8 Comments

  • Anne van Kesteren January 21, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
  • Firas January 21, 2006 @ 5:53 pm

    I share this skeptical view of the matter.

  • Firas January 21, 2006 @ 5:55 pm

    Especially in light of the kind of information shared: aggregate stats.

  • Matt January 21, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

    I realize that the info is in aggregate, but there is a principle of refusing frivolous subopenas to support evil legislation?

  • Mike Torres January 21, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

    Matt – MSN didn’t give up “your” information. This language makes it sound like the 11pm news (“Horrible diseases spread through your water supply. News at 11!”)… the reality is always far less sensational (or even truthful for that matter). One could say this is an example of a media darling using hyperactive bloggers to help tell a story where there’s clearly not a black or white answer. If so, don’t fall for it.

    MSN has one of the most user-friendly and comprehensive privacy policies on the planet – and a dedicated team of full-time people working to protect privacy. It’s something the company takes extremely seriously.

  • Rich January 21, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

    Google has more than the Feds to worry about also.

    http://boycottgoogle.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-stars-in-risky-business.html
    Google Stars in Risky Business… -
    Here is an interesting analysis about Google’s big drop Friday.

  • HÃ¥vard January 22, 2006 @ 12:01 am

    Another interesting point is where the line should be drawn. In what cases should companies like Google and Yahoo give up their information, who should decide this and who would then have access to the information.

  • eric haller January 23, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

    thanks for the tip of the hat, matt. and happy (belated) birthday!

Share Your Thoughts