http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~dangelo/aol-search-query-logs/
เวลาจะ search อะไร ดูหน้าดูหลังนะครับ และตัวอย่างนี้ แสดงถึงความสำคัญของการรักษาความลับโดยผู้ให้บริการเว็บไซต์ ไม่เฉพาะ search engine
This is a blatant violation of users’ privacy. The data is “anonymized”, which to AOL means that each screenname was replaced with a unique number. “It is still a research question how much information needs to be anonymized to protect users,” says Abdur from AOL. Here are some examples of what you can find in the data:
User 491577 searches for “florida cna pca lakeland tampa”, “emt school training florida”, “low calorie meals”, “infant seat”, and “fisher price roller blades”. Among user 39509’s hundreds of searches are: “ford 352”, “oklahoma disciplined pastors”, “oklahoma disciplined doctors”, “home loans”, and some other personally identifying and illegal stuff I’m going to leave out of here. Among user 545605’s searches are “shore hills park mays landing nj”, “frank william sindoni md”, “ceramic ashtrays”, “transfer money to china”, and “capital gains on sale of house”. Compared to some of the data, these examples are on the safe side. I’m leaving out the worst of it - searches for names of specific people, addresses, telephone numbers, illegal drugs, and more. There is no question that law enforcement, employers, or friends could figure out who some of these people are.
It’s unclear if this is the type of data AOL released to the government back when Google refused to comply. If nothing else, this should be a good example of why search history needs strong privacy protection.
ผมลองค้นเรื่องนี้ต่อ (จากบทความด้านบน) ก็ไปเห็นข้อสรุปที่ USA สั่ง (subpoena) ให้ google ส่งรายงานการค้นหาของ users ให้รัฐบาล แต่ google ไม่ยอม เรื่องขึ้นศาล และได้ผลว่า ศาลติงถึงเรื่อง privacy และ google จึงไม่ต้องให้ข้อมูลกับรัฐบาลตามที่ USA ร้องขอ
Judge tells DoJ “No” on search queries
3/17/2006 06:00:00 PM
Posted by Nicole Wong, Associate General Counsel
Google will not have to hand over any user’s search queries to the government. That’s what a federal judge ruled today when he decided to drastically limit a subpoena issued to Google by the Department of Justice. (You can read the entire ruling here and the government’s original subpoena here.)
The government’s original request demanded billions of URLs and two month’s worth of users’ search queries. Google resisted the subpoena, prompting the judge’s order today. In addition to excluding search queries from the subpoena, Judge James Ware also required the government to limit its demand for URLs to 50,000. We will fully comply with the judge’s order.
This is a clear victory for our users and for our company, and Judge Ware’s decision regarding search queries is especially important. While privacy was not the most significant legal issue in this case (because the government wasn’t asking for personally identifiable information), privacy was perhaps the most significant to our users. As we noted in our briefing to the court, we believe that if the government was permitted to require Google to hand over search queries, that could have undermined confidence that our users have in our ability to keep their information private. Because we resisted the subpoena, the Department of Justice will not receive any search queries and only a small fraction of the URLs it originally requested.
We will always be subject to government subpoenas, but the fact that the judge sent a clear message about privacy is reassuring. What his ruling means is that neither the government nor anyone else has carte blanche when demanding data from Internet companies. When a party resists an overbroad subpoena, our legal process can be an effective check on such demands and be a protector of our users.
ต่อไปนี้จะค้นหาเว็บโป๊ ก็ต้องระวังตัวเสียแล้วเรา… :sleep:
เค้าคงอยากรู้ว่าประชาชนต้องการรู้เรื่องอะไร
ส่งสัยจะไม่พ้น คำว่า
"WAR , iraq , bin laden , "
55555