said by Blackbird:
The nature of certain ads and search results preferentially delivered to a person guessed at being of a certain race is where the most offensive aspect of this lies, and that reflects the biases of those employing the collected data and directing what kinds of ads go where.
I would say the content of those ads is perhaps the most offensive.
It's advertisers that should be vetting their ads for offensive and malicious/dodgy content and Google should provide a check list for advertisers and websites to allow this certain types of material to be posted on websites.
Even if the frequency of these types of offensive linkings to racial profiling was accurate (which their clearly not) i.e. proportion of offenses per racial stereotype was represented, it would still be offensive.
The laws governing everything else don't yet apply to the net ads in regards to being offensive.
»mashable.com/2013/02/06/google-a ··· ligence/
Maybe if no marketable product had been found previously for certain website ads then perhaps acquisitions of this nature may improve things.
We all know some (a lot) of google ads stink, the profiling has either been based on poor profiling or intrusive data collection or lack there of.
A link to a organization that lists/sells criminal/salacious content would be less offensive than directly linking a persons past obtusely, based on racial profiling.