The "right to be forgotten" is a doublespeak - it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech. I have no idea how the EU justice system works but I hope they have the means to correct this serious error.
No it isn't. You can still do research and publish stories like 'John Doe, running for office, was convicted of littering 20 years ago...' You just won't be able to rely on a search engine to gather all that information for you; you'll have to research your subject a more old-fashioned way, looking through all the stories from the period. The only actors constrained under this regime are search engines, and I'm not sure algorithmically generated search results rise to the level of political speech as they're not expressive of an opinion.
I have no idea how the EU justice system works
Then why not inform yourself before making grand pronouncements on what counts as error? There are other legal philosophies besides the one you adhere to, you know.
I don't think it's that clear cut, there are some inherent challenges related to privacy and internet, a persons past that may influence future opportunities in a way that's not really fair. In fact, Eric Schmidt has expressed that same sentiment publicly.
I think one of the issues with the ECHR is that to be a judge on the court, you don't actually have to have worked as a judge. You just need good moral character and law qualifications [1]
"They included a link to a blog post by Economics Editor Robert Peston. The request was believed to have been made by a person who had left a comment underneath the article."
Now that's a good example of a feature fighting the product. Disable article commenting: you might miss out on engagement and subsequent pageviews. Enable commenting: you might get the article de-listed from Google. Allow anonymous commenting: you invite trolls (such as jezabel/violent GIF swarm). Require (partially) verified identities: you risk takedown requests.
I think you're glossing over the simplest option: allow commenters to remove their comments. This puts the responsibility where it belongs. If you want content removed, actually have it removed, don't involve some third party search engine index.
I don't really have a huge problem with "right to be forgotten". I think, as a society, we might eventually discover the down side of having everything anyone (including oneself) posts about everyone permanently archived, linked to their real identities, and searchable forever. This will probably start to happen once those who grew up as kids posting to the internet start wanting respectable jobs or running for office. They'll realize the person they were as a kid is completely different from the person they are as a 50 year old, and not want to be judged by some troll post they wrote 35 years ago.
Please note that this is not so much about the basic principle of the 'right to be forgotten', but the way in which Google is deliberately turning it into a bloodbath.
Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions.
Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order. They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.
Because it is censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past.
Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd.
There is more than an element of truth to this, uncomfortable as it is for many.
Google are deliberately stonewalling on this and issues around copyright, basically with a "If it's good for us then it must be right" attitude, which is actually in danger of creating widespread economic problems much worse than Microsoft ever achieved.
It's interesting to compare the response here with the vitriol Uber receive. Google's PR machine is very good.
>Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions.
It's a magical "censor whatever I say" button. What kind of constructive solution do you imagine?
Based on what's been published, Google's response seems pretty rational. They are denying some reasonable percentage of requests while complying with others. I don't like the EU policy here and I'd fight it vigorously if the topic come up in the US, but Google seems to be neither simply complying with everything nor taking everything to court. It seems a rational response by a corporation whatever its execs may think of the governing law.
The problem is that Google has no incentive to be careful in choosing which links it removes. There is no penalty for removing links unnecessarily but there is the potential for EU member states to levy fines for not removing them.
>Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order.
If it wants to sink massive amounts of money, time, risk for other operations, and goodwill from powerful people in order to avoid doing something that won't affect its bottom line in the slightest way to just do.
>They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.
No, they're accepting censorship because there's no money in being freedom fighters.
The worst thing is that this law will be used by politicians and their families to cover up corruption stories.
The law that possibly profits governing bodies the most is a bad law.
Why we cannot know if our new neighbour have paedophile past, corruption or rape incidents? Such mistakes should stay public for ever. But now very specific groups of people are trying to whiten themselves up. Its somehow scary...
I wonder how this will affect the Internet Archive. I understand they're based in the US(and hopefully their servers are too), but will the EU courts take any action if a sufficiently high profile lawsuit occurs over the archive's contents?
[+] [-] skwirl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|11 years ago|reply
Yes, because in Europe free speech isn't an absolute right; sometimes the right of privacy trumps free speech.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
I have no idea how the EU justice system works
Then why not inform yourself before making grand pronouncements on what counts as error? There are other legal philosophies besides the one you adhere to, you know.
[+] [-] adsr|11 years ago|reply
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-w...
[+] [-] gadders|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#...
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _azns|11 years ago|reply
Now that's a good example of a feature fighting the product. Disable article commenting: you might miss out on engagement and subsequent pageviews. Enable commenting: you might get the article de-listed from Google. Allow anonymous commenting: you invite trolls (such as jezabel/violent GIF swarm). Require (partially) verified identities: you risk takedown requests.
[+] [-] quandrum|11 years ago|reply
The blog remains in google under all obvious keywords. Google only removes it for the requested keyword (probably the commenters name).
It's not a true delisting, but the option to have your name disassociated from content.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
[+] [-] andreasvc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brador|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iand|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackRust|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshflowers|11 years ago|reply
Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions.
Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order. They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.
[+] [-] themartorana|11 years ago|reply
Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd.
Yes, I added my opinion at the end there.
[+] [-] fidotron|11 years ago|reply
Google are deliberately stonewalling on this and issues around copyright, basically with a "If it's good for us then it must be right" attitude, which is actually in danger of creating widespread economic problems much worse than Microsoft ever achieved.
It's interesting to compare the response here with the vitriol Uber receive. Google's PR machine is very good.
[+] [-] Kalium|11 years ago|reply
It's a magical "censor whatever I say" button. What kind of constructive solution do you imagine?
[+] [-] franze|11 years ago|reply
no, they tried this, they ended up in front of the European Court of Justice and lost.
[+] [-] ghaff|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobcostas55|11 years ago|reply
If that's not censorship I don't know what is.
[+] [-] sesutton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|11 years ago|reply
If it wants to sink massive amounts of money, time, risk for other operations, and goodwill from powerful people in order to avoid doing something that won't affect its bottom line in the slightest way to just do.
>They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.
No, they're accepting censorship because there's no money in being freedom fighters.
[+] [-] funkyy|11 years ago|reply
The law that possibly profits governing bodies the most is a bad law.
Why we cannot know if our new neighbour have paedophile past, corruption or rape incidents? Such mistakes should stay public for ever. But now very specific groups of people are trying to whiten themselves up. Its somehow scary...
[+] [-] Kalium|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] takemikazuchi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denzil_correa|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzhiurgis|11 years ago|reply
Or stuff that has been taken down for copyright infringement?
[+] [-] vonmoltke|11 years ago|reply