Talk:AOL search log release/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

There are two links to pages to search the logs. Does no one think a link to download them is just as valuable?Mastershake phd 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge page

I think this page should be merged into the main AOL article. Nobody is going to look up a specific crime of a corporation, unless it's a huge one (not that this isn't, just not big enough that it is its own topic). This article is almost stub-length, with verifiable data, and a single incident of a corporation. It should fit nicely into the AOL article. Smokeresearcher 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It should never have been split in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend keeping separate

I wasn't exactly clear about the scandal until i read the entire article. Because it is somewhat complex to explain, it may be too long to merge with AOL main article.

Ian 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but some barebones facts should be merged with AOL article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.121.77 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept separate, since it's an example that is often studied by security, and privacy students. It does need more information, like the results of the FTC complaint, and the law suit. I don't have time to research them, but it would be interesting to have that information in here.mjlissner (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional material wished: internal consequences

I heard that, among others, the CTO of AOL had to resign due to this mishap. I think this is notable fact that should be mentioned (if it's true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.92.177.35 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since done by others who proceeded me. Thank you for your suggestion. It was a good idea. --FeralOink (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

#14 is broken

but here is the correct link http://consumerist.com/2006/08/aol-user-927-illuminated.html dont know if I should update that or not so I'll just post that here. TinyEdit (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. This is really awful, the entire article, or rather, the subject matter... Anyway, I updated some of the other links too, as they'd changed.--FeralOink (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AOL search data leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061126162350/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/08/22/business/aol.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/22/business/aol.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I Love Alaska

I made a page for I Love Alaska, the film mentioned at the end of the article, and have linked to it. Zachthesmallboy (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a leak

Why is this called a "leak" in the title when AOL willfully and knowingly released the data. It wasn't a leak or a breach...it was just a mistake. This should be renamed "AOL search data release incident" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.14.48 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is called a leak in a different sense of the word. The data was released, but the information in that data about people's queries and whatnot leaked out in the sense that it was in the data originally, but was never supposed to get out. --mjlissner (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AOL search data leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813074551/http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/ to http://gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601043721/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=industryNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=industryNews&storyID=2006-08-21T193427Z_01_WEN4315_RTRIDST_0_INDUSTRY-MEDIA-AOL-DC.XML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1