Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Fun with the AOL Data Leak

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted August 15, 2006.


Last week, AOL revealed three months' worth of people's web searches -- and the data is oddly fascinating.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

My Last Column
After 9 long years, it's time to move on. One final thought: don't ever stop ruthlessly criticizing everything that exists.
Jul 2, 2008

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die
The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Jun 20, 2008

Using Sci-Fi to Change the World
Science fiction isn't escapist; it can help us envision how to make the world a better place.
Jun 5, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last week AOL did another stupid thing, but at least it was in the name of science. The giant Web portal released a data chunk containing three months' worth of queries to its search engine taken from roughly half a million users. Gathered during the months of March, April, and May, the data shows queries, their date and time, and which Web sites the user ultimately visited. The idea was that this information might be of some use to researchers.

To protect user privacy, AOL replaced the log-in names of searchers with numbers. So you could still see everything that searcher #4356 looked for, but you wouldn't know who #4356 was, except for one problem: it's incredibly easy to figure out who people are based on their searches, because they tend to look for themselves, family members, and things in their immediate geographical vicinity. The New York Times did a great story in which reporters examined searches done by user #4417749 and within hours managed to locate their author, a nice old lady in Georgia who now plans to cancel her AOL subscription.

Bloggers and privacy advocates have pointed out that the information AOL released contains more than just the online search patterns of innocent Georgia ladies. It's unclear what law enforcement might do with the thousands of searches for illegal drugs and pornography. It's equally unclear what the feds will make of the handful of searches for "Muslim death rituals," "Muslim brotherhood," and "Islamic militant web forums." In a nation where the government is seriously contemplating blanket warrants for online surveillance, it's hard to imagine there aren't law enforcement types combing this treasure trove of prepackaged personal data. Imagine getting enough dirt on somebody to haul him or her in for questioning just by downloading 400 megabytes of stuff from AOL! That's like free candy.

After public outcry reached a crescendo, AOL apologized and took the data down. Of course, privacy advocates like the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Marc Rotenberg and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Kurt Opsahl remain pissed off. Why? Because this is the Interweb, folks. Data never dies here. In fact, you can search the records yourself via DontDelete.com.

Once I visited Don't Delete, I couldn't leave. There's a button you can click to get the search terms from a random user, and every time I hit it, I got another gem. My favorite was user #4206444, obviously a college student trying to cheat quickly on his or her exams in order to get around to the more important things in life. Search phrases like "does social darwinism persist in social welfare policies and in the attitudes of the general public about social welfare" were followed by "free essays on adolescent depression and suicide risks" and "free essays on Charles Dickens Hard Times." In between these queries were hundreds for "sailor moon pictures," "pokemon pictures," "sonic x," and "selena pictures."

As blogger Thomas Claburn points out, there's a kind of poetry to some of the queries. He excerpts a dozen lines from the 8,200 queries made by user #23187425, all of which seem to be a sort of conversation this person was having with the search engine -- he or she never actually clicked on any links but just kept querying with plaintive phrases like "i have had trouble," "i want to change," and "i know who i am."

I'm torn. I love having access to this data, both for its touching human qualities and for the kinds of anthropological information it could yield. But as someone who believes strongly in digital privacy, I simply can't sanction what AOL did. It would be different if I had faith that discovering all those porn searches would somehow inspire people to accept that sexual curiosity is normal. And it would be different if I thought that law enforcement would consider that the people searching for "Islamic militant web forums" might simply be trying to understand the world. But I don't. This data will be used to "prove" that the Internet is crawling with child pornographers and terrorists.

Someday AOL's information should be put into the public domain for anthropologists and cultural researchers of the future. That future, however, is probably decades if not a century away. The data is too close to us now -- too easily weaponized. Nevertheless, I hold out hope that one day our search queries will illuminate us and provide for another generation a digital outline of our daily desires.

Digg!

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd whose search history is known only to Google, which isn't exactly comforting.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
On a related note ...
Posted by: just john on Aug 15, 2006 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I've wondered what peoples' spellcheck user dictionaries say about them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumpster diver.
Posted by: notrab68 on Aug 15, 2006 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You believe strongly in digital privacy, yet couldn't wait to dig your sticky, little fingers into the information pie, huh?

Here's a radical, new idea for you...
Next time you're facing a moral dilemma, do the right thing and avoid temptation.

Your digging through the details of these people's lives make you worse than any government agency that does it. At least they can use the pretext of protecting the public. You did it for the entertainment value.

Shame on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: lamar
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: notrab68
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: Audri
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: notrab68
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: davidhobby
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: notrab68
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: agapegirl
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: lamar
» RE: Dumpster diver. Posted by: willymack
notrab68, thanks for your morale awesomeness!!
Posted by: lamar on Aug 16, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More importantly, we should base policy decisions on the moral righteousness of notrab68, and not our generally accepted understanding of human nature. This holier-than-thou, BS attitude has given us the brilliant Just Say No campaigns, and led to countless sex (mis)education programs. Thank you for advertising how morally awesome you are, notrab68!! Three cheers for you!! Kudos to the morally awesome notrab68!! Uh, a call from William Bennett on line 3....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazing Re-direction
Posted by: programdan on Aug 16, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is NOT an argument about whether the author should have or shouldnt have looked. This is all about how ANOTHER company has shared information it shouldnt have. Probably at the behest of the REAL axis of Evil (bush cheney rumsfeld of course). notrab68 did you have a bit of tunnel vision on this one or are u really a right wing radical trolling Alternet to become educated?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amazing Re-direction Posted by: notrab68
» RE: Amazing Re-direction Posted by: lamar
» RE: Amazing Re-direction Posted by: notrab68
funny searches anyway
Posted by: traynor on Aug 17, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"privacy" issues aside (face it folks, online privacy doesn't exist), I found the top searches a bit funny, particularly the ones where people searched for the actual domain_name.com when they could just type it into their address bar to bypass the search engine altogether. Generally, people just don't know how to use their web browsers and depend on search engines too much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AOL's Fall
Posted by: marileev on Aug 28, 2006 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AOL's credibility started to slag after it was absorbed into Time/Warner. They went from being responsive to their customers to lagging behind their competitors. The How they go about handling themselves after this terrible breach of privacy will either be a nail in the coffin or the ashes they're reborn from. "Hello, You've Got Mail," just isn't that comforting anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]