Google offside in playing only by own rules
Digital technology has transformed the way in which we live, communicate, and access, store and share information, news and entertainment. The internet is a largely accessible and equitable medium. Used wisely and well, it is a resource that has enriched our lives. But there have been sacrifices — foremost among them privacy.
The volume of personal information gathered (sometimes insidiously) and shared (often unwittingly) is staggering, and questions are increasingly asked about the roles, rights and responsibilities of the global tech giants.
After revelations of data mining by Facebook, Google is under fire for its apparent complacency over legal privacy issues.
NZME, publisher of the Herald, and other New Zealand media outlets, is bound by a code of ethics and must adhere to New Zealand law. For example, we obey court orders which may suppress details of victims and/or accused in order to respect their rights to privacy and a fair trial. However, in several recent cases, while we and other media outlets complied, Google refused to drop online content and links which might breach court orders.
Its reasoning — that it doesn’t censor news and its search engine is not based here and not subject to NZ law — is problematic. After all, it operates for and profits from Kiwi users, among many others. And that premise is unfair to all involved: to the individuals who should expect legal protection to mean something; to media outlets who should work in a level environment; and to the public who should be confident in an open, transparent justice system and the media role to inform fairly and accurately, without fear or favour.
Google’s search engine is wide-reaching and fast. For most people, a Google search is the primary research tool. But the downside of its algorithm is that it will also pick up digital information posted, tagged or linked by individuals or groups who may have ignored court orders, posted their own suppositions, and identified protected individuals.
Google says the information generated is too large to monitor, but it will respond if problematic material is drawn to its attention. The difficulty with tech giants, of course, is in contacting an actual person to start the process.
While the Herald believes in open access to information, we also believe tech giants have a role as responsible corporate citizens to protect users’ rights and safety.
It may be difficult, but it is surely not impossible — unless we are willing to admit Big Brother has in fact already assumed control. But in an online world supposedly without borders, and supposedly a great leveller, is it acceptable for some organisations to play by their own rules, flout laws, ignore ethics, avoid taxes and delegate responsibility?
The time is surely ripe for some form of international framework to address these sorts of issues — which will only continue to grow as the wealth of data stored about us on the information superhighway does the same.