In addition to targeting and personalizing ads, Google also uses the data collected about users to improve the quality of search queries. Click histories on search results and query logs are essential to help search engines optimize search results for individual users.  Search protocols also help search engines develop the algorithms they use to return results, such as Google`s famous PageRank.  An example of this is how Google uses databases of information to refine Google`s spell checker.  United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland have been used to prevent users from protecting privacy offered under the Fourth Amendment from records kept by Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  This is also stated in Sixth Circuit Guest v. Lei and United States v.
Kennedy, in which courts ruled that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to ISP customer data because they voluntarily provided their information to ISPs using only ISP services.  Similarly, the current legal form on privacy and risk-taking can be interpreted to mean that search engine users cannot expect privacy to relate to the data they communicate via search engines.  What is RtE and why has it been controversial from the point of view of the moral responsibility of CFCs? We can trace the origin of what eventually became the RtE debate in 2010, when Mario Costeja González asked Google to remove a link that was on his return list for online searches of his name (see, for example, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. 2014). The link in question referred to an article in a Spanish newspaper (La Vanguardia) about a seizure that had taken place 16 years earlier. González, a Spanish citizen, asked the Spanish Data Protection Agency to remove the link. He argued that the information about his foreclosure, which was still prominently displayed in Google`s search results list for „Mario González”, was no longer „relevant”. Although the Spanish court ruled in González`s favor in 2010, many critics did not know whether the court`s ruling would also apply in other EU countries. So these criticisms weren`t surprised when Google appealed the Spanish court`s decision. The big problem with this, however, is that search engines have evolved to the point where they are the market itself. In the virtual world, your business actually doesn`t exist if it can`t be found in this search engine market.
The opposite of this is that how you are represented when you appear in this dominant virtual market is widely perceived as such. A 2010 decision by the Turkish Criminal Peace Tribunal sets an important precedent for how Turkish courts should interpret and apply the provisions of Law No. 5651 regarding proposed search terms in Turkey`s emerging Internet legal framework. The court ruled that Google cannot be held responsible for suggestions of search terms that appear in its search engine when the search terms „corruption recep konuk” and „corruption of recep konuk” appear. The court held that the suggested search terms and not the content within the meaning of Law No. 5651 had been requested for deletion. Today, the Department of Justice – along with eleven attorneys general – filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent Google from illegally maintaining monopolies through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices in the search and contextual advertising markets and to remedy competitive harm. Participating attorneys general represent Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina and Texas. In addition, Goldman found that sending a notice on a law firm`s letterhead and citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is also a great way to get people to remove infringing content.
Although the internal structure of a search engine is quite complex – it includes, among other things, programs called „spiders” that „crawl” the web – the user interface part of the search process is quite simple and can be summarized in two steps: (1) a user enters a search term/phrase or a „keyword” in a „search box”; and (2) the search engine returns a list of relevant web „pages” that typically contain hyperlinks to the listed pages. Many of the earliest web search engines were highly specialized and could therefore be considered „vertical” in terms of reach (i.e. in today`s technical language in terms of search engine technology). For example, Ask.com was developed to accept queries in the form of specific questions and therefore be considered a vertical search engine. Halavais defines a vertical search engine as one that „limits itself in terms of subject, medium, region, language, or other constraints that cover that area more deeply.” (In this sense, vertical search engines are much more likely to penetrate certain topics than to expand into related topics.) However, some of the popular search engines that flourished in the early web period were more general or „horizontal.” Alta Vista, for example, was one of the first search engines to enter this category. Today, most major search engines are horizontal, and Google is arguably the best-known horizontal search engine. However, it should be noted that vertical search engines still play an important role today. Let`s take an example where you use Google or an alternative horizontal search engine like Yahoo! or Bing (Microsoft) to find the Bates College website. Once the user has successfully accessed the main page of the Bates website, they can use Bates` local search function, a vertical search engine, to retrieve information about the professors and staff working at that college, or information about various academic programs and extracurricular activities sponsored by that college, and so on. However, in this vertical search engine, the user cannot retrieve more complete information about faculties and programs of study of related colleges and universities, or on related topics in general (as would be the case using a horizontal search engine).
Determining the legal liability of search engines requires an understanding of the framework within which search engines operate. This section deals with the creation and development of search engines and methods of collecting, organizing and distributing information online. Some critics assume that as conflicts affecting online advertising in the search engine context are resolved, the bias in search engine results will also diminish or perhaps disappear altogether. However, other systems can also be used to influence the privilege of some websites over others, both in terms of inclusion (or exclusion) and ranking. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in 2014 that its citizens had denied the „right to be forgotten” in the case of Google Spain SL v.