Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Facebook, Google, and Twitter—Oral evidence (QQ 1384–1455)
down based on the identification of specific web pages that have unlawful content and the
removal of those specific web pages from appearing in our search results. That is exactly
the same mechanism that is available for persons seeking removal on privacy grounds or on
defamation grounds.
Q1420 Mr Bradshaw: Why do you not do it for him?
Daphne Keller: We have removed hundreds of URLs in this case.
Q1421 Mr Bradshaw: But he has to request every one individually. You will not
do a blanket removal for him. He has to spend time and money doing it. He can do it
because he is wealthy, but an ordinary citizen whose privacy has been destroyed in the same
way by an illegal act would not have that time and money.
Daphne Keller: The thing we have not undertaken to do—and, that again, I think as
a policy matter it could be quite dangerous to ask intermediaries to undertake to do—is to
search for and disappear content based on an algorithm. This is what was at issue in the
Scarlet v SABAM case that I mentioned earlier was whether, consistent with the E-
Commerce Directive—which is the regulatory framework here—it made sense to have an
intermediary attempt to deploy a technology of that sort in lieu of having people look at
content and make informed decisions.
Lord Mawhinney: Ms Keller, I hope you will take it as a compliment if I say you are
extremely hard to pin down.
Daphne Keller: I am not trying to be.
Q1422 Lord Mawhinney: You have ducking and diving down to a fine art, and I
congratulate you. I have never met Mr Mosley. I saw him once when he gave evidence;
other than that, I do not know the man, so my question is not motivated by anything other
than trying to do the job that this Committee has been set up to do. As I understand it,
there are certain photographs that a court has deemed illegal. When he goes to you, you
say, “We’ll take them down.” He says, “But they’re all over the place.” Your evidence is
that it is technically feasible for you to initiate a take-down procedure that gets them all, but
as a matter of policy—your word—you have decided not to do that. If the media in
reporting this were to say that Google will take down what they are asked to take down
but will not, as a matter of policy, make sure there is nothing else illegally represented,
would you sue them?
Daphne Keller: My evidence is not that it is technically unfeasible to do this. I do
not dispute that perhaps someone could build such a thing. My policy point is that I think
doing so is a bad idea, and this is what underpins the E-Commerce Directive and the notice
and take-down framework within which all three of us operate.
313