Technology giant Google has spoken out on the controversy over objectionable content posted on its website and the legal battle it has resulted in.
NDTV's Shweta Rajpal Kohli met chief business officer and senior vice-president of Google Nikesh Arora over issues like privacy and censorship. Here is the complete transcript of the interview.
Shweta: Google is in the midst of a legal tussle in India, over the issue of banning objectionable content. I know the matter is subjudice but to broadly understand the issue, do you think that the demands being made by the Indian government are unreasonable?
Nikesh Arora: Well, first of all you have to understand that this is not about Google. This is about the freedom of expression. It is about, it is about anybody in the country wanting to express themselves on any technology medium whether it is Google, whether it is the NDTV site, whether it is wherever, I think one has to be very careful as you evaluate this issue. I think, you need to understand, what the issue is and solve that particular problem. The issue is that when you think you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.
Shweta: But the argument that the Centre is making is that there is some very serious objectionable stuff on the net. And that’s something, we need a mechanism to work this out.
Nikesh Arora: Yes, but it is like, there are some seriosuly bad elements in society. It doesn't mean that everyone of our houses needs to be searched every morning. You are saying that one needs to look at every bit of content and decide what’s right and what’s wrong and this is an interesting concept. Who is going to decide? I don't feel qualified to decide, as a part of Google , what is okay and what is not okay on every piece of content, whether it’s going to be okay or not okay.
I don’t think, you guys can decide if every piece of comment on the NDTV site is okay or not okay. I mean there are laws all about this all over the world about this stuff and this is a very fundamental issue that if you identify something as objectionable, people who have it should take it down as quickly as possible, it’s done in the US and that’s how it’s done in many other parts of the world and it seems to work.
Shweta: But at the end of the day, you are the ones who are carrying that content, and so the government can only approach you and say, we have a problem with this. Can you have this removed and the Centre has made several such requests, more than 300 requests in the last one year. Is that something which is again fair because the government saying it is in the interest of the public harmony. It is something that needs to be done to ensure that you are not inciting communal elements.
Nikesh Arora: I think Shweta, this is an extremely complicated topic. It has to be understood really well. I don't think the challenge is taking things down. I think one has to clearly understand, what is objectionable one has to be given due notice to take it down. And that's the process one should follow. I think, the idea of censoring everything and pre-clearing everything is going to fundamentally, sort of, taint the growth of the Indian economy in India and vis-a-vis the world.
I think do we want to be a part of that country where suddenly things are not working as fast, people are not in a way. We are not seeing entrepreneurs because everything has to be checked before. You know, part of, part of my seven years at Google, I used to be very proud every time I came to India. I said India is not like many other countries in the world. We have fundamental belief around the democracy and we have fundamental belief around freedom of expression. I think we need to keep that.
Shweta: Are you disappointed at what has happened over the last few months?
Nikesh Arora: Yes, I think I take a long term view on this. I think there are a lot of people in the country, who believe this is, freedom of expression is important. A lot of people feel passionately about making sure, we don't go in the wrong direction. So I am hoping there will be a balanced debate around it and eventually the right thing would happen.
Shweta: At the same time, you are an Indian, Nikesh. You do understand the sensitivities the Centre is talking about. You represent a very important position at Google. Have you been engaging with the Indian policymakers trying to sort or at least balance out the two views?
Nikesh Arora: We have been engaging. I think the debate is on. I think some of the things are done a bit too hastily for our liking. And we will like to have a real conversation around some of these issues and we feel some engagement has happened but we prefer more dialogue before people rush to take action on what I believe is not a fully formed idea.
Shweta: At the same time, the impression within the government circles was that social networking sites or the search engines turned around and said sorry, we cannot help you, this cannot be allowed. So that led to the tussle that we saw in between the Centre and the technology giants.
Nikesh Arora: But I think you know there are so many things we can talk about, I know what you are saying. I don't think there is one part of the government. You know the government has many parts. People have different opinions around it. I think what we are trying to explain is the enormity of what is being asked. You are asking not just censor the web in India, you are asking to censor the entire world wide web. The web has no borders. So today if we take something down in India.
Tomorrow, you can say well it is still available to the people in the United States. So you see, one cannot censor the web. One cannot censor the ability of people to express themselves around the world. If something is objectionable, there is a due process in the law, which allows you to do that. Just because a technology platform exists that allows you to be able to see, what's going on does not mean that the platform should be held liable for what's going on. You know part of our job is to create discovery of content.
Part of various social networking platforms' job is to allow a technology platform for people to converse. Now, it is almost like saying you know, I built the street corner. So the guy, who built the street corner is now liable for everybody who stands at the street corner to have a conversation. How ridiculous is that?
Shweta: Right, but that was an interesting analogy that the court had brought out saying that supposedly you are a landlord and you have a tenant. And the tenant is doing something wrong or doing something right. You are actually benefitting out of it. You cannot suddenly wash your hands off it. How would you respond to something like that?
Nikesh Arora: But that's a very simplistic model. I mean the web, does not have one tenant. The web is, I mean, we are not responsible what you are doing at your side. You are tenant at your side. You are responsible to take down the objectionable content. If somebody asks you to, I can't be held responsible when people come to Google and go to multiple sites from there and say, oh, you have to take this out because you sent it there. So look there is a whole set of issues around it.
I understand the principle they are trying to achieve. I think its fine but I think the remedy is not the remedy that is going to end in a positive result. I think it fundamentally risks the stunting of the growth of the Indian economy, not just economy, it is stunting the growth of the economy in the country. I think people need to be aware of that and people need to be cognizant of that before they take any steps in that direction.
Shweta: It is true that the policymakers in India do understand the importance of freedom of expression. At the same time, they are not saying we want to go the China way. Though, there was a sort of a warning issued by the court. But the policymakers are very clear. They are saying, no, we are not talking about web censorship, we don't want to go the China way. At the same time, it is just a request about some objectionable content. Is there a middle ground?
Nikesh Arora: What is an objectionable content?
Shweta: It is something the Centre has alerted you, requested you to remove. Is there a middle ground that's what I'm asking?
Nikesh Arora: There is a lot of interpretation required and we don't feel comfortable being the final arbitrar or what is objectionable or not? If somebody identifies what’s objectionable and tells.
Shweta: What about the government they are identifying for you?
Nikesh Arora: Oh, they have to look at and say that's what I don't like, we'll take it down. You can't say I don't like anybody talking about .
Shweta: So is that possible?
Nikesh Arora:Yes, if you find something objectionable, notify us we'll take it down . That's not a problem.
Shweta: Right, then what's the debate about?
Nikesh Arora:The debate is we are expected to read everything before you do, you realise 63 hours of video.
Shweta: So you are saying you can't self censor?
Nikesh Arora: We can't. There is 60 hours of video uploaded every minute on the web. What do you want us to do? There's like a billion transactions that have happened every hour on social networking sites. Who is going to actually read through all of them in advanced to make sure that nothing is objectionable that stays there.
So I think, there are ways where selfpolicing groups, there are social groups that will tell you that they don't like something. We'll take a look at it. It is bad, we'll take it down. You know people tell us it is objectionable, we'll take it out. It's impossible to do it prior to the fact.
Shweta: All right Nikesh, we are certainly hoping that there will be some sort of a resolution of that very very…controversial debate that's taking place and of course has turned into a mega bitter legal dispute. Moving on from there and talking about censorship in privacy and such, Google privacy and certain changes that you are telling to make is again something that led to a huge controversy where there is a talk that people are not very comfortable that Google will be using personal information for revenue generation.
Nikesh Arora:Well I think there are multiple aspects to the conversation. First of all, what we have done recently is we have 60 different privacy policies. As we have grown as a company in the last 12 years, we had multiple products and we have had multiple privacy policies as new products came out.
Shweta: Right.
Nikesh Arora: It's extremely hard for users to understand 60 of them and interpret them and see what's gonna happen? So fundamentally, we did first was we make sure we simplified it and there is one policy now with which you can see everything we do and it's right there .
So it's a very good thing. I think simplifying is always a good thing. It’s in the interest of the users and it’s very clear next fiscal what benefits it has . Look at the end of the day, the user strikes the balance between what is convenience? What versus what they are going to share? If I use my credit cards, somebody know what I ate, what I drank, what I bought.
Shweta: But you don't have the option of opting out in such a case because you are going to use your personal information that I have on Google.
Nikesh Arora: Of course, you have the option of not using the service. That's perfectly fine.
Shweta: So I am going to use parts of your service. So you are saying if I use gmail, you will access my personal information.
Nikesh Arora: But you are saying, I want to work into a store, I want to buy something but I don't want to give him my credit card details and I don't have cash.
Shweta: So I should have that option. No, No, I am not saying that.
Nikesh Arora: You want to use services without actually giving us anything.
Shweta: It’s not the same.
Nikesh Arora: But you can. Look you can do a search on Google without logging in and you get results.
Shweta : Ok.
Nikesh Arora: You can do that. We are not asking you now if you are in Davos you are doing a search of restaurant. I can make it a lot more convenient by knowing where you are and telling there are 5 within one my radius from you .
Otherwise, you will be looking for restaurants and trying to enter where you are. So you have the option of sharing that piece of information at that instance and getting a better answer or you have the option of letting us know that if you have data we should be able to use it. That's your choice.
Shweta: Alright Niki, it's a very interesting debate, it's a complicated debate, it is something that has no easy answers. But thanks so much for sharing some of your views and wish you a very happy republic day because you have got Google celebrating it too.
Nikesh Arora: Indeed. Happy Republic day to you and all.
Shweta: Nikesh, many many thanks for being with us.
Nikesh Arora:Thank you
Note: Government of India responded to comments made in the interview:
I would like to clarify, on behalf of the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & IT that the Government has never made any statement which reflect any intention whatsoever to censor the Internet. The Government does not regulate contents nor it has any intent to censor the content appearing on the web. Any suggestion to this effect is false and misleading.
The Internet, over a period of time, has emerged as a strategic source for promotion of literacy, education, exchange of views and social upliftment. India believes that Internet should be appropriately used for promotion of such causes. The citizens have a right to express themselves fearlessly and exchange their views on Internet. India subscribes to freedom of expression and speech as well as freedom of Internet within the ambit of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 published under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for safeguards and due diligence to be observed by intermediaries including social networking sites. The rules were framed after wide and intensive consultation with public at large, Intermediaries, Information Technology Industry and other stake- holders. The rules are amply clear and are in line with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India as well as the prevailing practices and rules elsewhere in the world. The rules provide that the intermediary, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person about objectionable content, will act and wherever applicable, work with the user or owner of information to disable such information.
Bhupendra Kainthola
Director (Media & Communications)
Ministry of Communications & IT
Press Information Bureau
© Copyright NDTV Convergence Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
