Google reports 'alarming' rise in censorship by governments

[jimmy olsen]

Disappointing, but not surprising.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/18/google-reports-alarming-rise-censorship

Google reports 'alarming' rise in censorship by governments

Search engine company has said there has been a troubling increase in requests to remove political content from the internet

    Dominic Rushe in New York
    The Guardian, Monday 18 June 2012

Over six months Google complied with 47% of requests for content removal and 65% of court orders. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features

There has been an alarming rise in the number of times governments attempted to censor the internet in last six months, according to a report from Google.

Since the search engine last published its bi-annual transparency report, it said it had seen a troubling increase in requests to remove political content. Many of these requests came from western democracies not typically associated with censorship.

It said Spanish regulators asked Google to remove 270 links to blogs and newspaper articles critical of public figures. It did not comply. In Poland, it was asked to remove an article critical of the Polish agency for enterprise development and eight other results that linked to the article. Again, the company did not comply.

Google was asked by Canadian officials to remove a YouTube video of a citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. It refused.

Thai authorities asked Google to remove 149 YouTube videos for allegedly insulting the monarchy, a violation of Thailand's lèse-majesté law. The company complied with 70% of the requests.

Pakistan asked Google to remove six YouTube videos that satirised its army and senior politicians. Google refused.

UK police asked the company to remove five YouTube accounts for allegedly promoting terrorism. Google agreed. In the US most requests related to alleged harassment of people on YouTube. The authorities asked for 187 pieces to be removed. Google complied with 42% of them.

In a blog post, Dorothy Chou, Google's senior policy analyst, wrote: "Unfortunately, what we've seen over the past couple years has been troubling, and today is no different. When we started releasing this data, in 2010, we noticed that government agencies from different countries would sometimes ask us to remove political content that our users had posted on our services. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it's not.

"This is the fifth data set that we've released. Just like every other time, we've been asked to take down political speech. It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect – western democracies not typically associated with censorship."

Over the six months covered by the latest report, Google complied with an average of 65% of court orders, as opposed to 47% of more informal requests.

Last month Google announced it was receiving more than one million requests a month from copyright owners seeking to pull their content from the company's search results.

Fred von Lohmann, Google's senior copyright counsel, said copyright infringement was the main reason Google had removed links from search terms.

He said the company had received a total of 3.3m requests for removals on copyright grounds last year, and was on course to quadruple that number this year. The company complied with 97% of requests.

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought this would be about Burma, China and Sudan, not Canada, Poland and Spain. What the hell guys.

[Monoriu]

I thought this would be about Burma, China and Sudan, not Canada, Poland and Spain. What the hell guys.

You can't access google or Youtube from China anyway 

[Grey Fox]

I thought this would be about Burma, China and Sudan, not Canada, Poland and Spain. What the hell guys.

Yeah, that's the PCC for you.

[The Larch]

I'm really curious to know which were the Spanish requests for removal. In the report it only says that most of them came from the data protection agency.

[Sheilbh]

Is this necessarily an alarming rise in censorship, or a rise in content and enforcement?  It may not be censorship at all

[garbon]

Is this necessarily an alarming rise in censorship, or a rise in content and enforcement?  It may not be censorship at all

Yeah doesn't sound like a censorship problem seeing as how google isn't than suffering for its refusals.

[Malthus]

Agree. The article writer has to learn what "censorship" means.

It doesn't mean this:

Google was asked by Canadian officials to remove a YouTube video of a citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. It refused.

Being *asked* to remove something, and *refusing*, isn't "censorship".

[Grey Fox]

Agree. The article writer has to learn what "censorship" means.

It doesn't mean this:

Google was asked by Canadian officials to remove a YouTube video of a citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. It refused.

Being *asked* to remove something, and *refusing*, isn't "censorship".

The fact the government thinks it can ask for it is censorship. Google only refuses because it's big enough therefore has enough weight to do so.

[Zanza]

So they comply with 97% of copyright claims but just 65% of court orders? How do they get away with that anyway, especially with non-compliance in the USA?

[ulmont]

So they comply with 97% of copyright claims but just 65% of court orders? How do they get away with that anyway, especially with non-compliance in the USA?

I suspect that means they intervene in the case and attempt to modify the order.

[Malthus]

Agree. The article writer has to learn what "censorship" means.

It doesn't mean this:

Google was asked by Canadian officials to remove a YouTube video of a citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. It refused.

Being *asked* to remove something, and *refusing*, isn't "censorship".

The fact the government thinks it can ask for it is censorship. Google only refuses because it's big enough therefore has enough weight to do so.

Disagree. "Censorship" is when the government or some other body with power uses its power to force people to delete information. Using the same word to describe some government official *requesting* removal of content (and being turned down) simply distorts its meaning.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the government, or anyone, *asking* someone to remove content, so long as they lack the power to *compel*. It is the exercise of that power which makes censorship objectionable.

This simply isn't a story. So some government official too offence at some ass pissing on a passport and posting it. They ask Google to take it down and Google says no. So what. That is hardly an "alarming" example of a "rise in censorship". Writer of the article should learn what "alarming" and "censorship" means.