Should Google be accountable for what its search engine unearths?

An EU Court official backs Google's policy.

|
AP Photo/Virginia Mayo
"Search engines have no control over the information posted by others. They just point to it," writes Google's Head of Free Expression, William Echikson, in a blog post on Tuesday.

Google is not responsible for deleting data from its search index based on an individual’s or company’s “subjective preference,” according to an opinion released by the European Union Court’s Advocate General on Tuesday.

“Google is not generally considered as a ‘controller’ of the personal data appearing on web pages it processes,” writes Niilo Jaaskinen, the EU Court’s Advocate General.

The opinion allows for search engines, like Google, to block access to third-party sites with illegal or libelous content in accordance with local law, but does not stipulate that Internet companies are bound to remove “legitimate and legal information” of a third party website, citing the third parties’ “freedom of expression.”  

This means that Google and other foreign Internet providers are still subject to national Internet regulation within the European Union. But since no law currently exists that gives individuals the “right to be forgotten” – or have their digital records expunged, however unflattering those records might be – Google is not obliged to regulate the content that appears in its search results.

Erasing unsavory information on the basis of individual requests is a slippery slope, explains William Echilkson, Google’s Head of Free Expression for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. “People shouldn’t be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice,” Mr. Echilkson writes on Google’s Europe blog in a post made on Tuesday.

Google hailed the opinion as “A step forward for free expression.”

The opinion was released in regards to a case that dates back nearly 15 years, before "being googled” became a common background check.

In 1998, Mario Costeja’s name appeared in the print edition of a widely-circulated Spanish newspaper concerning a real-estate auction, which was taking place to help repay Mr. Costeja’s social security debts. When the 1998 paper was made available online, Costeja’s real-estate ad was included in the edition, true to the paper’s original print version.

Costeja originally contacted the publisher in 2009 with a complaint that this old ad appeared when his name was searched on Google, and asked for the ad’s removal from the paper's online version. His request was rebuffed; the paper’s publisher said erasing this data was not appropriate. In less than a year, Costeja’s case had made it to Spain’s National High Court, which in turn referred the case to the EU’s Court of Justice.

There are over 180 similar court cases pending in Spain. 

The Advocate General’s opinion contradicts the decision issued by Spain’s National High Court, which called on Google to withdraw the advertisement from its search index, and is seen as a positive sign for Google in Europe, where the Internet giant has recently come under attack for its privacy policies.

The opinion came on the heels of a statement made Friday by Britain’s data regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, which ordered Google to delete personal data captured on its Street View project. On Thursday, France and Spain’s main two main watchdog groups increased pressures on Google to change its data privacy policy. 

The EU Court is just beginning their official deliberations in the Costeja case. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Should Google be accountable for what its search engine unearths?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/0625/Should-Google-be-accountable-for-what-its-search-engine-unearths
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe