Speaking Volumes

 Like most people today, Google is my search engine of choice. I like its clean, white, uncluttered page with primary color letters. I have good luck with it. A part of me also likes the idea that this monster, started by grad students, unconventional in it’s business has become such a success. I think I have a retirement fund that owns stock in Google, and it is such a large scale curiosity, that when books come out or news shows come on about the company, I’m intrigued.

 

Last week, I happened to be mesmerized by one such show. It was interesting to see “inside” the company’s headquarters, learn what they were planning next, how they created some of their “features.” But the more I listened and watched, the more disconcerting it became.

 

In their world, where every day is casual Friday, at first, the notion of the company providing its workers with several gourmet chefs, where at lunch one could get high cuisine from around the world seemed amazing. Have laundry to do? No problem, bring it in. It’s a company perk! But as I was thinking, ‘how cool is that?’ The company spokes person was explaining their rational: they want their workers working… all the time, not worrying about mundane things of life. So, they provide all they can for their workers, keeping them working and happy to be at work. 

 

Hmmm. Suddenly for me the concept of ‘company store’ took on new meaning. Then the reporter starting asking about privacy….

 

Did you know that Google keeps a record of every search, everyone has ever done? The scope of that was mind blowing. As I was trying to conceive of how much disk space that would require, the reporter went on to inquire just how much could Google link a search with a person. Although the company was quick to assure they don’t care,  don’t pay attention,  and really it’s only about indexing data, the bottom line was: they can. At least for 18 months prior, they can very, very easily. So much so, that the reporter allegedly contacted an individual, tracking them down, at their house, by Google searches.

 

Hmmm.

 

The reporter’s concern naturally was that maybe Josephine Q Public was searching things she didn’t want linked to her (domestic violence, AIDS symptoms, etc.) or that Big Brother would be able to swoop in and use this information, arresting those who searched how to make a bomb, e-mails addresses of terrorists. A valid concern, certainly. As one who for a number of reasons has obscure and varied searches, some of them seemingly nonsensical (pomegranate squid,  orc names, etc.) I kind of liked the idea that my obscure things were being saved and creating odd patterns for Google’s programmers.

 

But what really concerned me from this story was the assumption and acceptance that people’s searches are valid in telling us something about the individual. They’re not. It’s not simply Librarian’s that engage in seeking out information out of curiosity, sparked by something they were asked, read or saw on television. I might search haggis recipes, but that doesn’t mean I’m inclined to make or eat it. 

 

I leave you pondering this: which is worse a world where your every keystroke can be saved and linked to you personally or a world where this information is believed to have meaning?

 

As you ponder this idea, check out   Feed  by MT Anderson