tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post7854850644724736550..comments2024-03-12T12:04:59.304+01:00Comments on Peter Fleischer: Privacy...?: Privacy: a number's game?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09908660263905877338noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-32405719492536800262010-11-08T11:40:36.446+01:002010-11-08T11:40:36.446+01:00Dear Peter -
I notice that you and your tennis op...Dear Peter -<br /><br />I notice that you and your tennis opponent chose to remain pseudonymous on the score-board...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-42937508649684640572010-10-27T15:57:17.118+01:002010-10-27T15:57:17.118+01:00I'd like to express my sympathy to Fleischer, ...I'd like to express my sympathy to Fleischer, becuase of the brand new inquiry in Italy (criminal court in Rome), regarding the "Google cars affair".<br />It must be very stressful for Google and its employees to keep on facing Italian courts (that's why foreign investors stay away from Italy).Francesco Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-23827077027666475902010-10-01T11:38:07.484+01:002010-10-01T11:38:07.484+01:00Dear Peter,
I think it would be a great help if G...Dear Peter,<br /><br />I think it would be a great help if Google would make the retention policy more transparent. So far, the retention time for Google search logs is known, but a clear statement on other services, especially user IP addresses in Google Analytics, is missing.<br />If the 9 months rule applies for all server logs, including Google Analytics, this should be cleary stated. <br /><br />Thanks a lot.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stephan AlexStephan Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-51086314540427060082010-09-24T18:55:29.088+01:002010-09-24T18:55:29.088+01:00Reading through various academic literatures and r...Reading through various academic literatures and research, the concerns about the time that data is retained often seems to focus on the conflict over what constitutes 'legitimate reasons' for retention. Perhaps governments require information to be retained for a certain period of time - though given Art. 29's recent report on the data retention directive, it's questionable how effective European governments are in maintaining checks and balances - and its certainly true that various new services provided by corporations are dependent on the capture, analysis, and use of various data types. <br /><br />The 'legitimacy' of these collections, however, is often tied to the conditions authorizing data retention in the first place. In the case of the EU, a concern is that an incredibly vast amount of traffic data is retained, with citizens lacking a democratic 'connection' with those laws (the oft-cited democratic deficit). They don't see themselves as authors and addressees. The same might be said of Americans, who are reportedly subject to federal surveillance through carrier hotels across the US.<br /><br />The legitimacy of corporate protections is often challenged on the basis of information asymmetry; information is collected without the individuals having a full understanding of what is collected, or why, and as a result duration of data retention is the only 'number' that is clearly understood by non-technical users (and, as is often the case, policy makers). In this sense, 'retention periods' might be a kind of heuristic to evaluate privacy risks. It is, as you point out, not the best of heuristics. However, given that individuals are often unable to decode privacy policies and statements, do not opt-in to (many) site analytics services, to say nothing of behavioural advertising schemes, it's not surprising that a temporal heuristic - as a way to limit long-term harm - is commonly witnessed.Christopher Parsonshttp://www.christopher-parsons.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-89012943380475262402010-09-22T23:05:42.096+01:002010-09-22T23:05:42.096+01:00Thank you for raising all these interesting questi...Thank you for raising all these interesting questions.<br /><br />I do agree that the log retention period might not be the most important criteria to measure privacy protections. It’s also true that most search engines communicate about the log retention period and does not answer to the other questions.<br /><br />Google is also communicating a lot about this criteria (there are three posts about that topic on Google official blog), but it’s still quite hard to know exactly what is collected when a user does a search on Google. Because most of the data that Google collects do not contain personal information, Google’s privacy policy does not reply to most of the questions you raised (who has access to search logs, how are they used, how aggregated are the pieces of information that are shared with third parties, does the internal access policy apply to these data…). I’ve spent some time reading Google policies and failed to find a clear answer to these questions.<br /><br />In my opinion, another important is “how are these logs anonymized?”. In your post you mention that the retention period for Google search is 9 months, but the cookies are retained in search logs for (at least) 18 months. Finally, is it possible to have additional information about “Instant Search” logs? I did not know they were retained for 2 weeks.<br /><br />VincentVincent Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027222374707578771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-36739459269037878592010-09-17T19:36:18.297+01:002010-09-17T19:36:18.297+01:00This is why everyone should use TrulyMail, PGP, or...This is why everyone should use TrulyMail, PGP, or GPG to encrypt their emails if they are going to keep messages on Google's (or anyone's) servers.<br /><br />To leave unencrypted emails on someone's server is just asking for this kind of violation. The temptation is there. Remove the temptation...remove your data yourself.Larry M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6974997875021040765.post-14009887770285911092010-09-17T16:13:17.331+01:002010-09-17T16:13:17.331+01:00Dear Mr. Fleischer
I´d like to express my disagre...Dear Mr. Fleischer<br /><br />I´d like to express my disagree with your opinion, about time period of data retention must be the least aspect of the privacy debate, or that these concerns belongs almost entirely to Continental Europe.<br /><br />In Video Privacy Protection Act, you can find an interesting antecedent about how U.S. Federal Law provides an specific period of time for data retention (no longer than one year from the date is no longer necessary for the purpose for wich it was collected).<br /><br />Also in my opinion, the right to oblivion was, is and will be a big issue for privacy because it is closed related to the human need to be forgiven (judeo-christian roots). It is therefore necessary to edit the disagreeable parts of our past, to achieve a fresh start. <br /><br />Regards, <br /><br />Manuel PardiManuel Pardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03805030657044581444noreply@blogger.com