The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Netflix cancels recommendation contest over privacy

Not as anonymous as you think

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

Netflix has canceled a contest designed to improve its movie recommendation system out of concern it might compromise the privacy of its customers.

The decision was announced in a blog post, published Friday, by Netflix chief product officer Neil Hunt. A previous competition that handed over anonymous user data to more than 50,000 contestants ended poorly after researchers showed it was possible to identify individuals' viewing habits by connecting the dots.

"In the past few months, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asked us how a Netflix Prize sequel might affect Netflix members' privacy, and a lawsuit was filed by KamberLaw LLC pertaining to the sequel," Hunt wrote. "In light of all this, we have decided to not pursue the Netflix Prize sequel that we announced on August 6, 2009."

Netflix's previous contest paid $1m for the winning submission to better predict movies users would like by crunching data of their previous selections. Researchers from the University of Texas quickly identified several users by comparing reviews in the Netflix data to those posted on the Internet Movie Database.

Late last year, a closeted lesbian mom sued Netflix for publishing data that could be used to out her. The Federal Trade Commission has also voiced its concern.

The Netflix contest is only the latest incident to highlight the hazards of data that's supposedly been scrubbed clean of any identifying information. In 2006, AOL released 20 million search queries that removed names and other personal identifiers from 658,000 users that nonetheless could be used to identify the people making the searches. Redacted GPS data may not be as anonymous as many think either, researchers have shown. ®

Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software

Latest Comments

Well, yes...

Any anonymous voting system is inherently and obviously flawed on the internets. Anything else is a violation of privacy. This is a classic case of "you can't have your cake and eat it too".

0
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights
Speech-to-text drives motorists to distraction
Will talking to you mean I crash into that car up ahead, Siri?
DHS warns of vulns in hospital medical equipment
Has your doctor's anasthesia machine been hacked?
 breaking news
Yes, maybe we should keep hackers in the clink for YEARS, mulls EU
Watch out black hats, they just might throw away the key
Microsoft borks botnet takedown in Citadel snafu
Stupid Redmond kicked over our honeypots, wail white hats
Critical Java SE update due Tuesday fixes 40 flaws
And yes, most are remotely exploitable
NSA accused of new crimes ... against slideware
They may take our information but they cannot take our REFINED AESTHETICS