Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Shag from Brookline on National Referenda

    • PrometheeFeu on Tumblr, Porn, and Internet Intermediaries

    • Kyle on Contract Evolution

    • Bruce Boyden on Tumblr, Porn, and Internet Intermediaries

    • Orin Kerr on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Guy Spier on Symposium Redux: Essays and Lessons

    • John Mihaljevic on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?

    • Sy Lorne on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Skeptical Principal

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Berkshire's Dividend Policy: Part II

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Deals without Bankers: Salomon and Benjamin Moore

    • Brett Bellmore on National Referenda

    • Gerard Magliocca on National Referenda

    • mls on National Referenda
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Could Personalized Search Ruin Your Life?

posted by Frank Pasquale

Imagine you’re applying for a job and want to be sure to give the right impression. A diligent self-googler, you think you know everything there is out there on the web about you. Nothing sticks out in the first 15 or so pages of results. But there is someone with name identical to yours who’s got a terrible reputation (or, to make this more concrete, just imagine your name is Tucker Max). And when HR does its background check on you, that’s the first result it sees. You’re never given a reason for being turned down for the job–just a brief form letter.

This scenario may result from what is otherwise one of the most promising trends on the web–personalized search. As you use a search engine more and more, it tends to translate your behavior into a database of usual intentions. That can make searches a lot more efficient for you as a searcher–but creates lots of uncertainty once you are the searched.

I worry a bit about a world where pervasive tailoring of search results means that few of us know what types of information others are receiving in response to particular search terms. What should we do about the resulting information asymmetries? I was surprised to find that there are over 600 papers on SSRN with the term “information asymmetry” in the title, and I’m sure some of these have valuable theoretical insights on the issue (which appears to be at the heart of important legal controversies like those arising out of Twombly). More practically speaking, Finland has set forth some practices for dealing with that eventuality, and I’ve suggested others (SSRN copy available here).


None of this is to dispute the obvious helfpulness of personalized search in daily life. For example, Google Co-op is a “platform which enables you to use your expertise to help other users find information.” According to the FAQs, “When you subscribe to someone in the Google Co-op directory, all of that provider’s labels and subscribed links will be added to your Google search results for relevant searches. The labels and links provide new and useful ways to refine your searches.” I think this is a welcome innovation at what I’ve previously described as a “Black Box” information source.

A new book by Samir Chopra and Scott Dexter helps explain the importance of such openness. As Chopra argues,

Software affects our expressive potential in two ways. First, it allows us

to express algorithmic ideas as programs written, typically, in high-level programming languages. . . . Second, as executing code, software constrains the ways in which we may interact with a computing device. The grammar of this language of interaction is the set of constraints that my software places on me — the structure within which I must operate if it is to understand me.

[W]e only modify our interactions with a computer if we can modify the code that it runs: the only solution to a frustrating interaction with an inflexible interface is to change the interface. But if the software running on a machine is unavailable for inspection and modification, the expressiveness of our language of interaction is severely restricted.

The problem, I suppose, is when one party’s freedom to find information gives it a manifestly unfair or harmful picture of another person or entity. Perhaps the concerns I have can be adequately addressed in employment law (ala the Finnish model). I nevertheless think that they have to be part of an overall “search engine law,” which reciprocally balances the benefits government gives to these entities with public responsibilities.


 February 7, 2008 at 9:59 am   Posted in: Google & Search Engines   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (9)

  1. James Grimmelmann - February 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Is personalized search ruining your life? Or is personalized search enabling a stupid HR department to ruin your life? I take the Finnish theory to be that HR departments will make bad decisions based on search data, so they should be prohibited from performing searches. That theory fits with the way we treat various protected classes in employment discrimination law; employers can’t even ask certain questions, on the theory that they can’t be trusted to use the answers responsibly. The virtue of non-personalized search is that it gives an indirect way to check up on the HR department’s informational inputs.

    What about the following idea? Search engines should offer a “nonpersonalized” mode that anyone can always drop back to using. While HR could use personalized search to be more effective, they would be obliged to let anyone run searches personalized in the same way, for oversight purposes. (With individuals, this kind of idea raises privacy concerns, but I wouldn’t think that HR departments have the same kind of privacy interest in which searches they run.)

  2. Logical Extremes - February 7, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Anyone concerned about this should have at least a couple of simple tools at their disposal to get around personalization/tracking:

    1. log out of any personalization when performing critical searches;

    2. check several search engines when performing critical searches;

    3. a secondary browser set up to run clean every time (no cookies, history, caches, etc. saved).

    These serve two purposes: they let you see what the world sees, and they (#1 and #3, at least) let you conduct some of your business a little more of-the-grid.

  3. Frank - February 7, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    To James: After I wrote this I thought “well, that was a pretty hyperbolic title.” But on the other hand, the whole thing I’m complaining about is the way in which new asymmetries of information can raise damaging possibilities about X without X ever being able to respond. So at least I’m broadcasting the concern to everyone, while the personalized search service seems to be “narrowcasting” it in a dangerous way.

    But I do see the wisdom of framing this as a problem for employment law, rather than cyberlaw…after all, a P.I. could put together a damaging dossier as effectively as a search engine tailored to find the most embarrassing stuff about X.

    To L.E.: Those are great self-help approaches. I have to wonder, though, if personalization may start working on the I.P. address level at some point. That would certainly be some valuable research to have. For example, I think I’ve done the “logout” you’ve mentioned, and still gotten ads for “New Jersey residents”. . . which are at least targeted to the location of the user, if not past search history.

  4. Pete Aldous - February 7, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    It seems like personalized search should make it more likely that potential employers would retrieve information about the correct person. Most job hunters apply for jobs close to home. They also tend to look in the same field as their previous jobs. Pages about them should reflect one or both of these specifics, while pages about other people with the same name are statistically less likely to contain these identifying characteristics. Because the employer’s personalized search profile should be calibrated to favor results from their geographical area and the same type of business as the potential employee, the potential employee should be higher in the employer’s personalized search rankings. Pages about other people with the same name should be lower, especially if the page discusses issues unrelated to employment.

    A conscientious job hunter can direct a potential employer’s attention to his or her own page by putting a link on their resume. On their page they can directly address any “evil twin” issues, i.e. people with the same name but far worse reputations. It seems like this, coupled with libel suits to discourage outright lies about them, should be sufficient to protect most job hunters from this problem.

  5. geoff - February 7, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    What’s “manifestly unfair” here? Are you describing anything more than a difference in degree from the not-as-sexy, non-search world? Here, let me re-write your first paragraph:

    Imagine you’re applying for a job and want to be sure to give the right impression. A diligent protector of your reputation (you always thought you’d run for office one day), you think you know everything there is out there about you. Nothing sticks out in your mind as something someone saw you do. But there is someone with a description identical to yours who’s got a terrible reputation. And when HR does its background check on you, it hears about “you” from some former colleagues of yours who are mistaken. You’re never given a reason for being turned down for the job–just a brief form letter.

    I get it–online search might make this scenario more likely for more people. A difference of degree. There are also surely countervailing benefits. So what’s your point besides some abstract call for “more responsibility” (i.e., government regulation)?

  6. Your Real News - February 8, 2008 at 8:23 am

    But maybe Google will be in for more than just upsetting people with personal search if the defamation lawsuit goes ahead

    http://therealnews.freehostia.com/wordpress/2008/02/08/defamation-class-action-against-google/

  7. Barry - February 8, 2008 at 8:41 am

    Well if a company relies on searching your name in google to get your background check, then they probably weren’t worth working for to begin with.

  8. Logical Extremes - February 8, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Frank, I’d be all for more legal privacy protections, but for now all I have to rely on is self-help. Yes, many companies do at least geo-location using IP address. I’ve only encountered one site so far that I could detect that tracked me using IP address even after deleting cookies, but it’s bound to happen more. That’s why I change my IP address (and purge cookies) at least once a day.

    The opposite/offensive approach, if you’re willing to put yourself “out there”, is to make a positive name for yourself on the web. Buy your name domain, keep upstanding public profiles, blog posts, comments, etc. Essentially market yourself to the world and make sure you’re uniquely identifiable and easy to find.

  9. P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Beyond Competition: Preparing for a Google Book Search Monopoly - July 7, 2009 at 2:36 am

    [...] capable of overcoming this brute disadvantage, particularly because search is as much about personalized customer service as it is about technical principles of information organization and retrieval. Current advantage in [...]

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress