Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
I think the numbers are off though, its a 5 hour flight but it was supposed to be $10 (used the free trial code) instead of $13.
12/18/09
12/18/09
That's could, as in, there is a potential.
In other words, there has been no harm, no foul, and no grounds for a lawsuit.
12/18/09
12/18/09
Besides, it's not like straight people don't watch movies with homosexual themes. Netflix on demand has some great documentaries covering GLBT issues. If anyone ever did figure out who she was... unlikely as that is, she could just claim she wanted a different perspective. Or she could just be honest with herself and her peers and come out.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
I guess I don't understand how someone could figure out her identity unless they really really really wanted to (which seems unlikely unless she's made a lot of internet enemies (which is very possible, I suppose) ), and bringing attention to herself through this lawsuit just makes me think that her identity will likely come out.
The choice to be in the closet is a choice, and if she feels she has reasons to stay in the closet she has the right to do so, but to me, this seems counter-intuitive to keeping her privacy. How is she filing this lawsuit without her family finding out?
12/18/09
Well, maybe it won't go that far, but she is opening herself up to a lot of potential scrutiny, which is pretty much what she seems to be interested in avoiding. If this lawsuit never existed, she's still be a nobody from nowheresville. Now she's Miss Anonymous (for now) suing a massive corporation.
12/18/09
12/18/09
I started writing a rant about this when I decided to do some research. In the future, I recommend not doing this. It only keeps you up hours after forgetting why you were so passionate to begin with, and now I know a ton of useless facts about this case. Facts that I will share with you now, because there were a ton of unanswered questions and I didn't want them unanswered anymore.
Basically, back in 2007 Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov publish a paper called "How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset." In it, they say that even though Netflix replaces all of the user info with anonymous data (i.e. "Poop Cooper" is replaced with "User #23486") if you happen to already know someone's identity and a few of the movies this person liked or disliked, "you can use the Netflix dataset to find their entire movie ...."
So, let's say one day I tell myself, "Self, I need to know every movie Jane Doe has watched since 2005," all I would need to know are 6 obscure movies Jane Doe liked and disliked, when she rated those movies. And have a copy of the Netflix data set. And Jane Doe needs to have been part of the limited data set that was released to the public. Oh, and Jane Doe needs to have also given me her username so that I know which one the info correlates to, otherwise once I find out User #23486 is Poop Cooper, it'll still be useless until I know Poop Cooper is Jane Doe. See? Totally not anonymous.
Now, note that that this Netflix info can't determine your sexual preference, political affiliation, y'know, none of that. But with this Netflix info I can cross reference those Netflix movie preferences with IMDB movie preferences! And if there's match, then ho-boy! Now I can know what Jane Doe has been writing on her profile at IMDB! At least, I know what a user at IMDB who likely-is-but-might-not-be Jane Doe is writing. And if this user at IMDB who may-or-may-not-be (but, I mean, it could be and probably is) Jane Doe writes in one of IMDB's forums, "I am totally gay for women and a democrat in Ohio," then bingo! I totally now know that Jane Doe is gay for women and a democrat in Ohio.
I mean, at the very least, the IMDB username that has the same preferences as the Netflix username that I assume is Jane Doe is gay for women and a democrat in Ohio. And by the transitive property of gayness, there's little chance that this can be wrong.
So nothing happens for 2 years.
Then this past August, Paul Ohm declares Netflix anonymity dead in a paper entitled "Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization." In it, he writes a lot and pretty poorly, but cites Narayanan and Shmatikov on the basis that their paper is good because, and I shit you not, because it's been "cited by other researchers." (pg 20) And then in September writes a blog post explaining the entire premise for Jane Doe's lawsuit against Netflix, stating that "Netflix has many reasons to know better, including in part, my paper and the publicity surrounding it."
Suddenly, 3 months later, there's a lawsuit! Unprecedented! Ohm must be a fucking seer! Or! Or maybe.... no, that would be crazy.
It's almost seems as if after Ohm wrote his blog post, someone came along and followed all of the instructions he outlined.
So Jane Doe, hear me out for a second. Lawsuits like this are frivolous, a waste of my money as a taxpayer and may even adversely affect the price of the Netflix service for everyone else.
Don't take the easy lawsuit some asshat outlined for you because you think it's easy money. I know this isn't about how someone might figure out you're gay, because if you really are that paranoid that someone would go through all of this particular effort to find that out, then first of all A) they probably already have their suspicions anyway, and B) you wouldn't have filed a lawsuit that begs bored bloggers to figure out who you are.
And if those bored bloggers do eventually figure out who you are, it won't be because you rented Snow Dogs.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
@crackel: You don't think Netflix's billion dollar attorney team won't be able to figure this out? What Poop Cooper did was a great service to us, but I'm sure the Netflix attorney team is already 20,000 leagues ahead of him on this one.
12/18/09
Excellent work and a good read.
12/18/09
12/18/09
Very insightful post. The only flaw I find in it is that you assume that Jane Doe's Netflix and IMDB usernames are something anonymous like "Poop Cooper". What if her username on those services is JaneDoe or JDoe?
That, plus any previous "evidence" someone may have that Jane is gay (i.e. they saw her come out of the Saphic Bar or something) could out her.
There may be a good reason for Jane to want to stay in the closet. Perhaps she is in the military, or maybe she's going through a divorce. You bet your ass a sleazy private investigator would love to get his hands on someone's video rental records.
Of course, none of that matters. Even if it wasn't possible to easily correlate user names to people, if Netflix violated the video rental privacy laws, then they absolutely deserve to get sued over it.
12/18/09
12/19/09
What the heck gives Netflix the right to expose people's viewing habits without permission, quasi-anononimized or not?!
*yes, I'm assuming you are straight.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
*steps away carefully*
12/20/09
The woman didn't start the lawsuit (she joined an already existing one as a Jane Doe party). She's also not suing for millions for herself. You might want to read up before making assinine assumptions.
12/20/09
It also seems to me there's more likelihood of her being "outed" as a lesbian through this suit than the original Netflix data release, unless she spends lots of time in IMDB LGBT forums, which seems irresponsible anyway if she feels that the consequences she discusses are real for her family, livelihood and children.
I'm not against a suit which seeks to protect privacy, but the facts of Jane Doe's involvement seem odd, unnecessary and questionable.
And, as I'm sure @Curves recognized (but you didn't), it was a joke, ferchristssake.
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/17/09
Congrats idiots.
12/16/09
12/16/09
As for Microsoft, I think they have been on a steady decline for quite some time when it comes to mobile. I find it hard to believe its a "typical slant for this blog" since not only Gizmodo has posted these articles. Similar posts can be seen on Business Week, Silicon Alley Insider, Fortune 500, Forbes and even PC favored magazines such as "PC Magazine".
12/16/09
12/16/09
If this site were the only site stating these comments, then it'd be one thing. But when it's an entire business network of over 10 major fortune 500's, its fact.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Apple will not just need to get unlocked, I think they'll have to come up with a less expensive variant. Something akin to the Nano. Not just smaller internal memory, but less functionality at a cheaper price. The market they are competing in is the highest of high end smartphones. There are several lower stratifications (especially outside the states) where Apple could probably pick up some market share if it made a device that was not as powerful as the iPhone, but also not as expensive.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/19/09
1) Microsoft is flat, as title indicates.
2) Palm is flat, as title indicates.
3) All other platforms are growing, as title indicates.
4) Apple and RIM are booming, as the article indicates.
12/16/09
Android: Um, ignore these numbers since they do not even factor in the Droid release. Come back and talk after we see how that did.
Microsoft: We all know they will not be a player in this market until their "pink" (or whatever they call it) product is released. Yes, they look like they are going backwards because they are just stalling until they have something to show.
Palm: They need a new carrier before we will know how their product fares. The "P" products look interesting, but very few people are on Sprint or are willing to switch to Sprint to try them. Either find a new carrier or sell your company to Microsoft or Nokia.
RIM: Continuing to kick-butt because Apple and Android refuse to play in the business world. The products are passable, at best - but without enterprise level quality product competition, they will continue to gobble market share. Oh, and you crazy tech geeks up north need to release a slide-out keyboard model of the Storm 2. That on-screen keyboard is ridiculously bad.
Apple: Damn it, Steve - release a BES-like server and make a business controllable device. Help me out, man! Oh, and stop releasing patches that show you are lying about encryption and kill iPhone access to Exchange Servers. Hard to believe, but that is not making friends. One last thing - I still love you even if you refuse to make a phone I can give to my producers, buddy.
Enough worthless rambling. I have to run for a date at the Cyclops. My wife and I are celebrating our tenth anniversary, and being the generous soul I am, I am making her come with me to a geek round-up in Seattle. Yes, I know - I am a romantic.
12/16/09
Second, I agree with you for the most part, especially about Palm. The Pre is a really nice piece of equipment, but they chose an even worse carrier than Apple did, and are paying for it dearly. Not even Candice Bergen with God powers can save it there.
RIM amazes me with its "crackberry" users that are flat-out addicted to them, but the Storm really does need that keyboard. A relative of mine has one and I tried it out. Man do I hate it.
12/16/09
12/17/09