Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Print
E-mail
Search engine too big to control? As the world faces a serious threat to its economic way of life in the aftermath of the 2007/08 financial crisis, the term “too big to fail” often is used in reference to the huge financial institutions who brought the globe to the brink of collapse of its financial system. Are we now facing a question of “too big to control” as the world's largest internet search engine, Google, increasingly comes under pressure from authorities around the world over content control
In the latest incident, three Google executives were convicted of privacy violations by an Italian court for not taking down quickly enough an online video of the abuse of an autistic boy by bullies. They were each given a suspended six months jail sentence.
Seen by many as the main democratising champions of the free flow of information, Google immediately indicated that they will be appealing the sentence.
This was however not the first time that Google was confronted with this kind of “onslaught.” A new law in South Korea sought to force the American internet giant to collect the real names of Koreans uploading videos of online commenting.
Google’s response was to switch off the comments and block the upload of videos to its Korean YouTube-site. People were, however still allowed to upload videos on sites in neighbouring countries.
This response illustrated that the internet does not recognise geographic borders and exposed the limits of governments and courts to regulate internet behaviour across those borders.
It does, however also pose another age-old dilemma of democracy: Who guards the guardian? How are competing rights of individuals, organisations, institutions and the broader society balanced with one-another – in the Italian example, the right to the free flow of information with the individual’s right to privacy?
Inside the geographic borders of a country it is generally achieved via a network of checks-and-balances, legislation and precedent-setting court judgments.
Whether the Italian court’s passing of a sentence, pulling the issue into the realm of criminal justice, was the way to go is open to debate, but at least it is a start.
It is also not just a matter of to what extent a search engine like Google can or should assert control over material being uploaded by third parties. European authorities have registered their concern via a letter delivered to Google early in February this year that the company’s “Street View” mapping service might be in violation of European Union privacy laws.
Switzerland’s data-protection agency in November sued Google for allegedly failing to comply with proposals to make it harder to identify people and cars on Street View. The latest letter backs efforts by the European Commission, the EU’s executive agency, to strengthen privacy rights in Europe.
In the US Google is also facing charges by a British company brought in front of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The price comparison site accused Google of posing an "immediate threat to competition and innovation". It is asking the FCC to include search engines in its proposed Open Internet rules.
"Search engines have become the internet's gatekeepers and are arguably as essential a component of its infrastructure as the network itself. Google's overwhelming dominance of search and search advertising, coupled with its ability to arbitrarily penalise rivals and systematically favour its own services, makes the need for search neutrality particularly pressing," the filing states.
Google, which has nearly 80% of the European search-engine market, is also facing the possibility of anti-trust probes into search algorithms that may favour Google ad-friendly sites. Last week the European Commission in Brussels announced it is probing three complaints by European firms that say their sites and ads were pushed into cyber-limbo by competitors and that Google’s methods of “comparing” pricing for goods and services are punitive or skewed.
“While it might be tempting for some to dismiss the suit as the work of a crazy Italian justice system, the United States is no stranger to politically motivated legal attacks on free speech and internet freedom,” one American commentator wrote.
The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles prosecuted and convicted a Missouri woman on hacking charges for helping put up a fake MySpace profile to harass a neighbour’s teenage daughter, who later committed suicide.
In South Carolina. The Attorney-General Henry McMaster threatened to criminally prosecute Craigslist management if the classified listings site didn’t remove its erotic listings category, saying the site was promoting prostitution. A federal judge had to order McMaster to stop his threats.
The two prosecutors in the Google case, however, said the verdict highlights the fact that certain values should endure regardless of technological innovation. "We are very satisfied, because by means of this trial we have posed a serious problem: that is to say, the protection of human beings, which must prevail over corporate interests.
“They are judging the internet with the same instruments of the past. The Web creates situations that are completely new and don't have paragons with the world before,” one senior Italian journalist wrote after the judgement.
On the question of uncompetitive behaviour by Google the Daily Telegraph in Britain wrote: “What is the best way through? Is this a complaint from a small number of disgruntled online companies that wish they were doing better? Or, fundamentally, is it a necessary inquiry which will decide once and for all whether Google is too big for its own good?”
The question is, will the international community find enough common ground to put the principles and instruments like international conventions and enforcement agencies in place to balance competing, and sometimes conflicting, rights or will Google become the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel?
it's just a populist gesture trying to discourage an american symbol.
what's absolutely disgusting is the fact that you have a bunch of websites for torrenting (torrentz****, thepiratebay.org etc), illegal, immoral, you name it, they have it, and they go for google. they finished cleaning all the crap on the internet and the only thing left for them to do is to put some google directors is jail! this sounds more than justified to me.
it's amazing how the morality and ethics of the eu governments is having a such relativist orientation, allowing them to justify about anything based on these principles. for example the swiss bank it guy who started selling bank account informations to france, germany and other eu countries. and at least the two mentioned earlier bought the cd for which they payed embarrassing amounts of money.
when the governments will actually do something for the internet, then they should have the right of regulating it until then.
good luck