AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have visible privacy policies on both their homepages and search results page (which is especially important if you use automatic search toolbars on browsers without visiting the homepage).

Neither Ask nor Google provide direct links to their privacy policy on their homepage or results pages.

[**UPDATE**  On June 18, 2008, Ask.com added a link to its privacy policy. On July 3, 2008, Google added a link to their privacy policy on both its homepage and search results page. Details here]

Details below:

AOL

The main AOL homepage includes a link to its privacy policy. The link is at the very bottom of the page (requires some scrolling) in a standard box with other corporate and legal information. It appears in a font and color that matches the other URLs on the homepage.

AOL’s search homepage, however, does not include any link to a privacy policy. This page closely follows the aesthetics of Google’s homepage, presumably since Google provides AOL’s search results. There is a somewhat prominent link to “About This Page,” which, in turn, provides a link to AOL’s privacy policy. (Presumably most users access AOL search via the main homepage, not this secondary page.)

AOL’s search results page also includes a link to the privacy policy at the very bottom of the page.

Ask

Ask’s homepage does not include a link to a privacy policy. Nor is there a link if you click on “About” to learn more about Ask.com (one would have to click on a light-gray link for “Terms of Service” from there to find a link to Ask’s privacy policy).

Ask’s homepage does include a small, but prominent, link to Ask Eraser in the upper right corner, which opens a small window prompting the user to turn on/off the privacy-enhancing service, and also providing links to the Ask Eraser FAQ. While this provides privacy-enhancing functions, no link to the actual privacy policy is included in these prompts.

Ask’s search results page does not include a link to its privacy policy.

Update: On June 18, 2008, Ask.com added a link to its privacy policy on the homepage, as reflected in this archived version.

Google

Google’s homepage does not include a link to a privacy policy. One must click on “About Google” to find a link to its privacy policy. This link is visible at the bottom of the page (no need to scroll on standard screens), and is in a font and color that matches the other URLs on page.

Google’s search results page does not include a link to its privacy policy.

Updated 7/4/08: Google now includes a link to its privacy policy on both its homepage and search results pages. Details here.

Microsoft

Microsoft’s Live search homepage does include a link to its privacy policy. It is a small, gray link in the bottom left corner, which is visible without scrolling in a standard screen.

Microsoft’s search results page similarly includes a link to the privacy policy.

Yahoo!

The main Yahoo! homepage includes a link to its privacy policy. The link is at the very bottom of the page (requires some scrolling) in a standard box with other corporate and legal information. It appears in a font and color that matches the other URLs on the homepage, although slightly smaller.

Yahoo!’s search homepage also includes a link to its privacy policy. The link is quite small and in a light color, but still prominent.

Yahoo!’s search results page also includes a link to the privacy policy at the very bottom of the page, albeit small and in a light font.

The privacy advocacy group EPIC, however, took a much more aggressive position, and sent a letter to Ask.com [pdf] urging them to change Ask Eraser, noting three key problems with their implementation of this feature: (1) using Ask Eraser requires an opt-out cookie, (2) the cookie creates a quasi-unique identifier that could be used to track users, and (3) Ask Eraser can be disabled without notice. EPIC (and others) felt so strongly about this concern, they sent a detail letter to the FTC [PDF] over the weekend demanding that, among other things that the FTC must:

- Order Ask.com to withdraw AskEraser from the marketplace.

- Order Ask.com to cease engaging in and unfair deceptive trade practices.

- Require Ask.com, as a condition of offering AskEraser in the future to:
a) Cease using the opt-out cookie
b) Cease creating a Persistent Identifier on customers
c) Provide meaningful notice if the service will be disabled…

- Order Ask.com to delete all previously retained information, before the implementation of AskEraser.

- Order Ask.com to inform all current users of AskEraser, by prominent notice displayed on the Ask.com Web site, that they should delete the Ask.com AskEraser cookie.

Now it seems that EPIC’s aggressiveness was partially misplaced. CNet reports that EPIC’s concern regarding the ability to track users due to the unique time-stamp of the opt-out cookie was no longer relevant as Ask changed how the cookies worked weeks before. Here is Ask.com’s response:

EPIC’s weekend filing regarding AskEraser is both flawed and unfortunate. It’s unfortunate in the sense that Ask.com tried to engage in a constructive dialogue with the group last week, and was rebuffed. Privacy is an issue that demands collaboration and partnership between online companies and advocates, for the benefit of all consumers. Ask.com’s relationship with the Center for Democracy & Technology is proof-positive of that.

EPIC’s filing is flawed in the sense that the document they filed is factually inaccurate, and simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the functionality of our product. In addition, many of the issues they raise are outdated, while others are completely misguided from the outset, and others deal with changes that Ask.com already made to AskEraser weeks ago, and were subsequently posted publicly on our website.

Due to EPIC’s aggressive stance, it seems an opportunity to constructively engage with Ask.com to design this feature in a value-conscious way might have been missed.

This case speaks directly to a paper I’ve been working on with Noëmi Manders-Huits, titled “Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of engagement with technical design communities,” discussing the pragmatic challenges of engaging in Value-Conscious Design within real-world technical design teams.

:::

The paper identifies three key challenges of engaging with technical design communities: (1) confronting competing values; (2) identifying the role of the values advocate; and (3) the justification of a particular value framework.

Challenge #2 — the role of the values advocate — is relevant to the EPIC vs. Ask situation described above, and is particularly difficult to successfully navigate. Along with concerns related to gaining the proper technical proficiency to be accepted within design communities (see Ask’s comment above that EPIC was technically mistaken in their analysis), we identify an array of roles that the values advocate can take within a particular design context: the authoritarian role, the supporting role or the leadership role.

In the first role, the values advocate is regarded as authoritative in the ethical and value considerations at hand, implementing value-conscious decisions using a top-down strategy. Such a role is often confrontational, where pressure is exerted (both internally and externally) to ensure proper attention to values. A second role, the supporting role, is a fairly passive accompaniment of the design process, raising awareness at moments where value choices are being made and pointing to possible alternatives without advocating the one or the other. An advocate in this role is often merely advisory, and might have little more than token input on design decisions. Finally, the leadership role enables the values advocate to be both supporting but also directing when it comes to value choices. By providing insight to the complexity and delicacy of value choices basing on theoretical knowledge as well as acquired practical expertise, the values advocate in her role as leader is able to educate the other members of the design team (and possibly other stakeholders) and to strongly promote certain choices over others where necessary.

We argue in the paper that the leadership role is the preferred positioning of the values advocate within a design team, taking into account shared responsibility for value choices (whereas the first example of an authoritative role might be too heavy-handed) and a proactive stance of the values advocate (whereas the example of a supporting role might be too passive).

:::

Recent efforts by advocacy groups concerned about Web search privacy help illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of these various roles. Privacy International, for example, took an authoritarian approach with its report “A Race to the Bottom” strongly criticizing the privacy practices of major Internet companies, especially Google. Industry experts criticized the aggressive stance of the report as poorly researched, non-comprehensive, and biased (see, for example, Danny Sullivan‘s reaction).

The EPIC case above is another textbook example of this authoritarian stance: by sending demands to a regulatory agency, and apparently rebuffing attempts to engage directly with the technology designer, EPIC’s aggressive and authoritarian role has jeopardized not only the ability to engage constructively in this particular case, but also in future instances where a values advocate will be necessary.

Alternatively, the Center for Democracy and Technology recently issued a report detailing how the largest Internet search companies have begun to aggressively compete with one another to offer stronger privacy protections to their customers. This study was written off, however, by those who criticized CDT for being financially supported by some of the very search engines in the report. CDT’s supporting role with the search engine companies has apparently diluted the effectiveness of their advocacy.

As we argue in the paper, a combination of these two approaches would provide for an assertive leadership role for the value advocates in working with Web search engine providers. From such a leadership position, the values advocate would be empowered, for example, to take the initiative to convene the leading search engine companies in a non-hostile environment to discuss, debate if necessary, and decide how to move forward to design future Web search products in value-conscious ways. (I have had the pleasure of being involved in early steps in just such a leadership role, and hope to blog about it soon.)

:::

The take-home lesson is that to foster the value-conscious design of technologies, we must engage pragmatically directly with technological design teams. While avoiding the poles of overly authoritarian or supporting positions, values advocates must take a position of assertive leadership to shape the “hearts and minds” of technologists and foster meaningful, long-term changes to design and policy.The challenge of the role of a values advocate can be pernicious.

In the case above, EPIC and its partners were too aggressive, and a chance to engage with Ask.com was missed. I generally respect and support the important role EPIC has had in protecting privacy and holding companies accountable, but moving forward, I hope we can overcome the tendency to be authoritarian when it comes to advocating for values, and focus instead on how we can be leaders in the value-conscious design technology.

UPDATE: Following up on the EPIC vs. Ask confrontation described above, EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg disputes Ask’s assertion that EPIC rebuffed the search engine’s attempts to engage in a dialog.  Wired’s Threat Level blog quotes Rotenberg: “[T]he short version is that Ask wrote to us and proposed to talk last Friday. We gave them two different times and they ended up canceling on us. What a joke. [...]“

Ask has put together quite an extensive help page explaining the details of AskEraser, including important caveats about the actual coverage of the service, which has some significant gaps. For example:

Where does AskEraser work and where does it not work?
AskEraser works if you come directly to Ask.com and perform a search within the Ask.com search box. If you access Ask.com through a search toolbar or an Ask search box on a third party site or application, Ask Eraser will not be enabled and your search activity will not be deleted. Search boxes embedded within Firefox, Internet Explorer and other browsers do allow AskEraser to be enabled.

What about data collected by third-party partners?
When enabled, AskEraser will delete your search activity from Ask.com servers. We cannot delete your search activity from the servers of third-party companies that receive your search queries to provide you with certain aspects of our search results (for example, current weather conditions, stock market summaries, etc.), sponsored search results and other product features.

Is there any reason Ask.com will stop deleting my search activity?
Even when AskEraser is enabled, Ask.com may temporarily retain your search activity data in the cases of:

• Critical errors or abnormal operation — if the data from AskEraser users is necessary to solve a critical technical issue emanating from internal sources (instability, etc.) or external sources (Denial of Service Attack, etc.), search activity data may be retained for a longer period. At the time of technical resolution all search activity data of AskEraser users that was retained will be deleted.
• Formal legal request — Ask.com must abide by the laws and regulations of local, state and federal authorities. Even when Ask Eraser is enabled, we may store your search activity data if so requested by law enforcement or legal authority pursuant to due process. In such case, we will retain your search data even if AskEraser appears to be turned on.

The key exception with AskEraser is the 2nd one noted above: Ask will continue to pass user search queries to third parties in order to deliver ads. Who is that third party? Google.

So, while Ask’s motivation in launching AskEraser is to steal privacy-concerned searchers from Google, those users’ queries will end up in Mountain View anyway (although users will still have more protection than if they were searching on Google itself — with its cookie and Google Account in tow).

Is AskEraser the perfect solution? No. Is it a step in the right direction? For sure.

UPDATE: Recognizing the incomplete protection I note above, EPIC and other privacy advocates have sent a letter to Ask.com [pdf] urging them to change Ask Eraser, noting three key problems with their implementation of this feature: (1) using Ask Eraser requires an opt-out cookie, (2) the cookie creates a quasi-unique identifier that could be used to track users, and (3) Ask Eraser can be disabled without notice.

[via PogoWasRight]

Declan McCullagh and Elinor Mills at CNet have surveyed the major search engine providers about their privacy practices related to retention of user data and behavioral targeting. Full story here, and the search engines’ actual replies here.

Excellent summary, but much remains unknown…

Microsoft and Ask are also trying to step out in front of the issue. The companies today will announce their plans to try to bring together a broad swath of companies and advocacy groups to establish common practices about how and for how long search engines store personal data they glean from their users.

Executives at the companies said they expect to announce a more formal plan in September. Peter Cullen, chief privacy strategist for Microsoft, said the company hoped other search concerns, including Google, would participate in the discussions.

That Microsoft and Ask are trying to spearhead industrywide privacy standards could be in part a reflection of their place in the industry. Both lag far behind Google and Yahoo in Internet-search market share and thus have far less data about search behaviors than their rivals. By calling for more defined standards on privacy, Microsoft could indirectly limit Google’s ability to use its vast stores of information to improve its services. Google had 49.5% of the U.S. search market in June, according to comScore Inc.

Microsoft, whose sites were used for 13.2% of all U.S. Internet searches, will also today announce a variety of new policies, including making Live Search query data anonymous after 18 months by removing the entire IP address and other identifiers from the search terms. The company said it will continue to develop new controls that allow users to surf its sites without being tracked for behavioral advertising.

Recall that Ask.com recently announced new privacy procedures, while Google has been struggling to convince the public that data retention is essential. More news about this latest announcement here and here.

These latest efforts are a welcome shift of focus for the web search industry, and I hope we can ride this momentum and continue to work towards solutions that help give users more control over the collection of their personal data while using these vital tools. This is the task before me in the coming months…

With AskEraser, people can ensure that their search history will not be retained by Ask.com. Searchers will have easy access to AskEraser and can change their privacy preference at any time. Once selected, searchers’ privacy settings will be clearly indicated on search results pages so they always know the privacy status of their searches.

“AskEraser is a great solution for those looking for an additional level of privacy when they search online,” said Jim Lanzone, CEO of Ask.com. “Anonymous user data can be very useful to enhance search products for all users, and we’re committed to being open and transparent about how such information is used. But we also understand that there are some who are interested in new tools that will help protect their privacy further, and we will give them that control on Ask.com.”

Ask also said it will be implementing a new 18 month data retention policy that will “completely disassociate search history from a user’s IP address or cookie information after 18 months”. (This puts them in line with Google’s new 18-month retention period)

I’m very pleased with Ask’s decision to be a market-leader here, and while we don’t have the details yet (Ask, like Google, is still figuring them out), it appears to be much more meaningful than Google’s recent non-announcement that its cookies will expire after 2 years (as long as a user never returns to Google).

(It is worth nothing that the meta-search engine, Ixquick, has had a non-retention policy in place for quite a some time now).

More at Search Engine Land, Threat Level, ars technica, and the original AP story.