The first was a tweet promising an email (not yet received) as well as the assertion that “For the record, we still don’t keep logs or store personal info”. It is kind of them to tell me this via Twitter, but unless their official privacy policy states such, this utterance has little value or legal authority. Cuil’s original privacy statement stated this explicitly: “We do not keep logs of our users’ search activity”. That clear and incontrovertible statement is no longer present in the current policy.

The second communication was also a tweet, confirming what I already revealed in my original blog post: “Our advertising partner can see your IP and query, but if you opt-out then they cannot and you remain completely anonymous”. Yes, if you click the right places you can opt-out of Cuil’s new practice of sending all your search terms and your IP address to some unknown advertising partner.

The third communication was a comment left on my original post by Anna Patterson, Cuil’s President and Founder. She states: “I rewrote it making it less legalistic and shorter. I figured instead of re-stating everything three times in three different ways, I’d just state things once. We still don’t keep track of users.”

While I appreciate Patterson’s forthrightness, her explanation is quite unsatisfactory.

First, Cuil’s original privacy policy could hardly be criticized for being legalistic or particularly long. Clocking in at 518 words, is it largely absent of any legal or technical jargon typical of most privacy policies. Microsoft Word calculates its Flesch Reading Ease at 54.1. By comparison, Facebook’s current privacy policy has over 3,500 words, and a Flesch score of 37.4 (the lower the score, the more difficult the text). Cuil’s policy was clear and concise.

Besides the empirical comparisons, Cuil’s original policy was very plainly written, with the thrust of the policy in bold font: “when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period. We have no idea who sends queries: not by name, not by IP address, and not by cookies“. There’s no legalese present here. But now, the privacy policy simply begins with this statement: “When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period.”  Notice Cuil now claims they don’t “keep” any personally identifiable information (they do, now, collect it and share it with 3rd parties), and they don’t explicitly include IP addresses among the items they don’t collect. Simply “personally identifiable information”, and who knows what they mean by that.

I suppose this claim that Cuil doesn’t “keep any personally identifiable information” is meant to mean the same as the missing “We do not keep logs of our users’ search activity.” That latter statement — so clear and so concise — was apparently removed in the spirit of shortening the policy and purging it of any legalese? I just don’t get it.

Usually when a search engines starts a new kind of advertising initiative, they go out of their way to be more open, explicit, and explanatory when it comes to user privacy (see, for example, Google’s proactive steps when they launched behavioral targeting earlier this year). Instead, Cuil stripped down their privacy policy. Further, I can’t find any press release or announcement regarding their new advertising partner(s) or how the advertising system works. There was some chatter in the field about possible partners earlier this year, but nothing I can find from Cuil itself. Who is this advertising partner that is getting my search terms and IP address? What are they doing with it?

Not cool.

UPDATE: I received another tweet from Cuil: “You have good points, and we appreciate the feedback. We’ll be discussing the policy more internally to further clarify.”

I’m hoping they’ll enter into a broader dialogue that isn’t limited to 140 characters, and directly address the issues I’ve raised. I replied to them suggesting, at the least, to re-insert the “We do not keep logs of our users’ search activity” language into their privacy policy, if it does indeed still apply. I’ve also urged more transparency regarding who their advertising partner is and how it works. We’ll see….

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. New “Cuil” Search Engines Decides User Logs Aren’t Necessary
2. Cuil’s Famous Privacy Policy No Longer Protects Privacy
3. Cuil not so Cool

Powered by Twitter Tools

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-10-30
2. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-10-23
3. Twitter Updates for 2009-10-15

Remember how Google argued “we do believe that having very limited text on our home page is important” and that it was pitched as some great sacrifice to include the word “privacy” and disrupt the homepage’s aesthetics?

Apparently providing users easy access to information about their privacy is much more burdensome for Google than providing a link to where people can buy Verizon’s Droid mobile phone.

Today, Google.com features an advertising message that the Droid is now for sale, and includes a link to this page touting its benefits, and prompting users to buy it from Verizon.

Makes me long for the days when Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page proclaimed that advertising has no place in search engines:

Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. …It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media, we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. …we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

And I wonder if there’s any chance the presence of Bert & Ernie could be seen as a product endorsement….

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Google (Quietly/Oddly) Adds Privacy Link to Homepage
2. Disrupting Google’s homepage with a 14-charater string
3. Google’s Schmidt: “Google knows a lot about the person surfing”

Anyway, one of Cuil’s touted competitive advantages was that it didn’t track user search queries. Its original privacy policy (dated July 27, 2008) went to great lengths to make users feel comfortable about the privacy of their search activities, opening with this impressive declaration:

Privacy is a hot topic these days, and we want you to feel totally comfortable using our service, so our privacy policy is very simple: when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period. We have no idea who sends queries: not by name, not by IP address, and not by cookies (more on this later). Your search history is your business, not ours.

The policy included a section on “Logs”, noting simply that “We do not keep logs of our users’ search activity.” In the policy’s “Cookies” section, Cuil confirmed that “We do not record the information in your cookies on our servers” and that “we do not store any personal information about you on our servers.”

Upon their launch, Cuil declared that its “methods guarantee online privacy for searchers”.

Cool.

Except, that’s no longer the case.

After about a year of futility, Cuil updated their privacy policy on June 1, 2009, noting that “We may soon be adding advertisements to Cuil. As a result, our privacy policy will change.” Hmmmm….

About a month later, on July 13, 2009, Cuil completely gutted their privacy policy, and the privacy-protecting measures that were once located therein. Gone is the statement that “when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period. We have no idea who sends queries: not by name, not by IP address, and not by cookies”. Gone is the section on “Logs” stating that they don’t keep any. Gone is the confirmation in the “Cookies” section that Cuil does “not store any personal information about you on our servers”.

Each of these privacy-preserving sentiments have been stripped from Cuil’s privacy policy. Instead, there now is a section on “Advertisements”, stating:

Advertisements are from a third-party and when you click on ads, we direct you to another website. To place ads in the first place, we transmit the IP address, browser type, and the query to the third party. If you want to opt out, please visit the preferences panel.

Whoa! Cuil transmits my search query and my IP address to the third party advertiser in order to place the ad? That’s a radical departure from its original “Your search history is your business” mantra.

Cuil also goes out of its way to make it difficult for users to opt out of this wholesale sharing of a users search activity. The preferences panel does have a handful of settings on it. But you have to look closely to see the link to “Advertising preferences” in a font much smaller than the rest of the page (screenshot). Only when you click that does Cuil decide to offer you the option to turn this off (screenshot).

On a related note, I can’t even find the ads within Cuil’s search results. There are no obvious “sponsored links” or separate advertising section within their interface. And searches for “Las Vegas” and “New York Hotel”, keywords that should certainly spark some advertising activity, are the same whether I have the advertising preferences turned on or off. I’ve emailed Cuil asking for clarification for how advertising is integrated into their results.

UPDATE (11/6): Overnight, Cuil sent me a tweet indicating that “we still don’t keep logs or store personal info”, and promising an email. I look forward to receiving any kind of clarification as to why their privacy policy has been stripped of its teeth.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. New “Cuil” Search Engines Decides User Logs Aren’t Necessary
2. More on Cuil’s Non-Privacy Policy
3. Cuil not so Cool

All this said, I was quite excited at the launch of Google Dashboard:

Google describes Dashboard as a simple way to view “the data associated with your account”, and that it will provide users “greater transparency and control over their own data.” Elsewhere, Dashboard has been described as a “big concession to users’ privacy rights“, as the answer to the question: “What does Google know about me?”, and as a place providing users “more control over the personal information stored in Google’s databases“.

Unfortunately, Google Dashboard is none of these things.

What Google Dashboard provides is a single place to browse the list of most of the Google services you’ve signed up for, quick links to their individual settings pages (including privacy settings & policies), summary statistics of your usage of these services, and indications of what details I’ve shared with others.

While this is a very convenient new interface, and a helpful reminder of some of the services and settings that I might have long forgotten were activated on my account, Dashboard isn’t providing any new transparency or new control over the data Google knows about me. I still only see that information Google wants to make available to me through its interfaces. I still only get to control the limited data Google allows me to control.

Sure, from the Dashboard I can go and look at my Web search history, for example (and this screenshot confirms that my TrackMeNot Firefox Extension is successfully sending ghost queries to Google!), and from there I can remove stored searches from the service. But remember, this is only removing the searches from the Web History service, not from Google’s primary search query logs (as Google acknowledges here). There is no new level of control over the personal information stored in Google’s databases. Simply convenience.

(And, FWIW, Dashboard could be made even more convenient if Google simply had a link to “Dashboard” in the upper right corner after you log in, rather than having to click Settings -> Google Account Settings -> View data stored with this account)

The convenience Dashboard provides is helpful. Users should be regularly reminded of what services they sign up for, what information is being collected, and what their current privacy settings are. And hopefully Facebook will follow Google’s lead and provide similar convenience. But, unfortunately, Google Dashboard is no concession to users’ privacy rights. A helpful step, but we still have a long road ahead of us.

UPDATE: Others agree with my assessment of Dashboard. ReadWriteWeb notes that “Google’s Privacy Dashboard Doesn’t Tell Us Anything We Didn’t Know Before”, while Mashable recognizes that “Dashboard is nothing more than a selected list of privacy-related settings”. And Fred Stutzman correctly observes in the comments below that “By creating this interface, Google gets to functionally define the “sense” of information collection/retention. That is, their sense of the boundaries of collection will be informed by the interface. But…this interface minimizes the true extent of data retention.” Indeed.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Google on Transparency
2. Demanding Transparency in GoogleNews
3. Transparency in GoogleNews

Organized by The Public Voice Coalition, this important meeting precedes the 31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, and provided a unique opportunity to discuss with public officials and the business sector about how to raise privacy awareness in the global community, and how to promote civil society participation in decision making processes towards the adoption of better privacy and data protection standards globally.

The conference closed with the launch of the Madrid Declaration on Global Privacy Standards for a Global World, affirming that privacy is a fundamental human right and reminding “all countries of their obligations to safeguard the civil rights of their citizens and residents.”

The Declaration warns that “privacy law and privacy institutions have failed to take full account of new surveillance practices,” and urges countries “that have not yet established a comprehensive framework for privacy protection and an independent data protection authority to do so as expeditiously as possible.” It recommends a “moratorium on the development or implementation of new systems of mass surveillance,” and calls for the “establishment of a new international framework for privacy protection, with the full participation of civil society, that is based on the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights, and support for democratic institutions.”

The full text of the Madrid Declaration is below. I’ve requested that my name be added to the list of signatories.

Global Privacy Standards for a Global World

The Civil Society Declaration

Madrid, Spain

3 November 2009

Affirming that privacy is a fundamental human right set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other human rights instruments and national constitutions;

Reminding the EU member countries of their obligations to enforce the provisions of the 1995 Data Protection Directive and the 2002 Electronic Communications Directive;

Reminding the other OECD member countries of their obligations to uphold the principles set out in the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines;

Reminding all countries of their obligations to safeguard the civil rights of their citizens and residents under the provisions of their national constitutions and laws, as well as international human rights law;

Anticipating the entry into force of provisions strengthening the Constitutional rights to privacy and data protection in the European Union;

Noting with alarm the dramatic expansion of secret and unaccountable surveillance, as well as the growing collaboration between governments and vendors of surveillance technology that establish new forms of social control;

Further noting that new strategies to pursue copyright and unlawful content investigations pose substantial threats to communications privacy, intellectual freedom, and due process of law;

Further noting the growing consolidation of Internet-based services, and the fact that some corporations are acquiring vast amounts of personal data without independent oversight;

Warning that privacy law and privacy institutions have failed to take full account of new surveillance practices, including behavioral targeting, databases of DNA and other biometric identifiers, the fusion of data between the public and private sectors, and the particular risks to vulnerable groups, including children, migrants, and minorities;

Warning that the failure to safeguard privacy jeopardizes associated freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of access to information, non-discrimination, and ultimately the stability of constitutional democracies;

Civil Society takes the occasion of the 31st annual meeting of the International Conference of Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners to:

(1) Reaffirm support for a global framework of Fair Information Practices that places obligations on those who collect and process personal information and gives rights to those whose personal information is collected;

(2) Reaffirm support for independent data protection authorities that make determinations, in the context of a legal framework, transparently and without commercial advantage or political influence;

(3) Reaffirm support for genuine Privacy Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of personally identifiable information and for meaningful Privacy Impact Assessments that require compliance with privacy standards;

(4) Urge countries that have not ratified Council of Europe Convention 108 together with the Protocol of 2001 to do so as expeditiously as possible;

(5) Urge countries that have not yet established a comprehensive framework for privacy protection and an independent data protection authority to do so as expeditiously as possible;

(6) Urge those countries that have established legal frameworks for privacy protection to ensure effective implementation and enforcement, and to cooperate at the international and regional level;

(7) Urge countries to ensure that individuals are promptly notified when their personal information is improperly disclosed or used in a manner inconsistent with its collection;

(8) Recommend comprehensive research into the adequacy of techniques that “deidentify” data to determine whether in practice such methods safeguard privacy and anonymity;

(9) Call for a moratorium on the development or implementation of new systems of mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body imaging, biometric identifiers, and embedded RFID tags, subject to a full and transparent evaluation by independent authorities and democratic debate; and

(10) Call for the establishment of a new international framework for privacy protection, with the full participation of civil society, that is based on the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights, and support for democratic institutions.
3 November 2009
Madrid, Spain

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Global Network Initiative Promises to Protect Privacy and Freedom of Expression Online
2. Yes, Privacy Does Still Exist in a Facebook World
3. CFP: Identity and Identification in a Networked World Graduate Student Symposium

From the press release:

As founder and director of the International Center for Information Ethics, Dr. Capurro is world-renowned for his work in ethics and information policy. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from Düsseldorf University, a post-doctoral teaching qualification in ethics and has done extensive research in the area of intercultural ethics, as well as bioethics, information management and the philosophy of media. His research has been published in prominent publications around the world. Dr. Capurro has also given lectures throughout the globe discussing the ethical impact that information technology has on human practice. For the past two years, he has served as the director of the Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE) in Karlsruhe, Germany. Most recently, Dr. Capurro gave a series of presentations in Japan on intercultural ethics and robotics.

Dr. Capurro, who is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Information Policy Research (CIPR), will further enhance the school’s reputation as a leader in the area of information ethics. With current faculty such as Drs. Peter Lor, Elizabeth Buchanan, Michael Zimmer, Dick Kawooya, Thomas Lipinski, and Dean Johannes Britz in place, the addition of Dr. Capurro raises SOIS to the next level.

“We’re very excited to have Dr. Capurro working in this capacity with us at SOIS,” said Dean Johannes Britz. “He brings a wealth of experience to an already sterling corps of academics. Dr. Capurro will work closely with the other researchers and students at SOIS to cement the school’s reputation in the area of information ethics. With the addition of Dr. Capurro, we are definitively one of the world’s premiere library and information science programs specializing in information ethics.”

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Joining UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies
2. Want to be a PhD student at UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies?
3. UW-M School of Information Studies Statement of Support for the West Bend Library

Powered by Twitter Tools

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-11-06
2. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-10-23
3. Twitter Updates for 2009-10-16

Powered by Twitter Tools

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-11-06
2. Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-10-30
3. Twitter Updates for 2009-10-16

From the announcement sent by Rita Cheng, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs:

Library patrons will have access to ScienceDirect, a database providing access to 2,000 full text peer-reviewed journals, with content going back to 1995, published by Elsevier and its partners.   Although most titles fall into the categories of science, medicine and technology, there are titles in the areas of business, economics, education, global studies, history, and psychology as well. This agreement, negotiated over the past nine months and in concert with UW-Madison, provides extended access and converts the titles to which we previously subscribed in print (approximately 200 titles) to electronic access.  In addition, the agreement (covering a 5-year period), includes annual increases well below the average annual serial subscription increases. Student support for this was graciously provided by the Advisory Committee on Educational Technology to assist with the cost of conversion from print to electronic format.

I congratulate Libraries Director Ewa Barczyk for her tenacity in securing the best possible terms for UWM.

In a fiscal climate that has led to the unfortunate necessity of canceling 15 percent of our serials over the past year, the new Elsevier contract demonstrates that we are committed to finding ways to counter the negative effects of rising serial costs.

Also in response to our Open Access Day event, the Provost has announced that she will be creating an Open Access Task Force that will be charged with identifying opportunities for action and producing a set of recommendations on Open Access at UWM. I hope to have more to report on that front as the task force materializes.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Open Access Day at UW-Milwaukee
2. Registration Still Open for “Ethics of Information Organization” conference
3. Rafael Capurro Joining UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies