Google To Track Flu Searches and Report Them to Feds?:
This report at Drudge strikes me as pretty creepy:
GOOGLE will launch a new tool that will help U.S. federal officials "track sickness".It's legal for Google to do this: From a legal standpoint, when you send a query to google, that query belongs to them and they can voluntarily disclose it. But do we want Google establishing such a cozy relationship with the federal government? I don't. I've thought about writing an article calling for a Search Engine Privacy Act, to prevent unauthorized use and disclosure of search queries. Stories like this make me think I may put that on the front burner rather than the back burner.
"Flu Trends" uses search terms that people put into the web giant to figure out where influenza is heating up, and notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in real time.
GOOGLE claims it would keep individual user data confidential: "GOOGLE FLU TRENDS can never be used to identify individual users because we rely on anonymized, aggregated counts of how often certain search queries occur each week."
From a legal standpoint, when you send a query to google, that query belongs to them and they can voluntarily disclose it
Somehow I do not recall Google's soliciting my agreement to such an arrangement, but apparently they don't need to. And if they did, we know how they'd do it.
Google's founders are close to Obama. There will be more than one type of cozy relationship with the federal government for Google.
I'm curious as to why this type of surveillance bothers you but you didn't have a problem with other types of surveillance like the government's wiretapping program. Or is it the idea of a private company coddling up to the federal government? Wouldn't that be exactly what the telecomm companies did?
Provide flu vaccine and treatment more efficiently. Those bastards
What is "the government's wiretapping program," and why do you think I "didn't have a problem with it"? Which programs? And which problems?
For those so frightened of the Bush wiretapping... that's another responsible use. It's just scary because of the power it implies. The actual program has been used properly and to save lives.
Sorry, I wasn't very specific. The warrantless wiretapping program. You never engaged much on the issue and had a pretty strong rebuke on Judge Taylor's decision when she ruled against the government. I just thought it might be equally creepy that the government was working with private telecommunication companies that broke the law. I didn't know if there was a distinction between the two or if in that instance it was equally creepy was AT&T and other companies were doing.
Where do health care statistics come from? Is this any different than hospitals reporting aggregated statistics to the government?
Google Trends
And I'm hardly a google expert. My point being, this is already out there. As long as they aren't disclosing anything personally identifiable, I'm not terribly concerned.
I'm not sure why I feel that way, but I suppose it stems from general wariness about about close and (potentially) secret relationships between anything and the government.
1. Minneapolis, MN, USA
2. Boston, MA, USA
3. St Louis, MO, USA
4. Denver, CO, USA
5. Austin, TX, USA
6. Reston, VA, USA
7. Pleasanton, CA, USA
8. Philadelphia, PA, USA
9. Washington, DC, USA
10. Phoenix, AZ, USA
google-watch.org/jobad.html
On the political side of things, G has apparently hired lobbyists to push for the various things they want, they recently took a position on a CA proposition, and one of their execs testified in support of H1Bs. The last has absolutely, positively no connection to the things they promote.
Note also that the debates they conducted were setups featuring flawed, weak questions that served the same interests as what they promoted at the last link:
youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M
youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM
I added both of the last two videos as responses to Youtube/CNN's raw debate footage. Youtube/CNN deleted both on-topic but negative responses. YT's political director didn't respond to my request for comment. YT also later deleted all the comments from their "Citizen Tube" blog, included ones from me pointing out just how bad their debates were.
I don't suggest stopping using G, but try to avoid giving them any more power than they already have; even minor things like not using their name as a verb would work if enough people did it.
Of course they do -- but so what? Most Fortune 500 companies have lobbyists, so why single out Google?
You are misremembering. I had lots and lots of problems with the NSA surveillance program. It was illegal, and in my view that is a serious, serious problem (being a lawyer and all). Judge Taylor's opinion was incredibly bad, but of course there is no connection between (a) the quality of a legal opinion on one aspect of a program and (b) the lawfulness of the program as a whole.
On the broader issue, surveillance programs are like baseball teams. The fact that you like one doesn't mean you like another one. If you know someone who likes the Red Sox, you don't also assume they like the Yankees (after all, they are both baseball teams, and aren't all baseball teams basically the same?) Every program is distinct, with different mechanisms, scope, oversight, judicial review, aims, and methods.
While there have certainly been some abuses, to assume that every single person in the government wants to get into your knickers is just silly. They really DO have better things to do than worry about what you "google." Now, if they can ask google to check for trends, like disease queries, in a locale and those are far more than the normal expected, then they may have a clue that something is amiss...... BEFORE the Doctor and hospital reports come in after the fact and it is too late to do anything at all.
C'mon guys, everything really isn't a conspiracy to denude you of your rights. Sheesh! But should we voice some concern about potential abuse? Sure.... the keyword is *some*
You are right. I must have been misremembering, my apologies on that. I don't think I ever read any of your posts that referred to that program was creepy. I guess I was just a little surprised by your word choice. I don't think I understood why Judge Taylor's opinion was bad. Didn't Judge Taylor rule against the government on summary judgment because the government's only argument was the state secret argument? Is that why the opinion was bad? I think that might have been the part I misunderstood. If you could provide me with the other perspective on why Judge Taylor's opinion was so bad I would greatly appreciate it.
That would be kind of a cool map, actually. So long as it's not traceable to any, um, specific computers.
Wasn't there an obscenity trial recently where the defense introduced evidence of local computer searches as proving that "community standards" weren't terribly anti-porn?
Prof. Kerr, do you find these programs similarly problematic?
As long as the search (or purchase) data is in fact anonymous and aggregate, I don't really see the problem. And in terms of the benefits, I understand that monitoring, e.g., Imodium sales can indicate better than almost anything else where and when an epidemic of an ailment like food poisoning has struck.
Judge Taylor's opinion was jumbled, rambling, bombastic, filled with irrelevant quotations, and unable to express a coherent thought. That's what was so frustrating about it: Regardless of what you thought about the proper outcome, whether of the lawfulness of the program as a whole or of the merits of the civil suit (which raised a bunch of its own procedural problems), the opinion itself was an embarrassment.
Does she have a blog, I wonder?
Does Flu Trends just automatically email someone at the CDC when the publicly available data passes a threshold? Or is the CDC getting some super-exclusive "scoop" on flu-related searching from Google?
the 4th amendment does not address anything remotely like google searches.
when you VOLUNTARILY (note: it's your CHOICE to use google) choose to use google, you are accessing a company's web search service. they happent to provide this service free of charge. the information you give them is not yours to keep private.
the burden is on the individual to anonymize their address and/or access google from some public computer not traceable to them if they wish the contents of their search to remain anonymous.
people seem to believe that just because stuff happens in cyberspace, that there is some sort of new right to privacy, that doesn't apply to other sorts of conversations or uses of commercial business.
if walk into a store and buy something, i don't have a "right" to prevent that store from telling other people (including the government), that i was at the store, and that i bought x,y, or z. Google is no different than that store.
we just like to PRETEND it is different.
in this particular case, google is only releasing aggregate information, but there is no reason why, if THEY want to, they can't release individual computer users searches.
if you don't want your searches disclosed, then the burden is on you (as mentioned above) to anonymize yourself. there is no "right" to search the internet anonymously.
when making private transactions at a store, you can take steps to help insure your anonymity - don't go to a local store where you know people, don't park your car near the entrance where they can read a plate, pay with cash, wear sunglasses and a hat, etc. but you still don't have a right that (if somebody recognizes you) that they can't tell the govt. or anybody else that you were there and/or you bought X (however embarassing).
so again, we'd like to pretend that there is some sort of sacrosanct right to cruise the internet anonymously. there isn't.
i have a problem with prof. kerr's proposal because ... as a libertarian... i have trouble with this additional burdensome regulation on how private businesses operate.
google is a private business, providing a (free) service. who is the government to tell them they can't release this kind of information?
the solution is a MARKET BASED SOLUTION (see: libertarianism).
would you pay $$$ to anonymize your searches? good, then do so. would you pay $$$ for a search engine, if as part of their service, they contracted with users to erase/not record all individualized data?
good, then let the MARKET solve it. i don't want more heavy handed govt. regulation to protect a right that never existed before.
What merevaudevillian said. Plus, I wouldn't say Google can never disclose to the govt; just that it should be a process regulated by some oversight and/or judicial procedures.
And, since this BHO page (change.gov/page/s/yourstory) uses a G service, G could provide BHO with things like the other pages that person has visited; that's not difficult to do since most people will have used G before clearing their cookies (if they ever do) and many other pages use one G service or another.
The possibilities are endless!
Google would be very annoyed of course, but I don't know what the legalities would be.
Or as Whit suggests, "Google Premium" could charge a monthly fee for private searching ... hopefully also free of ads and of the obnoxious search-your-queries-&-target-you-with-ads.
This doesn't seem like an example of that to me, though. The information is availible to the public, identifiers are striped out, and the purpose of the information gathering is clear and laudable. When the black helicopters come for us, I doubt it will be at the behest of power-mad epidemiologists.
I think there are a few problems with your theory from a libertarian perspective. One problem is that Google isn't selling a product: They are doing the government a favor because they want the government to like them and help them out down the road. The federal government is a huge client and also a regulatory threat for a company like Google, and they're going to make nice with the government as best they can. As a result, this is a form of lobbying for government benefits, not an example of free market economics.
there are already metasearch sites that do roughly the same thing. iow, you enter a search term and they return queries from a # of search engines. of course the metasite has your info, but the point is valid. the market has multiple ways of solving this problem.
here's a metasearch engine btw.
www.surfwax.com
again, people are asking for something. or at least people HERE are. let the market provide a solution.
and let the consumers decide how they want to search, and what the market will bear for pricing in private and anonymous searching
yes they are. their SEARCH is the product. you are not paying (in cash) for it. but it is a product. do you use lexisnexis? they do the same thing, for a price.
except when you go to google and search (non-anonymously) you are giving them info. what THEY CHOOSE to do with that information is the FREE market at work. you just don't like what they may choose to do with it, so you want to use the heavy hand of legislation to tell a private company how to run their business.
again, if anonymous searching is desired, then look for a market solution OR create one yourself. stop using govt. regulation to hinder businesses. THAT is a libertarian way of thinking. i note that many libertarians are very libertarian when it comes to individuals but suddenly get all "big government" when it comes to corporations. sorry, that doesn't fly.
it doesn't matter WHY google wants to (if they decide to) sell/give private search info to the government (or anybody else). that's THEIR decision.
it's THEIR information to give/sell... NOT yours.
if you don't want to give it to them ... DON'T. that's your locus of control. anonymize yourself, use somebody else's computer, etc.
but lets not get govt. involved in mo0re regulation.
Obviously the search engine function of google is a product. But the scheme to generate flu data to provide to the government strikes me as a distinct program.
As for the free market argument, I don't think I come across the suggestion that laws prohibiting cooperation with the government is problematic from a libertarian perspective. I'm curious, do you think that laws prohibiting bribery of public officials are problematic from your perspective? If I have a business and I need something from the government to help my business, do you think I should be able to bribe officials to get what I need? Put another way, do you see bribery laws as government "red tape" and regulation that interferes with the free market?
Can you really tell from www.google.com that this is the consideration you are giving to Google in exchange for their search service?
And it's only in the last couple of months that Google even added a link to their privacy policy (which is also very difficult to understand for anyone not versed in the langauge of the internet.)
So if it is "their" information, maybe they obtained it through a less than clear bargain.
here's where we may agree. i would have no problem with govt. regulation requiring google, etc. to NOTIFY users of their website that their information may be disclosed to others. there is one area of govt. regulation, where even as a liberatarian, i generally support some reg's. that's when it comes to information. i'm all for food labeling, etc. for example, because it doesn't take away choice (from the consumer) and doesn't tell business it can't do X or sell Y, only that it has to tell people what's in Y.
i think that, in general, when consumers are provided with information they may or not make the right choice, but as long as it's informed... it's their fault if they do so.
i want to be able to have the CHOICE to eat big macs and/or transfat laden food, etc. but i have no problem with the govt. requiring labeling, so I know what's in the food, so i can make an educated choice to (occasionally) eat crappy food.
At this point, it doesn't look like anyone has brought up this argument, so I will at least try.
The distinction between 'the government' and 'everyone else' is valid, but also somewhat artificial. Idealistic as it may sound, perhaps whoever at Google is in charge of this program has decided that it is his or her duty as a citizen of a country to aid the country's government/authorities in identifying and preventing threats to it (the country.) This is to say, basically, that maybe Google is not being a good "corporate citizen" - but this program makes Google's employees good *citizens.*
Far too often, there is an attempt to establish a duality between 'the government' and 'everyone else.' But, becoming a government employee does not make you part of another species, or somehow radically different from the guy down the block, and on a more philosophical level, isn't support of not only specific government policies but also, the general "good of the country" a part of the implied social contract?
- Mikhail Koulikov (GWU '99)
MLS candidate (expected, 12/2008)
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University, Bloomington
Any search engine server sees the IP address of the querying host. So, an anonymous proxy server will deliver its IP to the search server, not yours.
The free market already provides a solution.
Anonymous searcing and browsing already exists with free software developed by big-government (I believe it was the Navy)
TOR (The Onion Router) is available for download from the EFF site It bounces all your traffic through a chain of at least 5 routers all over the world
Hundreds of thousands of such searches will occur every day during cold and flu season. No one will know if the searcher actually has any illness at all. The Google to CDC flu connection will waste time and money and result in misdirected anti-flu efforts.
We'll see whether that correlation holds up, and whether the google trends offer any advantage over other tracking methods.
here's what it comes down to ... caveat googlor
You're a poor libertarian! (he said, somewhat in jest ... :) ) Why would you ask for heavy-handed regulation to force disclosure of information? Shouldn't we expect a market participant to note this lack of information and weigh that accordingly? Misinformation is one thing, but the mere lack of information? Doesn't the free market take care of the situation where you can invest your money in some shady scheme some guy you don't know proposed to you on the phone, or in some information that lays its records open for you to review?
Google is aggregating flu related search terms by geographic area. They are providing this to the feds in an effort to track flu progress. Can someone tell me what the problem is?
If they made public a list of search term frequency by area, would that be a problem?
If doctors report flu cases to the CDC is that a problem? How about hositals? Problem? A hospital is local to an area. So is a doctor.
Is anyone's privacy being jeopardized? Whose?
Why should anyone be concerned that I now have that information? (And now all of you hve it, too.)
Let's all type in "flu symptom" once a day and really screw up their system! RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!
But I share Whit's concern about a legislative "solution". This hardly seems an area where we need to outlaw voluntary (and non-contract violating)cooperation with government, and legislative action might very well be a recipe for express (and more pernicious) rent-seeking.
I just learned from Google that in the month of November 2008, Salt Lake led the nation in searches for the term "guns." Hamden, Virginia led for "sex."
So what?
1) Aggregated reports on Japanese-Americans, i.e. You will find x numbers of Japanese on this particular city block, but we won't tell you exactly who they are and which houses they live in.
2) Actual names and addresses of Japanese Americans in some cases.
The FDR administration used this information to round up Japanese Americans, some of whom were US citizens, and intern them without charges during the war.
Think of Google as a present day US Census Bureau and don't let them get ahold of any your data that could result in problems for you in the near and distant future. A useful form of technology is Tor, which routes your network traffic anonymously. Even better, use a different search engine altogether.
When companies donate goods and services for various public causes/emergencies, we don't criticize. To me, the only bothersome aspect would be the secrecy of the arrangement, but in this case we don't have any. If Orin wants to legislate full transparency, that's fine.
Exactly. It's not like Google is providing the government with the names and addresses of people who might be spreading the AIDS virus.
Wait ... wouldn't that be a good thing. After all, AIDS kills people. Shouldn't people who search about symptoms of AIDS be tracked down to, you know, ensure that they aren't spreading the virus to others unintentionally.
You know, it would be an "outreach program for AIDS sufferers." You couldn't possibly be against outreach for AIDS sufferers could you? Why, that would be inhuman.
So, we should encourage Google. One day, everyone who searches for flu symptoms, or AIDS symptoms, can be visited by Gooverment. Then, they can be given an AIDS test. Their activities can be tracked to ensure they aren't spreading the disease.
You aren't against ending AIDS, are you?
Anyway, I agree that there's potential for abuse, but that will exist whether or not flu-related searches are tracked. The thing is, this is the closes we'll ever get to predicting an outbreak. And that is very important because in the event of a big outbreak the flu can strain medical resources. A week lead time is a huge, huge advantage.
Bed shortages at hospitals do occur, and hospital inventories are only a couple of days deep. Antiviral drugs run out at the pharmacies not infrequently. So, unless you want to be told "sorry, come back tomorrow" for your Tamiflu (when it will be much less effective) or be sent far away from home to be hospitalized because your hospital is understaffed, you should really be in favor of this.
It looks like a good fit, too. Epidemiology is all about gathering and correlating data and finding trends. That's the main purpose of the CDC. Most flu surveillance methods can only catch people who actually go to a doctor. The CDC and some local efforts are also following the lead of some other countries by tracking purchases of certain OTC medications. Knowing when people are sick enough to go to a doctor or buy medicine is good, but if you're trying to head off the next epidemic then knowing sooner is even better. And here's a search engine with this huge pool of anonymized, voluntarily collected data just sitting there waiting to be crunched. It'd be silly for them not to use it.
Would you still be OK with it if the information wasn't anonymized? Would you still be OK with it if Google reported to the government other kinds of searches? What about STDs? What about colds? What about searches on the phrase "Obama is a Muslim"?
I don't care what kind of aggregate search data get shared, but I would mind if the searches were linked to individuals.
except that the US census bureau is a govt. entity,and google isn't.
and as i repeatedly point out there is a HUGE difference between govt. agencies (that can compel info, amd that numerous constitutional restrictions apply to etc.) and Google, which people provide info to voluntarily and can take steps to anonymize their data.
The flu trends are not just available only to the federal government but anyone. I was pretty excited that I could just waltz on their website and download the data, and I might even use it to test a model of network contagion and diffusion.
Social science researchers in general, including those at Google labs are keenly aware of how identifiying information could affect privacy rights. You guys should see the kind of hoops we jump through to get our hands on harmless data that has just zip code tacked on to the respondent observations.
Some other data miners have equally extensive data, not to mention our government that dwarfs their capacities and extent.
Frankly, be happy it is Google.