Goodlatte Statement at Hearing to Examine Google and its Data Collection, Use and Filtering Practices

Washington, D.C. — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today delivered the following statement during the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee’s hearing on “Transparency & Accountability: Examining Google and its Data Collection, Use and Filtering Practices.” Chairman Goodlatte: In the United States, Google operates the preeminent Internet search engine, the leading email service provider, and the Android operating system, which runs most of the smart phones in the U.S. When a consumer performs an Internet search, sends an email or uses his or her smart phone, Google collects information on that person. In fact almost every minute of every day, the Android operating system sends information about the exact location, temperature, barometric pressure, and speed of movement of every phone that runs on the Android operating system. With Americans carrying their smart phones all day, every day, Google is able to collect an amount of information about its users that would even make the NSA blush. Of course, when users click through the terms of service for these services, they do consent to such collection. But I think it is fair to say that most Americans have no idea the sheer volume of detailed information that is collected. Today, I hope to get answers on the extend of data collection and use by Google. In addition, decades ago Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, including section 230 of that Act, which allows service providers to remove lewd, lascivious, excessively violent or otherwise objectionable content from their platforms.  This law allows service providers to remove illegal materials including child pornography and content that is illegal under our intellectual property laws.  While meant to allow them to block illegal, obscene and harmful materials, there is some discretion that service providers by necessity must use to make decisions about what content is harmful or objectionable. Given Google’s ubiquity in the search market, Google is often consumers’ first and last stop when searching for information on the Internet. As such, this Committee is very interested in how Google makes decisions about what constitutes objectionable content that justifies filtering and who at Google makes these decisions.  Given the revelation that top executives at Google have discussed how the results of the 2016 elections to do comply with Google’s values, these questions have become all the more important.  While it is true that Google is not a government entity and so it does not have to comply with the 1st Amendment, the American people deserve to know what types of information they are not getting when they perform searches on the Internet.  The market works best when information about products and services is readily available, and so today – on behalf of this Committee and the American consumer – I hope to get answers from Mr. Pichai regarding who at Google makes the judgment calls on whether to filter or block objectionable content and what metrics Google uses to make those decisions. I want to thank Google’s CEO for his willingness to testify today and to answer these and other questions. With respect to search results, algorithmic screening is the primary means through which Google sorts data and information.  Google’s search algorithm, for example, calculates what is presented to a user based on the variables the user inputs into the search bar. At its best, Google’s algorithm reaches the best answer in the least amount of time while providing choices to the user by ranking pages most relevant to the search inquiry. Of course, by ranking pages, Google’s search always favors one page over another. This kind of bias appears harmless. After all, the point of a search is to discriminate among multiple relevant sources to find the best answer. This process, however, turns much more sinister with allegations that Google manipulates its algorithm to favor the political party it likes, the ideas that it likes, or the products it likes. There are numerous allegations in the news that Google employees have thought about doing this, talked about doing this, and have done it. The dangerous implications to a fair democratic process cannot be understated. One study performed by psychologist Robert Epstein has revealed that “[i]nternet search rankings have a significant impact on consumer choices, mainly because users trust and choose higher-ranked results more than lower-ranked results.”  After performing “five relevant double-blind, randomized controlled experiments, using a total of 4,556 undecided voters representing diverse demographic characteristics of the voting populations of the United States and India,” the study revealed that “(i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) search ranking bias can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation.” The potential for this kind of bias is clearly problematic, and is further compounded by the fact that Google everyday collects mountains of information about its users while they are actively engaged with a Google product or even when they are not. According to a study conducted by Vanderbilt University, a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14 data communications per hour. The collection of location data may be obvious to most users, but they are often unaware of the many sensors that the Android platform supports, including an accelerometer, a barometer, and a photometer. These sensors, in addition to the cameras and microphone on a mobile device, can collate into a very accurate picture of where a user is, what they are doing, and who else is there. The shocking amount of information that Google collects via its phones was recently featured on Good Morning America in which a reporter using an Android phone with no sim card that wasn't connected to the Internet discovered that the phone collected the device's movement, even identifying the mode of transportation such as the subway or even a bicycle and at times “taking ten sensor readings per minute.” Moreover, Google’s practice of reinforcing its dominance, in light of allegations of self-serving bias, creates little choice for consumers across the spectrum of Internet-based products or services. Given that Google’s ads show up on non-Google websites and Google’s search engine is being used as the default search tool on other products such as the Apple phone, it is almost impossible to avoid Google altogether. Google is many things. It’s one of the largest data collectors even seen in human history. It’s an advertiser that can get the right product to the right customer at precisely the right time. Google is also an Internet giant, directing over 3.5 billion searches per day. With this massive authority, however, comes the potential for far-reaching abuse. The mere suspicion that Google manipulates its products and features for self-serving or even political purposes raises serious concerns about its business practices, its impact on free speech and our democratic process, and Americans’ trust that the information gathered about them in their day-to-day lives is done with their knowledge and is not being used against them.  My hope is that through our inquiries today, we will ensure more transparency and accountability going forward. Last, despite the nature and scope of today’s hearing, Google is still the story of the American dream. The company was started by two individuals in a garage and grew to be one of the most successful companies in the world. Two decades ago we could not fathom instantaneous access to more information than that which is contained in all the encyclopedias in the world. Now we take that for granted because of the excellent services Google provides. With that, I want to again thank our witness for his presence here today. I look forward to your testimony.

###