The Search Engine That Could ... but is it allowed to?

The IPKat has learned that a group of EU regulators -- the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party -- decided last Friday that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other internet search engine providers keep their user data too long. According to his friend Stephanie Bodoni (Bloomberg) these providers must cut the time they retain users' online records if they are to comply with European Union privacy laws.

Right: the Working Party might have an agreed position, but who will benefit from it the most?

Proposals have been unanimously adopted that may have the effect of compellinge search engines to change the way they store data unless there is "a valid justification" for their present practices. The recommended maximum time for keeping users' search data is six months. This reommendation could threaten the "golden goose" of internet advertising, which shamelessly uses customers' online records in order to offer personally targeted ads.

Says the IPKat, this sounds a bit of a mixed blessing. If older data is shed, presumably any search-engine ads that are directed at the consumer will be that much more focused at his or her most recent interests, which may have the effect of enhancing their value to advertisers -- and their nuisance value to targeted internet users.

The Little Engine That Could here
Thomas the Tank Engine here
The runaway train here
The Search Engine That Could ... but is it allowed to? The Search Engine That Could ... but is it allowed to? Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 07, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.