back to article Brits: Google, can you scrape 60k pages from web, pleeease

Ten per cent of links expunged from the web under the European ‘right to be forgotten’ laws were based on requests from the good people of Blighty, Google has confirmed. The ad giant said it has removed nearly 499,000 links in the past five months, and this includes more than 63,000 pages from Brits that wanted them erased …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Other search engines?

    Does anybody knows if this "right to be forgotten" thing applies to all search engines even future ones? How can they enforce it? Why do they always mention Google, are they not bothered with Bing? I know it is less popular but with all these censoring I wish somebody came up with a Wikileaks or Pirate Bay type search engine. Maybe somebody could start a new search company to find things Google is not allowed to show.

    1. phil dude
      Megaphone

      Re: Other search engines?

      Search engines should not "censor" anything.

      They are quite simply not good enough, yet...

      P.

    2. Raumkraut

      Re: Other search engines?

      Does anybody knows if this "right to be forgotten" thing applies to all search engines even future ones?

      It's the law, so it's not specific to one particular company, no. If a search engine provides results pertaining to an individual, then they have some responsibility to keep those results accurate and relevant.

      I know, shocking isn't it? Search engines returning useful results? Socialism gone mad, I tell you!

      1. Invidious Aardvark

        Re: Other search engines? @Raumkraut

        Er no they don't. Really, they don't. The people who are maintaining the sites where the articles reside bear the responsibility to keep those articles accurate and relevant.

        A search engine (the clue as to what it does is in the name) should search all the articles it knows about and return results, preferably ranking these results based on their level of match to the search term.

        If someone has an issue with something in an article on the web they should get the article corrected at source or taken down if necessary. That way the correct/relevant information is available to everyone, regardless of which search engine they use.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Other search engines? @Raumkraut

          That's the problem Invidious Aardvark, the source sites often can't take down the article or 'update' it, because it is public record.

          They still have to be shown and shown in their original form (we are talking mainly about newspapers and other press here, bloggers are another matter, they probably would have to take down the articles if requested).and it is up to the search engines to remove links when searching with specific search terms.

          For the spend conviction example in the article. Searching for 'Fred Bloggs offense A' wouldn't return results. Searching for 'offense A' would still return search results for Fred Bloggs, but buried among millions of other articles.

      2. Indolent Wretch

        Re: Other search engines?

        >> If a search engine provides results pertaining to an individual, then they have some

        >> responsibility to keep those results accurate and relevant

        No. They. Don't

        Likewise my local library shouldn't have to remove books if I think they say something about me that shouldn't be there.

        If I think the book is libelous I can go after the author, or the publisher, and then demand the book be removed via the courts. The appropriate place for this sort of judgement.

        (That's not a vote of confidence in the UKs draconian libel laws)

        1. Tom 38

          Re: Other search engines?

          >> If a search engine provides results pertaining to an individual, then they have some

          >> responsibility to keep those results accurate and relevant

          No. They. Don't

          Is sticking your head in the ground and going "LALALALALALALA" working at all for you?

          ECJ ruled that search engines, by associating peoples names and search terms with pages, were forming a database keyed by that users name. This is the basis of the "right to be forgotten", the entries in that database are said to not be relevant, and since Google operate that database, they are responsible for keeping the contents of that database relevant.

    3. dogged

      Re: Other search engines?

      > Does anybody knows if this "right to be forgotten" thing applies to all search engines even future ones?

      It does because it's the law. Google are just the only ones crying about it.

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Other search engines?

      it covers all websites, but especially search engines and it isn't apecific to Google.

      Google gets all the press, bevause a) they are the major search engine in Europe (in Germany they have around 93 -95% of the market) and b) they were the ones taken to court.

      If the press was talkong about Bing and Yahoo! most people would probably ask 'who?'

    5. Thorne

      Re: Other search engines?

      If someone wants to be forgotten then all they need to do is get rid of the offending pages. If there is no content then the search engines will remove it the next round.

      Getting the search engines to delete the reference is like removing a book from a library by taking the index card. The book is still there, just harder to find (until someone reindex it).

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: Other search engines?

        @Thorne

        but you can't get the pages taken down, that is the problem - well, some you probably could, like YouTube or a private blog, but official press is protected and public record can also not be removed. Therefore you have to make it harder to find "no longer relevant" information.

        Also, using alternate search terms will still return the original article.

        It stops the "poisoning" of personal search results with information, which could be derogatory, that is no longer relevant or is not in the public interest.

        1. Indolent Wretch

          Re: Other search engines?

          >> but official press is protected

          yes

          >> and public record can also not be removed

          also yes

          ... and guess what, I should be able to search for it.

          1. big_D Silver badge

            Re: Other search engines?

            @Indolent Wretch

            and nobody is stopping you finding those links, even using Google. You just have to be a little more creative

            For example:

            If Fred Bloggs was convicted of killing Slim Jim, then on appeal he was pardoned and he managed to get Google to drop links to articles about his trial using terms with the words "Fred Bloggs" in them, you would still get them if you searched for "who killed Slim Jim" or "Slim Jim murder trial".

            So if you want to find out about the murder, then all of the information will be there. If you want to do a quick look up on relevant information on Fred Bloggs, you won't get any results on that matter.

        2. Invidious Aardvark

          Re: Other search engines?

          @big_D

          So you seem to be saying that matters of public record should not be publicly available? Or they should be findable but not searchable? How is this in any way logical?

          @Tom 38

          We're debating the merits of the system and who should be responsible for the data in question. You appear to be suggesting that irrelevant data should be available on the web but not searchable. If it is irrelevant, ask to have it removed from the web and it will, you know, fall off the search database too.

          There's also the question of how deeply they have to filter their results. For example, can they link to an index page that links to the article? It may have links to other relevant (and unfiltered) articles too.

          The implementation seems to be clumsy and removal of the data from the offending site seems more logical than asking that a link to that site be removed from search results. Removal at source, use of robots.txt, etc. would seem to be more logical than asking the search providers to judge whether a request is valid then remove those links from their index (or, more likely, hide it from users in certain countries).

          1. Tom 38

            Re: Other search engines?

            We're debating the merits of the system and who should be responsible for the data in question. You appear to be suggesting that irrelevant data should be available on the web but not searchable. If it is irrelevant, ask to have it removed from the web and it will, you know, fall off the search database too.

            Actually, I'm not suggesting anything, just explaining what the law says and why google have to take these things down.

            I agree, if you want something gone, remove it from the web, don't remove it from the search index.

            The law however says something different. Google operate a database of personal information - names - along with keywords which link to webpages, which we would normally call their search index.

            The contents of that database of personal information that google maintain has to be relevant, and data subjects can make applications for irrelevant information to be removed from the database.

            That is all. Well, that and that Putting. Things. In. Single. Word. Sentences. Doesn't. Make. It. True. Just. Because. You. Would. Like. It. To. Be.

          2. big_D Silver badge

            Re: Other search engines?

            @big_D

            So you seem to be saying that matters of public record should not be publicly available? Or they should be findable but not searchable? How is this in any way logical?

            No, that is exactly what I'm not saying.

            I'm saying the original articles are still there (as they cannot legally be taken down) and they can still be searched for using any other relevant terms, just not the name of the person who requested that he be forgotten. See my Fred Bloggs / Slim Jim example above.

        3. Thorne

          Re: Other search engines?

          @big_D

          "but you can't get the pages taken down, that is the problem - well, some you probably could, like YouTube or a private blog, but official press is protected and public record can also not be removed. Therefore you have to make it harder to find "no longer relevant" information.

          Also, using alternate search terms will still return the original article.

          It stops the "poisoning" of personal search results with information, which could be derogatory, that is no longer relevant or is not in the public interest."

          That doesn't make sense. You tell me that you have the right to be forgotten by everyone but the press and as such you need to target search engines to hide the truth?

          Either what was said was true and too bad for you or it wasn't and so the page should be removed.

          Talk about trying to shoot the messenger......

          1. big_D Silver badge

            Re: Other search engines?

            The news is accurate and public record, so it cannot be removed. It is however for the person requesting no longer a relevant for their name. Therefore it should not be returned when searching for that one specific name.

            We aren't talking about forgetting the truth. The truth is still there and still searchable, just when searching with one specific name will it not be returned.

            1. Thorne

              Re: Other search engines?

              None of that makes sense.

              Their name is in an accurate public record but they feel it's no longer relevant and such instead of getting the record removed, they go on a crusade to remove all links to the public record.

              How F#$king retarded is that?

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. arrbee

    Yes it applies to all search engines, but Google tend to publish only their own numbers - probably provided in journalist-friendly form to increase the chance that the Google version is the one that appears (i.e. standard procedure for large corporations and overworked journalists/unpaid interns).

    The search results affected when Google agree with a request (or are overruled by a court) are those where the query mentions the relevant person by name.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lunacy

    I bet the majority of requests are from felons and other miscellaneous ne'er-do-wells wishing to expunge something embarrassing from their past. This, to my way of thinking, is a form of censorship. Facts are facts and should be left to stand, whether they make the perpetrator feel awkward or not. I fail to see why Google should toady to these people.

    1. dogged

      Re: Lunacy

      > I bet the majority of requests are from felons

      Even if they are, time served is time served. If time is served and the conviction "spent" then the debt to society is paid and it is illegal for you to discriminate based on it. Illegal, as in, you would be committing a crime if you did so.

      So a) why do you want this on record? and b) are you happy for the crime you commit in discriminating based upon it to also be permanently on record?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Lunacy

        The article mentions a doctor who demanded references to a "botched procedure" to be removed. Would you like if that doctor treated you? I know the case can be taken to the Medical council or to the courts but it might take years before he is disbarred or jailed. What about paedophiles? Not every country has a public record of them after they served their sentence. Or should they be able to deal with kids after doing their time, since according to you "debt to society is paid".

      2. Thorne

        Re: Lunacy

        "Even if they are, time served is time served. If time is served and the conviction "spent" then the debt to society is paid and it is illegal for you to discriminate based on it. Illegal, as in, you would be committing a crime if you did so.

        So a) why do you want this on record? and b) are you happy for the crime you commit in discriminating based upon it to also be permanently on record?"

        The point is that getting Google to delete the references still doesn't delete the pages. The records still exist.

        These people should focus on getting rid of the offending pages and leave the search engines alone.

      3. Ross K Silver badge

        Re: Lunacy

        Even if they are, time served is time served. If time is served and the conviction "spent" then the debt to society is paid and it is illegal for you to discriminate based on it. Illegal, as in, you would be committing a crime if you did so.

        @dogged

        Wrong. Take a look at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

        Sentences of over 4 years are never spent. Convictions must be disclosed when applying for a whole range of jobs too - think of the medical or legal profession.

        Also, spent convictions must be disclosed when trying to get into the US.

    2. JP19

      Re: Lunacy

      "I fail to see why Google should toady to these people."

      Because it is the (stupid) law.

      I'm getting sick of search engines being used to censor the web.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lunacy

      I bet the majority of requests are from felons and other miscellaneous ne'er-do-wells wishing to expunge something embarrassing from their past. This, to my way of thinking, is a form of censorship. Facts are facts and should be left to stand, whether they make the perpetrator feel awkward or not. I fail to see why Google should toady to these people.

      This.

      I'm involved in legal action against a medical professional at the moment.

      He has had the reports of his doings removed from search results on Google and Bing.

      Is that right? In my (possibly misguided?) opinion the public's right to know about serious malpractice outweighs any privacy issues the guy may have.

      1. dogged

        Re: Lunacy

        If you're talking criminal convictions then those can't be given in evidence at a trial anyway.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Lunacy

          No, nothing to do with criminal convictions - although he has been found unfit to practice by his regulatory body.

          His "bad press" has been more or less scrubbed from search results. Others who may have a valid complaint against the guy might never know of his conduct as a consequence.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Lunacy

          In some countries it is permitted or even required that previous convictions are presented at the trial. Repeat offenders get heavier sentences.

  5. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    "Facebook is the domain where most URLs from search results were binned"

    So, just go to Facebook and use their site-specific search.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I still dont see why this needs to be fixed in search engines anyway

    The content should be amended, if indeed there is any good reason to do so, search should just be search. It seems a bit lazy to target search instead of content.

    There should really be a ruling about content managment, which needs to ensure the 21st century is not the beginning of the digital dark ages where no records can be kept...

    1. Tom Samplonius

      Re: I still dont see why this needs to be fixed in search engines anyway

      "The content should be amended, if indeed there is any good reason to do so, search should just be search. It seems a bit lazy to target search instead of content."

      No, it is a free speech issue. News sites do not have to amend the public record. Any laws forcing sites to remove or amend articles wouldn't stand up. They would be struck down as a violation of free speech, if they were passed at all.

      However, going after the search engines is easier from a legal point of few, since you are not forcing the original author or publisher to amend the public record, so technically you are not violating free speech, just making it hard to find. So the law stands.

      But why do Europeans pass crap laws that are intended to circumvent free speech to being with?

      1. SleepyJohn

        Re: I still dont see why this needs to be fixed in search engines anyway

        "But why do Europeans pass crap laws that are intended to circumvent free speech to being with?"

        Why do you think? Inadvertently?

        PS: I assume 'being' should read 'begin', and 'circumvent' should read 'stifle'?

  7. Magnus Ramage

    Population numbers

    So the third most populous nation in Europe submitted the third highest number of right-to-be-forgotten requests, with the biggest nation submitting the most and the second-biggest submitting the second most? Shock news!

  8. SleepyJohn
    Big Brother

    "Should have gone to Specsavers"

    Anyone who cannot see this as opening the door for the EU to control what is shown to EU citizens searching the web "should have gone to Specsavers".

    Yes, I now live in New Zealand, having rumbled many years ago what the inoffensive-sounding 'European Economic Community' was really up to. I can now, as I once could in the UK, vote for those who make my laws; and hold to account those who implement them.

    I can stick my head above the parapet without fear of a secret Corpus Juris inquisition, or arrest without reason by the sinister EUROGENDFOR. I can even criticise my Government and not be charged with blasphemy.

    And I can search the internet without being restricted to what is effectively becoming an EU-controlled subset of the truth. I can, for instance, find this gem from http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=1198 :

    "... once the Eurogendarmerie are inside the country, no British government can ever order them to leave".

    If you are not alarmed at this prospect of a heavily-armed, secretive EU militarised police force charged with putting down civil unrest, and totally beyond the control of your elected Government, with the power to drag you off to a prison somewhere on the Continent and keep you there indefinitely without trial or evidence of wrong-doing, then it is a new brain you need, not just glasses.

    The EU's utter contempt for democracy and the rights of the innocent is far more likely to cause you grief than any refusal by Google to hide aspects of the truth that you don't like.

    1. Ross K Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: "Should have gone to Specsavers"

      I can even criticise my Government and not be charged with blasphemy.

      Name one EU country where a person has been charged with blasphemy for criticising the government.

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

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