This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/googles-data-leak-right-to-be-forgotten
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Google's data leak reveals flaws in making it judge and jury over our rights | Google's data leak reveals flaws in making it judge and jury over our rights |
| (1 day later) | |
| The so-called right to be forgotten debate has, until now, been almost entirely uninformed by data. | The so-called right to be forgotten debate has, until now, been almost entirely uninformed by data. |
| It is repeatedly claimed that dangerous criminals and shady public figures are using European law to request that Google removes information about them, abusing rights designed to allow individuals some say over personal information that is inaccurate, irrelevant or outdated, and holds no public interest. | It is repeatedly claimed that dangerous criminals and shady public figures are using European law to request that Google removes information about them, abusing rights designed to allow individuals some say over personal information that is inaccurate, irrelevant or outdated, and holds no public interest. |
| Internet companies and the media fuel the narrative by drawing attention to complex cases involving crime, fraud and politics. | Internet companies and the media fuel the narrative by drawing attention to complex cases involving crime, fraud and politics. |
| Related: Google accidentally reveals data on 'right to be forgotten' requests | Related: Google accidentally reveals data on 'right to be forgotten' requests |
| But new data revealed today by the Guardian categorically rebuts assertions that only unsavoury types benefit from rights concerning how we are represented on web searches. | But new data revealed today by the Guardian categorically rebuts assertions that only unsavoury types benefit from rights concerning how we are represented on web searches. |
| Google tells us that this was a test categorisation of data, not considered reliable enough to release publicly. Yet even with a very big margin of error, the data would still show that the right to be forgotten issue is overwhelmingly about everyday people, often with little public profile – victims of algorithmic failure on the indelible web. | Google tells us that this was a test categorisation of data, not considered reliable enough to release publicly. Yet even with a very big margin of error, the data would still show that the right to be forgotten issue is overwhelmingly about everyday people, often with little public profile – victims of algorithmic failure on the indelible web. |
| It confirms the root of the right to be forgotten issue: that Google is the web’s main arbiter of information, and has immense control over how we are represented and identified digitally. | It confirms the root of the right to be forgotten issue: that Google is the web’s main arbiter of information, and has immense control over how we are represented and identified digitally. |
| The vast majority of successful delisting requests concern information that Google has itself categorised as “private or personal information”. Only a tiny proportion of requests concern serious crime, political data, or public figures - and even those are more likely to come from victims, rather than perpetrators. | The vast majority of successful delisting requests concern information that Google has itself categorised as “private or personal information”. Only a tiny proportion of requests concern serious crime, political data, or public figures - and even those are more likely to come from victims, rather than perpetrators. |
| Information for all, or no-one | Information for all, or no-one |
| The fact that this data has only come to light now, and not of Google’s own initiative, highlights the challenges of having a private multinational company such as Google implementing private data rights. A widely shared discomfort with last year’s European Court of Justice ruling is that it makes Google “judge, jury and executioner” of our rights. | The fact that this data has only come to light now, and not of Google’s own initiative, highlights the challenges of having a private multinational company such as Google implementing private data rights. A widely shared discomfort with last year’s European Court of Justice ruling is that it makes Google “judge, jury and executioner” of our rights. |
| Yet Google already acts as the overlord of our online profiles, defining us by a database of the best digital detritus it can find. Data rights are a modest correction against the pre-existing reality. | Yet Google already acts as the overlord of our online profiles, defining us by a database of the best digital detritus it can find. Data rights are a modest correction against the pre-existing reality. |
| The solution is corporate and administrative transparency, detailed guidelines, minimising discretion and arbitrariness, and clear oversight. The first step towards this is to know the contours of the problem we are dealing with. | The solution is corporate and administrative transparency, detailed guidelines, minimising discretion and arbitrariness, and clear oversight. The first step towards this is to know the contours of the problem we are dealing with. |
| So why has Google consistently refused to release figures, even in aggregate, about the types of requests and decisions being made? | So why has Google consistently refused to release figures, even in aggregate, about the types of requests and decisions being made? |
| Slip and we’ll sue | Slip and we’ll sue |
| There is considerable complexity in accommodating privacy alongside rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The balance is influenced by many moving parts: the information, time and circumstances of publication, other parties involved, and current and future interest. It depends heavily on the quality of information coming from those requesting delisting. | There is considerable complexity in accommodating privacy alongside rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The balance is influenced by many moving parts: the information, time and circumstances of publication, other parties involved, and current and future interest. It depends heavily on the quality of information coming from those requesting delisting. |
| Google has taken this on board, expending sizeable resources towards achieving the correct balance in its decisions. It probably shouldn’t be making these decisions without much finer-grained guidance and worked examples from the democratic organs of Europe, but there is more case law being generated all the time. While still inadequate, Google has been more active and transparent than any competitor, who seem unwilling to draw attention to their low market shares in web search. | Google has taken this on board, expending sizeable resources towards achieving the correct balance in its decisions. It probably shouldn’t be making these decisions without much finer-grained guidance and worked examples from the democratic organs of Europe, but there is more case law being generated all the time. While still inadequate, Google has been more active and transparent than any competitor, who seem unwilling to draw attention to their low market shares in web search. |
| The primary reason why Google is not releasing details about its processes is that every request for delisting comes with a risk that Google could be sued. Though a valid concern, this does not detract from very significant concerns about transparency in aggregate. Consider how this latest data shifts the debate; at best, we have been discussing only 5% of cases. What are the rest of them about? How appropriate are the categories? What proportion of the requests involve intimate, health or location information? Victims of tragedy? Defamation? | The primary reason why Google is not releasing details about its processes is that every request for delisting comes with a risk that Google could be sued. Though a valid concern, this does not detract from very significant concerns about transparency in aggregate. Consider how this latest data shifts the debate; at best, we have been discussing only 5% of cases. What are the rest of them about? How appropriate are the categories? What proportion of the requests involve intimate, health or location information? Victims of tragedy? Defamation? |
| Such information is essential to improving the underlying decision-making framework. | Such information is essential to improving the underlying decision-making framework. |
| Data existentialism | Data existentialism |
| The second, more existential reason for Google’s secrecy concerns the delicate, increasingly intrusive pact between citizens and information merchants. The right to be forgotten has initiated what needs to be a far-reaching debate over how data protection jives with the business models of Google and other internet companies that thrive on our data. | The second, more existential reason for Google’s secrecy concerns the delicate, increasingly intrusive pact between citizens and information merchants. The right to be forgotten has initiated what needs to be a far-reaching debate over how data protection jives with the business models of Google and other internet companies that thrive on our data. |
| A broader discussion of the types and frequency of delisting requests being made to Google would lead to further questions, possibly global demand, and even the evolution of international data protection standards and laws to which Google would be subject. Far better, Google may have strategised, to keep debate in the elliptical, abstract, free speech vs privacy boxing ring – regardless of how representative it is of the reality. | A broader discussion of the types and frequency of delisting requests being made to Google would lead to further questions, possibly global demand, and even the evolution of international data protection standards and laws to which Google would be subject. Far better, Google may have strategised, to keep debate in the elliptical, abstract, free speech vs privacy boxing ring – regardless of how representative it is of the reality. |
| Ultimately, this is about informational power. Google knows better than anyone the power of data. Data about the right to be forgotten reveals public demand and sentiment. It is a perfect tool to spar with data protection authorities and offers essential knowledge in negotiating new data protection laws and regulations. Google has the upper hand, and it wants to keep it. | Ultimately, this is about informational power. Google knows better than anyone the power of data. Data about the right to be forgotten reveals public demand and sentiment. It is a perfect tool to spar with data protection authorities and offers essential knowledge in negotiating new data protection laws and regulations. Google has the upper hand, and it wants to keep it. |
| Related: How Google determined our right to be forgotten | |
| What we need now | What we need now |
| Google has acknowledged the need to improve its transparency report. Two months ago, it welcomed a letter from 80 academics from 57 institutions, asking for granular information about its implementation of the right to be forgotten ruling. It says it is working on releasing further data in response. | Google has acknowledged the need to improve its transparency report. Two months ago, it welcomed a letter from 80 academics from 57 institutions, asking for granular information about its implementation of the right to be forgotten ruling. It says it is working on releasing further data in response. |
| This new data shows how crucial it is for Google to explain the balances being made, considerations being played and outcomes as a result. It also shows how important it is to discuss the non-controversial cases, and to not obscure the debate by focusing exclusively on the edge cases. | This new data shows how crucial it is for Google to explain the balances being made, considerations being played and outcomes as a result. It also shows how important it is to discuss the non-controversial cases, and to not obscure the debate by focusing exclusively on the edge cases. |
| Regulators must be involved – not only in the cases that are appealed to their offices following rejections from Google, but in the heartland of assessments themselves. They must be open to a public negotiation of workable solutions, without threatening fines or litigation. They must be transparent about when and how data protection clashes with freedom of expression. These issues must be brought out, not buried. | Regulators must be involved – not only in the cases that are appealed to their offices following rejections from Google, but in the heartland of assessments themselves. They must be open to a public negotiation of workable solutions, without threatening fines or litigation. They must be transparent about when and how data protection clashes with freedom of expression. These issues must be brought out, not buried. |
| Democracy in a data-driven age is too important to proceed without meaningful data. | Democracy in a data-driven age is too important to proceed without meaningful data. |
Previous version
1
Next version