Google Removed Catalonian Referendum App Following Spanish Court Order
from the this-seems-problematic dept
Last month, we wrote about the crazy situation in Spain, where the government was so totally freaked out about a Catalonian referendum on independence that it shut down the operators of the .cat domain, arrested the company's head of IT for "sedition" and basically shut down a ton of websites about the referendum. The Washington Post now has an article with even more details about the digital attacks in both directions around the Catalonian independence referendum, including hack attacks and DDoS attacks. But one thing caught my eye. Apparently, the supporters of the referendum had created an app called "On Votar 1-Oct." The app had a bunch of the expected functions:
The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.
It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.
But the Spanish government was so freaked out by the referendum and anything related to it, that it ran and got a court order demanding Google take the app out of Google's app store:
The court order told Google Inc—at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 (USA)—to take down the app located at that URL and also to block or eliminate any future apps submitted by the user with e-mail address "onvotar1oct@gmail.com" or identifying as "Catalonia Voting Software".
The judge says in her ruling that the tweet with the app link is "only a continuation of the actions of the [Catalan government] to block" Constitutional Court and High Court orders "repeatedly".
In the Washington Post article, the CTO of the Catalonian government explains why this is so disappointing:
“I’m a tech guy,” says Jordi Puigneró, chief technology officer of the Catalonian government. “So I’ve always been a great fan of Google and its principles of respect for digital rights. But now I’m really disappointed with the company.” (Puigneró’s office was also occupied by police during the referendum, he says.)
And you can understand why he's disappointed. But, the real problem here, seems to be going back to the same problem we keep identifying over and over again: deep centralization of the digital world. Part of the very promise of Android was that it was supposed to be open, and people weren't supposed to be locked into just Google's app store. And, indeed, there are competing app stores -- but the general argument around them (with the possible exception of Amazon's competing Android app store) is that if you want to keep your device secure, you'll only download via Google's app store.
And then we're back to a problem where there's a centralized choke point for censorship -- one which the Spanish government is able to exploit to make that app much more difficult to access. Google, for its part, said it took the app down because it had received a valid court order. And, that's true, but it's also opening up yet another path to widespread censorship. Google has stood up against similar situations in the past, but the decision of whether or not a movement should be stifled should never come down to whether or not a giant company like Google decides its worth taking a moral stand against a legal court order. The problem is much more systemic, and its built into this world where we've started to build back up gatekeepers.
For nearly two decades, I've argued that the real power of the internet was not -- as many people initally argued -- that it got rid of "middlemen," but rather that the middlemen turned into enablers rather than gatekeepers. In the old world, when only some content could get released/published/sold/etc., you had to rely on gatekeepers to choose which tiny percentage would get blessed. The power of internet platforms was that they became enablers, allowing anyone to use those platforms and to publish/release/sell/distribute things themselves, often to a much wider audience. But there'a always a risk that over time, former enablers become gatekeepers. And it's a fear we should be very conscious about -- even if it's not done on purpose.
To be clear, I don't think Google wants to be a gatekeeper around things like apps. It would prefer not to be. But because the marketplace has become so important, and because Google's role is so central, it almost has no choice. And when governments start issuing court orders to take down apps, suddenly Google is left with few good options. Either it censors or it picks fights with a government. And even if many of us would probably support and cheer on the latter as a choice, we should be concerned that this is even an issue at all. The solution has to be less reliance on centralized platforms and centralized choke points. Catalonians shouldn't have to rely on Google to get a simple voting app out to the public. The next big breakthroughs need to be towards getting past such bottlenecks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bottlenecks, catalonia, democracy, election, independence, play store, points of failure, referendum, spain
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-an d-its-power-must-be-regulated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
Just so we know how to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
Now, are you claiming that those issues have been covered or criticized by Techdirt? If so, give links.
Who is this "we"? Are you part of Techdirt? Or just fancy yourself royalty?
Just so I know how to respond. You go first with some STATEMENTS. I don't fall for the endless questions tactic, learned my lesson there from the now rare "nasch" and "Gwiz".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
Wooo; scare quotes! I'm posting with my real name. I'm assuming that you are too.
There have been plenty of stories here criticizing Google. Sometimes followed up by posts joking about your claims that it doesn't happen. You've become a running gag.
Most stories about Google are neither pro nor anti Google. They criticize various questionable government and litigant claims, with Google merely being the biggest and most obvious excuse for their butthurt or the ill health of their favorite dinosaurs.
But do a simple Google search, and you'll find plenty of stories criticizing Google too. One about Google censorship a few weeks ago comes up on the first page of results.
On the second page of results, the headline:
Spoiler: It's not pro-Google.
Naturally, one comment was voted Funny by the readers:
Running gag. You may have hidden your name, but your core identity is well known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
Me too, dear boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But NO problem when Google chooses what will be censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and this is exactly why industries like Hollywood, the movie and music industries are doing whatever it takes to stop this from happening and enabling them to remain as 'gatekeepers' stifling anything and everything that could effect their ability to lose control of what they think should never be anyone else but theirs to decide who can have, when, how, where and at what time point and price!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico-media_complex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protocols, not platforms!
Part two of this is that we really don't have secure computing platforms. We see this with the Kaspersky fracas this week; underneath it is the problem that I can't really trust my computer after I let *X* put their software on it.
LOL, What do you mean I don't have an independent way to verify that my *X* app isn't pilfering passwords out the back door?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protocols, not platforms!
You kind of have that security. Even with 3rd-party app stores, apps don't get network access unless you allow it (I'm ignoring exfiltration via audio waves etc.).
There's more than 1 centralization problem here:
It doesn't have to be like that. Google's app-scanners could sign the apps and send them back to the author to distribute, or to archive.org or bittorrent or a whole network of unaffiliated servers. They could use Tor so they don't know who's downloading what. They'd need some sort of revocation system, preferably accounting for the lessons of ocsp-pinning... and they could use different failure codes and allow the user to override it. "Revoked due to malware" and "revoked due to a legal order" could show separately on the GUI.
A signature-based system would be "protocols not platforms", and could be easily extended with extra signatures: "Google says it's not malware", "F-Droid says it's free software" etc. It doesn't even require new technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protocols and Apps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Risk v reward
Google has little choice but to follow the law here. The Spanish courts could have easily moved to have the play store blocked at the ISP level. or perhaps moved on Google's offices in Spain with an injunction or restraining order that may have even shut them down until they complied.
Also, let's be clear here: Google has played fast and loose when it comes to tax avoidance for the last decade. Pissing off the Spanish government would lead to further scrutiny, and that could lead to a billion dollar tax bill. I doubt Google wants to take the chance of rocking anyones boat.
It's not Google's fight to fight. If the separatists want their app re-instated, they need to go to the court and complain. It's their fight. In the same way you can't buy certain products at a Wal-Mart, it's not the retailer to argue the case, it's the maker.
Google has it's own interests, and those aren't risking it's business to help a few seperatists - no matter how good or noble the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Risk v reward
Following the law doesn't protect you. Even a sycophant screaming "the law is the law is the law" will backpedal like a swimmer getting savaged by a shark, if it serves his shilling, authoritarian purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that's the argument generally made by Google's PR flacks and their dupes. It never has made any sense at all, mind you.
Google's checks aren't particularly effective, and Google Play is the number one distributor of Android malware just like it's the number one distributor of all Android software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valid?
Really? Spanish court orders are valid in Mountain View, California? Since when? What about Turkish or Thai or Russian or Sharia court orders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valid?
Of course, context is important. If the app were about Texas or Vermont separatists, they probably could and would ignore a Spanish court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Valid?
According to the article, "The court order told Google Inc—at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 (USA)—to take down the app". Notice that's Google in the USA, not Google in Spain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Valid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Valid?
In California.
I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's servers are in the United States, therefore, they ONLY have to comply with AMERICAN laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong they are wordlwide, which is why Google is fighting the US government) to avoid handing over emails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google's app stored is hosted in the United States. There, apps sold from their US servers only have to comply with United States law.
Just like when I ran an online radio station, and also ran a free VPN to allow people to bypass workplace filters to listen, becuase the VPN was hosted in my apartment in Sacramento, California, that VPN was ONLY subject to American laws. In other words, laws in Oman, Pakistan, and Iran, that specifically outlaw VPNs without a VPN license did not apply to my server.
My VPN server was not subject to the laws of any country, other than the United States. I only only had to obey American law when it came to that VPN/Proxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. I thought that if they did any kind of business at all in a country, then all of their operations worldwide were subject to that country's laws. That isn't so? Now you're confusing us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google helping to maintain law and order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google helping to maintain law and order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breaking News ..... Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catalan situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Catalan situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Catalan situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]