Governments are becoming more authoritarian, says Google

[progressoid]

Governments are becoming more authoritarian, says Google, requesting the takedown of more political material than ever before.

Google’s latest Transparency Report shows that it received 3,846 government requests to remove content from its services – 68 percent up over the second half of 2012. Of these, three percent were overtly related to government criticism, with Google complying with fewer than a third.

Turkey has consistently been high on the list, and this year was no exception – indeed, content removal requests rocketed ten-fold, thanks largely to the enforcement of an online censorship law. In Russia, too, the introduction of similar legislation – aimed ostensibly at criminal gangs and pedophiles – led to a doubling of take-down requests to 257.

...

In the US, there were 545 requests – up 70 percent on last year – putting the country in second place on the list. Most appear on the surface to have been related to defamation rather than censorship, with criticism of the government accounting for a tiny number.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/12/20/government-takedown-requests-rising-says-google-but-how-much-does-this-really-tell-us/

Google: Government takedown requests on the rise

The number of requests Google receives from governments around the world to remove content from its services continue to rise at a rapid pace.

Google received 3,846 government requests to remove 24,737 pieces of content during the first half of 2013, a 68 percent increase over the 2,285 government removal requests the company received in the second half of 2012. Google released the updated numbers Thursday, which cover requests made from January to June 2013, as part of its Transparency Report.

Google spotlighted one trend in particular that it said has remained consistent since launching the report in 2010: government requests to remove political content. Google said it received 93 requests to take down government criticism during the reporting period and removed content in response to "less than one-third of them." Google gave examples of these requests:

Judges have asked us to remove information that's critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don't want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes. These officials often cite defamation, privacy and even copyright laws in attempts to remove political speech from our services.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57616109-93/google-government-takedown-requests-on-the-rise/

Here's Google's report: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/

[MADem]

1. Says "Google!" Aren't they the ones that colluded with NSA to give up G-mail, and

struck a deal with China to allow them to monitor people's internet usage?

And they're shocked about this?? Reporting it breathlessly, like it's a big surprise?

Ah, irony!


Fox Reports Henhouse Incursions Have Increased In Recent Years; Chicken Population Suffers--Film at Eleven!

[progressoid]

2. Seems Google et. al. don't really like doing the government's dirty work.

Tech giants demand surveillance court transparency

The U.S. government has to be more forthcoming in its attempts to keep information about surveillance programs hidden, Google; Facebook; Microsoft; Yahoo and LinkedIn said Tuesday.

In attempting to obscure its reasons for limiting transparency around surveillance, the government is violating surveillance laws and constitutional protections, the companies told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The five major tech companies are suing the federal government in the surveillance court for the ability to publish more information about the types and numbers of government requests for user data they receive.

In a heavily-redacted brief from September, the Department of Justice told the surveillance court that companies would help terrorists avoid detection by providing more information about government requests for user data. If terrorists know which communications platforms are monitored, they could switch to using less-monitored platforms, the DOJ argued.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/190120-tech-giants-want-transparency-at-surveillance-court

[MADem]

3. You know what I say to that assertion by Google? Horse Poop!

They don't like being PERCEIVED as the "bad guys," but they have had no trouble being assholes in far-off places like China, where it's no big whoop so long as it doesn't affect those of us on this side of the globe....!

They're suing so people don't think they are assholes, not because they're really "mad, bro." It's all about how they are regarded, not what they were knowingly doing.

These are the assholes who scan your personal emails and messages and target advertising based on words you've typed. It's "OK" for them to spy on you for those purposes, they're insisting, but let anyone else do it--even with their knowledge aforethought--and it's suddenly (since they've been caught out) the crime of the century...?

I say they're profiteering hypocrites--just like the assholes at facebook and any other location on the internet.

You don't get something--like an email account--for nothing. They're gonna get their taste. And they're gonna accommodate where they need to, to get tax breaks or other considerations, as needs must.

I have never had an "expectation of privacy" on the net. It's just not realistic, IMO. To me, the internet is like a giant mall; any asshole can -- if they are subtle and clever--overhear your conversation in the food court or wherever...!

I'm not championing the government's conduct in this imbroglio, mind you. I'm simply pointing out that there's enough hypocrisy and poutrage happening with these "poor beleaguered corporations" to float a boat.

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. And just how is Google supposed to say no? I'm about as anti-corporate/Big Business

as a person can be, but I can't really blame any of these parasites for complying with directives from governments.

[MADem]

6. They coulda said "NO" to China, but they went along because it was all about the Benjamins.

So how are they going to stand on principle when they've already determined that we know what they are?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100008624/google-shows-china-the-white-flag-of-surrender/

Though Google's share of search in China is under five per cent, that still amounts to more than 25 million users, and despite moving its services to Hong Kong in 2010, it won't abandon that market. Reports in recent weeks have suggested that it's on the cusp of a partnership with local search company, Qihoo 360, to take on the dominant player, Baidu. With that in mind, it seems like a remarkable coincidence that it has now decided to throw in the towel and drop the notifications. The company's unofficial mantra – "don't be evil" – becomes more threadbare with ever year.

There's plenty they could have done, and without too much fuss, either. They just had a need to make a lot of money, and they thought that a "Go along, get along" attitude was the way to do it.

They market themselves as being "better," when they are really just "more of the same."

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. K&R I don't think there's any argument about that.

& R