Orin beat me to it, but I also found the story about using Google's search data as a way to detect flu outbreaks to be pretty interesting. My response, I must say, is a little different from Orin's - he found it "creepy," on the grounds that we might not "want Google establishing such a cozy relationship with the federal government." I recognize there's serious potential for abuse -- but on the other hand, take a look at this:
[Taken from the NY Times' story] That's a fairly extraordinary public health tool -- one that, according to the Times story, "may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." And, at least if there's been no disclosure of personally identifiable information, that's some pretty useful stuff, and I'm not sure I'm so unhappy if the Centers for Disease Control have access to it. It's a very big and very important "if," to be sure, but I would hope that Orin's proposed "Search Engine Privacy Act" statute won't throw this particular baby out with the bathwater.
One argument that others made in Orin's post was that Google was just acting in the public good. Granting arguendo that Google is just trying to protect the public good, it would still seem to me that public disclosure would be the best way to do that. Who knows what's good for the public better than, well, the public?
Of course, neither the NY Times story or the Drudge report article make it clear what is going on. Is Google giving the CDC extra information that the public doesn't already have via Flu Trends? Is Google somehow analyzing the Flu Trends data for the CDC, and not sharing the results of the analysis with the public? Does the CDC get any data days or weeks ahead of anyone else? It's entirely possible that the answers to all these questions are "no". If so, then, hey, cool, it does seem like Google just acting in the public good, and I'm happy they are.
But if the answer to any of my questions is "yes", why? What's the rational to share data for free with the CDC but not to share with the public?
I agree we certainly need to be wary of search engines cozying up to the government, but let's face it. If the Feds decided to go after this sort of thing, we'd never hear about it until long after the fact, regardless of whatever unrelated cooperation the company may have previously engaged in. Just like the telco data mining.
If you search for "flu" or "influenza," that does not mean that you or a member of your household has influenza. The search might be about distinguishing a cold from the flu, getting info on influenza for a school report, learning about flu because your Aunt Helen in a nursing home 800 mile away might have it, or because you misspelled 'flue' when looking for a replacement part for your wood-burning stove.
This PR move for Google will not yield usable information, and it may detract from more productive methods of tracking influenza.
In Europe nonnominative information can be disclosed to the government.
I guess right to health protection trumps privacy
In Europe nonnominative information can be disclosed to the government.
I guess right to health protection trumps privacy
If Google's program correctly and reliably identifies flu outbreaks, I don't give a damn if they e-mail the IP addresses directly to the CDC, the FBI, and local law enforcement, so a couple of blue-suited goons with guns come to your door and, depending who you're putting at risk, give you a useful pamphlet on recovering from the flu, force you to get vaccinated, or nail your front door shut for two weeks.
One of the reasons society survives in the face of existential threats like pandemic disease is that there's a limit to how tolerant sensible folks are to the delicate and occasionally off-the-rails sensibilities of constitutional lawyers. At some point, we just brush those fools aside and do what we must.
No, the creepy part is wondering what kind of information google could derive from searches for STD's.
The more I read, the less likely it seems that the CDC has privileged access to Google's data, but I haven't seen any flat-out statements saying explicitly that the CDC doesn't get anything extra.
That's a testable hypothesis. You could compare Google's estimates with CDC's actual data and determine exactly how much of Google's data is noise and how much is signal (through R-squared or another such metric). It's a claim in need of data to back it up.
it more likely will show when blue cross is sending the flu shot around to different workplaces.
The day it was announced it was coming here a lot of us googled to see which three versions of the flu are in the shot this year.
How is it useful? The CDC doesn't have a flu cure, and flu shots take too long to take effect to be a reactive strategy. Is the CDC going to create a a flu blitz team on standby ready to rush to the scene of the action, and...?
It is useful. More timely mapping of flu means, among other things, better (more accurate, faster) predictions about the behavior of an epidemic--meaning more efficient and effective prevention-- flu shots can be rolled out to priority areas and to priority populations and high risk populations can make other behavior changes as necessary.
Sk
The types of influenza information needed by hospitals and public health departments are: what regions have high rates of influenza, is it influenza A or B, is it a new strain or one covered by the vaccine, is it targeting any specific age groups, what percentage of victims need hospitalization, what is the geographic pattern of spread, when will it hit my region, etc. I've seen no evidence that Google can provide such data. The CDC is slow, but regional and local epidemiologists have a reliable communication network that is much faster.