All three of the authors we have read so far have touched on the effects of Google search on our lives. Namely, they all seem to contend that the widespread availability of quick, in-depth Google search will result in us losing our identities. I outline the authors’ various arguments on how Google search causes such a loss. Then I note the inherent contentions and contradictions in the authors’ arguments about this Google-based loss. Finally, I argue that some coherency to these contentions may be found through the mechanism of giving Google enough information that it could form access policies on the fly, such that access to information would be restricted depending upon the context—the user seeking the information and the situation in which it is sought.
All Three Agree
Jeanneney argued that Google’s digitization of books and other library materials would result in a search that would cause people (especially minority cultures) to lose control over their cultural identities. Google would spread American cultural imperialism but maybe more perniciously would exclude certain non-American works from its databases or from high page ranks. In any case, this system would eventually cause the loss—or at least the severe warping—of cultural identities of various peoples, all outside their control.
Carr is even more straightforward: “The more we teach this megacomputer, the more it will assume responsibility for our knowing. It will become our memory. Then it will become our identity.” (Carr, p.226) While the “megacomputer” he references is not specifically Google but rather some World Wide Computer that represents utility computing in general, Carr does start his “iGod” chapter by discussing what Google has done and what its goals are. He notes that Google is run in similar fashion to this megacomputer that he envisions. The Google system involves us feeding our intelligence into it such that the system can “systematically exploit[] human knowledge and decisions about what is significant.” (Carr, p.219) Eventually, the Google system will assume responsibility for our knowing such that it would tell us what we should be typing—the questions we should be posing instead of the answers we are searching for. (Carr, p.225) To Carr, that would entail us losing control over our identities, because such systems represent a “threat to our integrity as freethinking individuals.” (Carr, p.215)
Finally, the theme throughout Solove’s first part of his book is that Google allows anyone to find much information about anyone else at any time freely and easily. It creates an unforgiving history of everyone from the dog poop girl to the Numa Numa dancing kid. Solove notes that details about one’s private life on the Internet can become permanent digital baggage. (Solove, p.10) One can never escape the misdeeds of one’s past. Google search can limit the ability of someone who has been shamed for wrongdoing—violating social norm—from reentering the community due to the availability of all that past information on Google search. We are unable to control our identities because all this information governing our identities is available on Google for anyone to see. According to Solove, one of the major tragedies here is that we are unable to fully develop our identities because we are unable to experiment, afraid that such experimentation will leave marks on our permanent records.
All Three Disagree
The three arguments above noting the various ways in which Google will cause us to lose our identities—or at least lose control over our identities—contain inherent contradictions. For example, Carr argues that one of the more pernicious effects of private information about people being available is that, even if the information is true, it lacks context. The information can be misleading to the casual observer, especially since the Internet does not provide that close-knit community where people know much more about any particular individual, thus allowing them to weigh any rumor or fact in light of all the other information. While I am not sure what he will argue in the second half of the book, his argument here seems to suggest that Google should collect and disseminate more information about individuals. If Google could provide all information about people, then we would not be faced with such problems of context. As Judge Posner would say, if the information is true, then it is useful to society. If it is false, then it can be easily discredited. Google would be especially adept at discrediting falsities as it could quickly make the truth available to anyone who sought it. Additionally, as noted above, Solove cautions that Google makes available forever information about past misdeeds and shaming. But if all information about a person were available, then such past information could be put in context. It would be helpful for anyone evaluating the person’s reputation but would not be dispositive, since much more other information would be also available.
Providing as much information as possible—in fact all the information in the world—would not only resolve some of Solove’s concerns about identity loss. It would also address Jeanneney’s concerns about cultural identity. One of Jeanneney’s concerns is that Google is only digitizing certain libraries, but of course, this can easily be remedied over time if Google were to contain all of the world’s information. His other concern seems to be that even if Google contains all the books ever printed, the non-American books would get lost in the shuffle. The demand would be mostly for American media, which would get placed at the top of search results, and knowledge about other cultures would be simply forgotten. That seems plausible but if Google really contained all of the world’s information then it would know when we were looking for some obscure piece of literature. As Carr argues, the Google megacomputer could eventually have enough information that it would know what we want before we know it. It would know the question we wanted to ask before we could ask it. More importantly, it may know what is better for us even though we may not—which would resolve Jeanneney’s concerns about society discounting the value of obscure literature or non-American films. After all, humans work under all sorts of biases and heuristics due to our limited ability to deal with all the information we receive. These biases and heuristics lead to poor, irrational decisions that may discount future benefit. The Google system would not face such constraints.
This notion of giving Google all possible information runs up against the essential argument of Carr regarding our loss of freedom and identity. As noted above, Carr’s view of identity is one of our integrity as freethinking individuals, which may disappear under this Google megacomputer.
Of course, if we limit the amount of information available on Google, as Carr seems to suggest, then this runs up against the concerns of the other two authors. Limiting information about individuals would prohibit placing it in context and lead to the situations noted by Solove where individuals are unable to fully exercise their identities for fear of this digital baggage. Additionally, it may implicate Jeanneney’s concerns about cultural imperialism. Selective information may mean certain books are not digitized or are not quickly available.
Finally, Solove and Jeanneney are not harmonious either. Jeanneney seems to worry that some parts of our identities—our cultural heritage—will not make it online or will be lost in the shuffle. He wants to ensure that these identities should be available online. Solove worries that parts of our identities will make it online. Of course, Jeanneney is talking about cultural identity while Solove about private identity, but I would venture that often times it is very difficult to distinguish between the two. Where one’s personal identity stops and cultural identity begins is a blurry line. Therefore, all the authors seem to agree that Google will causes losses to identities but disagree on why and how.
Towards Some Coherency
These inherent contentions seem to stem from the fact that the same information can be helpful to some and hurtful to others. For example, as Solove notes, a friend may want to tell the wife about a cheating husband but probably should not tell the employer or others. Or the same information can be at some time helpful and at other times hurtful. For example, information about a person’s arrest may be helpful immediately after the arrest but may be less relevant decades after. Information, then, is context dependent. Solove notes that our identities are context dependent. We have different identities for the public and private arenas. Our identities are some limited collection of information we provide within various arenas. In some contexts, we may want to provide information that is hidden in other contexts. If the wife searches for information about her husband on Google, it may be helpful to find out information about his infidelity. But if a future employer searches the same name, he should not find such information. The method seems to be to make Google smarter. Currently, Google already collects information to place a user’s search in the context of other recent searches. Presumably, if Brin and Page’s vision survives, Google would have enough knowledge to always provide appropriate context. This is similar to Google automatically forming user policies. In networked computing, certain files or drives have restricted access based on user policies. To the low-level user, these files may be completely hidden from view. To a mid-level user, the files may only be accessible. To a high-level user, the files may be accessible and modifiable. Google, then, would have to formulate such user policies on the fly. To do this accurately, of course, it would need a collection of the world’s entire information.
There are two concerns about this approach based on limitations. First is freedom of speech, which is being restricted here. I will hold off on commenting about this until I have finished reading the second part of Solove’s book, which I imagine addresses this concern. The second concern, of course, is the original one that Carr brought up about too much information leading to a loss of identity. I am not sure how to address this except to say that I think restricting access to information for everyone, including the concerned individual and Google itself, could mitigate concerns about any one entity having too much information. I would be interested in hearing what others have to say (if anything).
Comments