back to article EU justice chief blasts Google on 'right to be forgotten'

Europe’s caretaker Commissioner for Justice says Google et al are trying to throw a spanner in the works of data protection. Speaking at an event in Lyon on Monday, Martine Reicherts, who was appointed Justice Commissioner when her predecessor Viviane Reding became an MEP in May, said certain parties are “trying to use the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google need their arses kicking. I've used their tools to remove information from the search engine - which is no longer present on the third party's website from which is was taken, and they've repeatedly refused claiming it's present on the third party website when it's not.

    So I've lodged a complaint with the Information Comissioner's office, but they're giving BS saying that complaints about search engines will take 6 weeks or more to process whilst they 'consider' the ruling.

    ICO needs to get off its arse and do something.

    Google are acting like judge, jury and executioner with data that is owned by me that solely exists within the Google system. The ICO are - as usual- spineless.

    1. Daggerchild Silver badge

      Owned?

      Is this data, by any chance, someone else's opinion or judgement of you, or their own recollection of neutral facts involving you?

      Maybe the source website is giving you a different result to the one it gives Google? :) That's VIP treatment right there.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It is trivial to customise a website to present one set of pages to google and another set to you. This would result in the search being found in google but not existing on the website.

      If you have pissed of the website they might well have done this just to yank your chain.

      If you tell us what the information was we'll find out why this is happening at absolutely no charge whatsoever.

    3. Panimu

      I do not believe you and your complaints about the ICO speediness sound whingy and unfounded.

  2. Ross K Silver badge

    Sauce For The Goose...

    Reicherts welcomed this: “If a company has broken the rules, this should have serious consequences. Yet so far, the fines European data protection authorities can impose are very low. For giants like Google, they are just pocket money.”

    What about government bodies who breach data protection rules? They're hit with "pocket money" fines by the ICO...

    Only difference is that when some NHS employee leaves files in the pub, or an MI5 agent leaves a laptop on a train it's the taxpayer who ultimately pays...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sauce For The Goose...

      The old stereotype of government, in particular local government, making free with the taxpayers' money is thing of the distant past. In this day and age, when austerity budgets mean that service budgets have been cut to the point where even a £1000 fine would have a serious impact on a department's ability to deliver the service for which it is responsible, the finds handed out by the ICO are not pocket money and while it is the taxpayer who suffers it is not in the pocket (because local authorities are not allowed to recoup such additions to operating costs from the taxpayer) but in the service they receive.

      Contrast the operating budget of Google with that of a county authority in England & Wales. Even the largest counties have an annual budget equivalent to about one week's PROFIT for Google...

      I am sure this will get down voted, but nuts to all of you who do.

      Try working in local government before you rattle on about how corrupt/wasteful/secretive it is. Some of us do it out of a genuine wish to give something back to our society, rather than just earn the most money we can and pay the minimum amount of tax we can get away with whilst constantly moaning about the state of the country/politics/industry/yoof of today.

      Remember you get the politicians you vote for; and the politicians are selected by local parties where local people can join and influence those decisions. If you choose not to take part in either of these parts of the democratic process, then you get the government you deserve....

      1. Ross K Silver badge

        Re: Sauce For The Goose...

        Try working in local government before you rattle on about how corrupt/wasteful/secretive it is.

        Straw man argument - I didn't single out local government for criticism, but don't let that interfere with your right to feel offended.

        I doubt I'd ever get a job in local government anyway as I'm not female/coloured/disabled/LGBT or otherwise worthy of hiring to meet an equality "benchmark"...

        1. Steve Knox
          Facepalm

          Re: Sauce For The Goose...

          "Try working in local government before you rattle on about how corrupt/wasteful/secretive it is."

          Straw man argument - I didn't single out local government for criticism, but don't let that interfere with your right to feel offended.

          So you pick out one sentence of a longer, more complicated post, and use a technical discrepancy between that sentence and your post to try to invalidate the poster's entire argument...and you call their argument a straw man?

          Please learn about logic before posting again.

          1. Ross K Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Sauce For The Goose...

            So you pick out one sentence of a longer, more complicated post, and use a technical discrepancy between that sentence and your post to try to invalidate the poster's entire argument...and you call their argument a straw man?

            A longer, more complicated post rant which had nothing to do with my original post. The person was expressing some butt hurt due to a perceived slight on my part...

            Maybe you should do some learning yourself...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sauce For The Goose...

          FYI I'm white British, moderately right-wing, heterosexual, able-bodied and male. And the local authority I work for hires on talent; we don't have quotas (which are a Daily Fail invention anyway), as long as we can prove that we hired the best person for the job if challenged that's fine under the Equality Act.

          Now get back under your bridge....

          1. Ross K Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Sauce For The Goose...

            And the local authority I work for hires on talent

            A local authority with talented employees?

            That's what you call an oxymoron.

            BTW why do you feel the need to post as an AC? Got something to hide?

            Now get back to work. My taxes are paying your wages...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Sauce For The Goose...

              FOAD. You are an ignorant troll who has no idea of the work that others do and who just likes to see his own words on the page regardless of who it upsets or denegrates.

              And that's why I post anonymously, so that I can use expressions like that when defending the talented, hard-working, loyal to a fault, and above all committed to deliver the best service possible people I work with at my local authority and those I have met in others.

              Nothing to hide, I just post work related stuff under AC and personal opinions under my handle. No chance of the two being connected then. We have rules about using social media and, although I'm on leave today, I still prefer not to take any risks of breaking them by posting under a handle that could be linked to me. I like my job; it's not well paid (I have been head-hunted three times this year by the private sector offering me a minimum of £10k more than I earn where I am); the hours are long (I, like many of my colleagues, regularly fail to take the overtime I am owed as time in lieu (we're no longer paid overtime) because we're too busy, and I lose it at the end of each period) and then we have to put up with ignorant muppets like you...

              1. Ross K Silver badge

                Re: Sauce For The Goose...

                I still prefer not to take any risks of breaking them by posting under a handle that could be linked to me.

                AC, you might want to think on if you're operating on the assumption that ticking the 'Post anonymously' box offers you some degree of protection.

                If you had any brains you wouldn't have advertised the fact you work for a local authority. :)

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Sauce For The Goose...

                  If I post under AC then no-one knows who I am without doing a reasonable amount of research and I can't be accused of bringing the authority into disrepute whether I am defending them, as here, or attacking them, as I have done in other posts, when they have deserved it.

                  I could work for any one of the hundreds of local authorities (borough, district, county, city, UA) in England & Wales, so there's not much of a giveway there.

                  The danger is not that my employers will see my post and investigate who really posted it (if EL Reg would tell them) but that if I posted under my handle then those other Reg users who know who I really am might let slip that I'd been posting uncomplimentary things on the Reg site. So hard & fast rule; if I am talking about national or local government, my employers, or things that have happened at work, good or bad, I use AC. Probably unnecessary in 90% of my posts, but better safe than sorry....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't pretend it's a freedom of speech issue

    Just because it is.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: Don't pretend it's a freedom of speech issue

      Actually it's more serious than that. It's a freedom of the press (a.k.a media) issue. Where does the Eurocabal get off claiming that public notices and public news stories can magically become private data if the person involved is ashamed of them? This is the thin end of a slippery slope, to mix a couple of metaphors.

      I have to give Google credit though: Google "Google removes 12 BBC News links" and you get the BBC page containing those links.

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: Don't pretend it's a freedom of speech issue

        Freedom of the press? The reason why Google has to remove the results when searching for a specific name (all other keywords on the originating page should still return a link to that page) do not affect the original page. The page is still there and you can still find it using the BBC search.

        Only the lazy won't find the article, if they google using the person's name, and that is the whole point of the ruling.

        The article must remain, as it is public record / falls under freedom of the press, and it is still searchable using any other combination of keywords.

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Don't pretend it's a freedom of speech issue

      It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If the information is relevant, the link cannot be removed. The original article is still there (and would be searchable over the internal site search of the host). Searching for the article using keywords other than a person's name should still return the article.

      Using the original case that caused this kerfuffle: The site still hosts the article (freedom of the press, public record etc.), the article should still be searchable under keywords like bankruptcy, house auction etc. But it won't return any results when using the complainants name or his name in combination with the above keywords.

      The problem seems to be Google overreaching and imposing censorship, where none is intended, in order to prove a point that doesn't exist.

  4. bigtimehustler

    Haha, yea and I am sure the EU doesn't have its own agenda at heart either. This is just one agenda pitched against another. It has nothing to do with what is right for the person.

  5. kryptonaut

    Forgotten?

    Surely a 'right to be forgotten' ought to entail removing the information at source. Merely removing a pointer to the information is more like a 'right to have a blind eye turned' at whatever it is that needs hushing up.

    1. Raumkraut

      Re: Forgotten?

      > Surely a 'right to be forgotten' ought to entail removing the information at source.

      1. That is not always possible (good luck getting something removed from a seedy .ru).

      2. Even if you could get the "source" removed, wouldn't you also want to remove the large "kryptonaut fondles goats! Read more at siteoflies.ru!" billboard on the public highway?

      3. The original source is entirely irrelevant to the issue in question.

      In the context of this brouhaha, AIUI the court decided that a list of search results about a person (not just the sites they linked to - the result list itself) constituted personal information about that person. Hence, in this case, Google *is* the "source" of the personal information.

      Because of data protection legislation, Google are therefore responsible for keeping that personal information accurate and up to date - which includes removing erroneous and irrelevant information, once notified of it.

      But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results.

      1. Daggerchild Silver badge

        Re: Forgotten?

        > "But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results"

        Mother of Murphy, would *you* enjoy suddenly being made responsible for making sure *everything on the Internet* is correct?!

        The Data Protection laws were expressly designed for entites that are congizant of the form and nature of the data they are specifically collecting. Google can't even *detect* that they've *collected* personal data, never mind verify it for accuracy.

        Do you know of any other Data Controllers who are legally responsible for unidentifiable, and thus uncontrollable, data? You really don't detect a whiff of square peg, round hole, and splintered wood?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Forgotten?

        > Because of data protection legislation, Google are therefore responsible for keeping that personal information accurate and up to date - which includes removing erroneous and irrelevant information, once notified of it.

        If google finds a page that contains the phrase "kryptonaut fondles goats" and displays that information then it is not incorrect. Google are not claiming that "kryptonaut fondles goats" they are claiming that there is a page with the phrase "kryptonaut fondles goats" in it.

        If you get the original website to remove the page containing "kryptonaut fondles goats" then google will forget all about it.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Forgotten?

        "But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results."

        The point is that the data IS NOT ERRONEOUS. That's what we're talking about, that's the whole core of the controversy - the data is not wrong or inaccurate in any way.

        PAY ATTENTION.

        1. Raumkraut

          Re: Forgotten?

          > Mother of Murphy, would *you* enjoy suddenly being made responsible for making sure *everything on the Internet* is correct?!

          And by "everything on the internet" you of course mean the product Google are supplying to their users. This isn't about them cleaning up the internet, this is about them cleaning up their own search indexes, and making them more relevant.

          It's not like they have to do this pre-emptively either (like they do with spam, linkfarms, and certain illegal content); they get a tip-off, and then decide to either tweak their product in response, or not.

          > If you get the original website to remove the page containing "kryptonaut fondles goats" then google will forget all about it.

          And if you can't get the original website to remove the page? What then? Contact the Kerplekistan constabulary, asking them to raid the hosting provider?

          > The point is that the data IS NOT ERRONEOUS. That's what we're talking about, that's the whole core of the controversy - the data is not wrong or inaccurate in any way.

          Okay, mister reading-comprehension, apparently I was slightly too ambiguous for you: "erroneous and/or irrelevant". Better now? Or do you like having irrelevant information in your search results?

          1. Daggerchild Silver badge

            Re: Forgotten?

            "of course mean the product Google are supplying to their users" - Try that stance on Ebay. The shop is not the product. The courier is not the manufacturer. Let's ask them to remove search listings of *legal* products that embaress someone.

            "this is about them cleaning up their own search indexes, and making them more relevant." - So, you are asserting that someone else's opinion of what I find relevant overrides my own opinion. Thanks. No.

            "they get a tip-off, and then decide to either tweak their product in response, or not." - they also get over a million DMCA takedown requests a week... You can't automate the judgement, but you *can* automate the request...

      4. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Forgotten?

        "Because of data protection legislation, Google are therefore responsible for keeping that personal information accurate and up to date - which includes removing erroneous and irrelevant information, once notified of it."

        A past bankruptcy is not inaccurate or irrelevant as far as lenders are concerned. (It's what the original claim was about and should have been thrown out - the guy in question believed that it was affecting his credit rating, when CRAs use their own internal databases and searches anyway)

        Claims that someone once dropped a particularly smelly fart in an elevator full of midgets _are_ irrelevant and would merit removal.

        Attempts to suppress past media reports are revisionist and should be resisted. A teenage court conviction might be "spent" and no longer used for consideration if Bob Jones ends up in front of a beak as a 50 year old, but it's not removed from the system and it WILL be taken into consideration if he's in for the same crime.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Forgotten?

          Over here the child prosecution would be sealed and the judge wouldn't normally be able to see it. Likewise the bankruptcy conviction has a shelf life, after that date it is no longer relevant, when making decisions about a persons creditworthiness.

          And this isn't an attempt to suppress the media, in fact it is the opposite. The article is still there and still searchable, but not using the complainant's name.

    2. Vinyl-Junkie

      Re: Forgotten?

      The point is about whether what is found is still relevant. Imagine that a teenager you received coverage in the local paper for a bit of horseplay that resulted in a broken window in someone's house; your parents paid for the repairs, the police were happy to let you go with a verbal warning, but still it got reported in the local paper.

      Now imagine 40 years later when you are going for that CIO job you've always wanted and your prospective employer Googles your name (especially if you have an unusual name). Is it really fair that the first thing that comes up on the list is that local paper report?

      Similarly if I filed for bankruptcy 20 years ago, since when I have built up a multi-million pound company, that the bankruptcy case in The Times is the first thing that Google returns?

      In both cases the source was news reported at the time and as such should not be erased (starting down that road is a very dangerous path indeed), and it should be avaialble to someone doing an in-depth investigation into my/your past, who can give the information the priority it deserves, not have it leap out them as the top search result.

      One has to balance the age of the data, the seriousness of what's being reported, and whether it has any bearing on the purpose for which the search is being conducted; an automated search engine is not capable of doing this, so a way of doing it has to be devised.

      Of course, the real danger is that by the time you realise that the ancient piece of news has been resurrected by Google, it is probably too late, the employer has already passed you by....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Forgotten?

        The real danger, as I see it, is that the legislation creates a new mechanism for the powerful, rich, and connected to have their lives 'fixed' by erasing unflattering truths. The odds that Google will take any interest in removing your 'teenage mistake' are virtually zero (as an earlier poster discovered). However they will jump immediately to remove any whiff of wrongdoing from the new aristocracy...

        All the power of people to correct bad actions of the government, the famous, etc relies on having information. This legislation ensures that bad news will be buried deep before it can go viral or gain any momentum. Where would Snowden, Assange, unpopular opinions on Climate Change, the latest corruption scandal, minority group abuse, etc disappear to if the powerful have an easy path to removal?

        Dangerous power to grant in exchange for a little inconvenience here and there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Forgotten?

          The point is that everyone has the power. And they are using it.

        2. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Forgotten?

          @AC public figures are explicitly excluded from the ruling, as their lives are in public and it would fall under public interest and that trumps the right to be forgotten.

          1. Brusselsgeek

            Small clarification: Public figures are not explicitly excluded in the ECJ Ruling. It's Google itself that has decided to exclude them. Google is also complying with requests to take down links related to any under-18 behaviour without querying them.

        3. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Forgotten?

          "The real danger, as I see it, is that the legislation creates a new mechanism for the powerful, rich, and connected to have their lives 'fixed' by erasing unflattering truths. "

          They've been doing that for a while. Go take a look at Reputation.com

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Forgotten?

        Really.

        If your prospective employer pays any attention whatever to your teenage error, would you want to work for him? Is a 20 year old bankruptcy likely to have any effect on your multi-million pound company? It seems more like a recommendation than something to worry about (unless your company is paying dividends from the capital put in by new investors, in which case the earlier bankruptcy might be quite relevant).

        Should Yahoogle be the judge? I do not think so. It would be better if each removal were reviewed and based on a judgment by a competent court.

        1. Vinyl-Junkie
          Thumb Up

          Re: Forgotten?

          @tom dial - I wasn't advocating that the search engines should be the arbitrator; I tend to agree with you that it should be the courts, and in the long run I suspect it will be, as people dispute decisions made by the search companies.

          And the problem with the recruitment question I posed is that for many companies it is not the company that is recruiting that makes the decision to forward CV or consider for interview, it is some drone at Crapita ((C) Private Eye :) ) or other "recruitment consultant" who has a script which says "Search for this person on the web; if you find anything negative, don't bother shortlisting them".

          1. Al Jones

            Re: Forgotten?

            The courts need to be involved where there is disagreement between the person making the request and Google - but once the basic principle is accepted, many requests can, and most importantly, should be accepted without court involvement - you don't have to go to court to exercise your rights most of the time, but you always have the court to fall back on when you believe that your rights have been infringed. People are laid off every day, and in most cases there is agreement or acceptance of the situation on both sides, but we still need employment tribunal cases when there is disagreement between the parties. Disabled people have the right to certain accommodations, and they don't have to go to court every day to exercise those rights, but from time to time the courts do need to get involved to define what is and what isn't reasonable.

            The same goes for this "right" - in many cases (most cases, in an ideal world), there should be no need for the courts to make decisions, because there would be a fair degree of agreement on what constitutes a reasonable request. Google is actively disrupting the process of defining what might be reasonable in these situations.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Forgotten?

        "Similarly if I filed for bankruptcy 20 years ago, since when I have built up a multi-million pound company, that the bankruptcy case in The Times is the first thing that Google returns?"

        In can think of a number of people who've done that, gone bankrupt _again_ and then built up a multi-million pound company. Some have done it more than twice (eg: Donald Trump).

        Knowing that someone has form in such things may save me from being well and truely burned.

        Knowing that XYZ person had 2 fraud convictions 10 years ago will be useful if he's dropped a CV on my desk full of "glowing recommendations" , etc etc.

        Some information is _never_ inaccurate or irrelevant.

        1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

          Re: Forgotten?

          If you broke a window 40 years ago, or went bankrupt 20 years ago, then it's NOT going to be "the first thing Google lists", unless you've been hiding under a rock for all of the intervening time.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Forgotten?

      A lot of the original sites fall under public record, freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Therefore they cannot be removed.

      All you can do is make it harder to find. Using the above example, if you get links to the site removed, when using the name "kryptonaut", searching for your name won't return the article.

      Searching for "kryptonaut fondles goats" won't return the result.

      Searching for "fondles goats" would return the link somewhere in the results.

  6. Daggerchild Silver badge

    Eh?

    “I will not let them abuse this crucial ruling to stop us from opening the digital single market for our companies"

    Confused. What has the digital single market got to do with the right-to-be-forgotten mess? Also, "for *our* companies"? Agenda leaking?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The telegraph seems to have instituted a policy of undermining this ruling. Yesterday they had two articles reporting on Google having blocked links to their articles

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11037089/The-EUs-Right-to-be-Forgotten-Google-removes-link-to-Telegraph-story-about-drunk-Italian-Job-stunt.html

    and

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11040911/The-EUs-Right-to-be-Forgotten-Google-removes-link-to-Telegraph-story-about-convent-girl-madam.html

    and have previously published a list of blocked Telegraph articles

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegraph-stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html

    1. DavCrav

      I do rather hope they get hauled in front of a judge for contempt of court. News organizations typically want to ruin ordinary people's lives to sell newspapers, and this ruling might damage that ability.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        What contempt?

        They have reported a legitimate piece of news. There are no reporting restrictions on the right to be forgotten. The pieces of news they have reminded people about are factually correct so there is no libel. They have no instructions from any court in the world (let alone the EU or the UK) telling them they can not print these stories.

        1. Al Jones

          If anyone was in contempt of court, it would be Google for notifying the Telegraph of the change.

          Google's hypocrisy on this issue is pretty bad - they change the order of search results all they time as they tweak their own search algorithms, but not only do they not feel duty bound to "inform the victims" that they'll no longer show up on the first page of the a search term, they persistently refuse to explain what changes they made, and why.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Why should notifying somebody that you are excluding some of their pages from search results be contempt of court?

            Some sites/businesses rely on page hits for some of their income. By excluding some of their pages from search hits their business is being adversely affected* and they have the right to know the reason.

            At some point one of the media outlets (or perhaps even an individual blogger) will object to one of the exclusions and pursue the matter through the courts. If they do not know they have been excluded then this avenue is closed to them.

            Censorship of search results is bad enough, but doing it secretly would be far worse.

            * It is irrelevant whether the amount is fractions of a penny or thousands of pounds.

            1. Al Jones

              @Condiment: "Some sites/businesses rely on page hits for some of their income. By excluding some of their pages from search hits their business is being adversely affected* and they have the right to know the reason."

              Does Google notify the Telegraph when changes to Google's search algorithms impact the ranking of any Telegraph page? Like %^@! they do!

              Google has been very consistent on this since the company was founded - Google has no responsibility to inform you when it makes changes that impact your search ranking, and it absolutely denies that it has any financial responsibility for any harm that you might claim is caused by such changes.

              The sole reason that Google is informing the Telegraph and other media outlets about these changes is to attempt to undermine the rights of ordinary citizens, and to enlist the media in it's lobbying campaign on this issue.

    2. Daggerchild Silver badge

      Fear not - if the stories are judged unnecessarily detrimental to the reputation of the EU judgement, the EU court will just request their removal from Google's search results ;-)

  8. Ben Liddicott

    Of course it is a free speech issue.

    It is so the great and the good can hide from us that they are neither as great nor as good as they pretend.

    If in doubt, it isn't for your benefit.

  9. Keven E.

    "But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results."

    Or not want to fork over $ to do it when it costs (basically) nothing to not do it.

  10. MrRtd

    If you want Google search to forget, you need to have the source altered or removed. Why is it so hard for anyone to understand that Google is the tool to find information, and if the information is there, I expect at minimum that Google provides that information uncensored.

    A few years ago, I found some miss-information about myself thanks to Google. I used that opportunity to contact the website and had it removed, which eventually lead to Google forgetting about it.

    This is a clear case of shoot the messenger. The EU has got this law completely wrong, and should focus on the source of the privacy concerns.

    1. Al Jones

      If you want change the results that Google returns, it seems pretty obvious that you should be able to ask Google to do that, rather than chase down 20 different webmasters in 10 different countries. After all, it's not as if Google doesn't already apply all sorts of filters and weightings to the results that they display anyway.

      The key principle here is that I should have some degree of control over a search that includes the phrase "Al Jones". That's what Google really objects to, because it doesn't want ordinary people getting in it's way.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Google already censors - sorry, I mean 'filters' - your search results in several ways. By your location, your search history, your browser and plugins, very likely by your personal browsing history. It uses these factors to rank the results you see, which means the "interesting bits" you really want are on, at best, page 13 of the results, and we all know no sane person ever goes beyond page 3 at the outside.

      If you want a search engine that doesn't do that, try duckduckgo.com. I predict you'll be back to Google within the week.

    3. Vinyl-Junkie

      This is not about mis-information, which can, and should be removed under both EUC and UK data law. It is about constantly reviving accurate items which are no longer relevant, particularly when they appear high on a list of results.

      You cannot start down the road of deleting old news stories, because once you do there is no stopping it. What if a future UK government decided to delete all reference to British politics in Ireland pre-1916? A German one to erase the history of the holocaust?

      It is the search engines responsibility to ensure their search results are relevant and appropriately weighted. Or face legal consequences.

  11. hutcheson

    Dateline: Eurasia, 1984 + 30

    Memo to Winston:

    From: The Democratic Committee for Pure Thinking

    Words to remove from Newspeak Dictionary:

    "Freedom of Speech" -- replace everywhere by "Thoughtcrime"

    "Right to be forgotten" -- we do not need a word for this. Does a fish need a word for water?

    ------------------------

    I am Winston.

    I WILL REMEMBER.

    1. veti Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Dateline: Eurasia, 1984 + 30

      So you're painting Google, of all people, as the sympathetic but hopelessly overmatched underdog versus an overbearing all-powerful state with the power to change history...?

      I think my irony meter just exploded.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some people seem to be determined not to understand the court decision.

    If Fred Bloggs asks a search company to remove a link to what they claim is an obsolete or inaccurate item that is doing them harm, then the search company may:

    a. say "no, sorry" - with or without any explanation as to why;

    b. take action so that the results of a search expression containing "Fred Bloggs" does not include that link.

    If a. then Fred may apply to his local court or national Information Commission for a ruling, at which the search company's decision may or may not be overruled. If the former then the search engine must comply (i.e. do step b. above) since in this area they are bound by EU law.

    NB: it is the last five words above that seems to be the real problem for Google, hence all their work on turning a legal issue into a political one.

  13. Optimist

    Why all the fuss

    The ruling only applies to searches via European gateways. So if you want to know what is actually on the web, use the US Google gateway. If you want search results suppressed, use a European one.

  14. SleepyJohn
    WTF?

    Hiding information NOT an impediment to Free Speech? Seriously?

    Dear God, is there really anyone on the planet who genuinely believes the EU is enforcing this for the benefit of the peasantry? In a democracy any idiotic ruling like this will be mocked, twisted and generally made to look as stupid as it is, and the authorities will be forced to reassess its obvious shortcomings.

    Not in the EU. Their attitude is: "How dare you question our rulings!" Or in Eurospeak: "I will not let them abuse this crucial ruling to stop us from opening the digital single market for our companies and putting in place stronger protection for our citizens." (Er, Google is not stopping you doing any of those things.)

    The arrogance and deceit of that emotive Eurobabble alone should be cause for concern, never mind the obvious stupidity and deliberately indefinable vagueness of the ruling. Any criticism of the EU or its unelected bosses can now be deemed not only blasphemous but also out-of-date, irrelevant or not-in-the-public-interest, and thus be hidden from the people.

    And that does NOT pose a danger to Free Speech? Commenters here would rather risk political subjugation than rejection by a stupid employer over an ancient photo on the web? Seriously?

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Hiding information NOT an impediment to Free Speech? Seriously?

      Bollocks. If you treated rulings like this in the US, you'd be locked up faster than you could say "contempt of court".

      Google has to play by the law, and within the lawmaking process, be that "democratic" or not. It can have its say, campaign as loudly as it likes to change laws, but it can't just ignore them.

      What it's doing in this case is misrepresenting the law in campaigning vigorously and aggressively against it, because it interferes with their private profits. And the EU commissioner is, quite rightly, calling them out, not for opinions or for their business model, but for bullshit. It's not "How dare you question our rulings!", it's "This is the system and you will play within it, or you can pick up your toys and go home, your choice. So grow up."

      1. RyokuMas
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Hiding information NOT an impediment to Free Speech? Seriously?

        "Google has to play by the law, and within the lawmaking process, be that "democratic" or not. It can have its say, campaign as loudly as it likes to change laws, but it can't just ignore them."

        But if Google does not play the law, what happens? They get fined, fined an amount that is "just pocket money".

        As you say, Google can campaign loudly to change the law, but they've got a very loud voice - almost £10 million spent on lobbying this year (source).

        I can't help but wonder - how many laws have changed to date before this "right to be forgotten" issue broke? How much of our privacy has been gradually eroded, bit by bit, by Google's lobbying?

        We're fortunate that this has come to light now - chances are that in another 5-10 years, Google would wield enough power to ensure that even international government cannot stand against them. After all, how easy would it be to slip an article from a puppet organisation detailing an obstructive politician's sordid past, into the top slot of a Google search?

    2. IT veteran

      Re: Hiding information NOT an impediment to Free Speech? Seriously?

      Google is quite happy to ignore freedom of speech when it comes to dealing with China and other dictatorships.

      1. ratfox
        Headmaster

        Re: Hiding information NOT an impediment to Free Speech? Seriously?

        Google is quite happy to ignore freedom of speech when it comes to dealing with China and other dictatorships.

        This comment is not accurate anymore… Google has stopped censoring results in China some years ago.

  15. Alan Brown Silver badge
    Devil

    An outbreak of common sense in Brussels?

    ' “A sober analysis of the ruling shows that it does in fact not elevate the right to be forgotten to a ‘super right’ trumping other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression. This ruling does not give the all-clear for people or organisations to have content removed from the web simply because they find it inconvenient,” she said. '

    In other words, the "right to be forgotten" is being well overhyped - and it looks to me like it's narrowing things down to "you have the right to ask Google to remove references to _your_ old webpages,", but not anyone else's which might mention you.

  16. Stretch

    "This ruling does not give the all-clear for people or organisations to have content removed from the web simply because they find it inconvenient"

    She must realise that this is exactly what it has done?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like