Vietnam: New online censorship rules drafted

Google, Facebook, and other internet companies may be required cooperate with Vietnamese authorities in removing content from their sites, based on draft regulations that have been released by the Ministry of Information. Foreign businesses that provide online social networking platforms in Vietnam must “make pledges in writing” to follow local censorship laws and remove information, including that which is against the Vietnamese government, damages “social and national security” or promotes violence, newspaper Thanh Hien News said. The new rules will be considered for approval in June.

Eady gets it right on Google

A former Conservative council candidate has lost in his attempt to sue Google for hosting “defamatory” comments on a blog.

Payam Tamiz, who was ditched as a council candidate in Thanet, Kent, after being found to have referred to local women as “sluts” on Facebook, claimed that Google was the publisher of the comments, hosted on the company’s Blogger platform. Mr Justice Eady rejected this notion and refused to allow Tamiz continue the case.

The troubles of one misguided young politico don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but Tamiz has inadvertently established something quite important here. Google and other internet service providers cannot be considered publishers.

Publishing is a conscious act, and even with all the resources in the world, Google could not publish all the content that appears on its platforms every day.

This is not the first time someone has tried to sue Google as a publisher. In Spain, attempts have been made to hold Google responsible for content that appears on government and newspaper websites. Meanwhile, former motorsports chief Max Mosley is attempting to sue the company in 22 separate jurisdictions.

The judgment chimes with the government’s latest publication on libel reform, which recommends that ISPs be recognised as conduits rather than publishers in any dispute. Mr Justice Eady has taken a lot of criticism from the press in the past, but this is an excellent decision.

 

Google is locked in a battle it can only lose by fighting

Today, Google changed their privacy policy. These are documents we are never likely to read, and are even less likely to make headline news. But they shape how huge corporations build knowledge about us; how they lock us into commercial relationships we may not like; and even pose political and legal threats to us once governments and courts get interested in the data these policies govern.

Google, which may not be an inherently bad company, nevertheless wields enormous power. Much of this power is not about “search” or even “services” like Gmail, but about data. That data is farmed from many users, who contribute to Google’s hunger for information in return for access to the free and useful services they provide. Google’s primary customers are people needing that data, especially advertisers. Many people would say that we, the users, are in fact the product that Google is selling.

Thus their privacy policy is the bargain by which we hand over our data in return for free stuff. It should matter. Just as importantly, the power we have over that bargain, what we can negotiate, is vital to us, because as we know, privacy policies can change.

This is where Google have come unstuck. Making their policy simpler to understand is completely reasonable, and even sharing data across their services is a potentially useful idea. But European regulators, starting with the pan-EU data protection grouping called the Article 29 Working Party, don’t like the idea that users are being forced to share data across Google’s services without any ability to stop it.

They are also concerned that the new ways data may be used are not being described upfront. So, if your location data from your Android phone starts helping Google search understand the places you might want to visit, you may not expect this, and be upset or worse if it happens.

The French regulator CNIL has launched an investigation in order to establish if Google have broken EU Data Protection law, and EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already weighed in to say she believes they have.

This isn’t a good fight for Google. They are already in a battle over the future rights we have over our data with exactly these people. Reding is proposing new protections, like fining companies up to 2 per cent of their income for data breaches, giving us the right to escape from companies like Facebook by getting our data back, and the right to delete our personal data from such companies. All these ideas may become law in the new data protection regulation that Reding is pushing.

One of the most controversial concepts for Google is the “privacy by default” principle. Such a principle could make it very hard for Google to force everyone to share data in new and unexpected ways. The expectation would be that new data sharing, as envisaged by Google’s new privacy policy, would require our active consent, and without it users could expect their privacy to be untouched.

Google, Yahoo and many other companies will be arguing against this idea, saying it may damage innovation. They argue that “privacy by default” isn’t needed, that notifying users is enough.

Facebook too, have recently introduced Netflix and Spotify services that failed to ask users if they want to share their listening habits with everyone on Facebook. This might not be the worst privacy violation in the world — but it’s certainly pretty annoying to an awful lot of people.

All of these companies are trying to do legitimate business and need the trust of their users. They also need the trust of governments. Right now, they seem to be actively proving that we really need the protections they claim should be dropped. We should listen to their actions, not their words.

Jim Killock is Executive Director of the Open Rights Group
@jimkillock
www.openrightsgroup.org

Australia: Google urges rejection of web regulation

Google has urged the Australian federal government to reject an interim independent report recommending the country’s internet be regulated in a similar manner to television, arguing it would be unclear how regulation online could be imposed without a filter. Its proposals, if successful, would usher in a “new independent regulator for content and communications” that is technology-neutral. Google said it was “struggling with the one-size-fits-all model” the proposals made in the report, which is related to part of Australia’s Convergence Review into determining if current media policy and regulation need amending.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK