Google Should Face Federal Trade Commission Probe Over New Personalized Search, Privacy Group Says (UPDATE)

UPDATE: On Thursday, EPIC sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into the changes at Google. The letter reads in part, "Google’s business practices raise concerns related to both competition and the implementation of the Commission’s consent order."

Criticism of Google's new social search function ramped up on Thursday, with a prominent privacy watchdog group suggesting the U.S. Federal Trade Commission should investigate the company over privacy and antitrust concerns.

Google introduced big changes to its search function earlier this week, when it began incorporating content from the company's social networking site, Google+, into search results.

For Google+ users, who may number between 40 million and 60 million, search results will now be customized to their particular interests and will include photos and comments from their Google+ connections. The new function, called 'Search Plus Your World', is being marketed as an improved search method that will tailor results to each individual.

But not everyone is enthused about the move. On a statement on its website, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) criticized Google for changing search results to favor its content and raised concerns about the impact on consumer privacy.

From EPIC's statement:

"Although data from a user's Google+ contacts is not displayed publicly, Google's changes make the personal data of users more accessible. Users can opt out of seeing personalized search results, but cannot opt out of having their information found through Google search."

Marc Rotenberg, EPIC executive director, told the LA Times the group is considering filing a complaint with the FTC.

"Google is an entrenched player trying to fight off its challenger Facebook by using its market dominance in a separate sector," Rotenberg said in an interview with the LA Times. "I think that should trouble people."

Over at Search Engine Land, Danny Sullivan demonstrates how the new search feature disproportionately favors Google's own content -- even when it's not the most relevant or best search result.

He also suggests Google may face some legal problems by favoring its own content so heavily. "By having a dominant position in search, Google might ultimately be responsible for going above-and-beyond to include competitors.That’s part of what the current anti-trust investigations into Google are all about," he writes.

Google is currently facing increased scrutiny over whether it manipulates search results by giving preference to its own content. As the AP reports,

The Federal Trade Commission, attorneys general in six states, and the European Commission are looking into complaints alleging Google has been unfairly exploiting its dominance in Internet search to promote its other services while ignoring or downplaying pertinent information about its rivals.

However Slate's Matt Yglesias downplayed the possibility that Google's new move falls afoul of antitrust laws. "[R]aising the spectre of antitrust law in this regard is bound to founder on the fact that there's no monopoly power for Google to be abusing," he writes. "A 65 percent market share in web search is big, but by no means a monopoly."

Google is also facing backlash from popular micro-blogging platform Twitter, which called the changes "bad" for consumers. "As we've seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter. As a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant (search) results," the company said in a statement. "We're concerned that as a result of Google's changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone."

Google responded to Twitter's accusations in a post on Google+. "We are a bit surprised by Twitter's comments about Search plus Your World, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer," read the post, "and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions."

Since the microblog's contract with Google expired, the search engine no longer gives searchers the option to view a real-time feed of tweets related to search queries. According to Google's post, the search engine is also observing "nofollow" code attached to Twitter content to keep Google from linking to that specific content. In other words, Google said that Twitter's current gripes had more to do with the microblog's actions than those of Google.

Google may be especially sensitive to charges of manipulating content right now: Earlier this month, Google purposely demoted search results for Chrome, after it was revealed that the company appeared to have paid for sponsored posts promoting its own browser.

Comments

[authorized-user]

05:53 PM on 01/12/2012

Google has become the new CONTENT Farmville.

[Lebeaux]

10:21 AM on 01/12/2012

It's Google's search engine. They are a company, not a government entity. If they want their content favored, then I don't see a problem with it. Google can do what they like with their own product.

[jokerdanny]

10:34 AM on 01/12/2012

there are laws that restrict monopolies or near monopolies, and given google's dominance in the search market, it will come under some gov't scrutiny...also it's just fraud on their part to say they offer the most relevant or best search result when instead they favor their own content.....look at it this way, suppose ABC offered to search every show available on TV everywhere and you asked it to find the highest rated family oriented sitcoms, but ABC told you about their own shows instead of others that ranked higher...it comes down to a conflict of interest between their two services which are offering search results and also offering content

[IGSaint]

02:17 PM on 01/12/2012

Google is a website and is not a monopoly in that there are many other search engines you can use on the internet. Google is not the internet itself, and how is it a conflict of interest? Supermarkets offer their own made products right along the aisle with products from other companies and most of the time in a better view and better advertised then the other products.

[Rich914]

08:29 AM on 01/12/2012

You want free Internet? Someone's gotta pay. And I'm convinced a lot of ad/targeted marketing revenue Google and other search providers get is totally wasted money. The idea that constant conspicuity and every moment is a sale opportunity is pretty much hog wash and its the dirty little secret of the ad business, on-line, just like TV and other media. Built on myth #1 that if your competitor is doing it you better too, huge fees are paid for basically air, not even air. The annoyance factor kicks in, on a one "customer" at a time basis; myth #2 everyone is a potential customer, and as a culture reaction, as we are now hopefully realizing. If I search creole jazz great King Oliver, for example, why does some emarketing idiot assume I might want to buy frozen king crab? That's actually the add that hovers over my in box for the next 2 weeks. Genius. Hope the king crab dealer is happy with the result. But I think its mistargeted stupid, and less and less effective because eventually nobody will even pay attention to it. That's when advertising fails.

[projustice]

08:12 AM on 01/12/2012

Below: Government to retain information on web sites and postings, blogs, etc. This should be a top news story on this site.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-watches-twitter-social-media-183721483.html

[projustice]

08:10 AM on 01/12/2012

It is also significant to note that anything retained by Google or any other Internet site is subject to a govt. subpoena.

Likewise, the government is also retaining information posted on this site in ADDITION TO ALL OF THE POSTED COMMENTS enabling the government to identify most of the posters via the IP address of the computer being used.

If people thought it was wrong for the government to have files on Martin Luther King or others back during the JFK and LBJ era, or the information monitored by the Nixon admin., they should keep in mind that was nothing compared to this information file being compiled on our population.

[ThierryGhi]

07:39 AM on 01/12/2012

Me back to Yahoo.

[l3ama205]

06:07 AM on 01/12/2012

Google will always be the top search engine,it is what it is :)

[MissTake1989]

06:02 AM on 01/12/2012

The arguments applied to bricks and mortar "monopolies" do not apply on the web.

Myspace was a "monopoly" at one point...then it disappeared...almost in the blink of an eye.

[WhatDaBleep]

04:35 AM on 01/12/2012

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

http://naturalsociety.com/us-start-trade-wars-with-nations-opposed-to-monsanto-gmo-crops/

[BoFo]

03:50 AM on 01/12/2012

An interesting TED talk about personalized search:

Eli Pariser: Beware online "filter bubbles"

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

[BoFo]

03:40 AM on 01/12/2012

All your personal data are belong to us.

[Juicyhil]

02:48 AM on 01/12/2012

So if i search on 'aids', my interest will be aids on my G+ profile?
I hate all that social crap.

[l3ama205]

06:07 AM on 01/12/2012

i agree its useless,like facebook~

[MrBwood]

01:36 AM on 01/12/2012

It's funny, all you folks want what the internet provides to us, but you want it for free. If you can't put up with an occasional ad, and an ad that is DIRECTED towards you and the things you might want to buy. Then to get this great stuff, you would have to actually PAY money for it. Are you willing to do that? I doubt it. Otherwise stop your whining and enjoy it. Google doesn't care about your private life, unless you bought a pair of Crocs at some point. And might want another pair in the future.

[LKK]

02:13 AM on 01/12/2012

Problem I have already, just an example of the frustration, even the regular Google search engine has my location and when searching for entertainment and media cabinets, looking for different designs, it refused, or was so difficult I couldn't figure out and I'm not tech stupid, to show me anythng outside my area...the frustrating thing was the week prior, when I did the same search, it gave me great companies from all over the US and everything I needed.

Unsuspecting, when I did the same thing, it locked me into a radius. Maybe it was the transitional phase but it frustrated the hell out of me.

So, it's not whining, it's good business in a global market to allow global searching..and if it was transitional, forgive my "whining", if it's something that can be easily changed, where the hell do you change it?

[straightuptalker]

04:25 AM on 01/12/2012

I don't see it your way. What got my danger up recently,, was an email I sent to a co-worker regarding my embarrassment after I slipped and fell in the parking lot while picking up my grandchild from Kindergarten. What showed up just two minutes later on my gmail page? An ad from an attorney's group regarding slip and fall injuries. That was freaky as hell.

[martinchill]

01:19 AM on 01/12/2012

i think once my facebook goes Timeline (like a myspace bomb), i may stop internetting altogether.

[cgalaxia7]

01:49 AM on 01/12/2012

Naw, you just need to work on your FB addiction, and once you achieve it, you'll be glad you did! I don't use FB, so I feel very glad that I don't got that addiction! =P

[june53]

01:07 AM on 01/12/2012

I don't Facebook because of this special 'lapse' of security & privacy. I did not sign up
for Google+ for that reason, as well. I still use the Google search engine. If they are going
to mess with this direct search engine design like Google+, then I'll change search engines.

Anyone educated with a suggestion or alternate ideas, please let me know. Thxs.

[gmb007]

01:22 AM on 01/12/2012

IXQUICK search engine. :) NO IP logs or search logs. Total privacy.

Or try scroogle.org, or duckduckgo.com