Britain heads Google’s European censorship list

[MinisterofCucumber]

From Times Online April 21, 2010:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 103435.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The British Government made more requests for content to be removed from Google last year than any other country in Europe, according to figures released by the company today.

Between July and December last year, Google received 1,166 data requests from British government agencies, of which 59 were requests for content to be removed. Google complied with 76.3 per cent of the removal requests.

France made 846 data requests, but fewer than ten removal requests, of which 66.7 per cent were successful.

Globally, Britain ranks third in terms of data requests, behind Brazil (3,663) and the United States (3,580), although figures for China, where Google faced heavy censorship until withdrawing earlier this year, are unavailable.

David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said that Google had decided to make the figures available in the interests of transparency.

“Government censorship of the web is growing rapidly: from the outright blocking and filtering of sites, to court orders limiting access to information and legislation forcing companies to self-censor content,” he said.

“So it’s no surprise that Google, like other technology and telecommunications companies, regularly receives demands from government agencies to remove content from our services.

“Of course many of these requests are entirely legitimate, such as requests for the removal of child pornography. We also regularly receive requests from law enforcement agencies to hand over private user data. Again, the vast majority of these requests are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations.

“Data about these activities historically has not been broadly available. We believe that greater transparency will lead to less censorship.”

At present, Google provides only the number of requests received for data and data removal; no detail is available about the nature of individual requests, although Google says that it plans to fine-tune the data in future reports, which it will issue every six months.

The picture provided by the data may be fuzzy, but Google’s aims are clear. Apart from sites that breach local laws – such as the glorification of Nazism in Germany – Google is committed to blocking censorship where it contravenes Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Writing in The Washington Post, Mr Drummond said: “We are looking into how we can better provide resources and support for developing technology designed to combat and circumvent Internet censorship.

“The inherently global, borderless nature of the Internet means that policies created to govern content in a few countries can affect all of us.

“We believe that more information generally means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual.”

[Lounge Lizard]

It was under Thatcher that censorship was at its worst, for example comments by Gerry Adams spoken on the news by an actor.

[POSTMAN]

Have i missed something, couldn't you just use another search engine instead.

Also this is relevant to us (RMC)because..........

[MinisterofCucumber]

This is relevant to us because our rulers don't like free speech.

Mandelson has complained about blogs and wants to censor them.

Our union leaders lives would be a lot easier if RMC didn't exist.

The requests for censorship have been made by our Labour controlled government. This is the same government to whom RM are accountable and many of our union officials are members of the Labour Party.

I posted this in case anyone was still under the impression that Britain is a country that champions free speech.

[sevenandseven]

Isn't there some hysterical over reaction on here? According to the report Government agencies made 59 requests for content to be removed. How much of this was for legal reasons affecting court cases or child pornography or religious hatred or downright lies we are not told. Is a totally uncensored web where child pornography and hate are freely published really more preferable?

[MinisterofCucumber]

Isn't there some hysterical over reaction on here? According to the report Government agencies made 59 requests for content to be removed. How much of this was for legal reasons affecting court cases or child pornography or religious hatred or downright lies we are not told. Is a totally uncensored web where child pornography and hate are freely published really more preferable?

Certainly not. The article says that Google will be producing more detailed reports on the nature of censorship requests every 6 months. We will see what sort of things our government are trying to censor.

[andy2007]

Have i missed something, couldn't you just use another search engine instead.

Also this is relevant to us (RMC)because..........

Yes, you did. This is the bit that could be a problem for us:
“Of course many of these requests are entirely legitimate, such as requests for the removal of child pornography. We also regularly receive requests from law enforcement agencies to hand over private user data. Again, the vast majority of these requests are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations.


In other words: they don't think that all the requests they get are legitimate. So what other reasons could there be to find out who people are, on the 'Net. Or suppress content?
Employers wanting to know which Employees have said what about them?
Governments wanting to suppress anti-Government views?

And before some people think I'm being paranoid. Just remember: There's already one Country, where the Internet is heavily censored, to reduce opposition to the Government. And there have already been cases of people being tracked down on Internet Sites, so that they can be taken down the Conduct Code, for their comments. It's still rare. But it HAS happened.

[Tman]

In other words: they don't think that all the requests they get are legitimate.

You're playing with words Andy. All the requests aren't legitimate, ie, some are frivolous, or for the "wrong" reason, etc therefore not all are valid requests.

So what other reasons could there be to find out who people are, on the 'Net. Or suppress content?
Employers wanting to know which Employees have said what about them?
Governments wanting to suppress anti-Government views?

Here we go, C-T'ers at work. You have to join a lot of imaginary dots to get from the original post to government suppression.
Hey, maybe Google are in on it too...

[andy2007]

In other words: they don't think that all the requests they get are legitimate.

You're playing with words Andy. All the requests aren't legitimate, ie, some are frivolous, or for the "wrong" reason, etc therefore not all are valid requests.
Actually, Google say: "Between July and December last year, Google received 1,166 data requests from British government agencies, of which 59 were requests for content to be removed. Google complied with 76.3 per cent of the removal requests."

Are you seriously claiming that the Government and it's agencies would make 23.7% of it's requests frivilously?

So what other reasons could there be to find out who people are, on the 'Net. Or suppress content?
Employers wanting to know which Employees have said what about them?
Governments wanting to suppress anti-Government views?

Here we go, C-T'ers at work. You have to join a lot of imaginary dots to get from the original post to government suppression.
Hey, maybe Google are in on it too...

If you notice the paragraph I quoted in this post. It doesn't leave much doubt about my interpritation of the earlier quote. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The fact is, that we live in a Country where surveilance is the norm. There have been many cases, some even involving RMC. Where people have been disciplined for things they've posted on-line.

I'm not suggesting that we're living in a 1984 style Country yet. But if we're not careful, things could get that bad. After all: We've given up a lot of our Civil Liberties already. Why would the Internet be immune from the attacks?

As for accusing Google of being in on it. If they were. Do you REALLY think that they would have refused 23.7% of all requests?

[Tman]

Are you seriously claiming that the Government and it's agencies would make 23.7% of it's requests frivilously?

I'm not claiming anything, merely stating that "Government and it's agencies" would cover many organisations, and, as the current Foreign Office "Pope" memo shows, staff can and do make errors of judgement no matter which particular agency they're employed by.
Also, 23.7% of 59 is about 14 requests from "Government and it's agencies, so yes, I could well imagine they were frivolous requests, rather than anything more sinister..

As for accusing Google of being in on it. If they were. Do you REALLY think that they would have refused 23.7% of all requests?

Google being "in on it" was irony, Andy.

[andy2007]

I must admit, you've got a point there Tman. I still think that the original post was relevant, for the reasons I stated. But you're right. I may have overestimated the risks.