Info Commissioner tears into Google's 'call us journalists' trial defence

No wriggling out of regulation, snarls ICO chief

By Gareth Corfield

Posted in Policy, 8th March 2018 14:56 GMT

RTBF Trial UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has declared war on Google, urging the High Court to throw out the ad biz's defences in the Right To Be Forgotten trial because they are "impermissibly broad".

"If Google were right in its approach to the concept of 'journalism', that would yield a result whereby the commissioner would in practice be stripped of any effective regulatory powers in respect of Google's search operations," thundered Denham, whose written submission to the court was prepared by barristers Anya Proops QC and Rupert Paines.

The ongoing Right To Be Forgotten trial features two people, referred to publicly as NT1 and NT2, who have made a legal first by taking Google to court in London over their data protection rights. The Information Commissioner was granted permission to intervene in NT1's case by trial judge Mr Justice Warby.

Denham's submissions were adopted by NT1's barrister, Hugh Tomlinson QC, who explicitly referred to them in his closing speech to the court yesterday, saying:

"We do say this is not journalism, not within the journalistic exemption. The submissions are made in paragraph 26 of the ICO's submissions."

Does Parliament or Google decide when your criminal past is forgotten?


Among other things, Google claims that its search results ought to benefit from the journalism exemption to EU data protection laws. Though its barrister, Antony White QC, acknowledged that the EU court decision that created the right to be forgotten explicitly said that journalism "does not appear to be... [what data] processing carried out by the operator of a search engine" falls under, in legal terms White argued that that court did not rule it out completely.

This argument enraged the ICO, which said in the submission: "The concept of 'journalism' presupposes a process by which content is published to an audience pursuant to the taking of human editorial decisions as to the substantive nature and extent of that content."

In plain English, humans (mostly) don't decide what appears in search results so calling Google's activities "journalism" is just plain wrong, according to the commissioner.

"In effect," she continued, if the High Court accepted Google's argument and let it be protected by the journalism exemption, the ad-supported firm "would be able to operate the right to be forgotten regime almost entirely free from regulatory oversight and control".

Denham has also set out her stall against social media companies, telling Parliament during a hearing yesterday that "nobody is making the argument any more that these are benign platforms". ®

Sign up to our NewsletterGet IT in your inbox daily


More from The Register

Neil Young slams Google, after you log in to read his rant with Google or Facebook

Heart Of Gold meets Piece Of Crap

Scammers use Google Maps to skirt link-shortener crackdown

Chocolate Factory's map service cuts commute times, URL lengths

Google borg gobbles Israeli cloud migration startup

Alas poor Velostrata! You knew those AWS and Azure workloads well

'Don't Google Google, Googling Google is wrong', says Google

Chocolate Factory unwraps developer style guide, squibs the thorny ISO date debate

Android devs prepare to hit pause on ads amid Google GDPR chaos

Hey Google. How will we eat?

Dropbox to let Google reach inside it and rummage about

Create and store GDocs in Dropbox, with admin policies preserved

US judges say you can Google Google, but you can't google Google

The Chocolate Factory is spared the aspirin treatment by the 9th Circuit Court

Twitter signs for Google cloud at list price of about $10m a month

Shifts Hadoop clusters and their 300PB of data, not the stuff that lets you tweet

Apple: Er, yes. Your iCloud stuff is now on Google's servers, too

You can't escape The Circle

Oracle tells tales about Google data slurps to Australian regulator

At an inquiry into news and ads, of all things. Is Big Red playing a deeper game?