Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:38:03 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Krulwich <krulwich () yahoo com> Date: June 11, 2007 4:35:57 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman Reply-To: krulwich () yahoo com Dave,How can people who are otherwise liberatarian in viewpoint support an idea like this?
To the masses, Google may be a monolithic superbeing. But Google is a company like any other, and it will soon be surpassed by someone else who's now a start-up. They're a company offering a service. If we start imposing control on companies or web services, we'll fall down the slippery slope of control that will end up destroying the freedom that the Web provides. If we create a company to be big brother, that big brother will remain.
If we want a free web, it applies to big Web services as well as small ones.
--Bruce David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: "Synthesis: Law and Technology" 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 wrote: THe idea has much merit but the person/organization must be very carefully picked. Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein 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 ------------------------------------------- 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
Current thread:
- Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 11)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 11)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 11)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 12)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 12)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 12)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 13)
- Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman David Farber (Jun 13)