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

the sting Milestone

Featured Stings

Can we feed everyone without unleashing disaster? Read on

These campaigners want to give a quarter of the UK back to nature

How to build a more resilient and inclusive global system

Stopping antimicrobial resistance would cost just USD 2 per person a year

Somalis ‘will not be deterred’ by Friday’s terror attacks – UN chief

The Catcher in the Rice

Heat stress spike predicted to cost global economy $2,400 billion a year

Brexit and migration dominates the debate on October’s EU summit

Plans to keep EU budget funding in 2020 in the event of a no-deal Brexit

EU car manufacturers worry about an FTA with Japan

Brexit: EP Group leaders support a flexible extension until 31/1/20

The Europeans with a job diminish dangerously

Turkey needs to step up investment in renewables to curb emissions

In Afghanistan, attacks against schools have tripled in one year

As human caravan moves through Mexico, ‘full respect’ needed for national control of borders: UN chief

Independent UN rights experts call for ‘immediate investigation’ into alleged Bezos phone hack by Saudi Arabia

Parliament makes it easier to organise a European Citizens’ Initiative

Young activists do the talking as UN marks World Children’s Day

What makes America the world’s most competitive economy?

4 things President Trump could learn from Jimmy Carter

Climate emergency: City mayors are ‘world’s first responders’, says UN chief

North Sea fisheries: MEPs back EU plan to sustain stocks of demersal species

Six months into DR Congo’s deadliest Ebola outbreak, top UN official praises ‘brave’ response effort

Global Citizen-Volunteer Internships

Wednesday’s Daily brief: Day 3 of anti-hatred summit, UNFPA turns 50, Ben Stiller #WithRefugees, updates on Abyei

Mankind’s first tool to fight malaria also kills

UN relief chief urges Security Council to back aid delivery, more funding for millions of Syrians hit by harsh weather

Mali facing ‘alarming’ rise in rights violations, warns UN expert

The future of manufacturing is smart, secure and stable

When is Berlin telling the truth about the EU banking union?

Wednesday’s Daily Brief: Guterres in Kenya, Prisoners sick in Iran, #GlobalGoals, Myanmar, Ukraine updates, and new space partnership

Don’t let smoking steal life’s breathtaking moments, urges UN health agency

Millions of Bangladeshi children at risk from climate crisis, warns UNICEF

Somalia: UN urges steps to ensure future elections not ‘marred’ by rights abuses seen in recent polls

THE ROAD TO GANESHA

Why income inequality is bad for the climate

OECD strengthens co-operation with Morocco – Renews Morocco Country Programme Agreement

How quantum computing could beat climate change

Why do medical students need to emigrate to become doctors in 2017?

Malaysia can show the way towards a holistic model for human rights

Eurozone: Retail sales and inflation point to recession

When it comes to envirotech adoption, NGOs can lead us out of the woods

Have we reached peak smartphone?

Africa: Urgent action needed to mobilise domestic resources as tax revenues plateau

Why do US presidential elections last so long? And 4 other things you need to know

We can save our ocean in three steps – if we act now

4 bold new ways New York is going clean and green

Denmark plans ‘Silicon Valley’ on 9 artificial islands off Copenhagen

Joint EU-U.S. statement following the EU-U.S. Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting

A win-win strategy for private equity deals

Humanitarian visas would reduce refugees’ death toll

5 libraries doing innovative things to help their communities

A Young student assesses the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

UN condemns Syrian ‘war on children’ as up to 30 reportedly killed in clashes

Smart devices must come with trust already installed

Reusable packaging: 6 benefits beyond sustainability

Commission: Gifts of €6 billion and free trainees to ‘help’ poor employers

Air pollution could be responsible for 1 in 7 new cases of diabetes

Mergers: Commission opens in-depth investigation into PKN Orlen’s proposed acquisition of Lotos

Community Manager – 1289

Alarming level of reprisals against activists, human rights defenders, and victims – new UN report

How to turn Africa’s manufacturing sector into a high-tech powerhouse

5 lessons for the future success of virtual and augmented reality

What makes a great CEO? The people they surround themselves with

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s