3 ms·

EFF didn't cite a source regarding the 3/4 claim in their article. I'd be curious where they got that information since it does conflict with their privacy poli

• nl 14y ago
  I believe the chopping of the octet is separate to the anonymization, unless they haven't updated their docs: What does it mean to anonymize the logs? We will change some of the bits in the IP address in the logs as well as change the cookie information. We're still developing the precise technical methods and approach to this, but we believe these changes will be a significant addition to protecting user privacy. http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/services.google.com/en/us/blog_resources/google_log_retention_policy_faq.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust... Edit: I think I'm wrong about this. http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=jpc http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&#... After Google announced its log retention policy update in 2008, C. Soghoian asked Google for details about the log sanitization process. He then published the following response from Google [34]: After nine months, we will change some of the bits in the IP address in the logs; after 18 months we remove the last eight bits in the IP address and change the cookie information (emphasis our own). It is dicult to guarantee complete anonymization, but we believe these changes will make it very unlikely users could be identied."