Google Reporting on Which Countries Ask For Data About Users
Citizens have long wondered how often their governments ask online service providers for data about users, and how often governments ask providers to take down content. Today Google took a significant step on this issue, unveiling a site reporting numbers on a country-by-country basis.
It’s important to understand what is and isn’t included in the data on the Google site. First, according to Google, the data excludes child porn, which Google tries to block proactively, worldwide.
Second, the site reports requests made by government, not by private individuals. (Court orders arising from private lawsuits are included, because the court issuing the order is an arm of government.) Because private requests are excluded, the number of removal requests is lower than you might expect — presumably removal requests from governments are much less common than those from private parties such as copyright owners.
Third, Google is reporting the number of requests received, and not the number of users affected. A single request might affect many users; or several requests might focus on a single user. So we can’t use this data to estimate the number of citizens affected in any particular country.
Another caveat is that Google reports the country whose government submitted the request to Google, but this may not always be the government that originated the request. Under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, signatory countries agree to pass on law enforcement data requests for other signatories under some circumstances. This might account for some of the United States data requests, for example, if other countries asked the U.S. government to make data requests to Google. We would expect there to be some such proxy requests, but we can’t tell from the reported data how many there were. (It’s not clear whether Google would always be able to distinguish these proxy requests from direct requests.)
With these caveats in mind, let’s look at the numbers. Notably, Brazil tops both the data-requests list and the takedown-requests list. The likely cause is the popularity of Orkut, Google’s social network product, in Brazil. India, where Orkut is also somewhat popular, appears relatively high on the list as well. Social networks often breed disputes about impersonation and defamation, which could lead a government to order release of information about who is using a particular account.
The U.S. ranks second on the data-requests list but is lower on the takedown-requests list. This is consistent with the current U.S. trend toward broader data gathering by law enforcement, along with the relatively strong protection of free speech in the U.S.
Finally, China is a big question mark. According to Google, the Chinese government claims that the relevant data is a state secret, so Google cannot release it. The Chinese government stands conspicuously alone in this respect, choosing to deny its citizens even this basic information about their government’s activities.
There’s a lot more information I’d like to see about government requests. How many citizens are affected? How many requests does Google comply with? What kinds of data do governments seek about Google users? And so on.
Despite its limitations, Google’s site is a valuable step toward transparency about governments’ attempts to observe and control their citizens’ online activities. I hope other companies will follow suit, and that Google will keep pushing on this issue.
[thanks to epheterson and ed felten via cc]
Legislative Action & Massive Bailouts: United States & Japan Strategies
A few short years ago, there was a country experiencing significant prosperity. The flow of credit within the economy was fluid, stock prices were at all time highs, and many people were becoming wealthy in due part to real estate speculation and appreciation. As the economic outlook in the real estate market was bright, banks began granting increasingly risky loans. Eventually the bubble burst. Inflated real estate market values began to decline, lendees found themselves unable to pay back their risky loans, and the credit markets froze. As a result, government intervention came in the form of subsidizing failing banks and businesses.
In the middle of this financial crisis facing our country, one would assume this passage is referring to the United State of America. However, this is the story of the Japanese housing bubble that burst and led to what is known as the “the lost decade.” This article will briefly describe the legislative responses taken by the Japanese government to address their crisis, compare those to any similar one’s being taken by the US government, and comment which legislative actions may succeed or fail, and why.
The financial crisis that led to Japan’s “lost decade” is very comparable to the crisis our country is currently facing. Overnight Japan became one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In fact, just before the Japanese economy fell into a deep recession, it was experiencing unprecedented prosperity. This prosperity was attributed to the success Japanese businesses were experiencing in the exporting of Japanese goods, as well as economic policies implemented by their government discouraging the importation of goods. This led to a massive buildup of the Yen, which in turn led to easily obtainable credit for Japanese citizens and businesses which resulted in real estate and stock speculation. At its peak, Tokyo’s Ginza District was selling for $139,000 a square foot. Eventually the bubble burst. Houses were selling for 1/10th their peak value, and the stock market at one point lost roughly 70% of its value. Many of the problems causing the deep recession were risky loans and lack of oversight and regulation in the real estate and financial markets. Although this lack of regulation and oversight was the catalyst behind the deep recession, many economists believe it was the Japanese government’s inaction that led to their great depression.
Traditional capitalists believe the government is overstepping its bounds when it intervenes in the private market to rescue failing banks and businesses. This phenomenon has become to be known as “the bailout.” Although in Japan’s case, many believe it was their government’s opposition towards the bailout, and policy of “do nothing” while Japanese banks were swallowed by unrecoverable debt that caused ‘the Lost Decade.’ As a result consumer confidence fell, Japanese citizens saved, and their economy became stagnant. It was not until 1999 when the government finally responded with legislative action forming the Resolution and Collection Corporation to handle the “toxic” debt. Unfortunately, by this time, the Japanese economy had already fallen into a negative spiral for nearly ten years which is why this time frame was labeled “the lost decade.” One particular critic of the Japanese government’s inaction was a Princeton University professor who, at the time of the crisis, accredited “exceptionally poor monetary policymaking” for the resulting “lost decade.” That professor was Ben Bernanke, now head of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Currently, a little over a decade later, the United States is facing a very similar issue, a real estate market in shambles, and a financial system in crisis. Recognizing the dangers of sitting idle, the United States, now stuck in its own recession, has moved swiftly with legislative action. In October of 2008, the Bush Administration implemented a $700 billion bill known as the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in order to assist financial banks and institutions that were bogged down with “toxic” debt. This act is aimed at purchasing troubled assets from banks (specifically mortgage backed securities) as well as injecting large stakes of capital into financial institutions to ease the flow of credit. President Obama opined the need for additional legislative action, warning of the United States own “lost decade” if congress did not pass a stimulus bill for the economy. As a result, congress passed another $800 billion stimulus plan. This bill includes aid to states and local governments, tax provisions, and mass spending for programs like health, education, and renewable energy. In all, the rescue efforts are estimated to total almost $2.5 trillion.
Suffice it to say, government inaction has not been the route taken amidst the U.S. financial crisis. This immediate legislative action is a starkly different approach from the “do nothing” policy taken by Japan’s government. Not until 1997, when one of Japans largest financial institutions failed, did government bailout opposition soften, but by then, the damage had already been done. In contrast, the U.S. has taken the stance that failure is not an option for large financial institutions. One specific case was the government bailout of financial giants “Fannie Mae” and “Freddy Mac.” In fact, some believe it is this legislative response that will help the U.S. economy weather the financial storm much better than Japan did during “the lost decade.” Taro Aso, Japan’s prime minister, cautioned the United States that procrastination prolonged his country’s financial crisis. However, some legislative action taken by the United States government has been met with criticism. During Japan’s economic downturn the government increased spending on public works programs like infrastructure investment that had no beneficial effect of pulling the economy out of the recession. These are exactly the types of projects President Obama plans to implement to steer off the deepening crisis. Economists from the Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation, have voiced their opinions that government spending is not a way to improve economic performance. If this approach will work for the U.S. remains to be seen.
Whether or not the U.S. government has taken the right approach with its legislative action will be decided in the next few years. One thing this government cannot be criticized of is its inaction to address the crisis. We can only hope this response will prevent our country from falling into a “lost decade” of our own, just as Japan suffered as a result of its own real estate bubble.
[thanks to jim fenton and gary klinger via cc]
