Jesse Walker | August 8, 2006
America Online is getting raked over the coals for releasing a portion of its users' search data. It deserves all the criticism it's getting, but I have to say I'm a little freaked out by some of the AOL subscribers as well.
Take this search history, for "user 17556639":
17556639 how to kill your wife
17556639 how to kill your wife
17556639 wife killer
17556639 how to kill a wife
17556639 poop
17556639 dead people
17556639 pictures of dead people
17556639 killed people
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 murder photo
17556639 steak and cheese
17556639 photo of death
17556639 photo of death
17556639 death
17556639 dead people photos
17556639 photo of dead people
17556639 www.murderdpeople.com
17556639 decapatated photos
17556639 decapatated photos
17556639 car crashes3
17556639 car crashes3
17556639 car crash photo
I'm curious about the fifth item. What makes a potential wife-killer (or, perhaps, a man very interested in wife-killers) suddenly pause and say, "Hey, I think I'd like to look at some poop?" (And the steak and cheese? I guess looking at all those corpses made him hungry.)
This reminds me of something that allegedly happened in the early '90s, when I was fresh out of college and selling books at the local Borders. A story spread through the chain about an event that supposedly had just transpired at a Borders in New Jersey. It sounds like an urban legend -- hell, it probably is an urban legend -- but we all believed it at the time.
(The book titles, among other details, are approximate. Do not write me to say that you can't find them on Amazon. Printed for entertainment purposes only.)
A fellow came into the store and said he'd been told that a book he had ordered had arrived. The clerk searched the shelves behind the counter, found one with the customer's surname attached to it, and handed it to him.
The man's face changed color, his voice started to shake, and he said, "I didn't order this book. My wife did." The employee looked at the cover. It was called How to Divorce Your Husband.
Mortified, the clerk returned to the shelf and found the book the husband had ordered.
It was called Taking Care of Your Gun.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
And the steak and cheese? I guess looking at all those
corpses made him hungry.
Warning: do not follow this link.
In college, my roommate told me that his friend's mother had paid $250 for a cookie recipe. He swore that it was true.
"steak and cheese" is probably steakandcheese.com, which is a Web site full of sick pictures and movies with human injuries and deaths. The site's content is similar to that at rotten.com.
1: Given the number of grisly fiction novels out there, it could
very well be an author doing research.
2: Voluntarily using AOL (unless you live in the wilds or unwired
rural areas) could be construed as a psyschlogical disorder all by
itself.
Hey, give the guy some credit, he ain't looking for porn.
Jesus, I just shudder to think what would happen if my girlfriend
caught a whiff of my google search records.
'Honey. Who's Briana Banks? You sure seem to like
her...
1: Given the number of grisly fiction novels out there, it
could very well be an author doing research.
... for a novel featuring an antagonist with a scatalogical
fixation. Or maybe a protagonist.
Jesus, I just shudder to think what would happen if my
girlfriend caught a whiff of my google search records.
Cover your tracks:
http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm
Oh sweetie, Briana Banks is a custom jewelry designer, and you know that your birthday is coming up....
What I find hilarious is that some guy from AOL has pasted the
exact same form letter into multiple comment boards, about how this
was all a huge mistake and nobody actually meant to release the
records. I'd love to ask him which AOL employee mistakenly wrote
the introductory paragraph asking future researchers to please cite
this document, and bragging about what a useful research tool it
is.
I'm also willing to bet that when AOL "anonymized" the user
information, they didn't bother blacking out the names of people
who did things like vanity searches for their own names on the
Web.
I used to do work for them. I thought the company was merely
incompetent, rather than evil. Oh, well.
"AOL search data shows [sic] users planning to commit
murder"
I guess we should expect remarkably stupid leaps of logic from an
organization that can't get the grammar in its headlines correct.
There are too many possible benign explanations for these search
terms to conclude that a sicko was planning on murdering a wife,
even if the person did kill his wife.
"Given the number of grisly fiction novels out there, it could
very well be an author doing research."
User #17556639 is in fact David Cronenberg.
"User #17556639 is in fact David Cronenberg."
Nonono, it's the William S. Burroughs Memorial SearchBot.
AOL is to ISP's what Honda used to be to motorcycles years ago.
The name is identifiable to people just getting started and you can
get around. But if you have any experience at all you're not going
to AOL. You're going to buy a Yamaha, Suzuki, or a Kawasaki. Yes
that's an overgeneralization.
It doesn't surprise me that people are interested in death. Look
how many people watch the Soprano's and then estimate how many of
them form their own neighborhood mob.
The other day a friend sent me some drivel about Marilyn Monroe's
death day. I did a google search and found her autopsy photo and
sent him a note back saying check this out if you want to see the
real
Marilyn. While I was out there I found some JFK autopsy photos.
Grisly but interesting to me. Had never seen them before. I'm
willing to bet that like my search, most seemingly sicko searches
are not all that sinister. Then again I could be Lizzie Borden's
great nephew. We're all going to die and we don't know a whole lot
about it. Death is morbidly fascinating.
And if AOL is releasing gross stats that aren't personally
identifiable I don't see the harm. I'd like to see the harm though
because I hate AOL.
Then again I could be Lizzie Borden's great
nephew.
Funny you should bring that up since I AM a great-great-great (not
really sure how many greats should be in there, so let's just all
agree that I'm really great) nephew of Lizzie Borden.
Coincidentally, so is my brother. :)
From the other side of the coin, I regularly parse my web server's
logs and pull out the search terms people are using to get to my
site. 99% of the time it's stuff I expect to find, but occasionally
I'll find a term that I'm pretty sure doesn't appear on my site at
all. Someone must be clicking back to Google result number 52,341
to get there. It's interesting to see what comes up most often,
because it's frequently not what you expect. (For the seriously
vain only: insead of using Google to search for yourself, search
your own web logs to find out who's searching for YOU.) Anyway, I
don't think AOL ought to be spreading this data around when it's
associated with an (anonymized) user name, but it's still useful
research data. So even if they shouldn't be printing a list like
"user 6 searched for X and Y" I can't think of any reason not to
print a list that showed 20,000 users searched for X last week, and
50,000 searched for Y.
Oops, misread, it looks like AOL is keeping and releasing
personally identifiable search info and habits. That's crap. I knew
I hated AOL. But i'll bet most other ISP's would do the same.
My crappy ISP says that don't keep records of stuff like how many
pirated albums you download.
17556639 decapatated photos
17556639 decapatated photos
Wow, I'm disturbed that the guy with such an interest in people
being decapitated doesn't know how to spell it.
Mad, That is fascinating and it also proves we really are only 7
times removed from Kevin Bacon.
Is your site connected to your great and ever-so-well-known
aunt?
As a child, my mother used to chant the Lizzie Borden ditty while
she jumped rope in the 1930's. I recently taught it to my daughter
who appalled her teacher and the yard duty supervisor by reciting
it perfectly. Why are kids fascinated with that stuff?
Why are kids fascinated with that stuff?
Kids? Why is "Crime Scene" tape a crowd magnet?
TWC, no, my site doesn't say squat about dear Auntie Lizzie. :)
My sister is the family expert on that little nugget of information
and I probably wouldn't know about it at all if she hadn't put in
the research time. My Mom's been to the actual house where it
happened though. I think it's been torn down since, but she was
once there as a kid visiting some relative or other.
I should have my sister find out if we're related to Kevin bacon
next. :)
I was just checking into Ring-Around-The-Rosy, which I thought was
a much nastier song than the Lizzie Borden ditty, but according to
Snopes it
has nothing to do with the Plague at all.
(Appologies if the server squirrels have posted this multiple
times.)
Mad, thanks for the Snopes reference. I'll reserve judgement
because it appears that the Snope's opinion is riddled with as much
conjecture as anywhere else. I would think the hypothesis would
merit a not certain.
Snopes got the words wrong, too. It goes like this:
Ashes, Ashes, we all fall DEAD.
Then again, maybe it's just a circle game like they say. That's the
way we played it as kids.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245