Google Inc. moved to highlight the issue of government censorship and demands for information about Web users, just as the Internet company came under fire from a group of government officials over the way it handles user privacy. 
 
 The Silicon Valley giant Tuesday disclosed for the first time the number of requests it has received from government agencies for data about its users. Google also disclosed how many government requests it gets to remove content from its search engine, YouTube video site, Blogger blogging software and other services. 
 
 Jessica Vascellaro and Julia Angwin talk to Simon Constable about the letter issued by 10 countries demanding that Google build more privacy protections into its services. 
 
 Google is also showing how often it complies with government demands to remove Web content and said it later plans to include how often it turns over data on users. Google's disclosure tool, an online country map, excluded data for China where Google says numerating the requests would be illegal. 
 
 David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, said the company decided that "greater transparency" about its activities could lead to less censorship. "We hope this tool will shine some light on the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe," he wrote in a blog post. 
 
 Google's move comes as its critics continue to accuse the company and its peers of being reckless with user data. On Tuesday, a group of privacy commissioners from countries including Canada, France and the United Kingdom held a press conference to push Google to build better privacy protections into its services. On Monday, the group sent a letter scolding Google over privacy. 
 
 A Google spokesman said the company "released the tool now because we thought it would be useful in conversations about this trend." 
 
 Google is pushing a broad campaign to try to curb censorship, an issue that contributed to a recent decision to shut down its censored search service in China. While Google faces heightened criticism for not doing enough to explain how it uses the information it collects, the company is trying to draw attention to other entities that seek user data. 
 
 Privacy advocates—who have long hounded Internet companies to be more open about how they use what they collect—praised the move. "It puts some numbers behind all the stories we have," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based digital rights non-proft organization. 
 
 Others cautioned the raw numbers are hard to interpret, in part because there is little to compare them with. But they said that showing how countries stack up is a first step. 
 
 Google says government requests for user data go through Google's legal team, which examines each to see if it is valid based on the law, narrows the request if possible and complies only when it must legally do so. Some requests are backed by court order; others aren't. 
 
 View Full Image Associated Press A Google sign at Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. 
 
 The company says it tries to notify users when information about their accounts has been requested. A Google spokesman said it is sometimes asked for account and log-in information. 
 
 The company's new disclosure tool shows that Brazil made the most requests for user data during the last six months of 2009, with 3,663. The U.S. was second with 3,580. Brazil also led with 291 requests for removal of content, with Germany in second place and the U.S. fourth, behind India. 
 
 Brazil's Ministério Público Federal, its federal prosecution service, said in a statement late Tuesday that it "acts based on reports of crime or complaints received directly from users" or forwarded by a nonprofit dedicated to child safety, according to a translation of the statement. 
 
 "The information released today by Google demonstrates the care with which all levels of law enforcement agencies treat electronically protected data," said a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. She said the number of requests in the U.S. "reflects a targeted approach by law enforcement agencies to effectively root out" crimes by criminals such as identity thieves and child predators. 
 
 The Mountain View, Calif., company stressed limitations to the data, which don't include countries where it receives a small amount of requests or statistics that could jeopardize important investigations. In the case of YouTube, the company said the data doesn't include requests by government agencies for removal of copyrighted content. 
 
 In their Monday letter to Google, the privacy commissioners scolded the company for what they describe as a range of privacy abuses, ranging from inadequate protections in its social-networking service Buzz to its procedures for retaining images it gathers for its Street View mapping services. It calls on Google to create "privacy-protective" default settings and make it easy for people to delete their accounts, among other measures. 
 
 "We are increasingly concerned that, too often, the privacy rights of the world's citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications," reads the letter, which also asks for Google to issue it a response for how it plans to meet these requirements. "Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world," it states. 
 
 A Google spokesman said in its response to the letter Monday that the company has "discussed all these issues publicly many times before" and had nothing to add. 
 
 European authorities have been among the Internet giant's harshest critics when it comes to privacy issues, pressuring the company to shorten the time it retains search logs, for example. 
 
 European governments blasted a settlement between Google, authors and publishers over digital books in part over concerns with what Google would do with users' reading records. 
 
 Criticism is the U.S has been building too. A group of lawmakers recently asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google's roll-out of its Buzz service, which they contend exposed private information about Google users. Monday's letter also dwells on Buzz, claiming its launch "betrayed a disappointing disregard for fundamental privacy norms and laws." Days after launching Buzz, Google acknowledged it should have made some user privacy controls more prominent and adjusted the service. 
 
 Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com ||||| AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, Apple and LinkedIn to call for reforms to restore the public's trust in the internet 
 
 The world's leading technology companies have united to demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws, urging an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public's “trust in the internet”. 
 
 In their most concerted response yet to disclosures by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL have published an open letter to Barack Obama and Congress on Monday, throwing their weight behind radical reforms already proposed by Washington politicians. 
 
 “The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual – rights that are enshrined in our constitution,” urges the letter signed by the eight US-based internet giants. “This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for change.” 
 
 Several of the companies claim the revelations have shaken public faith in the internet and blamed spy agencies for the resulting threat to their business interests. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” said Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel. “Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” 
 
 The chief executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, said: “Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world." 
 
 Silicon Valley was initially sceptical of some allegations about NSA practices made by Snowden but as more documentary evidence has emerged in the Guardian and other newspapers detailing the extent of western surveillance capabilities, its eight leading players – collectively valued at $1.4tn – have been stung into action amid fears of commercial damage. 
 
 “We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens,” they say in the letter. “But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.” 
 
 A separate list of five “reform principles” signed by the normally fiercely competitive group echoes measures to rein in the NSA contained in bipartisan legislation proposed by the Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, and the Republican author of the Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. 
 
 Crucially, Silicon Valley and these key reformers in Congress now agree the NSA should no longer be allowed to indiscriminately gather vast quantities of data from individuals it does not have cause to suspect of terrorism in order to detect patterns or in case it is needed in future. 
 
 “Governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of internet communications,” says the companies' new list of principles. 
 
 They also argue that requests for companies to hand over individual data should be limited by new rules that balance the “need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the internet”. 
 
 This places them in direct conflict with Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who is sponsoring a rival bill that would enshrine the right of security agencies to collect bulk data. 
 
 Feinstein, who represents California, has been accused by critics of being a cheerleader for Washington's intelligence committee but now faces opposition from her state's largest industry. 
 
 The companies also repeat a previous demand that they should be allowed to disclose how often surveillance requests are made but this is the first time they have come together with such wide-ranging criticism of the underlying policy. 
 
 The industry's lobbying power has been growing in Washington and could prove a tipping point in the congressional reform process, which has been delayed by the autumn budget deadlock but is likely to return as a central issue in the new year. 
 
 The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests. 
 
 The eight technology companies also hint at new fears, particularly that competing national responses to the Snowden revelations will not only damage their commercial interests but also lead to a balkanisation of the web as governments try to prevent internet companies from escaping overseas. 
 
 “The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust, 21st century, global economy,” the companies argue in the list of reform principles. “Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.” 
 
 And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal disputes and damage to international trade otherwise. 
 
 “In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty – or “MLAT” – processes,” say the companies. “Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.” 
 
 Official responses to the Snowden revelations have been angriest in countries subject to US surveillance such as Germany and Brazil, but more muted in countries such as Britain and Australia, whose governments are close partners of the NSA. 
 
 Martha Lane Fox, who recently resigned as the British government's digital champion, responded to the new letter by expressing concern at the lack of understanding of both the scale and complexity of the surveillance story within Britain's government. 
 
 "We do have an issue in this country among the corporate world, the political establishment and the general population where we have a shortage of skills and understanding for the digital age," she told the Guardian. "There is an absence of a clear, coherent debate around this subject in this country and it's a very big issue that will only become more frequent the more technologically dependent we become." 
 
 She pointed to comments made by the former Conservative home office minister Lord Blencathra and the Labour peer Lord Soley, who both expressed concern at the scope of surveillance by the security services. 
 
 "[The government] needs to listen to people, to examine whether their policies are fit for the digital age. It's not that people aren't used to their data being collected, but what it is being collected for, and there needs to be a distinction between the average person and a security threat." 
 
 The eight internet companies behind the new letter also acknowledge that business also has a responsibility to protect privacy. 
 
 “For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure, deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorised surveillance on our networks, and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope,” they conclude. 
 
 “We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.” 
 
 Google, Twitter, Yahoo and last week Microsoft have all responded to public concerns over surveillance by increasing the security of their products, introducing “perfect forward secrecy” encryption to protect information travelling on their internal systems. 
 
 "The security of users' data is critical, which is why we've invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information,” said Google's chief executive, Larry Page. 
 
 “This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It's time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” ||||| Rick Wilking / REUTERS 
 
 Civil liberties groups and public interest advocates have been urging Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, to be more forthcoming about user data requests made by the U.S. government for months. Recently, the companies’ shareholders joined the chorus demanding that Verizon and AT&T follow the example of the nation’s largest Internet giants, including Google, Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook, which all publish transparency reports. 
 
 It appears that Verizon has been listening. On Thursday, the $140 billion telecom titan announced that it will begin publishing an online report providing data on the number of law enforcement requests for customer information that the company receives in the U.S. and other countries. Verizon’s announcement comes one day after President Barack Obama’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies recommended significant reforms at the National Security Agency, and constitutes the latest impact from the blockbuster disclosures delivered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. 
 
 “All companies are required to provide information to government agencies in certain circumstances,” Randal S. Milch, Verizon’s executive vice president for public policy and general counsel, said in a statement, “and this new report is intended to provide more transparency about law enforcement requests. Although we have a legal obligation to provide customer information to law enforcement in response to lawful demands, we take seriously our duty to provide such information only when authorized by law.” 
 
 (MORE: NSA Spying Scandal Could Cost U.S. Tech Giants Billions) 
 
 Verizon said that its transparency report will identify the total number of law enforcement agency requests received from governments in criminal cases, to the extent permitted by law. The report will break out this data under categories such as subpoenas, court orders and warrants. The company said it is working with the U.S. government regarding the detail the company can report on the number of National Security Letters (NSLs) it receives. Verizon will become the first telecom company to issue such a report. 
 
 However, Verizon’s report will not separately disclose information about other national security requests received by the company, including orders made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the controversial law that facilitates many NSA programs. (NSLs are requests for communications records made directly by the FBI when the government is conducting national security investigations. Thus far, no company has been granted permission to separately disclose requests made under FISA.) 
 
 The largest Internet companies are waging a legal battle with the U.S. government to be more transparent about national security data requests, including those made under FISA. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo and LinkedIn have petitioned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) — a secret panel made up of 11 federal judges appointed by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts — asking for permission to disclose statistics about the nature and scope of government requests made under FISA. The Justice Department has opposed the companies’ petition. 
 
 In a statement, Verizon’s Milch alluded obliquely to the Snowden revelations. “In the past year, there has been greater focus than ever on the use of legal demands by governments around the world to obtain customer data,” he said. “Like others in the industry, the aim of our transparency report is to keep our customers informed about government requests for their data and how we respond to those requests. Verizon calls on governments around the world to provide more information on the types and amounts of data they collect and the legal processes that apply when they do so.” 
 
 (MORE: AT&T to Shareholders: No NSA Snooping Data for You) 
 
 Sarah Morris, Senior Policy Counsel at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, a public interest organization that has been leading the campaign for greater transparency with respect to U.S. surveillance programs, praised Verizon’s decision. “We’ve had our differences in the past with Verizon on issues such as net neutrality, but it looks like we are united in our belief that surveillance transparency reporting by telephone and Internet companies should be the norm going forward,” she said. “We hope that Verizon’s upcoming transparency report sets a strong standard for the telecom industry and that other telephone companies will soon follow suit and issue their own reports.” 
 
 Last month, shareholders filed a proposal asking AT&T and Verizon to be more transparent about government requests for user information, including demands made by the NSA under FISA. The New York State Common Retirement Fund, which manages $160.7 billion on behalf of more than one million state employees and retirees, is leading the effort, along with Trillium Asset Management, a Boston-based investment firm with more than $1.3 billion under management. 
 
 AT&T’s response was, in a word, “No.” In a letter sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said it wants to exclude the shareholder proposal from its next annual meeting because it pertains to “ordinary business operations” that are the purview of the company’s management and board, not rank and file shareholders. AT&T apparently wants to avoid what could be a heated debate at the company’s next annual meeting about its role in the government’s controversial national security surveillance programs. 
 
 In contrast, Verizon is moving proactively to plan the telecom industry’s first major transparency report. Jonas Kron, Senior Vice President and Director of Shareholder Advocacy for Trillium Asset Management, said his firm is “gratified that Verizon appears to have embraced the position that shareholders set out in a proposal filed in November.” In the coming weeks, AT&T will face intensifying pressure to follow Verizon’s lead. Already, there are signs that AT&T might soften its stance. Reached by TIME, AT&T spokesperson Mark A. Siegel offered the following comment: “While we have disclosed a lot of information in this area, we are always exploring ways to do more,” Siegel said.
– Google has won the praise of privacy advocates by rolling out a tool that shows just how often governments ask for information about its users. Of the countries listed on Google Disclosure—which omits China—Brazil leads the way with 3,663 requests for data during the second half of 2009, the Wall Street Journal reports. The US is second with 3,580 requests. The tool also reveals demands that certain content be removed. Each request for information is run through the company's legal department, said a Google spokesman. "We hope this tool will shine some light on the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe," said Google's chief legal officer. "We also hope that this is just the first step toward increased transparency about these actions across the technology and communications industries."