Members of the European Parliament voted 384 to 174 in favor of resolutions to stimulate growth in the European Union's technology sector. The media has exploded with headlines insinuating that these measures are targeting Internet multinational corporation, Google . But what do these resolutions have to do with Google? In reality, not much.
What does it mean that the EU wants to break-up Google?
One of the resolutions proposed is to "unbundle" search engines from their other commercial services. You know how if you buy an Android phone, you get the Google Maps and Youtube apps? Basically, what the resolution is proposing that Google as a search engine exists separately from all of Google's other services. The thing is, the company was never specifically named in the resolution. European news site Deutsche Welle reports that Spanish EU Lawmaker Ramon Tremosa of Spain has expressly stated that:
"We are not against Google, or any other US company. We are against monopolies," Tremosa said, adding that the EU wanted a "level playing field in the European digital market."
Then why is everyone assuming that Google is the target?
Google has been under scrutiny for antitrust violations in Canada, Europe and the United States . Even Microsoft has taken their turn in claiming that Google is restricting competition. An investigation was launched in 2011 with Microsoft claiming that Google limited search results in Microsoft's own search engine Bing, as well as limited Youtube access to those who own a Windows Phone, among other behavior . Earlier this year, Google was accused of antitrust violations by 17 companies, in Brussels, for allowing phone companies to use their Android software for free under the condition that apps providing Google services be installed on their devices. Because of Google's lawsuit history and the ongoing case, it's obviously very plausible that, although Google was never named in the resolution, the measures are being taken in part to curb Google's market dominance. And while the resolution has been approved, it has no binding weight which means that it's likely nothing is going to happen . It's not easy being popular.
What does any of this have to do with "the right to be forgotten?"
This has everything to do with Google. It has to do with a legislative move implemented by the EU Judiciary council in May 2014. The Data Protection Working Party, who are in essence the privacy police, filed the suit in a bid to give residents in the European Union the right to have links that pertain to them being removed from the Internet. The criteria for removal as stated by this claim is if the information is outdated or irrelevant. Google, which had the largest search index in the world, has received removal requests for over 602,000 links . The problem with the Right to Be Forgotten ruling is actually an age-old controversy: censorship . It's only good if something in your history is seriously horrible enough for you to want to hide it. But it's bad, let's say, if you're hiring a baby sitter who used to be an ax murderer. In addition, there are no universal guidelines laid for out for this censoring this Internet information which means the different governments can impose their own rules for content restriction. According to Mike Elgan at EWeek:
If Google accepts this order, and it's allowed to stand, it sets a precedent that any censoring government can assert its own right to censor globally. So China will ban mentions of the Dalai Lama and Tiananmen Square on search engines worldwide. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan will insist that pictures of women with uncovered hair be banned globally. Turkey will require the search engines to erase all references to an Armenian Genocide.
The Right to Be Forgotten, has angered some and might be a bigger problem than the EU's recent regulatory measures against search engines. Ultimately, Google's monopoly of services is no different from that of any other global tech company: Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have been doing the same thing for years . In other words, Google hasn't misbehaved all that badly, but it might just have to sleep in the dog house for just a little longer.
