Hi Chris,

> I guess the real issue, and Wired pointed at this in their Google
> piece, is that Google is well down the path of technological adoption
> social and political issues are inevitably becoming as big or bigger
> deals than the technology.

Absolutely, and if you're curious, here's my take on that which predated the Wired piece:

http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2164991

> But, time for Googlers to step up: Google is great technology, and
> being used by saints and sinners everywhere. Until slowly-grinding
> legal machinery catches up (which may be never) Google itself will
> bear the awesome duty of striking the balance between utility and
> potential for abuse.

Well, I have a really long view of these things. For everything where people want to say Google, I generally think, "search engines" in general. Google is currently the dominant player -- but they weren't always, and I doubt we'll ever see them as powerful as they currently are. Yahoo will be dropping them in the near future, cutting into their reach. Other players are stepping up development.

I generally worry that people fixate too much on Google rather than the overall issues as they apply to search generally. Legal problems with search engines have existed long before Google :) Take a look at all the stuff here:

http://searchenginewatch.com/resources/article.php/2156541

cheers,
danny
-----------------------------------
Danny Sullivan
Editor, SearchEngineWatch.com
http://searchenginewatch.com

Comments [ ] 9:56:33 AM    

The reason I write about Google, sometimes critically, is because I'm a fan. I happen to believe that all things, from democracies to technologies, benefit from the light of open debate and discourse.

Google is well along the path of technological adoption: inevitably, social and political issues will become as big, or bigger deals than the technology. Like it or not, Google will have to shoulder the burden of making decisions that will balance utility, profit and potentials for abuse. Our creaking legal machinery, which clings to 17th-century processes, will likely never catch up.

I can't imagine that anyone at Google would be pleased to hear that, say, terrorists, or an abusive regime, had used their search engine to find and hurt people. That's probably already happened, and there's nothing Google can do about that, short of turning the lights out.

But it's a different story if Google doesn't fix flaws in technology or process that could hurt people. We expect auto manufacturers, when they become aware that features in their cars are resulting in unusually high numbers of accidents or injuries, to fix those things. Indeed, we expect them to think through, and test, and develop airbags and make the cars as safe as they know how. It's only right: our lives, our children's lives can depend on how good a job their engineers do.

Software can hurt people: we know that, now. We didn't used to think about that, in the early days, but we now know that everything from real-time control systems to databases have the potential to do harm. A bug in navigation software means astronauts land miles off course, or maybe not at all. A badly-secured database means identity thieves can put us into years of fiscal hell.

And Google, for all its wonderful utility, has become the single largest publicly-accessible record. It is daily used by saints and sinners of all stripes. I believe that the world will be a better place for Google, because it levels the informational playing field. Informational democracy is a good thing.

But I also expect the smart people at Google to do the right thing: put the search-engine equivalent of airbags into their product. Large subpoena-ready databases of information that make it easy for governments, corporations, hackers and God knows who else to pinpoint the interests, and even the location of Google users are probably right up there with 'engineering' like gas tanks that rupture in low-speed collisions.

Google can get the information they need to grow and do a better job, without making it easy for potential abusers to hurt people. If there's a doubt, prudence would dictate taking the path that protects the greatest numbers...
Comments [ ] 9:36:51 AM    

First off: a reason I noted that the Clickz.com article was sponsored by Google was the unusual, for me, placement of the line 'Sponsored by Google.com' between the headline and byline of the Clickz.com column. The rest of the ads on that page are handled conventionally, and I wasn't absolutely sure that this didn't represent fair notice, the way 'Advertorial' appears on certain pages in other media.

Second: Clickz.com broke the story into 2 pieces. The whole, original column is here:

http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2189531

..and Danny points to this companion piece which goes deeper into privacy:

http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2175251

For the record, Danny says the sponsorship has nothing to do with what he writes. Fair enough... more in a bit...
Comments [ ] 9:00:30 AM    

Chris Gulker's view from Silicon Valley - in words and pictures