NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] One Little Word Explains Google vs. Bing "Search Theft" Debate
One Little Word Explains Google vs. Bing "Search Theft" Debate
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000813.html
Greetings. With the claims and counter-claims now made, I believe we
can now distill the Google vs. Bing saga of the "stolen search
results" down to its essence, and emphasize in particular one simple
little word that seems very much at the heart of the controversy.
Both the Bing and Google toolbars can, with certain options enabled,
send users' URLs to their respective toolbar servers. Since the URLs
associated with search engine queries will typically contain the
users' search query terms, those searches can also be delivered to
those servers.
Microsoft is particularly aggressive when it comes to their Bing
toolbar. For example, required "step one" for participation in "Bing
Rewards" is installation of their toolbar. And at installation time,
Microsoft by default *preselects* the "Improve my experience"
option -- which enables transmission of URLs to Microsoft.
(Image of the Bing toolbar installation options defaults:
http://bit.ly/gW7BfW [Lauren's Blog])
In contrast, the Google toolbar installation presents the user with an
explicit choice dialogue that requires the user to select between
enabling what Google calls "Enhanced Features" that transmit URLs --
or not enabling them. The "enable" choice is in bold text, but unlike
in the Bing case, the user cannot click through without making an
explicit choice regarding the sending of URLs.
(Image of the Google toolbar installation dialogue:
http://bit.ly/hAsH0D [Lauren's Blog])
Both Bing and Google offer additional information regarding the
privacy implications of these choices at links provided on these
dialogue pages. On balance, Google's procedure would clearly seem to
increase the probability that a user will at least think a little bit
about the issue of sending URLs -- before the toolbar is activated for
first use. Quickly clicking through with URL transmission enabled --
without even really considering the implications one way or another --
seems significantly more likely with the Bing approach.
But let's assume for now that users of both the Google and Bing
toolbars have enabled URL sending mode. What happens next?
At this stage, we move definitively beyond technology alone, and quite
forcefully into the realm of that simple little word -- *ethics*.
Microsoft asserts forcefully that their use of Bing toolbar user URL
data -- in particular Google searches -- for new URL discovery
purposes is not stealing or copying, and that it's perfectly
legitimate. There is no current indication that Microsoft plans to
abandon this practice.
Google asserts that Microsoft's behavior in these regards is
dishonest -- that it is essentially copying and stealing -- especially of
unusual "long tail" search data that Google has worked very hard to
find and process in the first place. In answer to my specific queries
on this subject, Google has told me definitively that they do not use
URL data collected by their own toolbar in such a manner. This is
completely logical of course. It would be incredibly stupid for
Google to so publicly complain about Microsoft engaging in a practice
if Google was doing the same thing. And Google is not stupid.
So in the end, what we're faced with is not so much an issue of what
it is possible to do with collected data, but rather a question of
what one *chooses* to do with that data.
What we can do, vs. what we decide to actually do, is the sort of
choice that runs throughout most aspects of our lives. It's the
difference between an honest person and a cheat -- or a crook. It's
the difference between a company you trust and one you distrust, not
based only on what they say, but also based on how they actually
behave.
It is, very much, a matter of ethics.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not qualified to determine whether or not
Microsoft's behavior with the Bing toolbar reasonably should subject
them to either criminal prosecution or civil litigation.
But I do know cheating when I see it. We all do. We all saw it in
school, and we've seen it in the business world as well. We were
recently almost dragged into global depression by many highly-placed
players in the financial community, who felt that whatever would make
them wealthier was justifiable, regardless of how many other persons
would be devastated in the process. That was an ethical failing of
nearly epic proportions.
Microsoft's behavior with the Bing toolbar obviously does not rise to
anywhere near the same level of ethical vacuity as that of those
financial marauders. But on a basic level it has a very similar
smell, a stink of "anything goes for a buck" cheating that still makes
one a bit sick to the stomach.
Contrary to what some critics claim, all businesses are not devoid of
ethics, and do not all take merely mercenary views of their customers
and users.
Most businesses do want to make money -- indeed. But how they make
that money, whether or not they understand and put into practice the
age-old concept of "fair play" varies greatly from firm to firm, and
is where the still relevant idea of ethics comes into sharp focus.
Microsoft's behavior with their Bing Toolbar, whether legal or not,
fails that ethical test.
For that, we should be ashamed of them, but more importantly, they
should be profoundly ashamed of themselves.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com