[rbarooah]

"Google has responded to the man's complaints by saying that since the results are compiled automatically there is no intrusion of privacy"

It's hard to see how this case is about privacy - it seems like it's really about defamation, however the real details aren't disclosed.

That said, the argument that because something is done by a machine the operators are not responsible for the consequences needs to be debunked once and for all.

[kamjam]

Google has so far refused to take action, saying Japanese law does not apply to its US headquarters and its own corporate privacy policy, Tomita told reporters.

I found this quite funny given all the recent events regarding domain names, MegaUpload, PirateBay, MAFIAA etc etc. Now if only the US would take the same view and leave the rest of the world alone...

[AkThhhpppt]

Yes. The "nothin' to do with me, guv, it's the algorithm's fault" attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful.

[LesZedCB]

Up until you said that, I assumed that was the general feeling. Though, I've never been in this situation myself. Can you qualify why that attitude is disingenuous and unhelpful?

[AkThhhpppt]

What jlarocco said.

But more specifically...

Disingenuous: Because if you genuinely can't, you don't control your algorithm, you're just there to keep the lights on. I refer you to the joke about the autopilot computer, the pilot, and the dog.

Unhelpful: because it is. This is someone who is being deeply distressed by Google's actions in this small area of their operations, and their reaction is to tell him to take a hike. They don't have any obligation to him, but it's not good corporate citizenship. Vaguely related rant incoming; have some patience, please. (",)

We make algorithms, feed them masses of data, and have them suggest things to us based on our previous measured behaviour. This produces a positive feedback effect; in news and current affairs, you gradually get directed more and more towards news confirming your biases (see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble concept).

And we have psychological research showing groups without dissenting voices get more radical over time - see here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/169/3947/778.

So naive implementations of news suggesters should be "considered harmful" to the public discourse. But those implementing these things don't seem to care, and often seem to show exactly the "it's the algorithm, not me" attitude displayed in this situation. We have a greater responsibility than that; if we're going to cause the (almost-)elimination of the job of newspaper editor, I'd hope we'd do it with something capable of doing at least as good a job.

[LesZedCB]

"if we're going to cause the (almost-)elimination of the job of newspaper editor, I'd hope we'd do it with something capable of doing at least as good a job."

That's a fair request. Though, google didn't design search or autocomplete to do that right? Are they held responsible because some people figured it was good enough to do that job? I completely understand that it is detrimental to some people. At the same time, if it is changed, doesn't that take away its core functionality, which is actually useful to everybody?

Search and autocomplete serve a specific purpose: to search the internet for topics relevant to a query, and to aid in searching for common topics, respectively. People give them more functionality then that. Is that google's fault? Would they be fair in saying, "You're using it wrong"?

[AkThhhpppt]

I did put "vaguely related" in the rant warning, didn't I? :-)

Though news.google.com is what I was thinking of with the current affairs example, it generalizes to the whole Google edifice, and to Facebook too. I really suggest having a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s to see what I'm talking about, with actual examples.

Minor quibble: autocomplete isn't to aid in searching common topics, it's to help Google avoid failed searches through misspelt queries. ",)

[jlarocco]

Because algorithms aren't arbitrary physical laws, they're created deliberately by people.

"My spambot sends spam because the algorithms it follows tells it to, so it's out of my hands," wouldn't fly, and I don't think it's an appropriate defense here, either.

[LesZedCB]

I would say that spam is inherently wrong (unethical), search/autocomplete isn't.

[AkThhhpppt]

Why is direct mail marketing unethical, but ignoring the very real distress linking this man's name to suggested criminal history isn't? We have to consider the effects what we do has. When we only had local impact, if we did something silly or damaging we could guess the impact, and quite possibly see everyone affected. In these Internetted times, if a product can do something silly or damaging it may have spread around the globe before it's found out. We need to be aware of this.

(Note: not debating the morality of spammers; merely asking a Socratic question.)

And jlarocco was only using spam as an example of an algorithm; telling someone "I can't turn my spam-sending program off" is as silly as saying "I can't stop that autocomplete result showing." It's a difference of magnitude, not of kind.