I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable.
If that's the case, and the 'removal' is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed.
Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant. It would be awesome to see this as the Streisand effect writ large - everything that people want to see buried actually gets a new surge of attention.
The Guardian reported[1] that they were at least considering a notice at the bottom of a search result page that had a result removed, like they do with DMCA requests.
If that's the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forgotten requests.
On the other hand, reprinting DMCA takedown notices is protected by the First Amendment in the US, but reprinting right to be forgotten requests may be frowned upon by EU courts.
Edit: according the newer Guardian piece that thegregjones posted above, there is a warning[2], but just a "Learn more" link, no link to the actual removal request.
This is actually a very good outcome. It will end up with those things where people do not mind something being forgotten actually being forgotten, while the decision to revive the content is still a perfectly viable option.
There's a possible darker side to this, of course.
Today, the following story -- regarding an ex-member of the British Cabinet and a paedophile network -- started gaining a lot of traction in the UK, mainly because there are an increasing number of Members of Parliament (MPs) demanding an inquiry[0]:
Coincidentally, Google have begun removing articles relating to the story[1] -- for example, the search "Leon Brittan PIE" will return -- at the bottom of the page:
"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."
Currently, for this notice, chillingeffects.org returns[2]:
"Notice Unavailable: The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available. Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it."
Coincidence or not, it's a troubling how easily this mechanism can be abused.
This is a great example of the Streisand effect [0] -- trying to hide something draws attention to it.
Specifically, I now know about Stan O'Neal, who "was forced out of Merrill [Lynch] after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." Google may no longer be showing the original result, but now I see the reason for the original article and the fact that he wanted it hidden.
A Google UK search on Stan O'Neal from within the UK yields the wikipedia page, then at #2 a Salon article explaining how Google has given notice to Mr Peston that the original BBC article may be de-indexed. The next half dozen links are pretty critical of Mr O'Neal as well.
Oddly, this new BBC page is not apparent in the index (yet).
Spot on. All this will do for the person trying to erase their past is drag up old memories and re-syndicate whatever they are running away from. More eyeballs, more indexing of new pages, more edits to the Wikipedia page, more comments on social media.
This is really good and should be the top article, not the rather silly BBC piece.
Speaking of the Streisand effect, if you search for "Dougie McDonald Guardian" on google.co.uk as it suggests, the offending links are gone, but now all the top links are to stories about the offending links.
Or just make it hard to find all the instances. For example, this article itself references the content in the article that was removed from search results. The effectiveness of having the original link removed is probably very minimal unless this page is also removed.
Ultimately, it's a race. The "hider" has to find all the things they want hidden and explicitly list them. As long as the content spreads faster than it is banned, the banning is negated.
I think there are games being played here. The European Court ruled that some things should be made harder to find (revenge porn, obvious slander, spent convictions etc.).
Google don't want to do this and are trying to make a mockery of the ruling removing from the results anything that they are asked to as long as it is about a person with the very aim of stirring a backlash against the ruling. Requests to take down important stories from major news organisations are the perfect way to do this provided that they keep the blame on the EU not on their implementation.
I haven't read the ruling but I'm pretty sure that there is some leeway for judgement and for Google to have a process to decide on these cases rather than having to comply with every single request.
I would need to understand the ruling better to come down with a full view about whether it is right or not. On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage and they should carry some responsibility for them on the other legitimate stories of real public interest and information about serious wrongdoing shouldn't be censored.
Should Google try to interpret the ruling as closely as possible, only blocking the most clearly irrelevant information, and honoring requests for appeals from journalists whenever possible? That would limit damage to those seeking information, but risk another turn at the courts.
Or should they just implement it as broadly and bluntly as possible, lowering their risk of noncompliance, reducing their costs of evaluating each case, while increasing the chance that people will start to grasp the negative consequences they argued about to the court?
Despite the near term harms, if we're worried more about the long run, there's a case to be made for the latter...
There should be a name for deliberately making a big fuss of following every regulation as expansively as possible to prove a point; inverse civil disobedience, civil obedience maybe?
> Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it.
Could Google legally get around this ruling by claiming that recent deletion requests inherently make the data in question relevant? Since the right to be forgotten is important news, the stories about people requesting the deletion of their data (and what kinds of data are being deleted) is very relevant. It's the equivalent of the "every number is interesting" paradox.
Edit: proper quote from the ruling is actually "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive"
The problem is your dealing with a court who decided that the _search result_ should be deleted and not the web page that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive". I would not bother arguing logically with them.
I wonder if Google is making a statement here about the ruling. They've been really vocal about how they are taking away "useful" (certainly in the sense of background checks) information that is in places people don't expect to be censored (like newspapers).
This will lead people to point out that they can go to the city library and look at the back issue of the newspaper and it won't be censored there. And that will lead to the question of what is, and what is not, the public record and what sort of damage to that record is tolerated in the interest of justice.
If an article was written about me committing murder, and I want that "forgotten", then I will request google to take the info down in the EU. Great. A background checking company goes to "www.google.com" and finds that article. They don't give a shit that they are in France and should abide by the french blocks, or they'll use a proxy. That's the point, this is completely stupid and prevents a common untrained person from accessing the information, but does nothing for background checks and the like.
I do this "for a living". Reputation Management is when you pay someone like me to make that result fall to the 5th page of Google so people searching for you only see the happy fun stuff you have done.
What is missing from the implementation from Google, that Google really needs to be "fair" is an OPT OUT.
You see when I go in and fix a reputation by outranking bad stuff with good, the bad stuff is still there if you know what you are looking for.
BBC JOHN DOE KILLS BABYSITTER is not going away, just not showing up when you Google JOHN DOE BABYSITTER because I will have place the top 40 results with things about How awesome SUSAN THE 16 YEAR OLD is who is now JOHN DOE's babysitter.
If Google did an OPT OUT, you would be able to say, "I am John Doe of Hicksville, IN" here is my picture, remove me from the interwebs. And nothing about you would be there. No good, No Bad.
Is this just me having sour grapes that my business of shaping reality is going away? No. If anything this is good for business. People will want what the EU has and flock to me.
For those who think I am a bad person. Yeah, I know that http://www.blackwaterops.com didn't pick its name because we thought we were the good guys.
But at the same time a lot of what we do is good. We work with organizations that share the name with bad people. You know how hard it is when you share the name with a serial killer to get a job even after that serial killer was executed?
You know how hard it is to recover from stuff 20+ years after the the Jack in the Box ecoli outbreak?
Or being named Play Boy's Hottest X and then trying to get a job working with kids? Even if you didn't ask to be associated with Play Boy?
I don't understand; did they single out Google, or does the ruling also apply to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Apple, Facebook, and many other companies that cache results?
Search engines may cache information, but the content usually originates on some other hosting site. Those hundreds of thousands of hosting sites may still have the content, so what the Court is saying is all the more silly--you must disallow search results if anyone in the world opts out.
I say, Google should just go about its business and if EC doesn't like it, Google should pull out of Europe and just allow anyone to access it from overseas servers. It will be just like China, which blocks Google.
Information wants to be free. This is a huge step backward.
I also received (yesterday) this same message from Google:
Subject: [Webmaster Tools] Notice of removal from Google Search
"We regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google: [one url with a post in my site] For more information, see www.google .com/policies/faq/?hl=en
The post in my site that was blocked by Google had only some catalog information about a car dealer in Netherlands and I could not understand why it was removed by Google search.
Clearly this person should sue Google on the grounds that all of the time, effort and energy they put into their blog entry means that it has a "right to be remembered". Or, at the very least, they have a right to a specific explanation about why it is being blocked, so they can challenge it properly (ultimately in court, if necessary).
I'm seeing a catch-22: by writing and posting this article this article made the other article relevant. And Stan O'Neal, if he requested it deleted, is relevant again - albeit in a context of filing a removal notice.
[+] [-] natosaichek|11 years ago|reply
If that's the case, and the 'removal' is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed.
Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant. It would be awesome to see this as the Streisand effect writ large - everything that people want to see buried actually gets a new surge of attention.
[+] [-] magicalist|11 years ago|reply
If that's the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forgotten requests.
On the other hand, reprinting DMCA takedown notices is protected by the First Amendment in the US, but reprinting right to be forgotten requests may be frowned upon by EU courts.
Edit: according the newer Guardian piece that thegregjones posted above, there is a warning[2], but just a "Learn more" link, no link to the actual removal request.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-sea...
[2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg
[+] [-] Mithaldu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mr_P|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitJericho|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auxbuss|11 years ago|reply
Today, the following story -- regarding an ex-member of the British Cabinet and a paedophile network -- started gaining a lot of traction in the UK, mainly because there are an increasing number of Members of Parliament (MPs) demanding an inquiry[0]:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/02/lord-brittan...
The story itself has been around for decades.
Coincidentally, Google have begun removing articles relating to the story[1] -- for example, the search "Leon Brittan PIE" will return -- at the bottom of the page:
"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."
Currently, for this notice, chillingeffects.org returns[2]:
"Notice Unavailable: The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available. Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it."
Coincidence or not, it's a troubling how easily this mechanism can be abused.
[0] http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5282/pressure-builds-in-pa...
[1] http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/google-searches-for...
[2] http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1719125
[+] [-] lotharbot|11 years ago|reply
Specifically, I now know about Stan O'Neal, who "was forced out of Merrill [Lynch] after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." Google may no longer be showing the original result, but now I see the reason for the original article and the fact that he wanted it hidden.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[+] [-] keithpeter|11 years ago|reply
Oddly, this new BBC page is not apparent in the index (yet).
[+] [-] gnerd|11 years ago|reply
Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all.
[+] [-] thegregjones|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicalist|11 years ago|reply
Speaking of the Streisand effect, if you search for "Dougie McDonald Guardian" on google.co.uk as it suggests, the offending links are gone, but now all the top links are to stories about the offending links.
[+] [-] HNJohnC|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] B-Con|11 years ago|reply
Ultimately, it's a race. The "hider" has to find all the things they want hidden and explicitly list them. As long as the content spreads faster than it is banned, the banning is negated.
[+] [-] outside1234|11 years ago|reply
Google is going to slowly be asked to forget all of Europe, including the holocaust (since this is a stain on the families involved).
This will cause a backlash against "erasing European history"
And then they will repeal this.
All through this, Google will be the villain, not the ding-dongs running the EU.
[+] [-] valas|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|11 years ago|reply
I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid.
[+] [-] josephlord|11 years ago|reply
Google don't want to do this and are trying to make a mockery of the ruling removing from the results anything that they are asked to as long as it is about a person with the very aim of stirring a backlash against the ruling. Requests to take down important stories from major news organisations are the perfect way to do this provided that they keep the blame on the EU not on their implementation.
I haven't read the ruling but I'm pretty sure that there is some leeway for judgement and for Google to have a process to decide on these cases rather than having to comply with every single request.
I would need to understand the ruling better to come down with a full view about whether it is right or not. On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage and they should carry some responsibility for them on the other legitimate stories of real public interest and information about serious wrongdoing shouldn't be censored.
[+] [-] privong|11 years ago|reply
The difficulty with following that logic is in the blurry middle area. Where is the line drawn and who makes that decision?
[+] [-] kintamanimatt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] htns|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brownbat|11 years ago|reply
Or should they just implement it as broadly and bluntly as possible, lowering their risk of noncompliance, reducing their costs of evaluating each case, while increasing the chance that people will start to grasp the negative consequences they argued about to the court?
Despite the near term harms, if we're worried more about the long run, there's a case to be made for the latter...
[+] [-] vbuterin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j2kun|11 years ago|reply
Could Google legally get around this ruling by claiming that recent deletion requests inherently make the data in question relevant? Since the right to be forgotten is important news, the stories about people requesting the deletion of their data (and what kinds of data are being deleted) is very relevant. It's the equivalent of the "every number is interesting" paradox.
Edit: proper quote from the ruling is actually "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive"
[+] [-] spinlock|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gress|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
This will lead people to point out that they can go to the city library and look at the back issue of the newspaper and it won't be censored there. And that will lead to the question of what is, and what is not, the public record and what sort of damage to that record is tolerated in the interest of justice.
[+] [-] Justsignedup|11 years ago|reply
If an article was written about me committing murder, and I want that "forgotten", then I will request google to take the info down in the EU. Great. A background checking company goes to "www.google.com" and finds that article. They don't give a shit that they are in France and should abide by the french blocks, or they'll use a proxy. That's the point, this is completely stupid and prevents a common untrained person from accessing the information, but does nothing for background checks and the like.
[+] [-] drakaal|11 years ago|reply
What is missing from the implementation from Google, that Google really needs to be "fair" is an OPT OUT.
You see when I go in and fix a reputation by outranking bad stuff with good, the bad stuff is still there if you know what you are looking for.
BBC JOHN DOE KILLS BABYSITTER is not going away, just not showing up when you Google JOHN DOE BABYSITTER because I will have place the top 40 results with things about How awesome SUSAN THE 16 YEAR OLD is who is now JOHN DOE's babysitter.
If Google did an OPT OUT, you would be able to say, "I am John Doe of Hicksville, IN" here is my picture, remove me from the interwebs. And nothing about you would be there. No good, No Bad.
Is this just me having sour grapes that my business of shaping reality is going away? No. If anything this is good for business. People will want what the EU has and flock to me.
For those who think I am a bad person. Yeah, I know that http://www.blackwaterops.com didn't pick its name because we thought we were the good guys.
But at the same time a lot of what we do is good. We work with organizations that share the name with bad people. You know how hard it is when you share the name with a serial killer to get a job even after that serial killer was executed?
You know how hard it is to recover from stuff 20+ years after the the Jack in the Box ecoli outbreak?
Or being named Play Boy's Hottest X and then trying to get a job working with kids? Even if you didn't ask to be associated with Play Boy?
[+] [-] jstalin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|11 years ago|reply
Search engines may cache information, but the content usually originates on some other hosting site. Those hundreds of thousands of hosting sites may still have the content, so what the Court is saying is all the more silly--you must disallow search results if anyone in the world opts out.
I say, Google should just go about its business and if EC doesn't like it, Google should pull out of Europe and just allow anyone to access it from overseas servers. It will be just like China, which blocks Google.
Information wants to be free. This is a huge step backward.
[+] [-] grrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsiqueira|11 years ago|reply
"We regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google: [one url with a post in my site] For more information, see www.google .com/policies/faq/?hl=en
The post in my site that was blocked by Google had only some catalog information about a car dealer in Netherlands and I could not understand why it was removed by Google search.
[+] [-] fortuitous|11 years ago|reply
This can only get better.
[+] [-] fpgeek|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webhat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martco|11 years ago|reply
"Although the BBC has had the notice from Google that my article will not show up in some searches, it doesn't appear to have implemented this yet."
[+] [-] fmax30|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RexRollman|11 years ago|reply