In May, a European court ruled that Google must remove "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" search results when an individual in the E.U., or potentially outside the region, asks it to.
It hasn't gone entirely smoothly. In July, Google removed and then reinstated links to the Guardian's website with no explanation. What's more, Google has run into some completely predictable issues with the court's vague ruling:
"Even if requesters provide us with accurate information, they understandably may avoid presenting facts that are not in their favour. As such, we may not become aware of relevant context that would speak in favour of preserving the accessibility of a search result. An example would be a request to remove an old article about a person being convicted of a number of crimes in their teenage years, which omits that the old article has its relevance renewed due to a recent article about that person being convicted for similar crimes as an adult. Or a requester may not disclose a role they play in public life, for which their previous reported activities or political positions are highly relevant."
Related Stories
The BBC reports:
A top EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".
The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.
Jane Wakefield reports at BBC that a man convicted of possessing child abuse images is among the first to request Google remove links to pages about his conviction after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results. Other takedown requests since the ruling include an ex-politician seeking re-election who has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed and a doctor who wants negative reviews from patients removed from google search results.
Google itself has not commented on the so-called right-to-be-forgotten ruling since it described the European Court of Justice judgement as being "disappointing". Marc Dautlich, a lawyer at Pinsent Masons, says that search engines might find the new rules hard to implement. "If they get an appreciable volume of requests what are they going to do? Set up an entire industry sifting through the paperwork?" says Dautlich. "I can't say what they will do but if I was them I would say no and tell the individual to contact the Information Commissioner's Office." The court said in its ruling that people could request the removal of data related to them that seem to be "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02 2014, @06:32PM
As explained in the Stanford Law Review [stanfordlawreview.org], "In Europe, the intellectual roots of the right to be forgotten can be found in French law, which recognizes the le droit a l'oubli - or "right of oblivion" a right that allows a convicted criminal who has served his time and been rehabilitated to object to the publication of the facts of his conviction and incarceration."
This is clearly a product of the same ideology that spawned European reactionary conservatism [202.154.59.182], a holdover from "modernist" market-based societies which, fortunately, the West has grown out of. In fact, just as we transcended Old Media [fastcompany.com] with its entrenched interests in guarding printed archives [www.bl.uk], we can subvert the contemporary encroachment of our online freedoms by demanding the right to access information without it being memory-holed [wordpress.com].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Saturday August 02 2014, @07:22PM
yes, but the reality of the internet and the vested interests against freedom of information (any body/group/govt/corps with any power vs citizens), makes it impossible to prevent abuse.
Besides google is just an index. Moving an entry to 1,000,000,000 in the list, might be ok as that is pretty much what advertisers pay for.
But asking them to remove anything is a very bad idea.
There are already libel laws on the books, perhaps what is needed for a "law of parity" for media organisations. Corrections should be published with same prominence of allegations that are subsequently discovered to be incorrect. Logically, the retraction would/should appear as a higher ranked item (say).
It is bad enough that google only encompasses a fraction of information anyway. Let me know when you file an FOIA how long that takes you....!
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday August 02 2014, @07:25PM
I assume that by 'the West' you mean the USA. We believe, in W Europe, that we are in the west too. The 'East' used to start with the old Warsaw Pact countries going eastwards. France is part of the West - and therefore their perception of privacy rights and the rehabilitation of offenders is also the product of a western nation
You then say 'has grown out of', implying that it is something that 'adults' wouldn't do. Just because someone doesn't agree with a certain point of view, or they live in a society that doesn't have exactly the same laws as, for example, the US doesn't make them wrong, or childish. They simply have a different point of view. These countries also often have a considerably longer history which has shaped their perceptions of right and wrong, and how they believe people have the right to be treated.
I agree that expecting Google to remove links to historic data is unrealistic and was always bound to be fraught with problems. However, the right of an individual to be rehabilitated into society after serving their punishment for a crime is not uncommon in Europe, and shouldn't be ignored simply because it is becoming more difficult to achieve. Should an individual be made to pay for his entire life for a minor crime that he committed while he was still young? Europe knows what it is trying to do -but it simply hasn't got the 'how' sorted out yet.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by naubol on Saturday August 02 2014, @10:35PM
I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you until that last sentence. In a way US history has a huge overlap with your history. For full disclosure, I'm a US citizen and resident. Defining the length of history is a little fuzzy, but we are taught that our law, our philosophy, our ethics, our art, the (slim and getting slimmer) majority of our genetics, and more, come in whole or in part from "western history". That we are a branch which, if followed, eventually down as it joins other branches, has at its roots the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece. Even the Greeks thought they were inheriting civilization from Egyptians and Macedonians. Where does this cultural inheritance begin?
If the whole human race picked up and moved to another planet, I would not claim that the human race had a history of precisely a minute only a minute after we landed on that planet. What defines the length of history? We have long cultural ties that continue to dominate our values and our methodology that we share with Western Europe. We share things globally as a result of history a millenia old.
So you might say, we have no ruins more than a thousand years old, but this is patently untrue! It would be a "whitewashing" of history, because US history isn't just a branch European history, as we have Native American sites that predate 1000 CE. We also feel the influence of the Aztecs, the Incas, and the Mayans. A significant section of our population is from Central and South America and they bring with them their history, too. Even die hard racists are heavily influenced by African culture imported (forcibly) from Africa. Early slave-owners may have tried to quash culture from the African continent, but it was by no means totally successful. We evolved musical strands that originated from Europe, the Americas, and Africa into rap, and, I can't help but notice, exported it to western Europe, as well as pretty much everywhere else.
If you feel that being immigrants means we do not carry a history with us that goes back to the discovery of wheat 12,000 years ago, from where did we get it? Where did we get corn if not from ancient sources in Mexico circa 2500 BCE? Horses? Guns? Are we somehow less culturally rich or diverse than western Europe? Is the best of our moral reasoning not every bit as complex as western Europe?
With your last sentence you seemed to make the same egregious error that the person you were responding to made.
The OP also had a point worth mentioning. You said, "...and shouldn't be ignored simply because it is becoming more difficult to achieve." Even if I accepted this argument, it doesn't persuade that it shouldn't be ignored. Maybe we shouldn't ignore it for reasons of eminent domain. That is, the net positive outcome to society of not hampering a business like Google with requests like these outweighs the individual's right to be forgotten.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:08PM
A good argument - thank you. I, too, was including the Greeks and some other Mediterranean cultures as being Western. But I contend that US law is significantly different from European law for the very reason that, as the immigrants began to arrive on the US shores many years ago, they had a chance to rewrite their laws starting from scratch. I know of no European country, for example, where the right to free speech is interpreted as it is in the US - nor do I particularly want Europe to follow the US view in this regard. Hate speech, incitement to commit crime, racially insulting speech etc, should, IMHO, be restricted. They serve no useful purpose that improves or enhances our lives yet can cause significant hurt and unrest unnecessarily. Being able to stand up and claim 'I can say anything that I want' doesn't appear to me to be a great cultural development or enhancement of individual rights. I am sure, however, that there are others who will disagree.
Being a mixture and melting pot of different cultures and backgrounds can, indeed, be a valuable benefit - providing that it is correctly exploited. But, as an example which might not apply in this instance, taking the worst of each of the cultures that comprise, say, the US does not produce a more advanced society than any of those individual countries. That is, it does not directly imply that by mixing you will achieve a better final result - you might, but equally, you might not.
I did not wish to imply that the Native Americans have not got a long and proud history - and apologise if that is the impression that I inadvertently gave - but very little of US law is based upon the history of the Native Americans. In fact, a very brief (and therefore incomplete) search for any evidence of such drew a blank. They have a long and proud history but it does not appear to have influenced how the US has developed over the last few centuries. I would be very happy to be proven wrong here and will welcome any evidence that someone might provide.
I do not believe that 'hampering a business like Google' should have any bearing on the rehabilitation of offenders. That sounds a bit like arguing that profit is more important than people. I simply do not agree with such a point of view. Expecting Google to be the sole arbiter of what is kept and what is deleted is wrong. That should be someone else's responsibility - preferably someone with a legal or judicial role who can look at both sides of the argument and decide accordingly. But our legal establishments in Europe haven't the capacity to even begin this task so I feel that the European requirement placed upon Google is a case of 'going off half-cocked' on the part of the EU Government. It should have been more thoroughly thought through beforehand.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday August 03 2014, @05:42PM
Uhm, we definitely didn't take the worst of every historical influence. :)
I think the basic structure of our law is definitely from Europe. However, we added a few things that we then re-exported to nearly every other contemporary 1st world country. I'm thinking of court of last resort (John G Marshall, thank you) and some ideas about how constitutions should be constructed (John Adams). I think one could successfully argue that the US has been shaped by European thinkers like Rousseau, Locke, Spinoza, Smith, etc. But, my real point is I don't think just your history is our history, but rather our history is becoming (a part) of your history, too. Globalization! woo!
How has native american culture changed ours?
* Cowboys
* Corn (and subsequently, USDA, farm subsidies, our nutrition for good or for ill)
* Iriquois government on our government
* Gorilla warfare (Guess how you conduct wars now...)
* Influence on the Quakers, Quaker influence on national politics
* http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html [cracked.com]
* http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/18/american-history-myths-debunked-no-native-influence-founding-fathers-113702 [indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com]
Actually, after Googling "native american influence" it is hard to believe that you actually googled. But, if you grew up in the southwest like I did, you'd see it literally everywhere. I think it is harder to see it NYC. But, it certainly comes through in a contemporary fashion with the transitive influence from Mexico and Central America. I have friends of 100% pure Mayan descent, and they still speak Mayan. Music, art, ethics, all there!
With regards to the actual topic at hand...
Profit is people, in a way. I'm not a luddite. I believe new technologies are disruptive and even reasonable people get irritated at how shitty/monopolistic the first company gets it done and resulting upheaval in etiquette and social mores that result. As soon as someone makes money off of it, someone else is claiming that pure greed is evil and leading to all of these horrible social results (oh noes we can no longer be anonymous!). Our sense of justice evolves, and how do you account for that? People resist it, they don't know how to behave in it. People write books about how awful it will be. Hey, this time they may just be right, even though they got it wrong with electricity, telephones, phonographs, telegraphs, railroads, etc. Probably some Simian ape was claiming that people had a right to exist in the dark and protesting the invention of fire and those DBags making all that money selling firewood.
I guess my point is, I don't think you're making a holistic argument, and I believe one is required, and claiming that it is all down to profits is basically an ad hominem and doesn't even make sense as an ad hominem. They're not the sole arbiters of what information they can keep or delete. At a minimum they're limited by physics, and they certainly don't have access to all information that is there. They do have to think about public perception, they are influenced by laws, they do have to think about the perception and morale of their employees, and they do have to worry about competition. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned with corporate behavior or try to use the law to shape policy, but to expect the same perspective on justice and what is proper to be maintained in the "onslaught of progress" is a little naive, I think.
To attempt to put it succinctly, they're doing something I really want somebody somewhere to be doing and they're saying that this principle of law is prohibitively difficult or impossible to follow while doing it. If they're right, then I think it bears us looking quite carefully at whether it is a principle of law is something we really need. I'm far less certain about the matter than you are, because I think it is difficult to see how it will all shake out. And, I guess I'm American enough to think that if government was the *sole* arbiter of things, that would be a problem, too. I believe in the tug of war.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 03 2014, @09:40PM
I think that we are agreeing more than disagreeing in this discussion. And I certainly did not wish to imply or make an ad hominem attack.
Perhaps to clarify a few points. I don't believe that Native American law has influenced US law by anything more than a jot. We were discussing an individual's rights, which to me is a point of law, and US law may have been influenced by European law but it is now very different, in both content and application. I do recognise the influence of the Native American on culture and a myriad of other aspects of American life but, in this argument, I must say that I believe that such influence has little relevance to the matter under discussion. This is not a challenge - simply my belief and understanding at this point in time, and I can see your own point of view on this aspect.
I separate the judicial system from government. I do not see the former as part of the latter, other than one is established by the other to uphold the rule of law. Indeed, the courts have often gone against the Government of the day - causing embarrassment and worse for the politicians involved. Therefore, to have the courts decide whether information should be deleted or kept (the task that we currently place on Google's shoulders, expecting them to be able to make such an assessment and then take the appropriate action) is, as I have already stated, a more appropriate way to decide what action it is necessary for Google to take. Perhaps it is very different in the US, but my knowledge of the US legal system is, I will readily acknowledge, limited.
I can accept most of your final paragraph but, to me, the individual's rights should always come before any company's profits (and, by implication in this instance, what should be done to protect an individual's private data and the right for them to continue with their lives in peace), and this does not deserve further consideration to review whether this should be changed. But that is my own belief - there is, probably, no 'correct' answer - and I'm not sure that any attempts to persuade me otherwise would be a justifiable use of your time!
Nevertheless, our conversation has given me much to think about. For that - thank you. However, it is now late here in Western Europe, and I am on the 'right' side of a few stiff drinks, so I intend to call it a day.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Saturday August 02 2014, @08:05PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Saturday August 02 2014, @09:59PM
A search engine's job is to be neutral, otherwise it's biased. Do you want biased search engines?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 03 2014, @02:33PM
The same logic would mean banks should not need to implement anti-money laundry nor tax laws.
Yet any bank in the world which refused to help identify terrorists or criminals, or refused to help identify US citizens living outside of the US would be prosecuted by the US Govt and fined heavily, possibly losing the ability to transact with any US bank.
Your ideal of what is "a search engine's job" has no bearing on the law nor court rulings. The EU court ruled that Google have to do a thing, then Google can either do it, or GTFO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04 2014, @09:34AM
your bank example is a an example of abuse of power
yes banks should not care about the origin of money, or whether you pay your taxes
(on the other hand the government shouldn't care whether banks go bankrupt either)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:14AM
My take is that Google is only required to remove links that contain information that is no longer relevant. From the summary, they receive links to anything the person doesn't like -- and Google, in trying to keep their results relevant, doesn't necessarily want to, or have to, remove every link. (For example, someone could claim an article about them being on the home page of some site (like the Guardian), and Google shouldn't need to/have to remove that.)
More likely, in the examples given (there's nothing extra in the "article"...), Google is receiving requests to remove information about an individual that _is_ still relevant -- such as links to articles and facts that could explain policital motivations behind actions. This is causing Google to have to be the judge as to everything that's relevant or not, and Google's having trouble determining whether a given link is actually relevant or not.
As an aside, It seems Google isn't just blindly removing everything they're given (which is nice for the rest of us).
(Score: 1) by romlok on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:39AM
Except being judge of what is relevant or not is what a search engine is supposed to do! Google judge relevance all day, every day, for every single search performed on their website. This is exactly their job!
All this has effectively done is give Google another source of relevance data. Except this one they are legally required to consider.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 05 2014, @12:32AM
Yeah. They're also *legally liable* for this one. If someone disputes their decision normally -- well too bad, Google can do whatever they want. But if someone dispute's Google's assessment on the relevance of one of these links, it could cost Google thousands, even millions, for *every single link*. THAT is why they have a problem with this!
Yes, determining relevance is exactly what a search engine does. But this law says they now have to be prepared to defend their decision on the relevance of every single link they index before a court of law. For an index the size of Google's, that isn't just a challenge, it's completely impossible.
(Score: 1) by romlok on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:16AM
Not quite. It's perfectly within the scope of the order that Google can kick any request up to the relevant national data-protection organisation, and let them make the relevancy decision.
AIUI, Google are not legally obliged to get it right first time. If they refuse to remove something, then the submitter of the request can go to their local courts or data protection org, and try and convince them that Google should have removed the data. Only if Google refuse any subsequent explicit order would they face the prospect of a fine.
Hyperbole much? They only have to defend the relevance of specific links that 1) Have been requested to be removed, 2) Google refused to remove, and 3) The requester cared enough to go to the courts to get removed after Google's refusal.
To me, it sounds a lot like how the DMCA works in the US.
(Score: 1) by romlok on Sunday August 03 2014, @12:52AM
My understanding is that it's not requesting that sites get removed from the index entirely, only that they are not shown for specific search terms (peoples' names).
So if someone searches for "Fnord666", the first result might be a link to a news article titled "Fnord666 arrested for tickling goats". And perhaps on the 17th page is a news article titled "Fnord666 cleared of tickling goats".
So AIUI, using this process you could request that links to that article be disassociated with your name, such that a search for "Fnord666" brings up just your kitten photos. Yet searching for "Fnord666 goat tickling", or "goat tickling arrest", could still show the aforementioned news articles (but probably both on the first page, due to the more specific search term).
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 04 2014, @02:49AM
Did you know that Fnord666's goat tickling arrest now returns a result from Google [google.com]? And if it is in Google's index then it must be true...
1702845791×2