Google’s data is your data

Making data about how Google’s search works available to others may be intended to help level the playing field (though we tend to agree with those who think that more stringent and more timely action was justified). But it also has implications for user privacy. This data includes information about what we all search for online after all.

This was recognised by both sides – and is fact being used by Google to push back against the remedy. That’s why the ruling requires the use of “Privacy Enhancing Techniques” (PETs) to anonymise user data. And companies seeking to access the data will need to be vetted.

Technical measures that help keep us safe online are great – PI has long championed the value of end-to-end encryption, for example. But PETs can be complex, new, and imperfect. At the end of the day, we are constantly being asked to put our trust in technologies that most people can barely begin to understand, and are being run by large corporate entities. Moreover, as the online world is shrouded in opacity and most of us have a strong digital footprint, anonymisation techniques might eventually prove to be easier said than done (see, for instance, this study from 2019 in Nature).

If companies, governments and courts want to rely on complex technologies to protect our rights, then it is essential that they are transparent and collaborative in proving their effectiveness.