Sign in / up

back to article Legal eagles want dirt on Google's 'right to be forgotten' decisions

80 legal experts have sent Google a to-do list on the first birthday of the so-called right to be forgotten. A year ago this week, the European Court of Justice ruled that a Spanish national could force the search giant to remove links to outdated and irrelevant information about him – in his case a notice about an old …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Aedile

    This. More than any other reason this is why Google probably fought the law. First they are asked to remove links which required them to come up with some model to determine what to remove. Now they are questioned as to how. Should they say how the "experts"/politicians/academics will whine. They will change how they do it. Then some other group will whine about the changes causing more changes which will be whined about resulting in a never ending dance where they are stuck trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. Stupid solution. Stupid law.

    12 1 Reply
  2. tom dial Silver badge

    This type of request might incline Google and other search engine operators rarely mentioned to rething their policies and change them to something along the lines of "we accept and act upon legal orders from courts with appropriate jurisdiction to delist specific URLs from presentation in those jurisdictions."

    5 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      ""we accept and act upon legal orders from courts with appropriate jurisdiction to delist specific URLs from presentation in those jurisdictions" - apart from the whole mess of asking the legal world to define "appropriate jurisdiction", reach a single and unqualified defniition of that and set it in stone (so that it can not be changed with retrospective effect), that's exactly what they should do.

      For specific URLs only.

      1 0 Reply
  3. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Butt shoorli hoshipher?

    Suppose I make a request about search engine X.co.uk

    And X.co.uk upholds my request.

    I then go on to X.com and find my request has not been upheld.

    In shock! horror! and awe! I do similar searches on .it, .de, .es, . .. .... variants of the search engine.

    Well, you get the drift, limitation in jurisdiction and law,... Discuss:

    2 2 Reply
  4. crediblywitless

    The 'right to be forgotten' is a completely stupid and unimplementable idea that, had they bothered to ask whoever it is looks after their own computers, the relevant European judges would have quickly realised would just lead to embarrassment for them and a world of shit for everyone else.

    3 1 Reply
  5. wikkity

    Crowd Approval

    How about a completely transparent process. All requested are published for all to see, joe public can vote on whether it is irrelevant or outdated.

    If they don't like the result they can then go get a court order at their expense.

    0 1 Reply
  6. Durant Imboden

    "Transparency" would mean leaving the search results in place instead of hiding them from the public eye.

    2 0 Reply
  7. Gannon (J.) Dick

    lex parsimoniae ...

    Heartening to know that some lawyers think they should be paid to think.

    The Philosophers want Occam's Razor back too. It was as useful as transparency is costly.

    0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

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

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like