Net Results:Google - one of the State's most prized high-profile multinationals and an employer of about 1,000 people - isn't too happy with the Government's data retention policies (a law that requires the storage for three years of all data relating to every mobile, land line and fax call).
It doesn't take any great effort to find this out. Just Google it, as it were. The company has blogged about it on googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com - which offers "Google's views on government, policy and politics". This is widely read, given Google's power and influence as an internet company internationally. Posts are made by a range of senior staff, including heads of various policy teams, the head of corporate communications and heads of legal teams. So it isn't exactly the best publicity for Ireland Inc.
It's as if there isn't anyone within Government who realises the connection between policy and business and the economy. Does the Cabinet really think that tax policy alone is all that concerns organisations and affects inward investment and the ability to home-grow companies? Last year at about this time, I spoke to the heads of Oracle Ireland, Microsoft and Iona Technologies. All expressed alarm at the State's "steam ahead" policies on data retention, the fact that we had chosen to introduce one of the longest retention periods in the world for stored call data - greatly in excess of what the EU's directive called for.
A few weeks ago, I noted that the Government - having failed to request the derogation almost every other European country opted for - was about to rush in the next instalment of the data-retention regime, a second EU directive requiring the retention of information about every e-mail sent and received and web-usage data for every person living in the country.
Having failed to request the derogation, we were required to bring in the directive by mid- September. As we missed that deadline and failed to introduce legislation in the meantime, the State now says we must bring in sans change the entire sloppy piece of EU legislation (a glued- together mish-mash of compromises on this controversial proposal) using a statutory instrument.
The Department of Justice said it intended to have this ready for consideration by the end of this month. I am not sure what the rush is. As one lawyer pointed out to me, we are a decade behind in implementing several EU directives on the environment and have shrugged off numerous complaints about this at EU level.
So what does Google have to say in its blog? European policy manager Iarla Flynn doesn't mince words about the incoming directive related to e-mail and internet use: "We have previously blogged about the directive and raised concerns with its scope [ which services are covered and which are not], the potential for inconsistent implementation and the difficulties this would raise for a global internet player like Google, and how the costs of compliance are going to be covered."
He continues: "Concerns have been expressed that sufficient time may not be available for a full debate to discuss the very complex issues involved. There is also a real risk that a rushed transposition process could produce legislation which negatively impacts on consumer privacy and is harmful to the internet and telecoms sector." He concludes: "Our view is that it is vital that the reasonable concerns of privacy advocates and industry are taken into account. Google is going to take advantage of the current window of opportunity to get our views across and we hope that other interested parties will do likewise."
Some may say Flynn would take this perspective - he was previously the head of Alto, the association representing alternative telecommunications operators in Ireland - but that is neither here nor there. He is now involved in creating Google policy internationally and he is expressing Google's viewpoint.
I hope that someone in Government is bothering to read it because other decision- makers globally will be, and I hope Google and others might finally manage to impress upon a few Government minds that data-retention policy and its implementation should concern every level of Government and its agencies, and not be relinquished to the Department of Justice.
Blog: www.techno-culture.com
