Home Anonymity and Online Search: Measuring the Privacy Impact Of Google’s 2012 Privacy Policy Change
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Anonymity and Online Search: Measuring the Privacy Impact Of Google’s 2012 Privacy Policy Change

  • James C. Cooper EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 22, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

One of the most vexing problems in privacy policy is identifying consumer harm from unwanted observation; because it is highly subjective and is likely to vary greatly throughout the population, it doesn’t lend itself to easy measurement. Yet, these types of situations increasingly are the focal point of privacy policy discussions, including the Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding standing and the FTC’s recently announced commercial surveillance rulemaking. The primary approach to attempt to quantify subjective harms has been to measure consumers’ willingness to exchange personal data for money in an experimental setting. This study takes a different tack, using field data to measure actual consumer response to a real-world reduction in the anonymity of online search. In March 2012, Google began to combine user information across platforms. To the extent that Google’s policy change reduced the anonymity associated with Google search, it may have diminished incentives to search sensitive topics. Using Google Trends (GT) data and a difference-in-difference estimator with top non-sensitive search terms as the control group, the results suggest that there was a 3–7 % short-term (1–2 months) reduction in sensitive search (relative to the non-sensitive search control group), as measured by GT. I examine heterogenous treatment effects, and find that the largest measured impact is for health-related search. There is no measured difference in reaction between high- and low-privacy demand states.

JEL Classification: D12; D83; K24; L86

Corresponding author: James C. Cooper, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Economics & Privacy, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Arlington, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

I thank Jane Bambauer, Bruce Kobayashi, Siona Listokin, Hal Varian, participants at the FTC’s PrivacyCon and an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments. Ryan Lodata and Travis Royer provided outstanding research assistance.

Appendix A
Table A.1:

Sensitive and non-sensitive search terms.

Sensitive terms Average trends score (Jan 1, 2011 – Dec. 31, 2013) Non-sensitive terms Average trends score (Jan 1, 2011 – Dec. 31, 2013)
Abortion 49.1 Amazon 53.0
Adultery 37.9 Apple 44.6
Alcoholics anonymous 43.1 Calculator 77.7
Bankruptcy 54.8 CNN 30.3
Coming out 54.7 Craigslist 73.7
Cutting 59.5 Ebay 81.0
Eating disorder 46.9 ESPN 56.3
Erectile dysfunction 49.4 Facebook 77.1
Escort 65.6 Games 63.0
Gender reassignment 39.0 Google 69.0
Guns 40.7 Iphone 37.4
KKK 36.7 Mail 83.6
HIV 42.6 Maps 71.6
Online dating 52.3 Netflix 58.9
Sexual addiction 36.6 News 53.8
Sperm donation 35.8 Obama 11.7
Strip club 54.7 Target 40.6
Suicide 49.1 Walmart 37.1
Viagra 56.3 Weather 39.7
Weed 52.2 Yahoo 84.3
White power 43.2 YouTube 75.9
Table A.2:

Estimated control period volume.

Term GT score January 2019 Average monthly volume January 2019 (000) GT score control period GT score ratio (Control/Jan 2019) Estimated control period monthly volume (Thousands)
Abortion 49 135 84.5 1.72 232.9
Adultery 50 74 97 1.94 143.6
Alcoholics anonymous 50 49.5 94 1.88 93.1
Bankruptcy 60 135 97 1.62 218.3
Coming out 91 12.1 65.5 0.72 8.7
Eating disorder 70 74 74.5 1.06 78.8
Erectile dysfunction 64 246 55 0.86 211.4
Escort 100 1400 55.5 0.56 777
Gender reassignment 34 1600 12 0.35 564.7
Guns 40 860 63 1.58 1354.5
HIV 41 201 49.5 1.21 242.7
Online dating 42 40.5 88.5 2.11 85.3
Sexual addiction 36 110 91.5 2.54 279.6
Sperm donation 41 27.1 86 2.10 56.8
Strip club 74 550 79.5 1.07 590.9
Viagra 73 301 68 0.93 280.4
Total 5218.7
Table A.3:

State privacy demand laws.

State Total Employee email Privacy policy e-reader Children License plate Social media Constitution
CA 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
DE 5 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
CO 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
CT 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
TN 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
AR 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
AZ 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
FL 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
IL 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
LA 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
MD 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
ME 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
MT 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
NH 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
UT 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
WA 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
AK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
HI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
MI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
MN 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
MO 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
NC 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
NE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
NJ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
NM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
NV 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
OK 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
OR 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
RI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
SC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
VA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
VT 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
WI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
WV 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mean 1.76 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.35 0.74 0.29

References

Acquisti, A., Friedman, A., and Telang, R. (2006). Is there A cost to privacy breaches? An event study. In: Twenty seventh international conference on information systems. ICIS.Search in Google Scholar

Acquisti, A., John, L.K., and Loewenstein, G. (2013). What is privacy worth? J. Leg. Stud. 42: 249. https://doi.org/10.1086/671754.Search in Google Scholar

Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., and Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. J. Econ. Lit. 54: 442.10.1257/jel.54.2.442Search in Google Scholar

Allen, A.L. (1999). Coercing privacy. Wm. Mary Law Rev. 40: 723.Search in Google Scholar

Athey, S., Catalini, C., and Tucker, C. (2017). The digital privacy paradox: small money, small costs, small talk, Available at: https://people.stanford.edu/athey/sites/default/files/digital_privacy_paradox_02_13_17.pdf.10.3386/w23488Search in Google Scholar

Baker, S.R. and Frandkin, A. (2016). The impact of unemployment insurance on job search: evidence from Google search data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 99: 756. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00674.Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, K., Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.P., and Zhou, L. (2003). The economic cost of publicly announced information security breaches: empirical evidence from the stock market. J. Comput. Secur. 11: 431. https://doi.org/10.3233/jcs-2003-11308.Search in Google Scholar

Carmody, T. (2012). Google streamlines privacy policy to integrate its products. WIRED, Available at: https://www.wired.com/2012/01/google-streamlines-privacy/.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, H. and Varian, H. (2011). Predicting the present with Google trends, Available at: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/2011/ptp.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J.E. (2000). Examined lives: informational privacy and the subject as Object. Stan. Law Rev. 52: 1424–1425: 1373. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229517.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J.E. (2013). What privacy is for. Harv. Law Rev 126: 1904.Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, J. (2017). Separation anxiety. Va. J. Law Technol. 17: 1.Search in Google Scholar

Cvrecek, D., Kumpost, M., Matyas, V., and Danezis, G. (2006). A study on the value of location privacy. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society.10.1145/1179601.1179621Search in Google Scholar

DiSalvo, D. (2012). Google says bye bye to user privacy. FORBES, Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/01/24/google-says-bye-bye-to-user-privacy/#164e3de37b0a.Search in Google Scholar

D’Orazio, D. (2012). Google’s 2012 privacy policy changes: the backlash and response. THE VERGE, Available at: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/1/2763898/google-privacy-policy-changes-terms-of-service-2012.Search in Google Scholar

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Federal trade commission, 844 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.D.C. 2012).Search in Google Scholar

Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M.H., Patel, R.S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M.S., and Brilliant, L. (2008). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457: 1012. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07634.Search in Google Scholar

Goldfarb, A. and Tucker, C. (2011). Online display advertising: targeting and obtrusiveness. Market. Sci. 30: 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0583.Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.P., and Zhou, L. (2011). The impact of information security breaches: has there been a downward shift in cost? J. Comput. Secur. 19: 33. https://doi.org/10.3233/jcs-2009-0398.Search in Google Scholar

Hermalin, B.E. and Katz, M.L. (2006). Privacy, property rights and efficiency: the economics of privacy as secrecy. Quant. Mark. Econ. 4: 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-005-9004-7.Search in Google Scholar

In re Google, Inc. Gmail Litigation, No. 13-MD-02430-LHK (N.D. Cal. September 26, 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Jia, J., Jin, G., and Wagman, L. (2021). The short-run effects of the general data protection regulation on technology venture investment. Mark. Sci. 40: 593–812.10.1287/mksc.2020.1271Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, G., Lin, T., Cooper, J., and Liang, Z. (2023). COPPAcalypse? The youtube settlement’s impact on kids content. In: Boston University and program on economics & privacy working paper, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4430334.10.2139/ssrn.4430334Search in Google Scholar

Kaplanski, G. and Levy, H. (2010). Sentiment and stock prices: the case of aviation disasters. J. Financ. Econ. 95: 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.10.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J.H. and Wagman, L. (2015). Screening incentives and privacy protection in financial markets: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Rand J. Econ. 46: 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12083.Search in Google Scholar

Ko, M. and Dorantes, C. (2006). The impact of information security breaches on financial performance of the breached firm: an empirical investigation. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 17: 13.Search in Google Scholar

Kummer, M. and Schulte, P. (2016). When private information settles the bill: money and privacy in google’s market for smartphone applications, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2764907.10.2139/ssrn.2764907Search in Google Scholar

Kuran, T. and Sunstein, C.R. (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Rev. 50: 683. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229439.Search in Google Scholar

Lazar, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., and Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of google flu: traps in big data analysis. Science 342: 1203.10.1126/science.1248506Search in Google Scholar

Letter from Marc Rotenberg (2012). President and exec. director, electronic privacy information center, et al to members of the house energy and commerce committee, Available at: https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/Privacy-Groups-ltr-to-Bono-Mack.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, T.L. (2022). Valuing intrinsic and instrumental preferences for privacy. Market. Sci. 41: 663. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1368.Search in Google Scholar

Marthews, A. and Tucker, C. (2017). The impact of online surveillance on behavior. In: The cambridge handbook of surveillance law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 437–454.10.1017/9781316481127.019Search in Google Scholar

McCullagh, D. (2011). Google settles FTC charges over Buzz. CNET, Available at: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-settles-ftc-charges-over-buzz/.Search in Google Scholar

Mello, J. (2012). Multinational consumer group asks google to delay privacy changes. PCWORLD, Available at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/251058/multinational_consumer_group_asks_google_to_delay_privacy_changes.html.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, C. (2012). Google to update privacy policy to cover wider data use. N.Y. TIMES, Available at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/google-to-update-its-privacy-policies-and-terms-of-service/.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, A. and Tucker, C. (2011). Can health care information technology save babies? J. Polit. Econ. 119: 289. https://doi.org/10.1086/660083.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, A. and Tucker, C. (2017). Privacy protection, personalized medicine, and genetic testing. Manage. Sci. 64: 4471. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2858.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, R.S. (1996). Property rights in personal information: an economic Defense of privacy. Geol. J. 84: 2381.Search in Google Scholar

Olivarez-Giles, N. (2011). Google removing virus-infected android Apps from phones/tablets. Los Angeles Times, Available at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/03/google-removing-virus-infected-android-apps-from-phones-tablets-promises-better-secutiry.html.Search in Google Scholar

Peppet, S.R. (2011). Unraveling privacy: the personal prospectus & the threat of a full disclosure future. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 105: 1153.Search in Google Scholar

Png, I.P.L. (2007). On the value of privacy from telemarketing: evidence from the “do not call’ Registry, Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000533.10.2139/ssrn.1000533Search in Google Scholar

Prince, J. and Wallsten, S. (2022). How much is privacy worth around the world and across platforms? J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 31: 841. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12481.Search in Google Scholar

Rao, L. (2012). Google consolidates privacy policy; will combine user data across services. TECHCRUNCH, Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/google-consolidates-privacy-policy-will-combine-user-data-across-services/.Search in Google Scholar

Reidenberg, J. (2003). Privacy Wrongs in search of Remedies. Hastings Law J. 54: 877.10.2139/ssrn.434585Search in Google Scholar

Reitman, R. (2012). What actually changed in google’s privacy policy, electronic frontier foundation, Available at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google's-privacy-policy.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2008). Intellectual privacy. Tex. Law Rev. 87: 387.Search in Google Scholar

Savage, S.J. and Waldman, D.M. (2015). Privacy tradeoffs in smartphone applications. Econ. Lett. 137: 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.10.016.Search in Google Scholar

Solove, D.J. (2013). Introduction: privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv. Law Rev. 126: 1880.Search in Google Scholar

Staten, M.E. and Cate, F.H. (2003). The impact of opt-in privacy rules on retail credit markets: a case study of MBNA. Duke L. J. 52: 745–786.Search in Google Scholar

Stephens-Davidowtiz, S. (2014). The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: evidence using Google search data. J. Public Econ. 118: 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.04.010.Search in Google Scholar

Stephens-Davidowtiz, S. and Varian, H. (2015). A hands-on guide to google data 16, Available at: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/2015/primer.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Strahilevitz, L. and Kugler, M.B. (2017). Is privacy policy language irrelevant to consumers? J. Leg. Stud. 45: S69. https://doi.org/10.1086/689933.Search in Google Scholar

Sutter, J.D. (2011). How did google lose, and find, all those e-mails? CNN, Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/03/01/gmail.lost.found/.Search in Google Scholar

Tsukayama, H. (2012). FAQ: google’s new privacy policy. Washington post, Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/faq-googles-new-privacy-policy/2012/01/24/gIQArw8GOQ_story.html.Search in Google Scholar

Varian, H.R., Woroch, G., and Wallenburg, F. (2004). Who signed up for the do not call list? Available at: http://eml.berkeley.edu/~woroch/do-not-call.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Whitten, A. (2012). Updating our privacy policies and terms of service, google official blog, Available at: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-terms.html.Search in Google Scholar

Wittes, B. and Liu, J. (2015). The privacy paradox: the privacy benefits of privacy threats. Brookings Institute, Center for Technology and Innovation, Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-privacy-paradox-the-privacy-benefits-of-privacy-threats/.Search in Google Scholar

Wittes, B., Liu, J., and Kohse, E. (2017). The privacy paradox II: measuring the privacy benefits of privacy threats. Brookings Institute, Center for Technology and Innovation, Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/privacy-paper.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, L. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2009). The future of prediction: how google searches foreshadow housing prices & sales, Available at: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/2011/ptp.pdf.10.2139/ssrn.2022293Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-05-08
Accepted: 2023-07-06
Published Online: 2023-11-22

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 17.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/rle-2023-0042/html
Scroll to top button