we make search engines liable for the loss of search-behavior information to hackers/criminals/evil marketers? Should there be a limit to the amount of info that can be attached to a single search string? The answer is yes, IMO.

I choose to ride the fence here so that we can continue to allow marketers that provide a service (i.e.the G toolbar) with legitimate TOS's to track information, but that the amount of information that is attached to such tracking "strings" be limited.


I think this, however unfortunate, will come to be. Because Americans haven’t had to struggle as our Fore Fathers did to gain the rights we now have, we don’t value them as sacred as they are. So Company X says sign away some of your rights and I'll give you a break in your pocket book, then government Y says for national security we need to take away these rights. Before you know it you've given your rights away for cash and a false sense of security.

As much as I hate to say it I think privacy policies on the web will become more lax in the future. By even looking at a page in the site you will 'agreeing' to what ever their policies are.

Eventually you will not be able to separate the Internet from your everyday life...your finances, your job, government, health care, etc. and the web marketing vehicle, being what it is, will gladly swallow our information whole in order to provide " a seamless experience and to improve the quality of [their] services".


Wow you really have this all figured out don't you? :p

I do appreciate your eloquence and passion in regards to this subject, Jeff.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

As a disabled veteran I, along with many other veterans, can tell you that having served to protect those rights gives you a unique perspective of them.

With all respect, the wars various American governments have chosen to fight over time has not always been very well supported by most Europeans and even many Americans. Thats your choice - but it's not mine :) The fact that some people got hurt or died in those wars dosn't really influence the way I, and I suppose many others, look at privacy issues.

[Jeff Martin]

so this all comes down to whether you view porn on the net? who cares? I would (discliamer to wife:No, I dont honey!) after all what busines is it of yours?

These arguments are all about things that you should expect to be somewhat public info when you are part of a capitalist system. Thats not what our Fore Fathers thought when they wrote our Bill of Rights and thats not what the US Government thought when it drafted The Privacy Act of 1974.

I mean does your car have some sort of cloaking technology? Can you buy a car on credit without a credit report? This isnt about seeking to be in a financial agreement with a business/institution. This is about our information seeping out to those who have no right to it, like you sitting in front of your PC. This is why we have certain laws to protect the viewing of our credit reports (far from perfect).

yes but its your omen to do so if you are too bothered to read the fine print, IMO. Again, if the TOS cant be understood by Joe Citizen without a lawyer over thier shoulder or having a law degree themselves then Joe Citizen is at a disadvantage and could quite well be intimidated.

Do you want to have a secret electricity and water bill delivered by pigeon straight from the utilities to an unknown address where your cloaked Volvo is parked in your garage bearing gas that only costs $1.59, while you watch porn on a private T1 line directly from Las Vegas? Again, I am entering into a financial arrangement with the electric company. As faw as watching porn on the T1, again, what business would it be of yours. If I bought the porn then thats a financial agreement Ive entered into with the provider. Outside of the provider its no one elses business.

Wait a second...you just said you don't want people to know how well you pay your bills...which is it? Again, If Im entering into a financial arrangement to make payments to someone over time then they have a right to know how well I pay my bills...you wouldn't and neither would the government.

[Gurtie]

Well, maybe a Snickers bar with a nice special Google logo :)
but that'd just be nuts :D

[Jeff Martin]

With all respect, the wars various American governments have chosen to fight over time has not always been very well supported by most Europeans and even many Americans. You mean like the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812? Well I could see how Brits (not those in Denmark though) might still be sensitive to that one...with 'The Colonies' driving them out for good.

Its from the Revolutionary War that the US was created and drafted the rights to privacy I have been talking about. Just because technology makes our life easier shouldnt mean that we are requried to fork over those rights.

BTW Mikkel, you dont have to go to war to be a veteran, I was assisting with rendering aid and protecting the Serbs in with the Bosnia-Herzegovina crisis.

[AussieWebmaster]

Well, maybe a Snickers bar with a nice special Google logo :)
The logo would definitely do it for me.

[mcanerin]

I was in the middle of a suggested re-write of Googles Privacy Policy as a response and one of the stupid ads on this page rotated, which apparently causes a refresh and kills your replies. Note to Jupiter: When I spend 20 minutes trying to make a well thought out post instead of punching out a quick "me too" I should not be rewarded by having the post erased halfway through it. :mad:

Anyway...

I guess I'll just type quickly and note that when you are making a privacy policy for a single brand, the privacy policy should cover the whole brand unless it's made really, really clear on the sub-site in question that it isn't. For example, Googles Privacy policy consists of one main one, that constantly refers to "links on the side of the page" for more information.

While this might sound like a nice useability design (easy to read) every one of these links lead to a full fledged privacy policy for a specific service, rather than a clarification of the main one in context. That's bad, IMO. You should not have to check a dozen privacy policies and cross reference them everytime you visit a site just to figure out what they are collecting and what they plan to do with it.

If you provide a seemless experience, you should provide a seemless privacy policy. Anything else is a "bait and switch".

I'm still mad about my post being deleted (sorry - "refreshed") so I'll stop here and try to break this into pieces.

Ian

[mcanerin]

"Personally identifying information" is information that individually identifies you, such as your name, physical address or email address. You can find more details about the data we collect on particular services by clicking the links on the side of this page. Source: http://www.google.com/privacy.html

Once again, the links thing.

Additionally, this definition of Personally indentifying information" is the crux and heart of all privacy policies, and therefore should be the strongest part of it. In this case, it's not. For example, most people assume that your name and phone number are "personally identifiable, however, if you look at your local telephone company website you'll probably see that they consider anything printed in the phone book (ie your name and phone number) to be public and not "personally identifiable". NEVER assume that you know what someone means by "personally identifiable" unless they spell it out in context.

As another example, personally identifiable in Canada usually means things like race, fingerprints, marital status, heath records, education, and home address, but does not include your name, job title and business address/phone number. Basically anything you would put on a business card and hand out. Additionally, in Canada, a business is not allowed to withold services or products if a consumer refuses to give over personally information (unless that information is required for the transaction, like a credit card number, etc). http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/02_05_d_08_e.asp . This is NOT true is the US and other countries. Canadians no longer have to supply our phone number just to buy a hammer, to use an earlier example.

Here is, IMO, some required/best practice elements for a privacy policy:

1. A date of effectiveness. You'll note that Googles is dated July 1, 2004. This is the date of effectiveness of the California Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires this. And it's a good idea even if you are not based in California.

2. Clearly outline the categories of data that the website collects and how. Cookies, forms, headers, logs, etc.

3. Clearly identify which of this information is personally identifiable

4. Detail the definition of "personally identifiable" when used in context of this privacy policy. Personally identifiable can mean different things to different people.

5. Detail the uses of the information (including sharing or making available to third or related parties), clearly indicating which information is aggragate and which is personally identifiable.

6. Clearly identify the related websites and companies that are considered "internal" or "affiliated" and not "third party". Also, any URLs that this policy covers should be specifically outlined.

7. Describe the process that would allow a consumer to access and correct/change the information collected, and whether such a process exists.

8. Describe how consumers can learn of changes to the privacy policy.

9. The privacy policy should be directly accessable from both the front page and any page that collects information.

10. The length of time that a piece of information is kept after collection should be stated.

11. Prior versions of the Privacy policy (along with dates) should be kept and accessible.

12. Provide notice before any personally identifying information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy.

13. Provide a method for opting out of (and the method for doing so) third party information sharing OR specificaly stating that there is no option to do so.

14. Contact information regarding the privacy policy should be given, preferably including the legal address. This should be the person or office that actually deals with privacy issues.

15. Outline (generally) what steps you have taken internally to secure information. These would include manadatory privacy protection clauses in employee contracts, the use of secure servers, and so forth.

16. Data collection and distribution policies regarding children and minors (and the definition of such (ie under 13, under 18, etc) should be clearly spelled out. I would strongly suggest never sharing it externally for any reason, but that's my opinion. Regardless, it should be spelled out, not assumed. If the site does not distiguish based on age (or does not collect age based information) then that should be described, too.


Notes: The Direct Marketing Association has a fairly good Privacy Policy Generator that you may be interested in: http://www.the-dma.org/privacy/creating.shtml

I really like how 101 Communications has set up their Privacy Policy, especially with the contextual Opt-outs: http://www.101com.com/privacy.asp

Ian

[mcanerin]

Do you want to have a secret electricity and water bill delivered by pigeon straight from the utilities to an unknown address where your cloaked Volvo is parked in your garage bearing gas that only costs $1.59, while you watch porn on a private T1 line directly from Las Vegas

Uhhh.... Yes. Doesn't everyone? ;)

Kidding aside, although there are always compromises necessary in real life, they are often a lot less than people would have you think. A good compromise is one where there is a direct connection of one side to the other.

Example:

"you need to give me your health records so I can check treat you for this illness" - Yes

"you need to give me your health records so I can sell you a hammer" - No.

In general, a rule of thumb I would be happy with would be that agraggate (anonymous) information may be collected most of the time in exchange for providing a service, but personal information that could be used to commit a crime or incite hate against a person (such as identity theft, racial profiling, etc) should be only collected with permission, only the minimum necessary to complete the transaction should be collected, and substantial safeguards should be in place regarding it's security.

A recent example was when a website supporting a Jewish hospital collected names, addresses and emails of the supporters of the hospital, and also collected whether they were Jewish or not. Seems harmless, no?

They later sold that list to an "opt-in" email company, who then in turn sold this list to a neo-nazi group. :rolleyes: By the way, this was perfectly legal at every step of the way at the time.

The people collecting this information did so because they were marketers. They no doubt felt that collecting someones religion and/or race was a legitimate marketing statistic for things like fundraising for certain projects. I'm sure there was no malice intended.

There was also no thought. No interest in data security. There was only the desire to segment a market without regard for the individuals involved.

At no point should a marketers commercial interests take precedence over an individuals safety or security. And no, I don't accept the "they consented" arguement. Those people on the list consented to helping fund a hospital, not to turning their names and person information to a third party wishing them harm. Personally, I don't think a disclaimer of "we may share this information with interested third parties" is sufficient. It should not have been collected in the first place.

My opinion,

Ian

[Chris Boggs]

I was in the middle of a suggested re-write of Googles Privacy Policy as a response and one of the stupid ads on this page rotated, which apparently causes a refresh and kills your replies. Note to Jupiter: When I spend 20 minutes trying to make a well thought out post instead of punching out a quick "me too" I should not be rewarded by having the post erased halfway through it. :mad: ...

Ian

funny that happened to me once and I was wondering why. the ad refresh is obviously the answer. now whenever I am making a long post I just write it in Word and copy it over when I am done...

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

so THAT'S whats happening!

This needs to be fixed before anything else on this board, in my opninion. It's a bloo.. pain in the bu.. for exactly the kind of posters we want to encourage! :)

[Gurtie]

Personally, I don't think a disclaimer of "we may share this information with interested third parties" is sufficient. It should not have been collected in the first place.
I'm thinking more and more this is a US issue then, because here in the Uk, and through most of Europe I think, you'd be hard pressed to find an online privacy policy for any legitimate site which would allow any marketing of the compiled list. Sometimes the company 'may send you offers from carefully vetted partners offering products we believe may be of interest to you' but in general the company that collects the data holds the data and deals with the complaints if they happen.

Obviously there are exceptions to that, most notably the survey companies, but again it's clear and you don't complete the survey about your financial details and pet food buying habits unless you want to.

In relation to this thread I don't think you can really accuse the SE's of sharing information with interested third parties. googles Privacy Policy says We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. We may share such information in any of the following limited circumstances:

* We have your consent.
* We provide such information to trusted businesses or persons for the sole purpose of processing personally identifying information on our behalf. When this is done, it is subject to agreements that oblige those parties to process such information only on our instructions and in compliance with this Privacy Policy and appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
* We conclude that we are required by law or have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public.

it also says
In the event of a transfer of ownership of Google Inc., such as acquisition by or merger with another company, we will provide notice before any personally identifying information is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy.
so I do keep coming back to - where's the problem?

That there's an issue with the handling of personal data online in general I'll accept. That the SE's are guilty of poor policies about data I really don't accept. I can't say whether they have good security, their staff steal data or they play 'guess the SEO' games at the GooglePlex parties based on the sites you've visited, but as far as what they state they do and how moral/upstanding/correct that is I think they have it right.

So what if they'll provide data to the government on demand?. So would I - if they come into my office with armed police I'm handing over the keys to the filing cabinet and every password we have. I'm not quite sure what some people expect them to do?

I'd like the SE's to comply fully with the DPA but in most cases they meet it. That's above and beyond since the US laws are so lax. In all honesty the non-personally identifiable data they hold is of course personally identifiable if a court order requires the ISP and anyone else necessary also provide their records, but as far as the SE's know that isn't personal data, they have to be allowed to draw a line based upon what they alone can do to associate you with other things.

And I can't believe you've got me defending the search engines :rolleyes:

[mcanerin]

We do not rent or sell your personally identifying information to other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent. We may share such information in any of the following limited circumstances:

* We have your consent....

From Google.

And I can't believe you've got me defending the search engines

ROFL!

The problem is that G and others may be perfectly trustworthy. But to throw some latin your way: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

Or.. who will watch the watchers?

Question, looking at the quote above from G's privacy policy, it seems pretty clear that they will specifically ask for express permission before sharing information. Fine.

But lets look at that, shall we? Have YOU ever been asked if Google can send your info to others expressly? Me neither.

So the question is, is this a case of them having never done it but intending to ask if they ever do, or a case of them not following their own privacy policy?

Ian

[AnthonyCea]

The entire problem can be solved by outlawing the transmission of data (URL tracking with toolbars and other means) to any third party, this would make all spyware illegal and this is the only way to solve the problem, the industry will not solve this problem because they are against this solution.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

yes, that sounds like an easy solution - all you have to do now is "just" convince every single nation in the world to make that law :) I wish you the best of luck ... you'll need it

[Gurtie]

So the question is, is this a case of them having never done it but intending to ask if they ever do, or a case of them not following their own privacy policy?

who knows?

but in the case of this thread that's not really an issue - if our only answer to 'How should SE's protect privacy?' is "follow their stated privacy policy properly" and we have no evidence to say they don't (well certainly I don't see any evidence of that) then they just need to keep on doing what they do now.

If they're not following their privacy policy then they're breaking the law aren't they? The privacy policy must form part of a contract between the user and Google? In which case if someone can prove they aren't they should sue them and I'll accept 10% of the winnings for that advice.

Discussions like this are interesting and relevant to the internet in general - but more than a little unfair if we start pointing specifically to Search Engines - admittedly I probably feel like this because I think in terms of marketing and data collection is pretty important for that but discouraging people from trusting a company which has never given us any reason not to trust them (at least in this area - lets not talk about how they treat webmasters :) ) is unfair to both the company and to the users who may actually get real benefit at no data protection cost imho.

Sometimes the risk is worth the benefit. I think you have to gamble in life occasionally and giving my data to Google is a pretty safe bet for most people I'd say (except of course I don't because my seo-paranoia kicks in)

[dannysullivan]

And I can't believe you've got me defending the search engines
It's the chocolate rush. It can make people do the craziest things.

I'm really not sure I understand why people are so upset over what the SE's may or may not be doing, and none of the concerns people raise are, as far as I can see, Search Engine Issues.
I agree. Many of these issues are not search specific. What is search specific is that search engines know a lot about your intentions and desires.

I've called them a "reverse broadcast" system in the past because they allow you to broadcast to the world what you are interested in. Smart advertisers learn how to tune into this. But advertisers don't have the ability to tune into a complete record of everything you've wanted over times.

John Battelle's been calling search engines a "database of intentions," if I recall. It's an even better analogy. They have a good idea of things you want and are interested in, from "used cars" to "excuse services for someone having an affair" to "penis stuck in bottle." Honest -- that last one is a real query one person at a major search engine saw come across. They have this unique database that potentially could be married with other databases.

It's still not perfect. They still won't know if it's exactly you in some cases (my wife sits at my computer, suddenly Google thinks I love flowers, Cath Kidson and Suzanna and Trinny. Geez!). But they've got valuable new data.

Now ultimately, I think when you use such public services, you are going to risk your privacy a bit. All the protection in the world still may not stop that grumpy 19 year old temp employee disgruntled that they didn't share in the Googillions of the IPO nor a government that cares to set aside the law.

Still, it's nice to know at least what it is they're not supposed to be violating, so that if someone does get caught, you've got something to accuse them of.

With the search engines, I come back to the Search Privacy Bill Of Rights idea. I don't want the lawyerista language. I want a plain, easy to understand rundown on what they will or will not do, addressing major concerns. And there are a few search specific concerns that make sense. Not "what we do with your data" but "what we do with your searches." Imagine:

+ When you search, we keep a record of what you looked for.
+ If you've never registered with us for a Google Account, then all we know about "you" is that you use a particular computer you've seen before.
+ If you've registered for a Google Account, then we know "you" to be someone who has given us an email address.
+ If you are an AdWords advertiser or and AdSense customer, then we know "you" much more specifically, such as your name, billing address.
+ In all of these cases, we only keep a record of what you looked for over 30 days.
+ After 30 days, we remove any type of ability to track you back to anything. We replace IP addresses (that's like your internet telephone number) with randomly-created made up ones. Account information is removed.
+ We do this so we can still use data for historical reasons over time but without the concerns someone might have that we'd track you some how.
+ For ads that we track, specific data on clickthrough is retained for up to two years, because we need that for auditing purposes.
+ We will never, ever give your data to any government agency unless the force us to by law
+ We will never, ever give your data to a third party, not even if they offer us a candy bar.

There's been some good ideas like this put out here already, so I'm eagerly watching what else comes in.

I was in the middle of a suggested re-write of Googles Privacy Policy as a response and one of the stupid ads on this page rotated, which apparently causes a refresh and kills your replies.
Sorry about that -- though it has never, ever happened to me -- and I've left things up for a long period as well.

I'm paranoid, though. If I get going, I end up opening up a blank email and compose in there. I especially always copy whatever I'm about to save so that if there's a save glitch, I've still got it. Habit I formed over the years of things going bad occasionally when saving at various forums.

Can you bring it up in the mod area, and Elis. can have someone look into it.

[Chris Boggs]

I agree. Many of these issues are not search specific. What is search specific is that search engines know a lot about your intentions and desires.

I've called them a "reverse broadcast" system in the past because they allow you to broadcast to the world what you are interested in. Smart advertisers learn how to tune into this. But advertisers don't have the ability to tune into a complete record of everything you've wanted over times.

Danny this got me thinking. I was wondering how to reply to those that feel this is not an SE issue, but you bring up a frankly scary point. I have up to now been focusing only on the "evil" marketers' ability to get this search data, but let's further the talk about government rights to such data.

Let's paint two scenarios:

Searcher #1 is a known "trouble maker" (for lack of a better word). He/she is approximately 16-26 and has had numerous incidents reflected on his criminal record that indicate a general tendency to be "anti-social" (I will not elaborate on this but think here racist, violently anti-government, etc...). First of all, his computer habits are probably already somewhat monitored, at least here in the US by the FBI.

Should Google report this searcher to authorities if he starts searching for terms like "al queda in Washington DC" or "local terrorist cells?" Yes these are extreme but it could happen. Other less localized terror-specific terms could also be targeted for monitoring. (Of course the government if monitoring his/her CPU already could easily track search behavior.)

I have heard claims that since the Patriot Act, all emails are scanned for particular phrases. Assuming this were true, could the government then be entitled to monitor all searches? Would Google and other search engines be responsible for this? This leads to searcher 2.

Searcher 2 is a college student writing a report about Al Queda. If he/she follows the same searching patterns as above, is he subject to such monitoring, and subsequent increased monitoring?

My opinion on this, now that it is focused on search, is mixed. As an American that fears the possibility of potential terror attacks on US soil by long-standing US citizens (it is happening in the UK), I would say it is within the governments rights to ask search engines to monitor all search behavior for specific phrases or tendencies. As a fence-sitter that often leans left, I cry out and cite the example of the college student that may have his/her door busted down by a SWAT team, very a-la 1984 and other "classics" such as Judge Dredd. :p

[mcanerin]

That's a good point Chris, though I suspect that even if a search engine had a privacy policy that covered that kind of surviellance, that the police, with warrant in hand, could easily override it and perform the equivilent of a "search wiretap", making this more of a government issue than a search engine issue.

One other issue. As a personal matter, I don't mind if a company knows that I fall into a certain market segment (ie male, mid-30's, geek...). It may actually make my life a little better so that I don't suffer through ads informing me that I can feel "fresh" by using the newest tampon on the market. I don't even want to know how that would be applied to me :eek:

From a marketing standpoint, what more do you need? I know lots of people who horde knowledge whenever given a chance, and want to know everything about a potential customer "in case it's useful one day".

Frankly, they scare me, since they don't even have a reason to collect that much information, it just makes them feel better. No, you are not allowed to feel better by collecting enough information on me that it would be easy to put me (or my family) at risk because "I might want that information one day".

I would be much happier about being placed into several "market segments" rather than my file being separate, identifiable and personal. To use an example from Danny's post, even if the marketer thought that Danny was suddenly also in the "flower lover' segment, that might simply be good info around gift giving times :)

As a market segment, it might be useful, as a description of a person, it's inaccurate (I assume).

In my view, the issue isn't so much about privacy policies, as to what information is being collected and used in the first place. If you don't have the sensitive information in the first place, then there is no possibility of a security breach causing an issue if (or perhaps I should say when) it happens.

For example, I trust Visa, but recently they had serious issues with a processor ( http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,68257,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8 ) over the company taking the information and using it for "market research". The problem is marketers wanting more information than they are entitled to or need.

We've already run into scenarios with Google, for example, having one hand unaware of what the other is doing (Them banning themselves comes to mind). Real Networks (http://news.com.com/RealNetworks+faced+with+second+privacy+suit/2100-1001_3-232766.html) and Alexa/Amazon (http://pages.alexa.com/settlement/complaint.html) have both been sued for violating their own privacy policies.

I think it's clear that an important aspect of a privacy policy is not only that it's clear, but it also should include taking the LEAST amount of information from a visitor that is practical, rather than attempting to collect the most allowable.

In short, a "privacy policy" isn't a document or webpage, it's an actual policy. You know, as in part of how a company operates.

Ian

[Gurtie]

I think it's clear that an important aspect of a privacy policy is not only that it's clear, but it also should include taking the LEAST amount of information from a visitor that is practical, rather than attempting to collect the most allowable.

In short, a "privacy policy" isn't a document or webpage, it's an actual policy. You know, as in part of how a company operates.

While I agree in principal the problem lies in as in part of how a company operates.
Lets pick on Google (it's fun and they don't know my address) - what do they actually do? They may have started as a couple of students writing a program for kicks and to be the best but now they earn their money from data aquisition.

Where is search headed? Well given the amount of irrelevant sites being returned we all pretty much agree that the future is in personalisation.

So this is a company which needs to collect data to a) maintain their search business which enables them to earn money and b) sell (directly or indirectly, identifiable or not) to earn more money.

If I owned Google I'd want as much data as I could get. Data is knowledge, knowledge is power and (selling) power is money.

I don't see any point being idealistic about this. If they aren't actually breaking the law, and aside from a couple of niceties they'll throw in to retain their good guy image, they're going to keep all the info they can.

Ultimately people do vote with their feet. Fine, at the moment *normal* people don't care/know/realise what data people have. I don't know about the US but in the UK one juicy Google scandal which middle England (aka - Daily Mail readers) gets hold of and Yahoo are going to gain market share quicker than you can swap your adsense budget to yahoo.

[AussieWebmaster]

While the privacy issue will be around for a long time... hey remember Homeland security here has cart blanche so why bother... I think the claim of poor results and a move to personaliszation is a little premature.

The results I see at Google and Yahoo are good.... give or take they both provide relevant sites... MSN is getting there too.

[Everyman]

"Personally identifiable" needs to be defined very carefully. Another area which privacy policies don't cover is "geographically identifiable."

If you think this is off the wall, consider a compan