Right to be forgotten or censorship through the back door?

mugbowl

In May this year Google began processing requests from EU citizens to have links to information about them filtered out of search results. The criteria for such a request are outlined in the request form:

A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-131/12, 13 May 2014) found that certain people can ask search engines to remove specific results for queries that include their name, where the interests in those results appearing are outweighed by the person’s privacy rights.

When you make such a request, we will balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s interest to know and the right to distribute information. When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information — for example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.

You will need a digital copy of a form of identification to complete this form. If you are submitting this request on behalf of someone else, you will need to supply identification for them. Fields marked with an asterisk * must be completed for your request to be submitted.

There are various means by which websites can be forced to remove info, such as court orders, requests from the Gardai or from the Data Protection Commissioner etc, but these bodies are at least nominally accountable to the public and open to scrutiny. This seems to be much less the case here.

Google only seems to be complying with an ECJ ruling on the back of European legislation introduced in 2012 and are taking the positive step of notifying the owners of content that links are being removed, but what about the EU? This obviously opens a door for public figures to chance their arm and have unpalatable stories about them removed. Are we now moving towards a state of affairs where the web is censored in the shadows for our "protection"?

comongethappy

Google can decline a request if the info requested to be 'forgotten' is accurate and/or in the public interest?

Removing outdated or innacurate results isn't censorship (in my opinion at least).

The Corinthian

It's not about removing inaccurate results. It's about removing perfectly accurate ones.

For example, consider three scenarios:

• Photo from 2002 of Joe Bloggs snogging a woman at his company Christmas party, who isn't his wife. His wife subsequently divorces him.
• Photo from 2002 of a European finance minister snogging a woman at Davos, who isn't his wife. His wife subsequently divorces him.
• Photo from 2002 of a European finance minister receiving a suitcase of money from a middle eastern businessman. He is subsequently convicted for corruption and serves his sentence.

All three have been accurately recorded as having done something immoral or illegal. All three have been caught and punished. All three want for this to be put behind them and forgotten.

Should it be? One can argue that it should not because it is in the public interest, but the first scenario hardly is. The second, is very questionably so and even then, neither the second or third arguably are if the person in question is no longer a public figure.

It really comes down to whether it serves the public interest to 'forget' such things on the Internet or not. A drunken post on Boards at 4am in 2004 that foolishly identifies you? A photo of you getting drunk at a party that someone else took and posted online, that appears whenever you Google your name? Or an article on the corruption or incompetence of a banking official during the credit crisis?

Or what of a news article covering the conviction of a sex offender? Or of the arrest of one, who is subsequently found innocent?

It's a complex area and one where the EU and Google hold opposite stances, with the former preferring a close to on-demand deletion and Google preferring never forgetting, so that neither has to consider the complexities of each individual case.

In this regard, Google's response has to accept every request so that eventually someone would notice pages that are in the public interest were being dropped - thus reopening the debate.

Scofflaw

My problem with this is that the CJEU decision does not require automatic compliance, does not create a penalty regime for failure to remove links, and requires people to go a legal route in appealing any decision by the "data controller" to reject a "forget" request. And the decision explicitly discriminates between private and public persons.

Not that I'm in favour of a penalty regime, but in the absence of a penalty regime, Google's apparently enthusiastic compliance looks a little suspect. An automatic denial of requests should not lead to penalties for Google et al, and would kick the ball back into the legal/regulatory court that landed it on Google - in effect, Google would be saying that they would comply with such requests only when the person concerned makes the effort to provide a court with evidence, and the court judges that the person's right to privacy overrules the public interest. It shouldn't be up to Google to make the judgement, and it shouldn't be up to Google to bear the costs of making such judgements.

Certainly publication of the information in any reputable news source should be prima facie grounds for a refusal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

This seems to be rather heavy handed of the ECJ. On the one hand, it allows an additional tool for the removal to links of genuine mis-information. Studies have shown that most HR depts now do internet background checks on candidates, so having potentialy damaging information is a positive. However, there is the aspect of how the internet as been the de facto collective memory collective. The ability to remove information links would seem to benefit those with a vested interest to re-mould how they are presented to the world. For instance an attempt to remove critical comments made by a BBC journalist about banking issues (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28144406). So those with a disproportionate means to influence society will has another weapon in their armory to effect public relations.

Yorky

Has anyone successfully used this recent ruling to remove internet search results about them?

It's mainly details of business and voluntary activities which require removal. For example, a previous listing in Golden Pages was used by various online directories without authorisation.

Also a search under a mobile phone number produces results which require removal.

From my cursory experience, it's by no means straightforward.

If anyone knows a simple method could they post details here?

Thanks in advance

K-9

Mod:

Threads merged on similar topics.

Sand

The Corinthian wrote: »

In this regard, Google's response has to accept every request so that eventually someone would notice pages that are in the public interest were being dropped - thus reopening the debate.

Exactly, I think Googles response has been very clever in highlighting that in this case, the law is an ass. By all accounts, they're accepting pretty much every request, and as one BBC reporter (who had an article he wrote removed) its not even made clear to him *why* or *who* removed the article from search results. He initially presumed it was the target of his article, but he noted it could just as easily have been someone who made an unfortunate comment responding to it.