

Wiping Data Hits Flu Predictions - theklub
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8058084.stm

======
ashleyw
If I'm honest, I hope Google allows people to opt-in to having their data
saved for longer.

I don't believe Google is evil, and while I know they will make more money out
of me by keeping my data for longer, I'm sure more of my data will help them
give me an improved experience, if only by a little. Why should I care? After
all, I've been happily giving it snippets from my daily life for years, it's
not as if they're getting anymore than they've already had in the past...

~~~
ars
They do. <http://www.google.com/history/>

------
gameguy
Tracking the search queries for things like 'flu symptoms' helps the CDC (and
other health organizations) to keep track of the growth and movement of
disease through the population, as many more people will search online before
actually going to their doctors. Protecting people's 'alleged' privacy over
preventing pandemics is ridiculous. What are people trying to get away with
that is more important than stopping the spread of disease?

~~~
gfodor
Its hard for me to tell, but is this sarcasm? Playing on peoples fears of
death by disease in order to promote archival of personal data reminds me more
of the Bush administration and less of Google.

Google is going to be in for a rude awakening when a ambitious politician
comes along who makes it his personal crusade to reign in the aggregation and
data mining of personal data (right or wrong, it will happen.)

~~~
JimmyL
I agree.

Reading that logic - we need to be able to keep all your search data for much
longer so that we can, uh, track flu season - sounds strangely reminiscent of
the Australian government's logic that they need to be able to filter the
internet so that they can keep out child pornography. In both cases, a party
is making a huge grab for power using a somewhat innocuous reason that's
framed as being hard to oppose.

I'm not sure, but I think this community opined on it slightly differently
when they Aussies were doing it...

~~~
madmanslitany
I would agree that Page is probably being intellectually dishonest in his
argument that H1N1 is a prime example of why Google should be allowed to
retain data longer, but I don't think your comparison holds. At its core, what
you're describing is taking away the privileges of very many people to
potentially (dubiously, in my opinion--I do hate "think of the children"
crusades) protect a few people. The debate surrounding Google and data
retention is more about Google taking some risks with the privacy of the
consumers who use it in order to take actions that will benefit it long-term--
and which I strongly believe can and will benefit its consumers as well.

Sure, there's potential for abuse here, but that's true of all technology. I
don't think we, as hackers, should let that hold society back when there are
valuable things to gain from its advance.

------
phoreo
This is a decent article and (in some sense), I agree with Page's argument -
though the H1N1 reference is a bit over the top.

I'm not sure where the rather sensationalist headline comes from, though;
would you consider offering a nuanced argument as to why user data retention
makes the company "evil" to back it up?

------
theklub
Way to prey on people's fears google.

------
spc476
Why should Google be forced to follow European law? Last I heard, Google was a
US company and (to my knowledge) the US doesn't have much in the way of data
retention laws.

