Search Engine neutrality in Europe in danger: Are 160.000 Google filtering requests good enough?

Google_logo

The long awaited last public discussion about “the right to be forgotten” took place in Brussels yesterday. This was the last of the seven miracles or otherwise open forums in different European cities that the Californian giant has been organising since last May. The reason for these costly events was to engage civic society in the dialogue of the famous ECJ ruling of last May and consequently to lobby against it.

The panel yesterday at the “capital” of Europe was consisted by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, Oxford University ethicist, Luciano Floridi and Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, former German minister of justice. What was different in this seventh and final stop of the Google debate tour, as expected, was that EU officials took part to contribute their insights on the “wise” ECJ ruling. Paul Nemitz, a director of the Commission’s justice department, was intensely critical against Google’s “resistance against the right to be forgotten ‘mandate’.

“In Brussels of course we are used to big-time lobbying activities, and as some have commented these panels may in part be a good-faced (well-intentioned) effort to find practical solutions to the problem, but in part of course also they may be passive-aggressiveness toward our data protection rules and our jurisprudence,” he mentioned yesterday. Further, Mr Patrick Van Eecke, Head of the Internet Law Group at law firm DLA Piper state argued: “It’s not Google who should decide about whether or not we remove a link from the search results”…“A search engine should not be involved in deciding whether to remove hyperlink as you would be party and judge at the same time.”

The #righttobeforgotten debate is certainly not something new in Brussels or in the entire digital world. News travel too fast nowadays. The European Sting has been following this topic very closely since the very beginning, keeping a balanced critical approach on the matter that is missing still.

It all started last May when Mario Costeja, citizen of Spanish origin, brought his plea for data privacy right in front of the European Court of Justice. Mr Costeja had previously failed in Spain to succeed the deletion of some inaccurate information available on the Spanish web, referring to his old debts. This man asked ECJ that Google suspends these results and to many people’s surprise he made it. Now, you may think that a one man case is impossible to generate a butterfly effect, opening the doors of “hell” to some hundreds of thousands more requests addressed to Google. Well think again!

Believe it or not, in just 5 months past this ruling, some 160.000 claims for search engine filtering have been received by Google. According to sources, those requests are coming from citizens, companies, even ex-convincted criminals that want to start a new life, erasing all the traces of their tainted past. By the way, does an ex-convincted pedophile have “the right to be forgotten”? Unfortunately this is only one of the questions that one can make.

As expected, the Costeja case and the obscene expansion it has received globally has triggered substantial debates with various angles being lighted. It seems that there are two sides here. On the one hand, you have the EU officials and all fanatic data privacy protectionists. On the other hand, you have entrepreneurs and all fanatic freedom of expression (FoE) protectionists. Both sides have sound arguments but overall it seems that the whole project has not been worked through adequately well.

That an EU Official will protect an ECJ ruling this is something expected of course. That an EU Official is sticking to theoretical terminology without pragmatic approach is unfortunately also expected. And indeed Mr Nemitz is right; Google organised these seven costly meetings around Europe to lobby against the expansion of the ECJ ruling to 1 million filtering requests per second. Almost all is about lobbying in this European capital and we perfectly know it. And surely data privacy is ranked very high in the EU policy agenda, especially after the huge NSA scandals. And it should stay like this. But has anyone thought about the reason Google receives “allies” in this lobby battle, like Wikipedia, which is by the way a completely independent organisation? It is because Google is receiving paid support? No, it is just that the importance of the matter has been severely down played.

What about the “right to be remembered”? The immense debate generated in the blogosphere after May’s ECJ ruling is not generated by Google lobbyists only. Instead, it is generated by critical minds, digital geeks if you like, that are able to see the tricky part of this decision and most of all its domino effect. Clearly freedom of expression is at stake here. It is really awfully frightening to count 160.000 requests to filter Google results in just 5 months time! How many these will be in one year, 3 years or ten years? Probably millions. Who tolerates in today’s ‘digital democracy’ that the most important and accessible information gate, the search engine, is filtered and customised per individual requests?Do you?

It is only unacceptable that in Europe one ECJ case can demolish the high standards of a neutral internet that we enjoy. It is unacceptable that the EU officials who adore the term “data privacy” are not able to also grasp the meaning of the term freedom of expression in the 21st century through new media. It is not the role of the search engine to filter its results according to customised requests or court rulings. At least not in this part of the world.

Another critical issue is the detachment that is noticed in Brussels between EU officials, advocates and philosophical verbose professionals, and entrepreneurship. People in Brussels don’t understand a thing about companies. Consequently more than often they cannot follow. How is it possible for a company/search engine to assess 160.000 requests for filtering? Whether the requests are legit or not, why should Google do it? And who will pay for the additional costs created in the company for this not small “filtering” project?

All in all, the aim of this piece is definitely not to cleanse Google from its ‘sins’. Instead, it is rather to highlight the urgent need for a balanced approach in this case. It is not only about data privacy; it is also freedom of expression that the EU needs to think about. Also, it is about business reality; how search engines are able to cope with this kind of “costly” projects, especially smaller ones than Google.

Most of all, it is about how to stop, control and manage chaos triggered by one single ECJ ruling that created a butterfly effect to the whole continent. The EU needs to watch this incidents and control them before 1 million filtering claims are launched. Then it will be too late. A balanced approach towards the citizen and search engines is highly required, coupled with a clear proposal to describe the “filtering search engines” project, if finally is necessarily required.

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Featured Stings

Destabilizing Lebanon after burning Syria; plotting putsch at home: King and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia

Why Eurozone’s problems may end in a few months

EU members commit to build an integrated gas market and finally cut dependency on Russia

Migration has set EU’s political clock ticking; the stagnating economy cannot help it and Turkey doesn’t cooperate

Earthquake: Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena

European Youth Forum celebrates 20 years of fighting for youth rights

Population in crisis hit EU countries will suffer for decades

Junior Enterprises as a solution for Youth Entrepreneurship

China and UK relations post Brexit as EU addresses Chinese takeovers

European Young Innovators Forum @ European Business Summit 2014: Europe for StartUps, vision 2020

Turkey’s Erdogan provokes the US and the EU by serving jihadists and trading on refugees

The banks want now free capital from taxpayers

What do Europeans believe about the crisis and the possible way out?

Tackling youth unemployment through the eyes of a European entrepreneur

10 months were not enough for the EU to save the environment but 2 days are

Europe’s top court hears Intel and sends € 1.06 bn antitrust fine to review

Will Europe be able to deal with the migration crisis alone if Turkey quits the pact?

France and Poland to block David Cameron’s plans on immigration

Manufacturers Get Smarter for Industry 4.0

It’s EU vs. Google for real: the time is now, the case is open

Elections results: Austerity’s black to prevail in the new multicolored German government

EU free-trade agreements with Canada and US: imagine the fallout if put to national referendums

Managers’ pay under fire

A new world that demands new doctors in the fourth industrial revolution

Governments and non-state actors need to take urgent action to meet Paris Agreement goals

European Commission: Does Apple, Starbucks and Fiat really pay their taxes?

The Americans are preparing for the next financial crisis

Kellen Europe Hosts EuroConference 2016

Failing to see reality or deceiving the masses? The EU about poverty and social exclusion

Eurozone: Economic sentiment-business climate to collapse without support from exports

Eurostat overturns Commission’s assessment of the economy

Can the Americans alone determine the future of Syria?

EU Parliament: It takes real banks to fight unemployment and recession

Is there a chance for the West to win the war on terror?

On Grexit: Incompetence just launched the historic Ultimatum that could open “pandora’s box”

Refugee crisis: Commission proposes a new plan urging EU countries to help Italy

The challenges of mental health: an inconvenient reality

Rising political extremism in Europe escapes control

European Youth Forum demands immediate action & binding agreement on climate change

Four major resources for new European young entrepreneurs

Far from a healthy Health Workforce: lack of workforce planning leaves our citizens without access to proper care

“BEUC cautions against TTIP that would seek to align EU and US chemicals management frameworks”

Crimean crisis: not enough to slow down European indices

Access to health in the developped and developing world

Macro-Financial Assistance: Europe’s way to control Ukraine?

Eurozone: Economic Sentiment Indicator recovering losses

Dutch voters reject EU-Ukraine partnership and open a new pandora’s box for the EU

COP21 Breaking News_03 December: There is a new draft agreement on the negotiating table

CDU-SPD agree the terms for EU’s Banking Union

Who threatens the lives and livelihoods of Ukrainians?

JADE Testimonial #3: Sebastian @ Fundraising

At last a solid base for the European Banking Union

How Greece was destroyed

Will the European Court of Justice change data privacy laws to tackle terrorism?

Youth unemployment: No light at the end of the tunnel

Let the Italians have it their way, it may be good for all Eurozone

The MWC14 Sting Special Edition

Berlin repels proposal for cheaper euro

Is the EU’s enlargement over-stretched?

G20: Less growth, more austerity for developing countries

More Stings?

Speak your Mind Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s