2006-01-31

Google Says "No"

The Internet community has been buzzing for the past 10 days about the U.S. American 'Department of Justice's' demand for search data from the world's leading search engines. 'Yahoo',' AOL', and 'Microsoft' have all reportedly complied with the request; however 'Google' refused, paving the way for a major court battle in the months ahead. While much of the focus has been on the privacy implications of the justice department's request, the story highlights a much bigger issue -- the significant risks and rewards that arise from retaining enormous amounts of data. Canadians have become accustomed to protecting their personal information by safeguarding their identification cards, shredding bank statements, or trusting their health provider to protect their medical files. Yet they have limited control over search engines, Internet Service Providers, and e-commerce companies that retain an ever-expanding mountain of data that can reveal personal preferences, interests, and habits. The U.S.A's justice department's demand stems from an attempt to prove that legislation, rather than technologies such as content filtering, would be more effective at blocking children's access to 'harmful' materials. To prove its case, it sought data from leading search engines that would allow it to gauge the amount of available pornography on the Web as well as the frequency with which Internet users search for such content. The authorities' initial data request was stunning for its sheer breadth: Requested were all Web addresses (URLs) contained in 'Google's' database as well as a record of
'all queries that have been entered into your company's search engine between 2005-06-01 and 2005-07-31.'
In other words, they wanted a list chronicling every website in 'Google's' database, with literally every search request over a two-month period. When it faced resistance, the justice department agreed to a narrower request that included a random sample of one million Web addresses as well as a list of every search string during a one-week period. Although none of this data relates to a specific individual -- it covers hundreds of millions of Internet users -- the request has still produced a chilling effect as many begin to question whether search requests thought to be anonymous could ultimately be tracked back to them. In a broader context, the demand also highlights the growing challenge associated with data retention. All companies, particularly those operating online, recognize the value of retaining information about users. Some is essential to providing customer service, while other data can be used to provide users with a customised experience by eliminating the need to re-enter passwords, automatically posting relevant content, or sending permission-based email marketing that accurately reflects the user's interests. The value of information extends beyond personal data. Once aggregated, retailers can spot trends among demographic groups, ISPs can gauge use, and search engines can identify what is on the minds of the world's Internet users. Given its value, it comes as little surprise to find that companies retain such data for lengthy periods, using sophisticated data mining technologies to analyze the information. While these examples illustrate the rewards of data retention (which benefit both companies and their customers), significant risks also exist. The same data can be mined for purposes that extend far beyond the reasons for which it was provided. The 'Google' case provides an illustration, as mere search terms take on new significance in the hands of justice department lawyers. Some data is not consciously provided at all — it is simply gathered automatically with little thought given to its potential uses. For example, private parties may demand ISP server logs that are generated automatically to assist with new defamation or copyright lawsuits. However, one of the biggest risks associated with data retention comes not from requests that proceed through the legal system, but from security vulnerabilities that put sensitive data into the hands of hackers. Last year, more than 50 million people in North America received notification that personal information had been placed at risk due to a security breach. Policy makers worldwide have scarcely begun to reconcile the risks and rewards of data retention. In the immediate aftermath of the 'Google' issue, at least one U.S. American politician has called for legislation to set limits on data retention and establish a positive obligation to destroy data under certain circumstances. In Europe, the debate has centred on mandating data retention to assist law enforcement. While Canadian privacy law establishes general obligations on data retention and destruction, there are few clear legal obligations to either retain or destroy information. In light of recent events, it is time to search for some solutions. 'Oceans of data ripe for abuse', Michael Geist, Toronto Star, 2006-01-30

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home