The Google Transparency Report in India

The Google TransparencyReport in India

Releasing the latest edition of the

biennial Google Transparency

Report, Google affirms, "One trend

has become clear: Government surveillance

is on the rise." The report encompasses

statistics of requests made to Google by

governments the world over to hand over

information about users and to remove

content from its services. The indicting

statistics show the Indian government

ranks third in requesting users' data since

July 2009, when Google started indexing

the requests. It was also the second

snoopiest government in the world in the

fi rst half of this year. The requests for

removal of content made by agencies not

authorised to do so indicate mounting

surreptitious censorship.

We condense the Google Transparency

Report to see what it means for India.

Though some statistics date back to July

2009 or later, we have considered the

consolidated reporting period from July

2010 to July 2012 due to the category-wise

break down of requests provided for this

period. Google has delineated the statistics

in terms of 'the number of requests'

made and 'the number of items' for which

requests were made. Correlating the two,

it is visible that the government identifi ed

many items under each request. Also, there

may be multiple requests for removing the

same item. Hence, some of the data could

be discrepant on account of the nature of

tracking and indexing requests.

Requests for user data

Google stores reams of personal and

private information about its users, such

as location data, IP addresses, emails and

contacts. Google does not disclose how

it uses the data. From July 2009 to June

2012, Google received 10,455 requests to

hand over data from 9,333 user accounts

from various government agencies in India.

Only the United States and Brazil made

more requests in the same duration. The

Indian government sent 2,319 applications

to Google for information on 3,467

accounts for the period January to June

2012, making it second only to the US

in prying on user data. This number is

miniscule compared to the number of

users Google has in India. Nevertheless,

these fi gures are being seen as the thin

edge of the wedge. Google clarifi es

that this data is not comprehensive or

exhaustive, and could be over-inclusive

or under-inclusive in terms of the number

of user accounts. Considering that

governments around the world run their

own machineries to mine data transferred

over the Internet, these statistics, however

hazy, bespeak an Orwellian story.

Google has been receiving more

surveillance requests from governments

the world over, but it is complying with

fewer of them. Nevertheless, Google

complied with enough requests from

January to June 2012 to rank India tenth in

terms of compliance percentage.

The rising number of attempts to

tap into Google's pool of user data is

an indication of integrated surveillance

that manifests itself in other forms, such

as the prolonged strife between the

government and Research in Motion (RIM).

The smartphone manufacturer fi nally set

up a surveillance facility in Mumbai in

October 2011 to let the government listen

in on encrypted communication between

BlackBerry devices.

Requests for removal of

content

The Index on Censorship report released

in November at the Internet Governance

Forum shines light on the scale and

modes of censorship employed by

governments worldwide. Web content is

censored covertly through private entities

and sledgehammer legislation governing

copyright. Google received requests for

removal of 1,618 items from the Indian

government from July 2009 to June 2012.

Only a fraction of this number was ordered

by the court; most requests were made by

executive agencies and the police, despite

the latter not authorised to request such

actions, revealing attempts at extra-legal

censorship. Of 344 requests from July

2010 to July 2012, only 34 (10 percent)

were ordered by the court. Requests citing

impersonation (11 percent), hate speech (6

percent), national security (1 percent) and

copyright violation (1 percent) were made

solely by the executive or law enforcement

agencies during this period. These requests

together identifi ed 1,493 items for removal,

of which only 518 (34.7 percent) were

ordered to be removed by the court. Of

these, the court identifi ed 24 percent

for removal citing privacy and security, 5

percent for defamation, and 5 percent for

religious offence.