Google goes to Washington
Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Senior
Policy Counsel
It seems that policymaking and regulatory activity in Washington,
D.C. affect Google and our users more every day. It’s important to
be involved - to participate in the policy process and contribute
to the debates that inform it. So we’ve opened up a shop there. The
first member of our Washington team is
Davidson, a veteran thinker and advocate for issues we care
about.
Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet
as a free and open platform for information, communication and
innovation. OK, that sounds a little high and mighty, so let me
break it down into something a bit wonkier with a sampling of the
U.S. policy issues we’re working on:
Net neutrality. As voice,
video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S.
telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity,
which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens
have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real
dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block
their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such
as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able
to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those
offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online
service or application be forced to get permission from each
broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if
that’s not blunt enough for you, what’s better: [a] Centralized
control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the
decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end
Internet? (Hint: It’s not [a].)
Copyrights and fair use.
Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong,
viable fair use rights in this new digital age. We support efforts
by the U.S. Copyright Office to facilitate the use of orphan works
(works whose rights-holders can’t be found), while fully respecting
the interests of creators. We applauded the Supreme Court’s
carefully calibrated decision in the
case, but
worked to defeat
that would have created new forms of liability for neutral
technologies and services like Google.
Intermediary liability. As
a search engine, Google crawls the Internet, gathering information
everywhere we can find it. We’re a neutral tool that allows users
to find information posted by others – like a continuously updated
table of contents for the Internet. Not surprisingly, we don’t
believe the Internet works well if intermediaries and ISPs are held
liable for things created by others but made searchable through us.
That’s why Google will continue to oppose efforts to force us to
block or limit lawful speech; instead, we focus on providing users
the information, tools, and features (such as
they need to protect themselves online.
This is just a taste. We’re also engaged in policy debates over
privacy and spyware, trademark dilution, patent law reform,
voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) regulation, and more. The
Internet policy world is fluid, so our priorities will surely morph
over time. And, of course, Google is a global company. In a future
post, we’ll introduce you to some of the policy issues we’re
confronting outside the U.S.
Tags: , Andrew, CounselIt, McLaughlin, policy, Posted, seems, Senior