… and might just tell Big Brother!

I have just finished an essay on the ethics of search engine behaviour and I wish I had finished reading this New York Times article about Google before I did so. Here’s the key bit:

Google currently does not allow outsiders to gain access to raw [search behaviour] data because of privacy concerns. Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address (information that can be used to link searches to a specific computer), and the sites on which the user clicked. People tell things to search engines that they would never talk about publicly – Viagra, pregnancy scares, fraud, face lifts. What is interesting in the aggregate can be seem an invasion of privacy if narrowed to an individual.

So, does Google ever get subpoenas for its information?

“Google does not comment on the details of legal matters involving Google,” Mr. Brin [Google’s co-founder] responded.”
(emphasis mine)

What on earth is Google doing keeping users’ IP addresses? I just checked and the fact they do this is in their privacy policy (when you can find it). They say, “Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements” but surely there are easier ways to get this information. Asking, for example?

A fascinating exposé in the NYT (requires registration) by Michael “Liar’s Poker” Lewis of a 15-year-old who masqueraded as a legal expert on askme.com. It’s rather lengthy – the “good stuff” starts about a third of the way through.

Here is one of the bizarre exchanges from the article:

“Where do you find books about the law?” I asked.
“I don’t,” he said, tap-tap-tapping away on his keyboard. “Books are boring. I don’t like reading.”
So you go on legal Web sites?”
“No.”
“Well, when you got one of these questions did you research your answer?”
“No, never. I just know it.”

“You just know it.”
“Exactly.”

!!!
And this guy ended up the most popular legal expert on AskMe… even after it was revealed who he was!

Does that say something about people’s tendency to correlate good service with good products? The democratising power of the Internet? Or does it just call into question the value of lawyers?

I have long taken issue with those who claim that the main benefit to broadband for most people is speed. And in fact, a recent report by the iSociety team at the Work Foundation has indicated that speed is pretty irrelevant for what most broadband users. But it also indicated that they don’t get the most out of what I consider the most obvious benefit – the “always on”-ness of the technology. Why? Because people tend leave their computers switched off at home when not in use.

The ever-quotable James Crabtree at iSociety explains “the PC is more scary monster than household pet. It is rarely loved, sometimes feared.”

So how much power does your computer use when switched on but on “suspend mode” (and its monitor is switched off)? According to this only about 20 watts – a quarter of an ordinary lightbulb.

What do people like about broadband, then? Apparently it is the fact that when it is switched on they don’t have to “watch the clock” – it isn’t metered. Of course you can get un-metered dialup but Joe or Jill public still wouldn’t wander away from their computer with it still connected to get themselves a cup of tea. It would still be tying up their phone line and it might disconnect itself.

More from the iSociety team on their weblog – about the report specifically, here and here.

They promise more research on people’s broadband-use behaviour. What I would like to know is that given most “ordinary folks” aren’t really getting what most of us hardcore users get out of broadband how many of them think it’s worth paying out the extra for it?