Hakia On Search, Privacy and Trust

I was visiting the hakia blog today and found an interesting post by Melek Pulatkonak their COO. Recent privacy problems in the news and particularly Google's "issues" in this area have prompted much discussion. According to this blog article hakia has initiated a second "Search for Better Search" conversation with these critical and debated issues in mind. I covered the first version of these conversations back in May after a great talk with Melek who went to great lengths to help me understand their complex technology.

Trusting Search

I just finished what seemed like a whole week of Google articles dealing with either lawsuits or news regarding their evident machinations for money making with user information. In fairness to Google, virtually all search companies have misused the trust of their constituents but none of the others has the leveraged position Google has. Search is the one of the most fundamental tasks we perform on the Web and the recent incrimination of Google by Privacy International, though not surprising, was something of a wake up call for many.

Hakia on Personal Info

Hakia asserts that they do not need personal information to improve their search results and clearly promises to communicate openly if any private information is needed. Ordinarily I would be skeptical of any such claim but my somewhat more "inside" view of the goals and integrity of the people behind hakia add credence to their assertions personally. Even before the latest news on Google, Melek expressed hakia's intentions and approach to privacy in a discussion on the subject entitled "Look Mom No Cookies." In this discussion it become evident that hakia has already directed effort towards better privacy by changing search from an opt out only proposition into an opt in configuration.

What does that mean? For simplicity sake (and to avoid sounding ignorant) let me reiterate Melek's simplest example. Traditional search engines insert cookies onto the user's computer to save some language, detect your browser, give you a unique ID and save your search history. What's more Google cookies do not expire until 2035 (or after I am dead unless we come up with spare parts soon), and can be used to measure a person's preferences.

Combined with java scripts and search archives traditional engines have some powerful tools to manipulate your data with. The short of it is that hakia does not insert cookies nor do they track clicks for link analysis. Hakia does not need to have this data because the engine already knows what you mean from the query.

Trust

Credibility is a valuable human commodity. Phil Butler telling you how wonderful and brilliant this service or that person is lends some level of trust to the entity, while continued correct or trustworthy behavior adds even more trust to their value to you. As sentient beings we have to follow trends and behavior in order to establish credibility and trust.

The interesting thing about these posts and the issues is the relative "credibility" they provide in regard to trusting hakia. You noted obviously that the post about cookies and privacy predated Google's latest issues (but if you did not here it is again). It is also notable that hakia does not need your information to perform as advertised. Lastly, hakia has opened another dialogue where notable Web experts, prominent figures and users have already begun to input ideas for hakia to integrate into the way their engine operates for you. In the words of Richard MacManus on this issue: "I think the number one best practice is to engage the community and have conversations with them." There it is – a suggestion in a dialogue obviously well taken by an excellent company, period.

Negative Patterns

Hakia obviously does not have the detriment of a long history for people to follow like Google and others do. On the other hand, credibility lost is and should be a much harder nut to crack than initial trust. The search and other entities we have associated ourselves with have to a large extent betrayed our trust.

To some, privacy and search habits are trivial, but the implication of using people's information to get more money out of them (there is no other way to put it) is untrustworthy. Acceptance of these practices in no way removes their underhanded nature in my opinion. Someone asked me the other day in the comments on one of the "trust" articles: "Who is going to replace them (referring to Google)?" I will give everyone three guesses who the leading contender is in my book.