Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Synthesis: Law and Technology"  
<synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com>
Date: June 11, 2007 3:45:29 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman

Dave,

I can see the idea having some merit but given the current position  
of Google globally I would suggest that as a minimum the requirements  
should include:
more than just a position. This needs a small organization with some  
sort of level-1, level-2 type of response since there are likely to  
be thousands of inquiries and most of the questions/queries to the  
ombudsperson will possible to handle before the top
it should be someone legal since a lot will depend on understanding  
the concern and situations can vary greatly in jurisdictions.   
Sometimes (often) you need a lawyer just to understand that there is  
a problem, even if it's not something that should hit the desk of  
General Counsel
someone international holding the position, with hopefully well- 
trained 1st-level support staff in all the major continents.  This  
could cut down substantially on the miscommunication and  
misinterpreting.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. I can see Google  
actually saving money this way.
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1



On 6/11/07, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
THe idea has much merit but the person/organization must be very
carefully picked.

Dave


Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: June 11, 2007 11:12:24 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman




             Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman

                 http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000251.html

                              June 11, 2007


In both public and government circles, concerns are rising regarding
important aspects of Google's ongoing operations.  Some of these
concerns are very real, and some are more a matter of perception
than reality -- often magnified simply because Google is involved.
In either case, the situation is exacerbated by the extremely
limited opportunities for the public to interact directly with
Google in a meaningful way regarding increasingly sensitive matters
that can have highly personal and very widespread impacts.

A dedicated, at-large, public ombudsman to deal with these issues is
urgently needed at Google, to interact directly and routinely with
the public regarding Google, YouTube, and other affiliated operations.

The privacy, content-related, and many other concerns of ordinary
users and organizations, expressed to Google through currently
available feedback channels, appear to routinely vanish into what is
effectively a "black hole" -- with a lack of substantive responses in
most cases.  If you don't have a court order or a DMCA "take down"
notice, Google can appear impenetrable to expressed concerns.

Privacy International's reported inability to receive a response to
their queries prior to the release of a new report regarding Google
privacy is but one example of a seemingly pervasive situation at
Google ( http://www.cnbc.com/id/19153743 ).  I won't present here a
critique of that report itself, but it's clear that both individuals
and organizations commonly feel impotent when attempting to resolve
many important issues with Google directly.

In general, both politicians and government agencies appear
increasingly unsatisfied with this status quo, and their reactions
could be extremely damaging to Google and the broader Internet.

I'm not suggesting another Google counsel.  The ombudsman would have
a role wholly different from that of Peter Fleischer's Global Privacy
Counsel position, or Nicole Wong's Deputy General Counsel role.  In
fact, this would likely not primarily be a policy "development" role
per se, though policy evolution over time would of course be
significantly involved.

The ombudsman would be a non-lawyer who would be assigned full-time
to act as an easily approachable and highly available front-line
interface between the public and Google operational/R&D teams.  This
individual would be the primary initial contact for most queries
from individuals and organizations who have specific problems
related to Google content, privacy, or a range of other related
policy matters.  This technically knowledgeable individual would be
well-versed regarding the relevant issues and ideally already
possess a high degree of trust within the larger Internet community.

Such an ombudsman, by fostering open lines of communications, could
immediately interact with members of the public and push relevant
matters quickly up the chain of command inside Google for action as
appropriate.

There's simply no legitimate excuse for a public communications void
of such a magnitude at this stage of Google's development, especially
with an organization of Google's size, market share, influence, and
immense technical competence.  At a minimum, ordinary Google users
should be able to get quick, reliable, and substantive responses and
resolving dialogue for their Google-related concerns, even
irrespective of any final dispositions.

Communication is incredibly important in this sphere.  The current
situation is seriously and increasingly dangerous to Google.
Backlash and reactive, knee-jerk legislation by ambitious politicians
could easily unreasonably constrain and seriously damage Google, the
broader Internet, and Net users around the world.

A Google at-large ombudsman along the lines that I've outlined could
be the best and most practical way to help avoid such negative
outcomes, while not disrupting Google's operations and growth.  It
would most decidedly not be an easy job for anyone, but would be an
important position that definitely needs to exist.

I make this recommendation with what I believe are the best
interests of both Google and the Net's users in mind.  I want to see
Google continue in its success.  But a regulatory and public
relations train wreck -- with major collateral damage across the
Internet -- is increasingly likely unless serious and comprehensive
improvements in Google's handling of this area are forthcoming in
the extremely near future.

The appointment of a qualified and dedicated ombudsman, with
the sincere support and confidence of Google high-level management,
could go a long way toward making Google an acknowledged leader
in responsive operations, to the benefit of us all.

Of course, it's not impossible that this call for a Google ombudsman
will itself be ignored by Google.  But in the final analysis, we can
all hope that Google management will realize that creating this
position is very simply the right thing to do.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
   - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP
   - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



--


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com