SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google's Transparency Report reveals that since the Court of Justice of the European Union's ruling on May 13, 2014 that established "the right to be forgotten" for Europeans, Google has received 255,143 requests to remove a total of 925,586 URLs. Google removed 323,482 of those URLs (41.3%).
However, that effort isn't enough for some:
Google is receiving a telling off from the UK's Information Commissioner's Office and may face legal action after failing to adequately respond to several so-called "right to be forgotten" requests. The ICO told The Register that "since the details of the ruling were first announced, we have handled over 183 complaints from those unhappy with Google's response to their takedown request". The ICO estimates that Google has mismanaged individuals' requests to remove their information in a quarter of cases.
The independent UK body set up to uphold information rights also says it will now be looking to resolve the 48 remaining cases "through discussion and negotiation with Google, though we have enforcement powers available to us if required".
In addition, 80 legal experts have written an open letter to Google demanding more data about how Google responds to removal requests:
What We Seek
Aggregate data about how Google is responding to the >250,000 requests to delist links thought to contravene data protection from name search results. We should know if the anecdotal evidence of Google's process is representative: What sort of information typically gets delisted (e.g., personal health) and what sort typically does not (e.g., about a public figure), in what proportions and in what countries?
Why It's Important
Google and other search engines have been enlisted to make decisions about the proper balance between personal privacy and access to information. The vast majority of these decisions face no public scrutiny, though they shape public discourse. What's more, the values at work in this process will/should inform information policy around the world. A fact-free debate about the RTBF is in no one's interest.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedGreen on Friday May 15 2015, @05:29PM
"The idea here is that when you searched something before Google/search-engines, you would get lot's of current relevant results. Due to search engines and that they mostly work on ranking by popularity you can get decade old results of a bankruptcy instead of current relevant information on a thriving business. That can scare people away."
Red herring decade old results are not going to be popular unless they are relevant and linked in todays world. They will be buried hundreds of pages deep as their age and lack of links to them would warrant. Just in case you have not noticed how search engines work even with a new topic of today with all the garbage that is spewed by them now I have to go 5 or 10 pages deep on a lot of searches just to find relevant information.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2015, @12:08PM
Wrong: https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=Todd+Cameron+Smith [google.com]
All the top results for this guy's name refers to his role as the gunman in a 1999 school shooting. It's unlikely that his actions as an abused teenager reflect in any way on his character 15 years later, but good luck getting a job if that's your name.
If you've ever faced a trial-by-media, then chances are that will be your "Internet criminal record" forever, even if you are innocent, and even if the courts find you innocent.