With the possibilities explained of Vertical Search Engines, we’re now able to target specific segments of the market in order to request only the relevant data we’re looking for. Looking for shoes is one thing. It’s a good example of the Vertical Search. But it got me wondering. What if ‘people’ is your business? Suppose you’re a head-hunter, or even a bounty-hunter for that matter. Suppose you’re a boss who wants to conduct research about his employees. Would this be possible in the same way you’d search for shoes? And how legal is that?
Indeed it seems the technology of vertical searching has been applied to the people too. I haven’t found any traces of it in Europe yet, but as usual, our funky Amercian co-earthlings have evolved to this point already. It brings about an entirely new approach of humanity. How entitled are you to ‘private data’? Did you know what an amount of information has been made available to those who request it? Here’s an example of how far this actually goes :
[ FYI: What follows are quotes from an article published by Anita Ramasastry , an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington. Prior to joining the University of Washington faculty, Professor Ramasastry was a staff attorney at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. ]
“Suppose there were a website that allowed you – at no charge — to find out the following information for virtually any person in the United States: The addresses where he or she lived over the past ten years or so; what his or her phone numbers were (unlisted or not) over that same period; and what year he or she was born.
Interested in what the houses someone lived in look like – including the current one? The website would let you click on their address, access an overhead satellite photo of their neighborhood, and even zoom in on their particular house.
Even the information of public figures and celebrities would be included. So might the information of crime victims, trial witnesses, judges, jurors, prosecutors, and many others who have good reason to want to keep this information private.
Would such a website be legal? Yes – and, though many people may not know it, it already exists.
It’s called Zabasearch.com, and it’s legal because, according to the site, its data come from publicly available government records and commercial sources.”
So does this mean ZabaSearch keeps all this information of you stored on its servers? No. This is their statement about the origins of the data:
“ZabaSearch does not gather or generate information. ZabaSearch quickly accesses public information and displays what is available in the public domain.Many people assume ZabaSearch controls the information found in ZabaSearch results pages. However, ZabaSearch simply serves as a search engine in locating available public records and does not create the records found”
So in fact, it is the government (well, the US government for now) who’s sharing this information. I thought the first thing they were supposed to do was to protect. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Professor Ramasastry also writes:
“The founders of Zabasearch have reportedly characterized their service as “data democratization.” In other words, if there is information already out there about you, you now have access to it. But, so does everybody else!
True, much information was available publicly before. But now it can be collected together, online, at the press of a button. One scholar, Professor Daniel Solove, calls such collections of data “digital dossiers”.
And there’s no reason these dossiers must be limited to addresses, phone numbers, birth years, and property information. Digital footprints can be tracked – so that digital dossiers could include Internet activity. In theory, they could also be connected to security camera footage from private stores, identification photos, and much more.
Such dossiers can be permanent, and may be instantaneously disseminated around the world.
They can also be stolen: Collecting information on an individual, and making the dossier publicly accessible, risks making identity theft virtually undetectable. The thief who steals your wallet may not know your mother’s maiden name, or the name of your pet – common security questions. But what if that information ends up in your digital dossier?
Beyond a general erosion of our privacy, there may be specific harm from publication of addresses and other personal data. Persons who are in fear for their safety do not want their addresses and phone numbers in the public domain. Victims of domestic violence are a clear example.
And situations change. When you provided your address on a credit card application, you may have had no concerns over your personal security. Later, however, you might be stalked, or have other concerns for your personal safety.”
No doubt this search engine is a haven for marketers nationwide, for it’s an incredibly large supply of wanted and useful data. If this evolution the professor is talking about takes place, and your internet activity is added to these records… there was no need to make all this fuzz about the Google Accelerator at all. Now everyone’ll have the data. So it doesn’t matter anymore. Perhaps Google’s anticipating on the evolution already. They’ve always been ahead a little, being the leading search factory.
Who knows? But let’s say it doesn’t come that far… Then Google would be the only one able to link your internet/surfing/searching behavior to the public records everyone else has access to. Hah. Pretty interesting position for a company that has no intentions at all of using the collected data for marketing related activities.
Read all about this issue in professor Ramasastry’s column.
Take a look at ZabaSearch.com .