Google Wants Kids to Search the Darndest Things

Kids say the darndest things — and what they do say may make Google's search engine something of a mind reader.

Search engines already finish your sentences. Start typing "president" into Google or Bing or Yahoo and you're immediately presented choices you may have been thinking of. But, as you see from the examples below, the choices vary widely:

They also assume some pretty non-obvious things, like I am interested in politics, or in a particular president — or, as in the case of Bing, that I am a Turkish national?

Also, that I am probably an adult.

What if Google knew more about me before I touched a key?

A newly-revealed initiative by Google may be an important building block for an enhanced search engine that could further zero in on what I really want to know. In a lengthy interview with USA Today, Google VP of Engineering Pavni Diwanji talks about a "Google for Kids" initiative that would tailor some products for the under-13 set.

While she talks about protecting and serving kids (and their parents) it's not hard to connect some dots. This is a powerful way to achieve something it failed to do with Google+ — learn who its users are.

Diwanji recounts a story involving her own daughter, who pointed out the biggest flaw in the world's most-used search engine. It happened when she Googled 'trains.' "She came to me and said, 'Mommy, you should tell Google about Thomas the Tank Engine, because Google obviously doesn't know about him.'"

The secret to robust search is context, but greatness in search is requiring the searcher to provide as little ad hoc context as possible. It's a good first guess that you might be searching for something others are — hence those predictive type ahead suggestions.

But with more implied context, search can serve up better results. And nobody wants to craft Boolean sentences to refine the yield. We all want to live by the motto: "Do what I mean — not what I say."

Children are a great focus group. Kids searching the darndest things could inform other customizations that will yield results based on the data about me and only me: that I am a fireman, don't eat meat, or own a classic car. Relevant things that I wouldn't even think to mention in any given search session.

Backchannel Editor in Chief Steven Levy, author of "Inside the Plex," sees this as a natural fit. "What Google seems to want to do for children is very much in the spirit of what it wants to do for all of us — show us personalized results," he wrote in reply to an email.

Sure, there are privacy concerns (which Diwanji acknowledges), especially when it comes to targeting children. Google's entire business model is about looking over our shoulders to profile us for marketers, which is why special care and special laws are required when children are involved.

But I think this is a right-headed effort that doesn't exploit children. It leverages their unique thought processes to come up with answers for questions we wouldn't know to ask without them. The array of Google products tailored for children (not clear yet what they will all be) will be controlled by a parental dashboard, not by little Billy and Mary.

Is this right-track / wrong track? Will — should — the other search engines do something similar?

Your Right To Be "Un-Googled" And The Irony Of The Case

There is more than a touch of irony about Mario Costeja Gonzalez’s victory over search giant Google in the European courts, which grants him the “right to be forgotten” in Google search results.

Having successfully fought to have links to news reports of his financial affairs removed from search results, on privacy grounds, his name is unlikely to ever be forgotten now.

This week the European Union Court of Justice found in Costeja Gonzalez’s favor when it ruled that links to irrelevant or out-of-date information about individuals should be removed, on request. He had argued that issues raised in two articles in the newspaper La Vanguardia – and indexed by Google – mentioning that his house had been repossessed due to his social security debts, were out of date and no longer relevant.

His case is timely as support is strong in Europe for a “right to be forgotten”, giving anyone the right to have their personal information removed when it is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. The court-ruling, which can't be appealed, appears to show that European law supports this right – and Google (as well as a lot of other big data hoarders) could soon find themselves faced with a flood of similar requests.

Apparently, the Spaniard is not worried that his name will now feature far more prominently than it previously did in Google results for many years to come – in fact he has been clear that he is happy to have his name associated with the case. As he told the Guardian newspaper: “I was fighting for the elimination of data that adversely affects people’s honour, dignity and exposes their private lives. Everything that undermines human beings, that’s not freedom of expression.”

Google of course sees things differently – having called the decision “disappointing” – and argued during proceedings that such actions could amount to censorship. The law will not only apply to Google, but to all other search engines including Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing.

The “right to be forgotten” proposals in Europe in many ways reflect the recently passed Californian “eraser” law – requiring tech companies to remove material posted by a minor, if they request it – due to take effect next year.

The landmark case may be settled but of course debate will rage on over the issues at its core for some time yet. And it is unclear at this stage how it might apply to social media companies such as Facebook or Twitter. Does this mean that anyone who doesn’t like something which has been said about them online can demand that it is struck from the record?

At the moment, this seems unlikely – the court was clear in its ruling that publishers will have various defences – including public interest – with which to resist requests for information removal.

I hope therefore that it means criminals or corrupt public officials won’t be able to simply ask for links to news articles about their crimes be deleted simply because they would rather people forgot them. My fear is that there is a grey area in all of this. Some might see it as legitimate that a restaurant ask for bad reviews to be taken down if they are “no longer relevant” following a change of chef? Or a builder ask for his terrible feedback on the local “trusted trader” websites to be consigned to oblivion? The danger is that is could open the door for rogue traders to clean their sheet.

Campaign group Index on Censorship has been forthright with its criticism of the decision – calling it: “Akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books.” For me, it all depends on how this new law (which currently only applies to citizens of the European Union) is implemented in practice. It will surely make life more complicated and expensive for search engine providers.

Whichever side of the fence you’re on, this ruling could have a big impact on anyone involved with storing or publishing data, and I’d love to hear your views. Do you see this as an important step toward more control of your public data or do you see it as censorship? Please share your views...