Google on the right to be forgotten

July 17th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

An op ed by the Chief Legal Office for at the Guardian:

When you search online there’s an unwritten assumption that you’ll get an instant answer, as well as additional information if you need to dig deeper. This is all possible because of two decades’ worth of investment and innovation by many different companies. Today, however, search engines across Europe face a new challenge – one we’ve had just two months to get our heads around. That challenge is figuring out what information we must deliberately omit from our results, following a ruling from the European Union’s court of justice.

In the past we’ve restricted the removals we make from search to a very short list. It includes information deemed illegal by a court (such as defamation), pirated content (once we’re notified by the right’s holder), malware, personal information such as bank details, child sexual abuse imagery and other things prohibited by local law (such as material that glorifies Nazism in Germany).

All reasonable – stuff where a court has made a decision, or things specifically prohibited by a statute.

We’ve taken this approach because, as article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

But the European court found that people have the right to ask for information to be removed from search results that include their names if it is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive”. In deciding what to remove search engines must also have regard to the public interest. These are, of course, very vague and subjective tests.

The result being that Google has to decide what information on people we are allowed to find!

It’s for these reasons that we disagree with the ruling. That said, we obviously respect the court’s authority and are doing our very best to comply quickly and responsibly. It’s a huge task, as we’ve had over 70,000 take-down requests covering 250,000 web pages since May. So we now have a team of people reviewing each application individually, in most cases with limited information and almost no context.

The examples we’ve seen so far highlight the difficult value judgments search engines and European society now face: former politicians wanting posts removed that criticise their policies in office; serious, violent criminals asking for articles about their crimes to be deleted; bad reviews for professionals like architects and teachers; comments that people have written themselves (and now regret). In each case someone wants the information hidden, while others might argue that it should be out in the open.

None of it should be hidden. The decision to remove content should be made by the original publisher, if anyone.

Tags:

9 Responses to “Google on the right to be forgotten”

  1. SHG (317 comments) says:

    There’s no way, for example, that Google could be expected to police all websites that contain the name “[deleted by DPF – don’t be cute”.

    For example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    @SHG
    And why would they?

    Tui Ad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wikiriwhis business (4,111 comments) says:

    “There’s no way, for example, that Google could be expected to police all websites that contain the name “[deleted by DPF]”.

    For example.”

    NSA does it so why not Google. Facebook as well which tracks all sites it members use.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. SHG (317 comments) says:

    Cuteness is not something I’m often accused of :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gravedodger (1,567 comments) says:

    Would there be a way to harness energy from pushing shit up sloping concrete with a rake?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. laworder (292 comments) says:

    I feel sorry for Google inc – the request by the European Court is completely unreasonable. Their previous guidelines were completely adequate.

    I suspect I already know the name and website SGH posted, and the case in question is a perfect example of why this ruling is such an appalling travesty. Everyone should be able to find out what this man has done.

    Regards
    Peter Jenkins

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Do criminals have a right to be forgotten?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Johnboy (16,964 comments) says:

    Perhaps our government could encourage them to incorporate and pay tax here if they allowed them to publish whatever they want! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. cricko (354 comments) says:

    Shock horror.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/dotcom-threatens-private-prosecution-6031106

    Duh !

    FFS . Duh !
    FFS Duh!

    and Duh!

    Oh fuck sumwun threats a a prosecutiom
    OMG

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote