In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com writes:
Repost with shortened url:
WJhonson:
The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red
herring. People are
not going to be searching for their own phone number or Social
Security numbers within Wikipedia. And even if someone searches for
such a thing, there is no way to know that they are looking for
details on themselves, or on someone else.
Our entry on that regardless notes a lawsuit *four years old* with no
resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
Indicative I suggest of it being a non-story.
Many people did search for their own name occasionally, and relatively
often
did search for local shops and local news.
Each of these clues were ambiguous and insignificant by themselves, but
once
put together often did paint a unique picture of one single person.
Apparently de-anonimization is a nice pursuit for some would-be
detectives,
and quite possibly also for government officials in some parts of the
world
where privacy is considered a risk to a state's stability.
The AOL data were taken offline very quickly (and the research team
disbanded), but copies had already been made, and you can still find the
data online now.
http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/
The following article paints a rather graphical picture of how search
terms
came to haunt back their author.
http://tinyurl.com/322a5pk
Erik Zachte
You ignored my point.
Regardless of what occurred with the AOL details, that is a "Red Herring"
as I said, because such an event would not and could not occur with Wikipedia
details.
People regardless of whether or not they searched their own personal
details within the AOL search engine... would not search their own personal
details within the Wikipedia engine.
Do you know understand my point?
What this thread is about is releasing details of activity *within*
Wikipedia. We have no control over details of activity *outside* Wikipedia.
Thus, the event described here as the atom bomb of personal exposure, is
moot (not relevant, not related, a red herring) to this thread.
W