The Little guy takes on Google

Everyone loves a David and Goliath fight, especially if a small, plucky country like New Zealand gets to be David and a wealthy technology giant is Goliath. Justice Minister Andrew Little has been wielding the slingshot against Google over its breach of name suppression following the death of British tourist Grace Millane in Auckland in December.

It was inevitable that the case would attract an enormous amount of interest from the British press. She was a young woman far from home when she was killed on her OE. New Zealanders sympathised with her grieving family.

When the alleged killer was given name suppression it was disappointing but perhaps unsurprising that some in the British media did not observe New Zealand law and published the name. As the internet is borderless, it could be easily accessed from New Zealand.

The Law Commission predicted in a 2008 paper that the internet would have a significant impact on suppression orders. It anticipated the problems email and blogs might have on name suppression.

The media landscape has changed dramatically since. Tech companies now dwarf the influence of traditional media and arguably even challenge the power of governments.

Google’s breach of name suppression in the Millane case was first reported by the Spinoff website. Its editor saw that the alleged killer’s name was emailed to everyone who signed up to Google’s ‘‘what’s trending in New Zealand’’ email update, noting that the name was in the subject line.

Later that day it was reported the name had been searched more than 100,000 times on Google, which obviously makes a mockery of name

suppression ordered by the court.

Six months later, after making sympathetic noises and meeting with both Little and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Google executives have apparently told Little they plan to do nothing to solve the problem.

Little’s reactions in the media have ranged from disappointed to angry. He reportedly accused the tech giant of ‘‘flipping the bird’’ at our laws, which have been treated with ‘‘contempt’’, and is considering his options. But what are they? He has seemed uncertain about what could be done in concrete terms.

Google is largely correct when it says the Millane situation was unique, although comparable issues may arise out of the trial of the alleged Christchurch mosque gunman in 2020. New Zealand media will generally be more sensitive and cautious in covering that story than international media.

The shootings brought similar issues to light with Facebook, which Ardern memorably described as a publisher rather than a platform, meaning it had to take some responsibility for how its technology was used. Facebook should not see itself as a megaphone that can amplify anything shouted into it. There must be discernment and oversight.

Ardern’s ‘‘Christchurch call’’ has been followed by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s non-binding agreement with social media companies, announced at the G20 summit. It aims to prevent terrorist exploitation of the internet.

This growing public appetite for regulation makes Google’s seeming indifference to concerns about the Millane issue surprising. It also means Little has found a popular cause in taking on one of the ubiquitous tech giants we all rely on but many of us also resent.

Facebook should not see itself as a megaphone that can amplify anything shouted into it.