A recently enacted law seeks to remove all such content from the internet in India. Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft were sued under the law and had been arguing in Indian court that it was all but impossible for them to comply as a practical matter. The law makes online publishers potentially liable for the acts of individual users and third parties (think “offensive” blog hosted on Blogger or “objectionable” video uploaded to YouTube).

According to a BBC report Indian Communications Minister Kapil Sibal said the following in December about the desired impact of the new law:

My aim is that insulting material never gets uploaded. We will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue. [The companies] will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it.

Google, Facebook and others had argued that they had no control over individuals and should not be held liable for their conduct accordingly. They said they cannot “pre-filter” material generated by millions of users. This is what would be called a “prior restraint” against free speech in the US.

Indian courts have been unsympathetic and demanded that the companies comply or be blocked entirely “like in China.” The BBC says that the companies have now complied and removed offending material at issue in a particular civil lawsuit.

However the overly vague nature of the statute on which these claims are based almost guarantees that Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and other online publishers in India will face a steady stream of litigation from individuals or groups “offended” by this or that image, article or video.

Stock image used under license from Shutterstock

Related Entries

• Free Speech Battle In India: Google, Facebook Summoned By Court Over “Inflammatory Images”
• India Set To Bring Heavy Hand Of Censorship Down On Facebook, Google
• EU Ready To Impose Tough Privacy Rules On Google, Facebook
• US Government Makes Most Content Removal Requests To Google So Far in 2011

Members of the House Energy and Commerce committee grilled Pablo Chavez, Google’s director of public policy, and Google attorney Michael Yang for about two hours. After the meeting, several of the Representatives expressed their unhappiness with Google’s answers on a variety of privacy issues — questions brought on by Google’s recent announcement that it will combine all of its privacy policies into one, which will allow the company to share user information across its services.

That last point, according to Representative Mary Bono Mack, may leave Google in violation of HIPAA, a law that protects how personal health information may be shared. Bono Mack explained her concerns to USA Today:

“…say you do a Google search for cervical cancer and you forget to sign out. Are you being tracked across all of the other products, and if so, that’s a violation of HIPPA. We’ve gone to great lengths in our society to protect people’s medical information. That question was raised.”

Bono Mack is suggesting that Google might be violating HIPAA if it remembers the “cervical cancer” search after the user moves on from search to another Google product, like Gmail or YouTube (or any other).

But is Google actually compelled to follow the HIPAA requirements? According to the Health & Human Services website, the law applies to groups that meet the definition of a “covered entity” — health care providers (like doctors and nurses), health plans (like insurance companies and HMOs) and health care clearinghouses.

Google is certainly not a health care provider or a health plan, but is it a clearinghouse? My non-expert reading of the definition suggests the answer is “no.”

Google has been involved in health information via its Google Health product, but that just shut down on January 1st. Even when it was active, Google said it wasn’t bound by HIPAA. Here’s the opening sentence of the old/current Google Health privacy policy:

Unlike a doctor or health plan, Google Health is not regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law that establishes data confidentiality standards for patient health information.

Furthermore, Google’s new privacy policy, which takes effect on March 1st, includes language that seems to say ads won’t be personalized based on health-related activity:

When showing you tailored ads, we will not associate a cookie or anonymous identifier with sensitive categories, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation or health.

Bono Mack tells USA Today that there will be more Congressional hearings about online privacy and that she “pressed” Google to be there. But, based on my non-expert reading of the law, the HIPAA angle may not get very far in those hearings.

We’ve been covering the non-search elements of Google’s new privacy policy on our sister site, Marketing Land. See below for several related articles offering background and other angles.

Related Entries

• No, You Don’t Need To Fear The Google Privacy Changes: A Reality Check
• Google “Myth Busts” Microsoft’s Privacy Claims
• Microsoft Slams Google Privacy Changes With “Putting People First” Ad Campaign
• Google Tells Congress: Users Can Opt-Out Of New Privacy Policy By Not Logging In
• House Committee Has Privacy Questions For Google; Google Says Bring It On
• Google’s New Terms Of Service & Privacy Policy: Anything You Do May Be Used To Target You?

(Stock image via Shutterstock.com. Used under license.)

According to The Economic Times, the French commercial court “upheld an unfair competition complaint lodged by Bottin Cartographes against Google France and its parent company Google Inc. for providing free web mapping services to some businesses.”

Bottin Cartographes provides mapping services for a cost, and its website boasts several business clients such as Louis Vuitton, Airbus and several automobile manufacturers.

The French court ruling requires Google to pay $660,000 (500,000 Euros) in damages and interest to Bottin Cartographes, along with a 15,000 Euro fine. That means Google’s total cost from the ruling is about $680,000.

A Google France spokesperson says the company is still studying the court’s decision and reviewing its options, adding that Google is “convinced that a free high-quality mapping tool is beneficial for both Internet users and websites.”

As you can see from the related stories listed below, this is far from the first time that the French have raised legal issues with Google.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Cutts is in South Korea this week and, in a presentation Monday night for about 80 government officials, webmasters, lawyers and journalists, managed to singlehandedly convince some government reps to let Googlebot crawl and index their websites.

One of those in the audience was Kang Min-koo, a senior judge in the Seoul High Court. When he saw the court’s Web site was on Mr. Cutts’ list of government sites that couldn’t be indexed by Google – and thus couldn’t be found on a Google search – he sent a text message by phone to the court’s webmaster ordering it to be changed.

Since the change can be made by altering just a few lines of software code, the webmaster had it done in no time. When it came time for questions, Mr. Kang asked Mr. Cutts to check if the High Court’s site showed up on Google – and it did.

Cutts’ visit to South Korea comes on the heels of tension between the government and Google. Earlier this month, the Korean Fair Trade Commission accused Google of interfering with its Android antitrust investigation. The commission alleges that Google deleted documents pertinent to its investigation into whether Google is limiting access to local search engines on Android smartphones.

There’s also the matter that South Korea is one of only a handful of countries where Google isn’t the dominant search engine. And, as the WSJ points out, Google isn’t likely to gain market share in Korea if prominent websites aren’t in its index.

While Cutts may have the title of being Google’s chief spam cop, he’s long been one of the companies go-to public faces. A little more than a year ago, Google sent him to Washington, DC on an “educational tour” aimed at telling government officials that Google’s search results don’t need to be regulated.

As The Guardian reports, the groups involved in the proposal include the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the Premier League, the Publishers Association and a TV/film trade group called the Pact. The groups’ suggestions are spelled out in a nine-page document that became public after a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Piracy Problem

The entertainment groups say it is “trivially easy for UK consumers to find and access illegal entertainment content via search engines.”

On September 26 2011, BPI made test searches on Google for the name of each of the UK’s top 20 singles and albums, followed in each case by the word “mp3″ (the dominant legal and illegal file format for digital music). On average, 16 of the first 20 Google results for charts singles and 15 of the top 20 search results for chart albums linked to known illegal sites.

The report also cites a Publishers Association study that involved searches on both Google and Bing for the 50 bestselling books during the last week of April 2011. In that study, “Google returned an average of 41% non-legal links in the top ten (first page) results” and “Bing returned an average of 21% non-legal links in the top ten (first page) results.”

Search Engines Code of Practice

The report suggests a Code of Practice for search engines that includes the following:

• assign lower rankings to sites that “repeatedly make available unlicensed content in breach of copyright”
• prioritize (i.e., give better rankings/visibility to) websites that “obtain certification as a licensed site” for content downloading
• stop indexing websites that are subject to court orders and create “procedures to de-index substantially infringing websites”
• improve the “notice and takedown” system and ensure that searchers aren’t sent to illegal sites via suggested searches, related searches and suggested sites
• ensure that search engines don’t advertise illegal sites, place advertising on them, or profit from selling keywords related to illegal sites
• ensure that they don’t profit from selling mobile apps that “encourage infringement”

Google declined to comment to the Guardian.

The company faced similar pressure in December when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) scolded Google and suggested that the company’s search algorithm be changed to better fight online piracy. Even Congress has discussed whether Google should favor legal sites in its search results.

Google did extend an olive branch of sorts in the U.S. when it launched the Google Music store in November. Earlier last year, Google also began removing some piracy-related terms from its Instant Search product.

To be clear, the Department of Justice investigation and settlement with Google is a done deal and there’s nothing new happening specific to those legalities. But the WSJ article shines a new light on how the U.S. government used a con man (and currently a convicted felon) in a sting operation against Google in early 2009.

As the WSJ reports, David Whitaker first tipped federal agents to Google’s complicity with his pharmaceutical activities when he was arrested in Mexico in 2008 and sent back to the U.S. to face wire fraud, conspiracy and commercial bribery charges. That case wasn’t directly related to an online pharmacy that he had set up in 2006 — an operation that sold steroids and human growth hormone to U.S. residents and advertised through Google’s AdWords program. Whitaker tells the Journal that Google was aware of what he was doing.

“It was very obvious to Google that my website was not a licensed pharmacy,” Mr. Whitaker wrote to the Journal. “Understanding this, Google provided me with a very generous credit line and allowed me to set my target advertising directly to American consumers.”

Federal prosecutors used Whitaker as their point man in a four-month sting against Google in early 2009. While in custody and being guarded by federal agents, Whitaker used a pseudonym (Jason Corriente) to begin using AdWords to promote a website, www.sportsdrugs.net, that the government had created to sell HGH and steroids.

Google first rejected it, along with an anti-aging website called www.NotGrowingOldEasy.com. But the company’s ad executives worked with Mr. Whitaker to find a way around Google rules, according to prosecutors and Mr. Whitaker’s account.

The undercover team removed a link to buy the drugs directly—instead requiring customers to submit an online request form—and Google approved it. “The site generated a flood of email traffic from customers wanting to buy HGH and steroids,” Mr. Whitaker said.

A quick WHOIS check reveals that notgrowingoldeasy.com is, indeed, registered currently in the name of Whitaker’s fake “Jason Corriente” character.

The sting expanded to include new websites, including one that sold the controversial abortion pill RU-486 — a pill that can only be taken in doctors’ offices. The WSJ reports that Google approved ads for that site, too.

Google’s ad team in Mexico approved the site, so U.S. consumers searching for “RU 486″ would see an ad for the site. Google ad executives allowed the agents to add the phrase “no prescription needed.”

The WSJ article paints a very damning case against Google’s behavior prior to the $500 million settlement with the DOJ.

Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, gave this statement to the WSJ:

“We ban not just ads but also advertisers who abuse our platform, and we work closely with law enforcement and other government authorities to take action against bad actors.”

In a month that’s already seen Google suffer black eyes for a mess involving Google Chrome sponsored blog posts, along with negative reaction and requests for an FTC investigation related to Google+, and an incident where Google had to apologize to a Kenyan local business directory after trying to poach its customers, the details coming to light in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal are about the last thing the company needs right now.

There’s more discussion on Techmeme.

While some sites like Wikipedia are going black for the day on Wednesday, Google has instead chosen to cover its logo in black and add a short message on its home page: Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web!

The message links to a new End Piracy, Not Liberty page where Google is encouraging visitors to sign a petition against the legislation and sharing this message:

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.

The page also includes a PDF/infographic detailing the groundswell of opposition to SOPA and PIPA.

If you’re not familiar with SOPA (and its Senate counterpart, PIPA), see Chris Sherman’s article on Marketing Land, What All Marketers Need To Know About SOPA – The Stop Online Piracy Act.

What About Bing, Yahoo & Other Search Engines

Meanwhile, as of this moment, both Bing and Yahoo are carrying on in a business-as-usual mode.

Microsoft issued a statement today saying that it does oppose “the SOPA bill as currently drafted,” but neither Microsoft.com nor Bing.com make any mention right now of that opposition. Here’s the current Bing home page, which has a scenic photo of Norway.

Likewise, neither Yahoo.com nor its search-only home page at search.yahoo.com are showing anything related to the legislation or protests, unless you count the appearance of “PIPA” as No. 9 on Yahoo’s “Trending Now” topics.

There’s also nothing currently showing on Ask.com’s home page, but a PR rep for IAC notified us earlier tonight that Ask will “donate” ad space on its home page to voice its opposition to the legislation. The ad space, we’re told, will link to this OpenCongress.org page with details about SOPA and tools for people to contact their representatives.

Postscript: Although Yahoo.com isn’t showing anything related to SOPA/PIPA, Yahoo’s Flickr photo sharing site has gotten involved by letting users darken any photo on the site — their own or anyone else’s. (Photo owners can opt out of having their photos darkened.) Here’s one of my recent photos that I’ve darkened:

Postscript #2: Duck Duck Go has joined the ranks of search engines that are protesting SOPA/PIPA. Here’s what its homepage looks like today.

Related Stories

• Big List Of SOPA Links
• What All Marketers Need To Know About SOPA – The Stop Online Piracy Act
• The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Stalls In Congress
• #BlackoutSOPA: A Look At The Social Media Movement That Helped Stall The SOPA Legislation
• How To Blackout Your Site (For SOPA/PIPA) Without Hurting SEO
• Google Blackens Its Logo To Protest SOPA/PIPA, While Bing & Yahoo Carry On As Usual
• Why The Web Is Going Dark Over SOPA & PIPA

The news is likely to please critics like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which earlier this week called for the FTC to investigate the recent search changes called Search Plus Your World. Besides EPIC, many others, including Twitter, have questioned whether the new features favor Google’s own services over those of competitors.

Google in June of last year acknowledged the probe by the FTC. Though the agency has never specified the scope of the investigation, it was reportedly focused on the company’s search business — trying to determine whether the search behemoth was somehow unfairly exploiting its dominance in the sector.

Google declined to comment about the widening of the probe, according to the Bloomberg report.

Beyond unethical there’s a question about the legality of the behavior if proven to be true. Google says it’s investigating and sent us this statement:

These are clearly very serious allegations, and we are doing everything possible to investigate them.

(See updated statement from Google below.)

While the evidence presented by Magdalinski is very detailed and seems credible, I still have some trouble believing that Google would officially authorize a systematic campaign of fraud like this. Others have no trouble believing it and accept the allegations as true –  because many of those people believe Google has crossed over to the dark side.

One executive I spoke with the other day about something largely unrelated to Google told me he thought that Google would emerge as, “The most evil company the world has ever known.” That’s a verbatim statement. It’s pretty amazing and extreme but one hears these sorts of things now. This kind of venom used to be reserved almost exclusively for Microsoft in its antitrust heyday (e.g., “the evil empire”).

Google has in the past couple of years (and especially very recently) become a polarizing company. Among tech insiders, increasingly it seems you’re either a critic or a fan. I try to be objective in my view of Google (although I’ve been accused of being a “fanboy”). But I do tend to give the company the benefit of the doubt, unless the evidence suggests otherwise.

The Kenya controversy and the Search Plus Your World (SPYW) uproar have emerged as a sort of Rorschach test.

Google says that it intends to include much more social content into SPYW over time, including Twitter and Facebook, if those services will allow. But many people see Google simply promoting Google+ at the expense of others and tend to be extremely cynical about Google’s motives and behavior. (I find it strange that Google would so nakedly attempt to push Google+ given how directly that plays into its critics’ hands.)

The same is true this morning with the Kenya controversy. Some people simply accept that Google is guilty because they now view Google as the type of company willing to do the kinds of things claimed by Mocality. However I think there needs to be more information before anyone can reasonably conclude what happened.

The larger point here, however, is that people are increasingly inclined to leap to conclusions about Google based on their fundamental belief that the company is good or “evil.” More and more they project on to the Google ink blot whatever they want to see.

Postscript: Google apparently discovered the Mocality allegations to be accurate and issued the following statement, by Nelson Mattos, Vice-President for Product and Engineering, Europe and Emerging Markets:

“We were mortified to learn that a team of people working on a Google project improperly used Mocality’s data and misrepresented our relationship with Mocality to encourage customers to create new websites. We’ve already unreservedly apologized to Mocality. We’re still investigating exactly how this happened, and as soon as we have all the facts, we’ll be taking the appropriate action with the people involved.”

Also see our A “Mortified” Google Apologizes To Mocality For Poaching Customers, Lying About Relationship story.

Ink blot image via Shutterstock

According to the CNET article Korean official Kim Dong-soo asserted that Google has obstructed his agency’s investigation “by deleting key files from PCs and asking its employees to telecommute from home.” Google has denied obstructing the inquiry and pledged cooperation with Korean government officials.

In April of last year, NHN Corp. (Naver) and Daum Communications filed antitrust complaints with the South Korean equivalent of the US Fair Trade Commission. The complaints claim that Google is blocking them from putting their search applications on Android phones in South Korea.

NHN/Naver and Daum control roughly 90 percent of the South Korean PC search market between the two companies. Google has less than 5 percent and is using Android as part of a strategy to grow market share. Reportedly about 70 percent of the smartphones sold in South Korea are Android handsets. And South Korea’s Samsung has emerged as Google’s premier Android partner, dominating global sales of Android devices.

South Korea has historically been very aggressive in various legal actions against Google. During the Google WiFi-personal data collection scandal South Korean police sought to file criminal charges against Google executives.

Related Entries

• Google Korea Raided By Korean Fair Trade Commission
• Antitrust Trouble For Android In South Korea
• South Korea May Arrest Google Execs Over WiFi Data Collection
• Police Raid Google’s Korean Office Over Location Data
• Should Korean Search Engine Naver Worry About Local Competitors Or Google?