| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Notes on the Viacom rulingNotes on the Viacom rulingPosted Jul 4, 2008 18:01 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)Parent article: Notes on the Viacom ruling
"why does Google/YouTube hold that much data about its users? Why does it retain the ability to replay their actions years after the fact?" Google's entire business model is to gather as much data as it can, then mine it to figure out how to make money from it (usually with targeted advertising). Their whole business model would fall apart if they dropped the data quickly.
(Log in to post comments)
Notes on the Viacom ruling Posted Jul 5, 2008 7:29 UTC (Sat) by Wummel (subscriber, #7591) [Link] It seems Google stores more privacy data than they really need to detect user behaviour.If you have logged in users with unique login names you don't need to store IP numbers. For non-logged in users you can replace IPs with hashed values, and the hash function can vary over time. This way you can still detect click behaviour from a single IP address over time (until the hash function changes).
Notes on the Viacom ruling Posted Jul 10, 2008 23:21 UTC (Thu) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] As the GP said, though, Google collects data first and then think up use cases later. Storing IP address would be useful for, say, finding correlation between physical location and items watched. Though Google could have just kept the network part of the address, or at least drop the last byte, with no less of effectiveness but much better privacy for its users.
|
|
||||||||||||