Google as "Card Catalogue"

By | September 23, 2014

There’s an article in the latest New Yorker about the conflict over the right to be forgotten. Recently in Europe there have been some successful claims made to have links removed from Google. One of the points discussed is that the information doesn’t originate with Google, so technically the data is still out there, but it’s more difficult to access without being linked by Google, which speaks to how much power they have over our ability to access information.
What’s relevant is that Google describes itself as a “card catalogue” in this article, but critics say it’s far beyond that and is more accurately described as the library, book store, and newsstand, all collapsed into one:

The European Court’s decision placed Google in an uncomfortable position. “We like to think of ourselves as the newsstand, or a card catalogue,” Kent Walker, the general counsel of Google, told me when I visited the company’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California. “We don’t create the information. We make it accessible. A decision like this, which makes us decide what goes inside the card catalogue, forces us into a role we don’t want.” Several other people at Google explained their frustration the same way, by arguing that Google is a mere intermediary between reader and publisher. The company wanted nothing to do with the business of regulating content.

Yet the notion of Google as a passive intermediary in the modern information economy is dubious. “The ‘card catalogue’ metaphor is wildly misleading,” Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in Washington, D.C., told me. “Google is no longer the card catalogue. It is the library—and it’s the bookstore and the newsstand. They have all collapsed into Google’s realm.” Many supporters of the Court’s decision see it, at least in part, as a vehicle for addressing Google’s enormous power. “I think it was a great decision, a forward-looking decision, which actually strengthens press freedoms,” Rotenberg said. “The Court said to Google, ‘If you are going to be in this business of search, you are going to take on some privacy obligations.’ It didn’t say that to journalistic institutions. These journalistic institutions have their own Web sites and seek out their own readers.” (The Solace of Oblivion)

The card catalogue metaphor and how it’s used to try to absolve Google of some responsibility is really interesting, as is the response. There’s also a few passages that refer to the Dutch keeping a population record that was first lauded for its ability to help dispense welfare, but then later co-opted by the Nazis. The Stasi archive is mentioned as well. The suggestion is that numerous versions of the surveillance state in recent history have led to an increased value on the right to privacy in Europe, unlike in the US where freedom of speech is privileged above privacy.
Anyway, it all seemed incredibly relevant to our discussions (probably both in class and out of it), so I thought I’d post it here.

One thought on “Google as "Card Catalogue"

  1. shannon Post author

    These metaphors bear much resemblance to the macro-scale questions we’re raising in class this semester: what are the different ontologies, epistemologies, politics, etc., built into these various institutions? In this case, the choice of metaphor has profound legal implications.
    Thanks for sharing, Rachel!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *