Comments on: Debunking Google's log anonymization propaganda

Company says it will be reduce the amount of time that it will keep sensitive, identifying log data on its search engine customers. This is little more than snake oil.

[Super2online]

NICE JOB Chris! I'm very impressed with what you have provided the consumer. Now it's our turn to jump on the bandwagon and demand that Google remove 100% of the IP address AND cookie information at the 9 month time frame or sooner. Well Google- what do you have to say for yourself?

[atici]

I think your conclusions are heavy handed. If one uses google, one should familiarize themselves with their privacy policies. If one finds it unacceptable, there are always alternative search engines. Also one can for instance use anonymity software (such as Tor). By sending packets to google or anyone on the internet you accept to give away the information in your packets.

These policies mentioned do not make google evil. Google does not have any obligation to people other than those stated in their terms of privacy. They give people a free service of course they expect something in return. And if you think you can form a business that not only provides better privacy but also better search results, all the power to you...

What is your recommendation? That the government pass laws to interfere with "evil" entities on the internet? Do you really think that will end up providing better service to the people?

I don't work for google however I am a strong supporter of privacy and freedom over the internet (I donate to eff). But with "privacy" on the internet I understand that the information you did not give away cannot be demanded from you nothing more. And with freedom on the internet, I understand that every entity on the internet is free including google.

[CooperWBC]

I think we all can agree that privacy on the internet is a laughable idea at times, but the point of this article isn't to point out how bad privacy is. The point is to show how google is decieving its users with "Feel Good" procedures.

think if you had to give someone your address, phone number, SSN, CC# or any other peice of private information. they assure you that the information will be shredded after you leave to make sure they cannot retain it and misuse it. Then you come to find out that all they do to 'shred' the paper is to rip it in half once down the middle. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find the two parts, put them back to geather and reconstruct the information and make the 'shreding' useless.

This is what google is doing, with a smile they are telling you, 'oh your information is completely private after this date', but really behind the scenes it doesn't even matter. while i would like more privacy on the interwebs, i realize that is kind of futile... but i do have a big problem with corporations obfusticating the truth.

[BenjaminWright]

If Google can assert its legal terms just by publishing them (on something less than its homepage), then maybe users can assert their own terms of privacy protection just by publishing them! A user might say in her published terms of service that search engines cannot keep records of her searches longer than 2 weeks. What do you think? --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-privacy-policy-terms-of-service.html My ideas are not legal advice for anyone, just something to discuss.

[atici]

Sure, that makes a lot of sense. You could also go to a grocery store and offer half the money for what you purchased.

What would actually be reasonable is search results that you pay real money for in exchange for no cookie/ip tracking or ad delivery. I believe that would be possible relatively soon.

[dannysullivan]

They deserve (as do Microsoft and Yahoo, where the same issues apply), to be called out if they're not anonymizing cookies as well. But is that the case? You've said it hasn't identified how it will anonymize cookies -- not that they won't do this at all.

I covered these same issues when the program was first announced last year:
http://searchengineland.com/070314-180307.php

In that, I spent some time addressing the cookie issue as well. And my understanding was that these too would get anonymized.

I agree, I'd like to see a lot more details out there about what's actually happening, how far back they've gone already, etc. And if cookies aren't getting anonymized, yep, that's not helping the overall goal. But you don't know this is the case.

[buggermenot]

Why would I allow Google to set a permanent cookie? Or do you have evidence that they profile my browser so that they can link it to past sessions?

[avj24]

Good article Chris. Google has always demonstrated this behavior with regards to privacy , the company believes that it and its so called algorithm should be not questioned or asked about it.

Google has always and will continue put its revenue stream ahead of its user's privacy , that is the main reason for their spyware product called Chrome

Google operates under the stated policy of that GOOGLE knows best

[clixx13]

@buggermenot:
You don't have to consent to it, it's their search engine works.
@atici
In your first paragraph, you highly underestimate the abilities of the average web-surfer. The everyday Googler or the casual yahoo-emailer. Not everyone knows about Tor; most people aren't even aware there's a reason to use applications like it. You also seem to assume that everyone on the internet knows what's being taken from them- a majority of them don't. It's a simple fact. Moving past that, though..
In your second paragraph, I really lost you, though. Why is it crucial to keep unique identifying information of every searcher in order to provide search results? No, Google is not "evil", and no, they do not have any obligation to the user beyond what is stated in their Privacy Policy. However, what is happening here is this: Google is pulling the wool over the eyes of the everyday internet user. It promises a higher level of anonymity, yes, but how high? "High", as in completely anonymous, or "High" as in, I'll be able to stand in a line of 200 people and hope someone doesn't pick me? That's the distinction here. As Chris said, Microsoft completely deletes ALL identifying information in the time frame within which Google is promising that, perhaps, you can stand in a crowd without being noticed.

I dont think Google is evil, but these tactics are scary, coming from such a reputed and supposedly upstanding company. Why do they need this information, why are they seemingly fighting so hard to keep it, and why won't they just come out and SAY what they are doing instead of waiting for someone like Chris to tell us?

[mburdett]

I spoke to Google about their new privacy policy last Wednesday -- see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/09/10/18534988.php -- and found that they will not be anonymizing logs of users who are logged in to their Google account. Only logs pertaining to unauthenticated users of the search engine are affected by the new policy. Anyone using Google services while logged in to an account could expect their logs to be retained by Google forever and available to third parties via subpoena, search warrant, or other court order.

[invenio]

Two notes from my end:
1) I usually get a new IP address assigned from my ISP every time I re-connect to their servers. However Chris, if I read your article right it shouldn't matter how much of an IP address is retained since the cookie will always identify you (if you conduct a search again within two years - who doesn't).

2) Couldn't we all circumvent Google's cookie retention policy by simply deleting cookies at the end of a session? I have set Firefox to delete this when I close it down.

[slackgen]

I dont think Google is evil, but these tactics are scary . http://www.onlineflashgames.org

[slackgen]

I dont think Google is evil, but these tactics are scar[url=http://www.onlineflashgames.org]y[/url]

[abdul0k27]

These policies mentioned do not make google evil. Google does not have any obligation to people other than those stated in their terms of privacy.
regards,
<a href="http://www.thedayoffdiet.com/">Biggest Loser Fan</a>

[marc72]

to chris,

The article about Google was enlightening as well a fortifying my fears about them. I read some rather frightening news accounts; "Google retains every keystoke the public maks, bundles them and have sold millions of data lines to the Mexican government as well as Russia and China. Then someone turned me on to a: Google + evil search.

I have recently started using BING exclusively. My concern about Microsoft's policy set me to researching. This is a query I sent to Seachengineland, asking if they were operating different then Google.
******************************************************

The reply: Well, Google doesn?t tell your every keystroke to governments. In fact, they actually fought the US government in a well publicized case to prevent a demand for some data back in 2006 ? and won.

Google also deletes data and was, in fact, the first of the major search engines to agree to a destruction plan like this. My last update on the situation is here:


http://searchengineland.com/anonymizing-googles-server-log-data-hows-it-going-15036


That covers the situation with Microsoft. They destroy data, as well. Neither will destroy it immediately after you leave their site, but in a few months, it?s supposed to go. Unless you log into them, the know virtually nothing about you. An IP address which isn?t that revealing and can change depending on your ISP. A cookie that you can refused if you configure your browser. The services work just as well without them.
****************************************************
My reply back was why any corporation, while providing a search service (and using our existance to satisfy advertisers), would suddenly have dominion over our search event. 9 months to a year and a half is a long time.
And why, after is might search for a beach umbrella, my phone is suddenly inundated with telemarketer calls from suntan lotion, bathing suit, beach front properties and sandbox salesmen! Maybe that's the cost of getting a free search.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Marcus