Search Engine Data Collection Paper

Search Engine Data Collection

Citizens’ personal information has always been actively sought by government authorities and by private businesses, and up until recently, has been kept exclusively by the institutions requesting the information. However, those days of confidentiality are over, as the world becomes increasingly structured upon the evolution of the Internet. Today, government authorities and private businesses have a multitude of ways to access personal information that is submitted through the World Wide Web, one of these methods being the surveillance and tracking of search requests through online search engines such as Google (Search Engine Privacy). The collection of personally identifiable data by search engines threatens
Search engine data analysis provides companies with crucial knowledge about their consumers, allowing businesses to maximize their profits by catering to their consumers’ needs and desires. An example of this is the analysis of search request trends to predict when prom dresses would sell best. One would assume that with most school proms taking place in May that March through April would be the ideal time to display prom dress content online; however, search engine data research concludes that the month with the most searches for “prom dress” is January. Companies can then take this information and capitalize by making wise choices in terms of timing (Tancer 59-68). Using consumers’ search request information to predict trends to maximize profits is a relatively benign example of how data entered into search engines can be used. Search requests contain highly personal information about consumers, such as their medical issues, religious background, political partiality, and sexual orientation, opening the door to behavioral marketing (Search Engine Privacy). By collecting information about consumer interests and habits, companies essentially have a portal into the minds of their target market, which they can use and abuse at their
Although data collection companies claim that they screen their clients thoroughly before providing them with information, critics say that the industry's screening process is negligent (Electronic Privacy). In May 1996, for example, a television reporter based in California requested the personal information of 5,000 children from Metromail Corp., using the name of Richard Allen Davis, a well-known convicted child murderer in the state. The company released a list of more than 5,000 children's names, ages, addresses and phone numbers to this undercover reporter at the cost of $277 (Electronic Privacy). This incident exemplifies the potential dangers of releasing information to third parties and the risks of not employing a thorough screening practice in the process. Another incident of leaked information involves a 62-year-old widow, Thelma Arnold, who, along with 657,000 others, had her personal search inquiries leaked by AOL. AOL had intended the release of this information to benefit academic researchers and assigned numbers in place of names to protect the anonymity of users; however, they did not consider how easy it was to determine the identities of these users through simple investigation. As a result of this lapse in foresight by AOL detailed records of the personal search inquiries of Thelma Arnold and 657,000 other