141–150 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would a search engine that doesn't look at your search string work?
Of course it needs your query string, but it could run your search and then forget about it. Arguably Google was better when it didn't take your history into account when calculating the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Retaining my data makes it easier for Google to give me good results in the future. The problem is not that Google stores your data. The problem is that disclosing that data has social and legal consequences. Why shoot the messenger?
I think they should allow us to opt out of retaining our data.
I am not worried about search / email / etc., though, I am worried about Analytics. I would like to be able to globally disable it. (NoScript solves this problem, but Analytics should be opt-in, not opt-out-by-blocking-Javascript.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's worse than that, tc. Why do they keep the information for so long? Because they are required? No. They monetize it. Sooooo, in the future there will come great pressure to increase the value of Google stock. Not today, perhaps, but some day. When that day comes, insurance companies are going to say, "We'll make it worth your while if you tell us who is googling for 'breast cancer;' 'diabetes;' 'melanoma.'" A…
Storing search queries genuinely helps improve Google's search results. It's not inherently evil. And I don't buy your slippery slope argument. Sure, Google could sell your search patterns. And your ISP could sell your browsing habits. And ask.com's AskEraser feature could all be a lie and it too could be selling your queries... Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmi…
Or take my advice, sidle up to an open WiFi network (or if you are really nefarious, crack a "secure" one--bet that won't get logged), load up a flash-based Linux distro with no means of storing anything permanently, and query till your heart's content. If that's more privacy than you need, how about Private Browsing mode, which is in every major browser now (except IE? dunno.)
Sheesh!--the hue and cry over Google and privacy completely overlooks the fact that the Internet is the most anonymous means of exchanging information ever created. Yes, unfortunately legal and profit motives mean your online activities are, to some extent, recorded. But breaking the link between "you" and what you do online is trivial, and the more your privacy matters to you, the more thoroughly can you achieve that separation.
hey, guys, chill out. He's not saying that you shouldn't do anything you don't want the public to know or anything like that. Google is actually protecting your privacy from the public. Your search history is not available to anyone except for the law-enforcement with a subpoena. He is only saying that under some circumstances Google has to release some information according to the current law. And if you don't want…
I'd like Eric Schmidt to publicly release his search history, both his work-related and private searches.
What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice? Perhaps he is saying, "The fact of the matter is that we're required to retain and release lots of information. If you don't want that information being passed around, you probably shouldn't give it to us. Sorry, we do the best we can under the circumstances." "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you sho…
That would be awesome!
I think it's a very fair and reasonable advice. You don't have to use Google. This is the service Google offers. Your privacy is your payment. It's a great opportunity for someone to start a competing search service that focuses on privacy.
Funny, Schmidt is using the same reasoning people commonly use to defend the patriot act (and, for that matter, other government-instilled impediments on privacy and freedom of speech).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also, of course, be simple uncritical rationalization. If staying in business and out of the cross-hairs of the DoJ's anti-trust division means you have to play ball with some data retention "requests," then you're probably going to rationalize a million tenuously logical reasons why that's the right thing to do.
To be fair, you don't have a lot of choice in deciding whether or not to comply with a National Security Letter. I think "because I'm not going to go to jail for our users" is a perfectly logical reason.
When the government sees it hitting their tax take they will listen