cmt

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/te...nd&emc=rss

I find this very very odd and unsettling.? For some reason AOL made public lists of web searches people did on their search engines. Like many of us, this woman did searches that were related to her private concerns, and therefore it was easy to infer who she was just by looking at the full list of her searches.

flanneruk

If I've understood rightly, AOL made these searches available, anonymously, under cocked-up privacy conditions, to academics.

The New York Times then chose to publicise the detective work leading to this woman's anonymity being broken. And did so to however many people read the paper.

So who's displaying more contempt for people's privacy?

cmt

It's my understanding that AOL published on its website a list of several months' of this person's web searches, along with those of other users. It did so without asking her permission or notifying her of the public release of this information. Supposedly they thought only academic researches would have interest in the supposedly anonymous data. Then, according to the article, she consented to discuss this matter with a reporter, and the information in the article is apparently based on what she told the reporter.

In answer to your question: AOL.

JulieG

The article says that Ms. Arnold agreed to discuss her searches with a reporter. The woman agreed to have her anonymity broken in order to expose the shameful practices of AOL.

cmt

Agreed.

(I tried to post this earlier, but the reply didn't go through. I think maybe we can no longer leave one-word posts.)