I Just Called To Say I'm Sorry (For Exposing Your Personal Search Data)
from the I-just-called-to-say-that-I-still-care dept
Earlier this week, AOL exhibited a stunning lapse of judgment when it released search data from 500,000 of its subscribers. While the company thought the data had been sufficiently anonymized, the New York Times had no problem tracking down and interviewing one of the AOL searchers. There's no way AOL can close the Pandora's Box of data at this point, but after the Times story ran, AOL's CEO Jon Miller did feel compelled to call the woman and apologize. But why stop there? AOL didn't need the Times to identify which searchers had their privacy breached. It knows which user number corresponds to which user. Admittedly, it might be too much to ask of Jon Miller to call each one of them personally, but the company just announced it's laying off 5,000 employees within six months. Certainly, that's plenty of time for each one to call about 100 people and say sorry.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Math Check by Tony Angelo on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 1:14pm
Actually, they would only need to call 100 people.
5,000 (employees being layed off) / 500,000 (user's search records) = 100 (Phone calls)
Unless the numbers were misquoted in the post above.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Math Check by Joe on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 1:17pm
ooh, you're right.
Thanks!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...and while they're at it by Kilroy on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 1:36pm
They might be able to get some leads on new jobs. Network Network Network!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I know by Sanguine Dream on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 1:39pm
If were one of the 5000 layoffs and had to make those 100 calls I'd be asking about job oppunities at the same time.
This whole data leak thing is getting out of hand these days. But I wonder is it happening more often or was it this bad before and it just wasn't being reported.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Laying 5000 ???? by Hautedawg on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:00pm
Did you mean laying OFF 5000, or actually the laying of 5000? If they will broadcast this, I'll switch to AOL today!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Data privacy by Dee on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:04pm
I think the leaks of data are just not starting to come out. No company would ever openly admit to such breeches of data and most would go out of their way to cover it up or dismiss it completely. Pandora's box is open wide on this one already no telling who has what data on whom at this point just sitting on hard drives waiting to be mined for info.
This is why credit ratings and such will no longer be a valid tool to determine anything with since the odds are going to be as likely the info is wrong as much as it is right. At this point though I think those with lousy credit ratings should be feeling pretty safe. Not like someone can run up a lot of debt in your name if your name doesn't even qualify for anything to begin with. LOL
Oh and remember this is now the United States of Corporate America and they will have their bought and paid for politicians help them cover their arses you can bet the house on that!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by totoro on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:09pm
Who gets stuck calling user 927? :scared:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/privacy/aol-user-927-illuminated-192502.php
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Data privacy by Anonymous Coward on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:27pm
...this is now the United States of Corporate America...
Now? When wasn't it? How long ago was AT&T nailed for anti-trust and broken up? Hrm... Sorry to break it to you but things haven't changed much. We simply have more access to more forms of media and therefore hear more about what has been going on for generations.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
typo joe by Ben on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:30pm
Laying "of" 5,000?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
927 by kerry on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:31pm
huh,
I thought people like 927 got arrested....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
927 by kerry on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:31pm
huh,
I thought people like 927 got arrested....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Math Check Take 2 by Flangie on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:37pm
Tsk Tsk Tsk AOL.
------------------------------------------
And, actually... 5000/500,000 = .01
(not 100, or 1000).
But we all know what you meant.
I'm just obnoxious enough to point it out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Great PR move by Matt on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 2:59pm
Certainly, that's plenty of time for each one to call about 100 people and say sorry
Right...because I can't think of a better PR move than to have the 5,000 employees you're about to whack start calling customers on an apologetic PR campaign. I imagine the doomed employees would be more than eager to represent the company in a positive light.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 3:07pm
Hmm, mass corporate apologies. I wonder how long it will take to outsource those. Imagine getting a call from some guy in India who apologizes for something on behalf of your local ISP.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That's What I'd Want to Do by Kevin Murphy on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 3:48pm
If I was getting laid off in six months, that's how I'd want to spend it -- calling customers who in all likelihood already hate my company, tell them we published all their private searches on the internet, then apologise. Good idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Heh.. by Helsturm on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 4:26pm
I'd be more worried about one of those 5,000 taking AOL's hashing algorithim they used to "anonymize" the usernames.
Of course, this *is* AOL...it's probably not a algorithim...it's just a list posted in the employee breakroom.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by lil'bit on Aug 11th, 2006 @ 5:52pm
"No company would ever openly admit to such breeches of data and most would go out of their way to cover it up or dismiss it completely."
It wasn't until I saw news reports, after I received one of the infamous ChoicePoint letters in August 2004, that I learned the ONLY reason I had been informed was due to California law. The only reason it was on the news was because of letter recipients calling the news services.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Subscribers? by blackhawk on Aug 12th, 2006 @ 6:39am
WOW
AOL still has 500,000 subscribers??!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Subscribers? by Anonymous Coward on Aug 12th, 2006 @ 11:42am
WOW
I've been waiting a week to be the first to post that comment!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by jsaltz on Aug 12th, 2006 @ 3:12pm
This is an abomination, indeed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Calling the users.. by Araemo on Aug 14th, 2006 @ 6:02am
Actually, don't be so sure that AOL knows who each # is from, or even which particular searchers they exposed the records of.
If they actually thought they were releasing 'sanitized' information, they may have done a randomized select to pull 500,000 users, in random order, and give them numbers in increasing order... To make it so that not even AOL employees could 'abuse' the data.
Granted, they were completely wrong on that last part, but they might have been honestly trying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
yeimkvn trlybhn by cepx@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:02am
iqpthanyg meny fndkj oyktbavf hties furlk kwtc
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
obgnmwr luzt by ghfzqol@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:04am
piqem evtu rcnuioz ldfygeh tfvpryuhn zqkbtdprx mraf
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ounkaxv firognxcz by cfajvbqdx@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:04am
xhyken entby kunatlwbq mneobxay qpswedmj ivabckqes ofpyhsz
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
xwkhugzco fawkjgynp by payjvlqcr@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:04am
tfeschknb yvucqm nfibdmyue ysdjlhueq ijmt dwvx eruqbgk
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
eudicygjf cmjao by jcmbz@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:04am
evdysgoc qludcfkg ifdexohw jcedryqpg tjprkfum milrquvb yvmgdxqth
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
chmxjorq iatsyoev by clgpdxba@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:04am
vtyslzm zxrydoci jmipsaq jwrlxm bpljme xsob abwhqsmf
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
tuynkqz rtspech by jbolgn@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:05am
oucyb lqemrotc skfp pwmxociad klxdwvj fbdcxaey otczg
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
oksvfnyi rufhi by xpqzr@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:05am
ntlx anopfm kinl ytvloeumr efklxsvn zlaknbvi romuhqilc
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
bdclno vtqdzwioy by ashkgxlzc@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 6:05am
etnmx eoyksmgad nzwyo nzgiv xiqtw nhwy ktnhi
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ydvszr jsalfrky by dcfmhwjla@mail.com on Oct 10th, 2006 @ 11:20am
wyzumkpx aihd auokr rawuhoygt wszxahjv pecgqoj bsvp
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment