

Google's Super Bowl ad shows the need for search privacy - tdmackey
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/02/google-superbowl-ad-explains-need-search-privacy

======
arantius
> Microsoft's Bing is anonymizing this information after six months by
> deleting the entire Internet Protocol ("IP") address associated with your
> search queries. Google can and should anonymize search queries in the same
> way after six months or less.

FUD. 20 seconds of Googling shows me:

\----------------------

<http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html#toc-anonymize> Why are search engine
logs kept before being anonymized?

We strike a reasonable balance between the competing pressures we face, such
as the privacy of our users, the security of our systems and the need for
innovation. We believe anonymizing IP addresses after 9 months and cookies in
our search engine logs after 18 months strikes the right balance.

\----------------------

[http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/search/archive/2010/01/1...](http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/search/archive/2010/01/19/updates-
to-bing-privacy.aspx) Specifically, we are reducing the amount of time we
store IP addresses from searchers to 6 months. Currently we keep that
information for 18 months before we delete it. .. Then, after 18 months we
take the additional step of deleting the IP address and any other cross
session IDs associated with the query.

\----------------------

"Cross session IDs"? What is that? Cookies? All cookies? In my mind, these
policies are very equivalent. Google already does the same thing after six
months. Probably the same thing at 18. Plus, Bing just announced this change a
week or two ago.

~~~
sounddust
The difference is that when Google speaks of "anonymizing" your IP
information, they are only removing the last octet, whereas Bing is removing
it entirely. The EFF argues that this form of anonymizing doesn't go far
enough, considering that (among other things) it's entirely possible that only
one IP address on a given subnet is active.

[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/03/googles-new-plan-
anonym...](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/03/googles-new-plan-anonymize-
search-logs-good-first-step-more-needed)

~~~
nostrademons
That article is from 2007, while Google changed its logs policy in 2008. Does
anyone know if the new policy anonymizes full IP addresses, or just the last
octet?

~~~
sounddust
I think the fact that Google still uses the phrase "anonymizing IP addresses"
as opposed to logs or queries speaks for itself. If they spoke of anonymizing
logs or queries, that could imply the possibility of deleting IPs. But to
"anonymize" an IP implies something weaker than deletion, otherwise they would
just use that term.

------
avolkov
I think that's cute. Google tries to be cool in their adds and I think they
succeed at that, there's something close and personal(duh!) in every one of
those.

Here's a direct link there are a few more to what already posted on eff
website -- <http://www.youtube.com/searchstories>

------
dbz
I apologize but I can't stand seeing a billion articles on this topic. Can
anyone tell me why they care? It's not like Google is selling information to
identity thieves.

Google can piece a life together? Cool! It's so big it wont know what to do
with my life story; however, I'd love to see what it is (through my google
searches) so far.

~~~
yungchin
This sort of sums up why I care:
[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html)

------
petercooper
If someone wants to produce a great bit of linkbait, make a page where you do
the "Google searches done through history" for various famous people like
Bush, Hitler, Churchill, Ghandi, and so on. I'd read it!

~~~
pieceofpeace
Its Gandhi not Ghandi.

~~~
stumm
It's "it's" not "its".

~~~
pieceofpeace
Oops. Nit-pick got nit-picked :-)

I am Indian and English is not my first language, _it's_ third after my local
language and official/national language Hindi.

Thanks. Will try to improve.

------
Zilioum
"...and its great that Google used this opportunity to illustrate the
importance of search privacy to one of the world's largest audiences." I do
not agree with this. I don't think that Google wanted to show us this, it
rather is a negative side effect of this touching ad.

