In a study conducted by Google, Australia has been revealed to be one of the top 10 countries around the world that requested personal user information or requested content to be removed from Google’s servers.
The results from the data (collected between June and December 2009) showed that Brazil and the United States made the most requests for user data, with Germany and Brazil topping the list for removing online material:
Google says the release of the information is the first step towards increased transparency and will give people an insight into government actions and web freedom.
Australia’s Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis was also positive about the release of the list saying: “It actually adds to the transparency of how and when people’s personal information may be disclosed.”
Certainly in any democratically-elected government, any activity that impacts the public at large should be kept as transparent as possible. A comment was made in our office this morning that transparency is all well and good – but is it not slightly paradoxical to say “[having the list published] adds to the transparency of how and when people’s personal information may be disclosed” when the list in question is referring to the amount of information that DOES get kept from public access?
In regards to the requests identified by the study, Commissioner Curtis also said “… while it’s perfectly legal for those requests to be made of Google, it is useful for us to know that those requests are actually being made by law enforcement agencies and also for removal of child pornography as well.”
That IS useful to know… however, so far there has not been any information published about whether these requests were actually made by government or law enforcement agencies.
If “transparency” is the aim of Google and the Australian privacy commission, then how about publishing the details of what specific requests were made and by whom?
Do you think the numbers that the study has revealed are generally higher or lower than you would think?
Is the censoring of content and user information a case of Big Brother’s attempt to control information and invade individual privacy, or is this a necessary process that is required for ensuring easily-accessible content is safe?
Via ABC News
