Twice annually, Google has made it a point to produce information about government inquiries. Most often, these inquiries are for private individual data or to remove particular bits of content from the web. Google claims there are two reasons behind this release of data. First, Google says it highlights the need to reform present privacy rules. Second, it is a move in the direction of transparency of information release. Article resource: Government requests for user data on the rise, says Google
Raw data exposed
The Google Transparency Report figures show that the United States Government put in a ton of requests. On 11,057 accounts, the U.S. Government put in 5,950 inquiries for private user data. That is a 29 percent increase to 4,600 inquiries. Google complied "wholly or partially" with 93 percent of these inquiries for information. There were also 92 inquiries for information removal covering 757 pieces of content. Google complied with 63 percent of these. That is a great number. The Canadian government made 50 information inquiries covering 75 accounts, the Mexican government made 48 information inquiries covering 73 accounts. You are able to see all government inquiries. The Google Transparency Report page has them.
What Google does to comply
Anything a government finds offensive or has to do with police force investigations’ personal information is usually asked to be taken down by Google. Anything legally executed and done within Google Terms of Service will be complied with by Google. In each country, these requests are handled differently. The type of request is not released by Google. Still, some other companies do release this information. Verizon Wireless gets 90,000 information requests yearly. Of those, 65,000 are court-ordered, warranted requests while the others are emergency inquiries.
Questioning the ECPA
In 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed. All government access to electronic communications and information is regulated by the 25 year law. The ECPA allows the government to request certain electronic communications for the purposes of police force. The Act has also been interpreted to shield the privacy of individuals. The Supreme Court hasn’t made a decision yet, although the ECPA has made it hard to determine e-mail messages. Several people want the regulation to be rewritten. The Digital Frontier Foundation is one of the groups that are hoping for this.
Tags:
»
- keithR's blog
- Login or register to post comments
If a court order says
If a court order says something is defamatory, it's because a judge as ruled it so. We have to respect the rule of law, and traditional media could not publish defamatory materiel, neither can the news.
Don't be shocked
This kind of behavior will only increase in the future. It is always done in the name of the public safety, and the argument there is a good one. There is such a fine line to walk when it comes to the "public good" that it is virtually impossible for a government/society-at-large in this day and age to not fall on the wrong side of said line. The discussion goes like this: Seatbelts should be worn, because they make you safer, but the government shouldn't be able to tell me what to do in my own car, my safety is my own responsibility. But then if I'm in a wreck and hurt, the public cost for my care (ambulance, ER, police,etc) falls on everyone else, so the gov. should be able to tell people to do this. On and on, etc.
It is the debate of personal responsibility and liberty versus the "greater good", and when a society becomes as complacent as we have, the greater good argument usually wins. It has merit, but ultimately it leads down the road to slavery and oppression. The government needs to monitor emails and web activity in order to keep dangerous people in check. At what point, however, do you become the one deemed dangerous?
This issue is much larger than the Google story, and the problem much more basic. Digital freedom is just the latest version of the debate.
Its things like this that
Its things like this that make you understand more why some people choose to live off the grid. Everything you do nowadays finds its way onto the internet if not already done on the internet and it seems people are always then using it for one reason or another. Be careful what you put out there...it doesnt really go away
Protecting or Violating?
This is yet another example of the governemt toying on and over the fine line between protecting citizens and violating their privacy. The internet has brought about many innovations, and made many people's lives easier. However, that should not mean that the government should be allowed to take short cuts that involve encroaching on the peoples' private information. The information the government aqcuires through these means could be easily obtained through legitimate routes. This privacy act should be rewritten in order to eliminate frivolous requests.