Amazon's A9 Drops Retained Data Methods

eldavojohn writes "The recent update to Amazon's A9 service has removed its ability to record searches. A9 (which now uses Windows Live & Alexa) used to tout the ability to save every single search the user made, which required a login. Now, they no longer require you to log in and have dropped the recording of searches from their toolbar. What they added was aesthetic changes to the search site. What they dropped was the A9 Instant Reward, the A9 Toolbar, the A9 Yellow Pages, the A9 Maps (including Block View), the user diary, bookmarks, and history. Although they claim that A9 is merely 'shifting its priorities to areas where it can provide the greatest benefit for customers,' this smacks of a move to avoid the ethical controversies and pressures that come with retaining your user data. What does the rest of Slashdot think about retaining search data? Is it a liability or an asset?"

Depends...

[EaglemanBSA]

I suppose that depends on what data is being stored, and why...in the case of Amazon, I personally could care less if someone else could look at which CD's I'm interested in. I think the decision should be left to the end user.

Re:Depends...

[VernonNemitz]

ANYTHING can be either used, or abused. And one way to ensure something is not abused, is to not have it around.

Re:Asset, under certain circumstances.

[cryfreedomlove]

What if the government wants to troll through your search queries to see if you committed a crime? I assume that's ok with you.

Re:And If the Government Asks?

[LordEd]

The government> I accuse Mr. White in the Conservatory with the CD!

A search is not a purchase. For purchases, there are already records. It doesn't matter if you're searching for that new-fangled satanic rock and roll. If it matters at all, it will be if you purchase (or download) the CD.

Re:Asset, under certain circumstances.

[mgblst]

What if a couple of dogs go missing in the neighbourhood, will you be pissed when the government comes to your door with a subpoena to search your premises? What if they come in to your work, and feel the need to talk to your fellow employees? (Maybe it was the Bushs dogs, Cuddles) Do you start to get annoyed now? What if they want to talk to your family about your strange habits, and your sister no longer wants you to hang around with your nieces and nephews?

Re:Asset, under certain circumstances.

[truthsearch]

IT DOESN'T MATTER. They should not be watching even this mundane information without probable cause. What if the movie review you read was for "Fahrenheit 9/11" and some government agents decided to punish all conspiracy theorists. Nothing of what you do or search for is the government's business until you break a law (over-simplified, but still basically true). And even then they're limited by your rights.

History has taught us many lessons. And one of them is that information and power will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Asset, under certain circumstances.

[MMC Monster]

It doesn't matter if you believe that you don't commit crimes. The problem is that government should not be invading your privacy without a warrant or probable cause of imminent harm. Not possible illegal activity. If the government was worried that you are doing something wrong, let them go through the proper channels and get a judge to issue a search warrant.

Safer Not To Save Searches

[blueZhift]

Most of the time the stuff I look for isn't anything special as near as I can tell. But I'd ultimately prefer that my search data is not saved. What's innocuous today, could get one landed in jail, embarassed, or worse years later. When I browse a real bookstore, no one is following me around noting every book I pick up or cover I glance at. I'd like the same consideration given to my online searches. I have nothing to hide (right now), but I still don't want to be spied on, unless it's by attractive women with amorous intent! ;)