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

the European Sting Milestones

Featured Stings

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

OECD economic scenarios to 2060 illustrate the long-run benefits of structural reforms

Cybersecurity needs a holistic approach. Here are three ways to build protection

UN forum to bring ‘big space data’ benefits to disaster response in Africa

Schengen is losing ground fast revealing Europe’s clear inability to deal with migration crisis

Reception conditions for asylum-seekers agreed between MEPs and Council

Zuckerberg, a paella, and the mighty EU questionnaires that would stop Whatsapp acquisition by Facebook?

How India will consume in 2030: 10 mega trends

Bankers don’t go to jail because they are more equal than us all

US – Russia bargain on Syria, Ukraine but EU kept out

Mobile 360 Series – Russia & CIS: Empowering the Digital Economy

Action needed to end deadly clashes between African herders and farmers: UN chief

The time for cities to get smart is now

The missiles fired against Damascus, Syria divided Europe deeply

Youth Internationalization: part of everyday life in JADE

Germany to help China in trade disputes with Brussels

Germany is the world’s most innovative economy

4 steps towards wiping out cervical cancer

UN chief ‘following very closely’ reports of chemical weapons use in Syria’s Aleppo

5 ways blockchain can transform the world of impact investing

We could be sleepwalking into a new crisis. How should the business world prepare?

Donald Trump’s victory is a great opening for global EU leadership on the sustainability agenda

UN calls for support to implement Central Africa’s newly minted peace agreement

German opposition win in Lower Saxony felt all over Europe

Germany loses leading export place

EU agricultural production no more a self-sufficiency anchor

MEPs back plans to halt spread of drug resistance from animals to humans

Superbugs: MEPs advocate further measures to curb use of antimicrobials

Britain heading to national schism on exit from EU

Vaccine hesitancy: a pregnancy related issue?

EU deal on electricity market rules to benefit both consumers and environment

FROM THE FIELD: South Sudan’s green shoots, highlight environmental recovery from war

ECB: Growth measures even before the German elections

More women than ever before are running for political office in the US

The European Union’s Balkan Double Standard

The “Legend of the Sun” wishes you Happy Chinese New Year 2015 from Brussels

Social entrepreneurs can change the world – but these 6 things are holding us back

Migration crisis update: Greece could probably say goodbye to Schengen really soon

Innovation is the key to the pay-TV industry’s long-term growth

Bureaucracy in the member states again the obstacle for long due strong European Hedge Funds

EU car manufacturers worry about an FTA with Japan

Why Eurozone needs a bit more inflation

Chart of the day: These are the cities where the World Cup threatens productivity the most

Crimea, a wicked game of political chess and a ‘big’ coincidence

Art has the power to change the world, says this renowned Iranian muralist

Infinite Oath

G7 summit: Trump Vs. G6 leaders on trade and climate change

Who really cares about the 26.2 million of EU jobless?

Euro celebrates its 20th birthday

World cannot be transformed without ‘ingenuity of the countries of the South’: UN Chief

Making the most of the Sustainable Development Goal 3: its overlooked role in medical education

ECB reaches the boundaries of its mandate to revive the entirety of Eurozone

South Sudan’s women caught up in ‘futile man’s war’ UN gender equality chief

Japan initiates WTO dispute complaint against Korean duties on steel

Fear casts again a cold, ugly shadow over Europe; Turkey sides with Russia

Is there a drug for every disease?

A Sting Exclusive: “Climate change-the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, yet overlooked in climate negotiations?” IFMSA wonders from COP21 in Paris

Parliament backs a modernised EU electoral law

Bitpay @ TheNextWeb 2014: Innovation’s Best Friend

Basel III rules relaxed: Banks got it all but become more prone to crisis

What will it take for the world’s third-largest economy to empower women?

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