

Netflix Prize 2 Cancelled Due to a Lawsuit and FTC Inquiry - gaika
http://blog.netflix.com/2010/03/this-is-neil-hunt-chief-product-officer.html

======
nfnaaron
Plus one to Netflix for making this the first sentence:

"This is Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer for Netflix."

No vague hiding behind an unidentified team or blog. A person has chosen to
identify himself with the decision, and the company chose to present it that
way.

The general tone is also positive. This is a good way to communicate.

Contrast with Amazon's anonymous whine on their kindle blog when they gave in
to MacMillan. Not signed by a person, not even "the team." And full of blame
and "you'll see!"

[http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_e...](http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2MEGQWTNGIMHV&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx5Z9849POTZ4P#Mx5Z9849POTZ4P)

~~~
smakz
Comparing Amazon's official communication with customers to Netflix I think
Amazon wins.

Looking at Netflix's blog they have 3 posts for the entire year.

Looking at Amazon's discussion forums, there are a swath of official
announcements, including one that informs customers how to access 2 million
free books outside of Amazon.

Sure, having a name in front of the post is nice I guess, but in terms of
consistent and valuable customer communication I think Amazon wins. Also
here's an example of an apology from Bezos himself

[http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_...](http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1FXQPSF67X1IU&displayType=tagsDetail)

------
tbgvi
Another case of lawsuits stifling innovation.

And I agree with one of the comments on that post - why doesn't Netflix have
people opt-in to have their data anonymized and used for this purpose?

Edit: replaced bureaucracy with lawsuits

~~~
nfnaaron
I think bureaucracy had little to do with it. As I recall, the first Netflix
contest did indeed expose private, and sometimes embarrassing, information.

This was a privacy issue, and something legitimate to address.

~~~
nlabs
privacy issues dont necessarily need to be dealt with by lawsuits. Most
lawsuits are about money.

~~~
nfnaaron
Not to quibble, but lawsuits are also not bureaucracy.

~~~
tbgvi
Good point, was at a loss for the right word when I commented.

This kind of behavior by lawyers is just like patent trolling and I couldn't
pinpoint a word for that. Maybe privacy trolling? The lawyers are the same
ones that sued Facebook for Beacon.

------
jmonegro
You mean 'inquiry'

~~~
tjogin
Is not "inquiry" and "enquiry" identical in all respects except spelling?

~~~
sp332
Enquiry is asking someone else a question. Inquiry is looking into it
yourself.

------
nlabs
Netflix Prize 3: How to create a meaningful database that is impossible to de-
anonymize.

~~~
mortenjorck
Funny, yes, but I honestly think they should consider this.

~~~
gwern
It's been a while since the flurry of de-anonymizing data papers back in
07-08, but my takeaway impression was that you _can't_ truly de-anonymize
large datasets without destroying its utility.

~~~
slyn
Indeed.

See this: [http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2009/12/uniquely-
identifyin...](http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2009/12/uniquely-identifying-
people-by-birth.html)

I imagine gender and DoB factor in heavily to something like a recommendation
engine, and I'm sure zip code would come into play when trying to get those
last couple percent as is the case with the Netflix prizes.

------
nlabs
How does sharing the Netflix data violate privacy? With the hundreds of
thousands of records it would be difficult to trace information to an
individual. The US needs more engineers and fewer lawyers.

~~~
gaika
There's a way to identify individuals in the raw data:

<http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf>
<http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/netflix-faq.html>

~~~
nlabs
Interesting thanks for the link. However, seems like you need to be able to
cross-correlate with another database in order to de-anonymize. If netflix
made a good faith effort to protect privacy, how are they liable?

~~~
pyre
Sure we released that murderer from jail, but he needs to buy a gun to shoot
someone, and we didn't sell him the gun. You can't blame us.

If they know that the information can be de-anonymized using publicly
available information, have they _really_ made a good-faith effort?

~~~
nlabs
>>If they know that the information can be de-anonymized using publicly
available information, have they really made a good-faith effort?

If your premise that Netflix knew the db could be de-anonymized is correct,
then its not "good faith". Otherwise, Netflix could argue it did everything it
said it would do in its TOS, and didnt foresee the hackers exploit. Whether
that makes them liable or not is what Im asking. Im not a lawyer.

The reason the bank robbery example is irrelevant is banks say in their TOS
that your money is 100% protected up to the FDIC limit. So, Netflix TOS said
it would make its db internally anonymized, which it did. Clever cross-
correlating made this not enough.

~~~
pyre
True, but then the question becomes: What does Netflix do now? Once they know
that their efforts are not enough, what is their reaction? IIRC, they were
warned about the fact that the second prize was revealing too much
information, but went forward with it anyways.

~~~
nlabs
>>IIRC, they were warned about the fact that the second prize was revealing
too much information, but went forward with it anyways.

I did not know that. That changes my opinion about Netflix acting in "good
faith".

The argument I was making is rooted in my belief that in order to have a
healthy environment for business enterprise, your legal system cannot be setup
to punish innovation whenever something doesnt go as planned. There needs to
be balance, i.e. for medical innovation the bar is higher than for movie
ratings.

------
froo
Dear Lawyers,

Lame

Regards

The Tech Community

