Recent Entries

CFP: Performance, New Media, and Surveillance

Even in the Situation Room, the Medium is the Message

Having IP Problems with Google? Better Accept a Cookie, and Leave your Name at the Door

Proof Sergey Brin is Bored: Google SearchWiki with Sound

Position Announcement: Yale Information Society Project Fellowships

Maltego: Data-Mining Tool for the Masses

SearchWiki: Boon for Google, Bust for Privacy

The Future of Privacy Forum


Categories

4S  4th Amendment  A2K  AOIR  AOL  Academic  Amateur data mining  Ask.com  Auto Black Boxes  Behavioral targeting  Blogging  Books  CFP  CFP08  CIPR  Cellphones  Censorship  China  ChoicePoint  Conferences  Constitution  Contextual Integrity  Cookies  Copyright  DRM  DSRC  Dan Solove  Data Aggregation  Data mining  Dataveillance  Dissertation  DoubleClick  Ethics  Facebook  Facial recognition  Flickr  GPS  Gmail  Google  Google Print  Helen Nissenbaum  Human Rights  Humor  IINW  ISP  Identity  Identity 2.0  Information theory  Intellectual Privacy  Intellectual Property  Interfaces  Internet  Law  Libraries  Locational privacy  Media  Media Ecology  Microsoft  Milwaukee  MySpace  Netaveillance  Networked Vehicle Systems  OneWebDay  Online Privacy  Orkut  PORTIA  Paid Search  Perfect Search  Personal  Personalized Search  Policy  Privacy  Privacy in Public  Privacy on the Roads  Publications  Quaero  RFID  Reputation systems  Riya  SOIS  Search Engine Bias  Search Engines  Search privacy  Siva Vaidhyanathan  Social networks  Spyware  Street View  Surveillance  Talks  Technology & Society  TrackMeNot  Uncategorized  Values in Design  Web 2.0  Wi-fi  Wikipedia  Yahoo  YouTube  eHealth  iPod 

Rss Feed




  • Powered by FeedBlitz
  • Campaigns

    Join EFF Today

    I support individual rights

    Stop Data Retention

    I am a hard bloggin' scientist. Read the Manifesto.

    Meta

    Creative Commons License

    New “Cuil” Search Engines Decides User Logs Aren’t Necessary

    Posted on Monday, July 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Some former Googlers have launched a rival search engine named for the Gaelic word for knolwedge, Cuil.

    Cuil (pronounced like “cool”), which claims to have an index three times the size as Google and ten times as Microsoft, aims to provide a difference kind of search experience than its friends in Mountain View:

    Rather than rely on superficial popularity metrics, Cuil searches for and ranks pages based on their content and relevance. When we find a page with your keywords, we stay on that page and analyze the rest of its content, its concepts, their inter-relationships and the page’s coherency.

    Further, Cuil has taken a quite difference stance regarding user privacy than Google:

    We believe that analyzing the Web rather than our users is a more useful approach, so we don’t collect data about you and your habits, lest we are tempted to peek. With Cuil, your search history is always private.

    In short, Cuil doesn’t retain any server logs of user search activities. From its privacy policy:

    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.

    More precisely:

    Logs
    We do not keep logs of our users’ search activity.

    Cookies
    Cookies are small files on your computer that websites create to store user preferences, such as language settings. Each time you visit a Cuil page, your computer’s cookies automatically provide Cuil with your preferences. You can change or delete your cookies anytime via your Web browser options.

    We do not record the information in your cookies on our servers; your browser sends your preferences to us with each search request. This way, we do not store any personal information about you on our servers.

    (Other search engines, such as Ixquick, make similar claims. In fact, Ixquick recently was awarded the first European Privacy Seal for its privacy-protecting efforts.)

    What I find most interesting about Cuil’s privacy policy is that it contradicts what Google has been stating regarding the necessity of retaining user logs: that they’re necessary to improve their services, fight spam and abuse, and comply with legal obligations. I, of course, have been critical of this reasoning on various occasions, but it will be interesting to see if the mainstream press will bite on this, now that Cuil is getting some attention


    FWIW, Cuil’s launch has been less-than-stellar. They have been plagued with down servers, and their results are being criticized for lack of coherency or relevancy. See here, here, and here, for example.

    2 Responses to “New “Cuil” Search Engines Decides User Logs Aren’t Necessary”

    1. Daniel Riveong Says:

      “What I find most interesting about Cuil’s privacy policy is that it contradicts what Google has been stating regarding the necessity of retaining user logs”

      Contradicts how? If people are as satisfied with Cuil’s searchs results as much as Google than yes (I’ve read negative reviews thus far). Otherwise that statement has little meat (tofu?) to it.

      It’s possible to create a search engine without all that data, the question is can you create one as good as an engine that records data? For the sake of innovation, I’d like to see Cuil prove that it’s possible.

      Daniel

    2. Michael Zimmer Says:

      I said “contradict,” not “falsify”. Cuil’s position contradicts Google’s as the latter states it needs user data to perform its core functions, while the former claims it is not necessary.

    Leave a Reply