google_cohen

Voluntary Versus Mandatory Privacy Protection for Web Search

Bill Hibbard December 2005

I submitted the following letter to the editor of the New York Times on 28 November 2005, although they did not print it:

• In "What Google Should Roll Out Next: A Privacy Upgrade" (28 November 2005) Adam Cohen describes the threat to privacy from Google's records of users' searches and email, and admonishes Google to resist the opportunity to profit from such personal data. But it is precisely such personally targeted services that users will want and that will be the core business opportunity of the net, especially as online services develop technology that can talk with and understand users in human languages. If Google resists this, that will simply create the opportunity for a competitor to replace Google as the preeminent online service. But the ability of technology to profile and ultimately to know huge numbers of users does pose an enormous threat to privacy and to liberty. This cannot be effectively resisted voluntarily by online services, but must be the subject of government regulation much like the regulation of other public infrastructure.

The New York Times did not print any letters to the editor in response to Mr. Cohen's OP-ED, so after a week I submitted another letter, also not printed:

• It is surprising that the Times has not printed a single letter, including my own, in response to "What Google Should Roll Out Next: A Privacy Upgrade" during the week since it appeared. In it, Adam Cohen describes the threat to privacy from Google's records of users' searches and email, and admonishes Google to resist the opportunity to retain and profit from such personal data.
  • The threat to our privacy and eventually our liberty posed by central servers and their relations with large numbers of users will be one of the most important public policy issues of the twenty first century, as those servers increase in computing power and intelligence. The voluntary resistance that Mr. Cohen advocates will simply be inadequate to meet the threat in a competitive market for appealing personalized services. Can there have been no worthwhile response to his article? If this issue is really so dull or opaque to Times readers, heaven help us in formulating reasonable public policy.

There is terrific competition for space in the New York Times, so I was not surprised by their decision not to print my letters (but I was surprised that they printed no letters in response to Mr. Cohen's OP-ED). But my letters make an important point so I am printing them here.

UPDATE: here's a 10 August 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal describing the competitive pressure on Google to weaken its privacy standards, just as my unpublished letters to the Times predicted. In my opinion, the wisest response for Google would be to publicly and loudly lobby the U.S. government for mandatory privacy standards similar to their longstanding practice.