| Search Engine Google's Archive worries Privacy lobby |
|
|
|
| Written by Administrator | |
| Friday, 03 June 2005 | |
 Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet
Responsibility, a forum for online issues, has voiced
concern about the length of time Google holds on to
its records of internet activity.Every search, every e-mail is monitored and the details kept. Of course, every ISP and search engine operator does the same but with the significant difference that most of then consign the records to the trash after a relatively short time, in the case of AOL for example, e-mails are only held for twenty-eight days. Most of them operate a non-retention regime for the sake of the cost of storage but Google's policy is at the other extreme - it discards nothing itself and it encourages Gmail users to do the same. Currently, it's not practical to link IP addresses to destination addresses but it wouldn't need a major upgrade of the system to change that. Google's position is that it has no wish to spy on its customers. It uses the information it collects to improve services and develop new ones as well as to tackle fraud. "If it's useful, we'll hold on to it," said Nicole Wong, a Google associate general counsel. She went on to tell that Google designs everything from the ground up with user privacy as a major priority. The company never pass information to visitors or marketeers and even employees must get approval from an executive to examine traffic data. She did say that they co-operate with law enforcement enquiries but declined any information about the extent or frequency of such events. Google are one of the few businesses in any field that have no hang-up about the cost of data storage. The concern from the privacy lobby is not what Google might do with the records but what certain Federal Agencies might do with it if they could get their hands on it. After Watergate, the law was changed to differentiate between recent and past records - the break being at six months. There is a view that the data is part of history and there's merit in it's retention but Weinstein doesn't buy that. His view is that if it's of no immediate use, it should be scrapped. Reuben Dunn |
| < Previous | Next > |
|---|
