Google’s Responsibility as a Search Engine Giant
Published in Nihon Keizai Shinbun
(Japan) on 25 April 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
(Japan) on 25 April 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Nathan Takase.
Edited by Daye Lee.
The Tokyo District Court issued an injunction ordering Google Inc. to pay 300,000 yen [$3,027] in damages and to stop displaying certain information on the basis that one of its search engine functions was violating individual privacy. A preliminary injunction had already been issued in March of last year. Google needs to take its responsibilities as a search engine giant seriously.
The source of the privacy invasion is the search engine function known as autocomplete. The autocomplete function displays related words when the user inputs a search keyword, and is also known as the suggestion function. According to the plaintiff, the function displays crime-related results when the plaintiff’s name is entered, leading to damages including job loss.
While the Tokyo District Court did not recognize the connection with the plaintiff’s job loss, it did take seriously that the function was leading users to sites that constitute defamation of an individual, resulting in the order to pay compensation.
The problem is that the validity of the Japanese court’s decision against a U.S. corporation remains unclear. The plaintiff initially brought the issue to the attention of Google’s Japanese offices, but was forced to deal with the U.S. headquarters where the server is located. Google claimed that the function operates automatically based on the user’s search history and thus the results are non-arbitrary.
Another issue is how to protect an individual’s privacy online. Searching for politicians or celebrities also results in negative words being displayed. If one were to demand that all such results be deleted, the balance between privacy and freedom of expression would be brought into question.
The fact that Japan relies on a U.S. corporation for web searches — an important online tool — is part of the problem too. In Korea, they have Naver. In China, they have Baidu. These domestic search engine services are used widely in these countries. If it had been a Japanese corporation, the preliminary injunction could have been enforced, ending the issue there.
If Google appeals the decision, relief will be postponed. Seeking enforcement of the judgment will also require acknowledgement by a U.S. court. Ideally, Google would show some awareness of its responsibilities as a business and work out a remedy of its own accord, and the Japanese government should be asking Google to do just that.
The source of the privacy invasion is the search engine function known as autocomplete. The autocomplete function displays related words when the user inputs a search keyword, and is also known as the suggestion function. According to the plaintiff, the function displays crime-related results when the plaintiff’s name is entered, leading to damages including job loss.
While the Tokyo District Court did not recognize the connection with the plaintiff’s job loss, it did take seriously that the function was leading users to sites that constitute defamation of an individual, resulting in the order to pay compensation.
The problem is that the validity of the Japanese court’s decision against a U.S. corporation remains unclear. The plaintiff initially brought the issue to the attention of Google’s Japanese offices, but was forced to deal with the U.S. headquarters where the server is located. Google claimed that the function operates automatically based on the user’s search history and thus the results are non-arbitrary.
Another issue is how to protect an individual’s privacy online. Searching for politicians or celebrities also results in negative words being displayed. If one were to demand that all such results be deleted, the balance between privacy and freedom of expression would be brought into question.
The fact that Japan relies on a U.S. corporation for web searches — an important online tool — is part of the problem too. In Korea, they have Naver. In China, they have Baidu. These domestic search engine services are used widely in these countries. If it had been a Japanese corporation, the preliminary injunction could have been enforced, ending the issue there.
If Google appeals the decision, relief will be postponed. Seeking enforcement of the judgment will also require acknowledgement by a U.S. court. Ideally, Google would show some awareness of its responsibilities as a business and work out a remedy of its own accord, and the Japanese government should be asking Google to do just that.