It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we’ll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).
Transparency is a core value at Google.
No, the statistics primarily cover requests in criminal matters. We can’t always be sure that a request necessarily relates to a criminal investigation, however, so there are likely a small number of requests that fall outside of this category. That said, there are several reasons why the numbers of “users/accounts specified” by user data requests may be over-inclusive or under-inclusive. For example, in some instances the same Gmail account may be specified in several different requests for user data. Each distinct request that we receive would be added to the total, as we have not figured out a satisfactory method for de-duplicating account or user names when tracking requests. On the other hand, we might also receive a request for a user or account that doesn't exist at all. In that case, we would still add both the request and the non-existent account to the total.
As a company we feel it is our responsibility to ensure that we maximize transparency around the flow of information related to our tools and services. We believe that more information means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual.
We've created Government Requests to show the number of government inquiries for information about users and requests to remove content from our services. We hope this step toward greater transparency will help in ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests
Governments make content removal requests to remove information from Google products, such as blog posts or YouTube videos.
The "user data requests" numbers reflect the number of requests we received about the users of our services and products from government agencies like local and federal police and, for the period from July-December 2010 and onward, the number of requests to which we responded in whole or in part. When we receive a request for user information, we review it carefully and only provide information within the scope and authority of the request. We may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request in some cases.
We would like to be able to share more information, but it's not an easy matter. The requests we receive for user data come from a variety of government agencies with different legal authorities and different forms of requests. They don't follow a standard format or necessarily seek the same kinds of information. A single request may ask for several types of data but be valid only for one type and not for another; in those cases, we disclose only the information we believe we are legally required to share. Given all this complexity, it's a difficult task to categorize and quantify these requests in a way that adds meaningful transparency, but we may do so in the future.
Laws surrounding these issues vary by country, and the requests reflect the legal context of a given jurisdiction. We hope this tool will be helpful in discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests.
During the period that Google's joint venture operated google.cn, its search results were subject to censorship pursuant to requests from government agencies responsible for Internet regulation. Chinese officials consider censorship demands to be state secrets, so we cannot disclose any information about content removal requests for the two reporting periods from July 2009 to June 2010.
United StatesWe received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.
United KingdomThe number of content removal requests we received increased by 71% compared to the previous reporting period.
ItalyWe received a request from the Central Police in Italy for removal of a YouTube video that criticized Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and simulated his assassination with a gun at the end of the video. We removed the video for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines
ArgentinaThe courts in Argentina issued two orders that sought the removal of every search result mentioning a particular individual's name in association with a certain category of content. The number of search results at issue well exceeds 100,000 results. We did not attempt to approximate the number of individual items of content that might be encompassed by those two court orders. Google appealed those orders.
GermanyA substantial number of German removal requests resulted from court orders that related to defamation in search results. Approximately 11% of the German removal requests are related to pro-Nazi content or content advocating denial of the Holocaust, both of which are illegal under German law.
CanadaWe received a request from a Canadian politician to remove a blog criticizing his policies. We declined to remove the blog because it did not violate our policies.
We hope this step toward greater transparency will help in ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests.
No, Google is not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google across the services you sign in to use. This is something we’ve already been doing and we plan to continue doing in the future so we can provide a simpler, more intuitive experience.
Absolutely not. You still have choice and control in what you share. Our new policy simply makes it clear that when you’re signed in, we use data to refine and improve your own personal experience on Google. We’re making our policy simpler with this change and we’re trying to be upfront about it.
we’re trying to be upfront about it.
Originally posted by EvolEric
reply to post by mainidh
I think you are confused
I think you meant to say Apple... butyou mistakenly said Google
Itunes is quite the Nazi