Google releases details of takedown requests lodged by NZ govt

InternetNZ CEO Vikram Kumar

GUEST COMMENT

For the first time, Google has released details of takedown requests lodged by the NZ government.

With the vast global span of Google, government requests to remove material from its web search results, YouTube, and other online services are a great indicator of freedom online.

That’s why publication of these requests every six months is a key global tool for keeping tabs on transparency.

Google allowing sunlight on government requests continues to set the bar high for other major online service providers.

In the past, with less than 10 requests, there was no granular information to get a good look about requests from the New Zealand government.

But in the latest results, Google has changed its policy to now also give details if there were less than 10 requests. This is therefore the first time that we can get a look at details of takedown requests from the New Zealand government.

In the transparency reports, Google distinguishes government requests between those from courts and those from the executive, police, etc. It notes that “Governments ask companies to remove content for many different reasons. For example, some content removals are requested due to allegations of defamation, while others are due to allegations that the content violates local laws prohibiting hate speech or pornography. Laws surrounding these issues vary by country, and the requests reflect the legal context of a given jurisdiction.”

Over the period January to June 2012, there were 2 requests each from the courts and executive/police for takedown of 1 YouTube video for violence; 1 Google doc for privacy & security; 12 defamatory web searches; and 1 YouTube video for ‘other’ reasons, i.e. a total of 4 requests to remove 15 pieces of online content.

ABOVE: NZ government requests. Click to enlarge. Source: Google Transparency Report.

Clearly the largest request category of takedown requests was for removal of defamatory web searches by court orders, accounting for 12 of 15 items for takedown.

In the previous period to December 2011, there was only 1 court order to remove 3 defamatory web searches. There has therefore been a big jump in the last 6 months but it is off a very low base and it is probably too early to call it a definite trend.

Comparison with Australia
Over the same 6 month period January to June 2012, the Australian government put in 13 requests for takedown of 92 items, a slight reduction in the number of requests (17) but steep fall in the number of items (646) from the previous period.

Interestingly, in contrast to New Zealand, the Australian government requests in the last six months were for reasons of privacy and security in web searches (53% of total) and copyright (30%). Only 11% were for defamation, contrasting with 80% for New Zealand.

Compliance Rate
Google’s removal of all or some of the items requested, the compliance rate, for New Zealand government requests fell from 100% in the previous period to 75% in the latest 6 month period January to June 2012. The implication is that Google refused to remove 25% of 15 requested items, i.e. 4 items but there are no further details. Were they from the courts or from the executive/police? Which product? What were the complaint grounds for the items refused?

Unfortunately, there are no answers to these questions.

ABOVE: Google's acceptance of New Zealand government takedown requests. Click to enlarge. Source: Google Transparency Report.

Danger Ahead?
Google’s Transparency Report may portend danger ahead, both for Google and New Zealand. One has to be careful about drawing conclusions as the number of requests from the New Zealand government are low- 4 requests to takedown 15 items. Nevertheless, consider the implications of 12 of these 15 were for defamatory web searches by the courts.

Google has just lost a defamation lawsuit in Australia. An Australian court ordered Google to pay $208,000 to Milorad Trkulja for showing search results that might have caused users to link him to mobsters. A jury agreed with Trkulja, saying that although Google didn't own the links potentially tying Trkulja with organised crime figures, the company was responsible for displaying them. [See NZ lawyer Michael Wigley's analysis of the case here - Editor].

So here’s a prediction: expect lawsuits against Google in New Zealand for defamatory web searches. And, if the Australian precedent holds, Google may well be hit by big costs.

There is also a second angle. The Law Commission has recently sent a Ministerial Briefing Paper and a draft Communications (New Media) Bill to government. While the government wanted to address cyber-bullying, the draft bill takes on the much larger job of tackling all types of harmful digital communications. This has raised several red flags including the collateral damage from the ambitious but difficult task of tackling defamation online.

John Edwards put the danger of the draft bill going ahead as proposed very well, “...the axe grinders, the lobby groups and political interests presented with a new, cheap, and readily accessible forum for advancing their grievances and personal hobby horses.”

So here’s a second prediction: if the Communications (New Media) Bill goes ahead unchanged, the Approved Agency and Tribunal are going to be flooded with defamation complaints. The government’s intention of addressing cyber-bullying will be drowned by the noise of New Zealanders complaining about defamation online.

Vikram Kumar is chief executive of InternetNZ, the non-profit organisation that administers the .co.nz domain and advocates on behalf of internet users.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

5 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

If governments and corporations have the power to find out more about people’s personal lives, it’s very unlikely that they will show restraint and not exercise that power. The more a government can learn about its people, the more it will be able to exert control over them in order to gain or retain power. For corporations, more information means more money. So, as long as things like
web surveillance and data mining aren’t expressly prohibited by law, we should expect that they will continue and assume that nothing we divulge to or do with our electronic devices will remain private.

To think more about the effects of technology on our lives and our world, take a look at my blog, non tech, at www.nontechblog.com.

Reply
Share

The Law Commission is forever proposing more draconian curbs and bureaucracy. Fortunately, the vast majority of its recommendations get binned.

Reply
Share

These requests from the govt are only to get stuff taken down. They already have infrastructure in place to spy on the entire nation silently. They can intercept any and all communication with the click of a button.
Cell phone calls, text messages, Internet chat, emails, voip, web searches etc. they do not have to make information requests because they don't need to. why do you think NZ has had data caps for so long... the less data people transfer the less they have to keep track of...

Reply
Share

Sounds a bit tinfoil hat. I haven't had a data cap for a long time. Check out Orcon, no cap. I think Telecom even has a 500Gb per month plan. So caps have nothing to do with "snooping"

I use to work at an ISP and nothing is a "click of a button", I think you have been watching too much hollywood spin.

Reply
Share

To Michael: those who work at ISPs often do not know what the agenda is, or what technology is being employed on the servers, especially bottom-rank employees and managers. The technology exists and is being used across the globe. If you have no data cap, you are in the small minority.

Reply
Share

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7878 -0.0004 -0.05%
AUD 0.9091 0.0005 0.06%
EUR 0.6356 -0.0003 -0.05%
GBP 0.5032 0.0001 0.02%
HKD 6.1123 -0.0013 -0.02%
JPY 92.8410 0.0020 0.00%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1201.1 7.690 2014-11-21T00:
Oil Brent 78.6 -0.120 2014-11-21T00:
Oil Nymex 76.5 0.710 2014-11-21T00:
Silver Index 16.4 0.260 2014-11-21T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5526.9 5526.9 5526.9 -0.56%
NASDAQ 4751.0 4751.6 4701.9 0.24%
DAX 9521.2 9736.1 9484.0 2.62%
DJI 17721.0 17894.8 17719.0 0.51%
FTSE 6678.9 6773.1 6678.9 1.08%
HKSE 23353.7 23508.0 23349.6 0.37%
NI225 17285.7 17381.6 17300.9 0.33%