Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 15 2015, @01:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the eraser dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Friday May 15 2015, @08:31PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 15 2015, @08:31PM (#183475)

    They don't have a monopoly. They have the best. If another search engine was better then more people would be using that one. The difficulty in switching search engines is so minimal that a cat walking across your keyboard could do it.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @11:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @11:39PM (#183568)

    Looks like you are yet another dumbfuck dictionary pedant who picks a single definition of a word and criticizes someone else for not using your definition despite the fact that the definition they did use is not controversial at all. Don't be that guy anymore, ok?

    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 15 2015, @11:59PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 15 2015, @11:59PM (#183579)

      Okay. You have convinced me that it is acceptable to invent meanings for words and use them in arguments while expecting other people to agree with the makeshift usage. Just like how your use of dumbfuck was describing a friendly pat on the back and smile in a lighthearted attempt to sway me to your side. Very clever of you!

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.