Mr. Ryan Meade:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to participate in this session. I work with Google in Ireland as public policy and government relations manager, based in our Europe, Middle East and Africa headquarters in Dublin. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Rachel Madden, who works as a senior public policy analyst, focusing on online safety and based in our San Francisco office but hailing from Dublin. Ms Madden's remit is global and she works closely with our product team and I am delighted she is able to join us.

Google welcomes the committee’s efforts to engage with stakeholders in its consideration of the Bill. We appreciate this opportunity to outline our views on a number of the issues raised in the Bill which we feel merit deeper consideration by the committee.

Before I address these issues specifically, it might be helpful to outline Google’s actions and approach to safety online. Google believes deeply in technology’s ability to unlock creativity and engagement. We also believe that technology companies have a responsibility to their users; that what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online; and that all users should be empowered to manage online risks and make safe choices. We work hard behind the scenes to ensure that our users have as positive as possible an online experience as possible. Our approach to online safety and well-being falls into three main themes: strong community guidelines; technological innovation; and working in partnership.

We are a company fundamentally committed to access to information, yet our community guidelines and content policies offer clear rules on what we do not allow on our platforms. These often go above and beyond what is in the law and we employ thousands of staff around the world who work 24 hours a day to ensure violations of our guidelines are acted upon.

On technological innovation, Google has aimed to be the industry leader in creating and developing products and tools which help protect and empower our users, and we will continue to invest the resources necessary to ensure families can make safety choices that are right for them.

We developed YouTube Kids to offer an alternative YouTube specifically designed for young children. It provides a restricted version of YouTube for families with built in timers, no public comments, no option to upload content and the ability for parents to block or allow access to specific channels or videos. Last year, we launched Family Link, which enables parents to create a Google account for their child and then helps them set and tailor the digital ground rules that work for their children including on-screen time, device bedtimes and approving or blocking specific apps or functions like the camera. Ireland was the first country outside of the US in which we launched Family Link and it has since been rolled out in 170 countries.

My colleague, Ms Madden, will be happy to speak more about these online safety products we have developed. At Google, collaboration has been key to ensuring our products and services offer families a positive and secure experience online.

That is why we work regularly with NGOs, Government and industry partners to empower parents and children with the tools and skills they need to make the most of the Internet. Companies like Google have a responsibility to ensure not only that products and services offer a great user experience but that we work with a wide range of stakeholders and industry partners to creatively and effectively raise awareness, offer support on how to navigate technology responsibility and share technological solutions to tackle some of the toughest problems we face. Google has invested considerable resources in these efforts and has thousands of employees across the companies working in this regard. More detail on each of these teams is included in the written submission to the committee which has been circulated. The submission also includes views and suggestions on the Digital Safety Commissioner Bill which are drawn from this overall approach as well as from our knowledge and experience of the practical implications associated with these issues. We are also happy to provide a more detailed written submission if that is considered appropriate.

In the time available, however, I can set out briefly some of the points we believe the committee should take into consideration. In doing so, I echo some of the things other witnesses have mentioned already. Google welcomes the recognition of the need for ongoing awareness and education on harmful digital content. We support an approach which includes national initiatives to educate Internet users on what it means to be a responsible online citizen, the resources and tools available to protect their privacy online and how to deal with and report cyberbullying, inappropriate content and online abuse. Google also welcomes the consideration of additional measures by Government to address the posting online of videos or images with embarrassing and intimate content, often referred to as "revenge porn". This amounts to an egregious invasion of an individual's privacy as other witnesses have already said. It is essential that any new legal framework in Ireland reflects and is consistent with the laws governing online services in the EU, in particular the e-commerce directive. In particular, we highlight the need for national legislation to reflect the notice and take-down procedure specifically envisaged in the e-commerce directive at articles 12 to 14 together with the prohibition on imposing general monitoring obligations contained in article 15.

I will not repeat the point on the need for a definition of "harmful communication" which was made by every other witness except to say that we agree that a clear definition would provide legal clarity for all parties. We welcome Deputy Ó Laoghaire's comments in that regard. The delineation of responsibility between the digital safety commissioner and the Data Protection Commissioner merits deeper consideration as the Bill progresses, in particular in light of the Data Protection Commissioner's responsibility for dealing with complaints by individuals related to their data protection and privacy rights under the GDPR. As a general point, we ask the committee to ensure that any legislation is future-proofed by making it as technology and platform neutral as possible. I will finish there except to ask the committee to take those points on board as it continues its deliberations on the Bill. The suggested changes would make the legislation more effective and increase clarity in its application. I thank the committee for its time.