Greetings. I continue to get queries about what I can only categorize as a somewhat bizarre story, pitting the modern remnants of ancient Japanese prejudices against the modern technology of Google Earth. Google's got to feel that they can't win for trying on this one.

The backstory, in an AP item that seems to take a noticeable, somewhat anti-Google stance overall, makes for interesting reading.

Essentially, the controversy revolves around the adding of ancient Japanese maps as a new optional overlay layer on Google Earth's data for Japan. These maps, as it turns out, are sourced from and controlled via UC Berkeley, which has had them available on their own Web site without generating complaints.

The maps in question detail the areas of Japan in feudal times where the low caste populations resided. Ancient history, right? So what? The problem, as it turns out, is in the psychology and sociology of some Japanese, not a fault at Google.

Remarkably, the descendants of the ancient, lowest class "burakumin" caste, who were despised solely for their occupations -- basically of the sort now celebrated by Mike Rowe on Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs series -- are still subject to prejudices in modern Japan.

While the maps were already available on the Web, their appearance on Google Earth have triggered significant protests in Japan. When the Berkeley curator of the maps decided to remove the "offensive" aspects, more protests appeared, this time accusing Google of a "cover-up" when the associated data was removed.

This is the textbook definition of damned if you do and damned if you don't, especially when you're fundamentally the communicator of data, not the entity who actually controls which data will be included in particular mapping data sets obtained from external sources.

My view in these sorts of situations is consistent, I hope. Trying to prevent access to mapping data such as that in this case is hopeless in the long run, particularly at this stage of the game -- but that decision is apparently up to Berkeley and the maps' curator as far as the "burakumin" case is concerned.

Still, there are proactive steps that Google could take, as the facilitator that so many people use to access these mapping products, to at least help avoid similar problems.

One issue (noted in the AP story) is lack of explicit context. Particularly when dealing with data (whether external or not) that carries a major risk of triggering highly emotional concerns such as prejudices, some sort of fact-based explanatory link, pop-up, roll-over, or whatever, could be displayed to help provide a basic contextual underpinning to what viewers of that data will be seeing. As I've noted in the past, Google already associates such an explanation with the search term "jew" above Google's displayed natural search results for that word.

Logically, a similar approach could have (and perhaps still could) prove beneficial in the case of the Japanese maps controversy and in other similar cases that might arise in the future.

Where does this leave us? First, I'd hope that those persons in Japan who are maintaining "burakumin" prejudices will reevaluate their positions -- since that's really at the heart of this entire problem.

And I don't believe it is reasonable to fault Google for their handling of this situation, especially since the mapping data in question is externally controlled by third parties.

What of Google's role? Google's corporate mission is admirably stated as an endeavor to " ... organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

It's certainly not for me to redefine Google's efforts in any way. But perhaps the addition of the word "understandable" to that mission statement would be beneficial, in the sense of helping people understand what the meaning of displayed data means in context -- at least in highly controversial situations such as those under discussion above.

This wouldn't be easy, especially since in many cases providing such context could be challenging on a purely algorithmic basis, without some degree of human intervention in the process -- as was no doubt involved in the "jew" search terms case.

But Google's brain trust is vast and Google's potential nearly unlimited. Perhaps more importantly, I believe that Google's people really want to do the right things in these situations -- however difficult (but often fascinating) such efforts may be.

--Lauren--