Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links

An anonymous reader writes Only days after receiving harsh criticism from all corners of the internet for taking down links to news articles, Google has started to reinstate those links. Google's Peter Barron denied that they were simply granting all "right to be forgotten" requests. "The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted — but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law," he said. Still, Google's actions are being called "tactical" for how quickly they were able to stir public dissent over the EU ruling. "It's convenient, then, that it's found a way to get the media to kick up the fuss for it: there are very few news organisations in the world who are happy to hear their output is being stifled. A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines – and Google is likely to be happy about that."

Comments

Hmm,

[Darinbob]

I totally forgot about this story until just now.

As "tactical" as an nuclear bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone honestly expect anything less? The "right to be forgotten" was bound to disproportionately hit news organizations by nature.

Re:As "tactical" as an nuclear bomb

[Cryacin]

Sorry I forgot what we were talking about?

google doens't need to stir up dissent

[Nyder]

People see this law for what it is, a way for the rich/politicians/scum to get rid of stories that make them look like the twats they are.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

Results that are libelous should result in court cases against the persons making the libelous publications. Following their conviction in a court of law, the judge should rule that the offending content should be suppressed. This ludicrous hassling of search indexes is not the answer.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[DarkOx]

There is already a remedy for that though, if its libel than you sue for libel; so either this law is nothing new or its something entirely new that people claim it is and away for people to whitewash facts about themselves.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[LordLimecat]

There are a lot of europeans on reddit and slashdot who heartily defend this law.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[ChromeAeonium]

Yeah, I also noticed that. It surprised me how many Europeans were actually defending censorship. Are they surprised that censorship ends poorly?

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that you should be able to publish anything you want anywhere (you own) is a peculiarly American idea. It's probably because the US was founded by businessmen who understand that it's far more subtle to buy out the presses, lie a lot and simply drown out dissenting speech (until it gets slightly too loud for comfort - then you bring the guns in) than it is to simply say, "No, you can't spread bullshit."

This is why people can call for suffering for blacks and gays until the end of days and pay for dishonest political campaigns, but the only way you're going to reach a large audience is to be part of half a dozen media conglomerates. And if you say something really worth listening to - speak information about abuse in government security services, for example - suddenly your freedom to speak disappears entirely.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[Mike Buddha]

There are plenty of laws in existence to deal with libelous or legally damaging stories on the internet. Why does this law need to exist outside of those existing methods? Well, that would be to force Google to do the job of the courts in the EU, of course.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if all these instances were adjudicated by a court first, and Google was handed a list of "when a user searches for this, this specific link should be omitted" rather than the cop out "Google has to look at each request and decide what fits" BS.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[techno-vampire]

How can Europeans know that censorship ends poorly when nobody's allowed to tell them about it?

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

The American concept of Free Speech is a recent invention, stemming from a long series of Supreme Court decisions beginning in the 1920s. In the 18th and 19th centuries American governments regularly passed laws restricting speech in the name of security and keeping the peace.

For example, when the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, while Democrats like Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed, nobody would have thought to argue it unconstitutional on Free Speech grounds. They used every argument in the book _except_ Free Speech, because everybody intuitively believed that government had the powers to restrict Free Speech that way (the First Amendment was understood to prevent capricious and arbitrary restrictions on Free Speech unrelated to a general public interest). But today that's instinctively how any American, whether a lawyer or not, would frame the argument--as a Free Speech issue.

The modern concept of Privacy is also relatively recent, taking root in the mid-20th century. But in America the Free Speech train had already left the station and was already in tension with new theories on Privacy--beyond the very old, very circumscribed Common Law "privacy" rights we enjoyed. Whereas in Europe concepts of Privacy evolved unrestricted by an exceptionally strict view about individual Free Speech.

As an American, I believe in strong Free Speech rights. At this point its a fundamental part of our world view, even though most Americans erroneously believe it was always that way. And unlike in Europe, our society has already adapted to our radical form of transparency. OTOH, our strain of legal theory regarding Free Speech is being appropriated to restrict other rights and privileges. For example, to restrict commercial regulation of corporations. In other words, Free Speech is being leveraged to enable certain economic theories. And even though I'm quite a liberal capitalist, I don't appreciate that development; for one thing, it might lead to a backlash later on against individual Free Speech rights.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[russotto]

For example, when the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, while Democrats like Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed, nobody would have thought to argue it unconstitutional on Free Speech grounds.

Democratic-Republicans -- usually called Republicans -- if you please. Jefferson's party is the parent of both parties today, though he'd hardly recognize either. And of course they were argued as unconstitutional on free speech grounds. See the third Kentucky Resolution.

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[TapeCutter]

It's probably because the US was founded by businessmen

You do realise that the Magna Carta was forced upon the crown by wealthy mearchants, right?

Yes, Europe puts more restrictions on the fourth estate, they did after all have some serious propaganda problems with Germany in the 1930's leading to everyone pulling out their guns in the 1940's. The right to free speech is enshrined in the UN declaration of HR which almost all nations are party to but none actually implement in full.

European restrictions are traditionally enforced by libel and deformation actions in court. Outsourcing the decisions to google is being sold to people as a "right", in the same way that "keeping the peace" has already been sold to American's as the right to bear arms. Few people actual buy a gun to kill a specific person but most American's think that maybe one day I will need it. Well, it's the same behaviour here with Europeans, they figure that maybe, one day, they will do something that they want the internet to forget. Call it a "right" and suddenly they will defend it to their last breath.

Ironic how this issue leads to a discussion about just how powerful language can be in persuading humans to vote against their own self-interest, no? We are all susceptible to this behaviour to some degree, and if your arrogant enough to believe it can't happen to you, you're probably already serving in an army of "useful idiots".

Re:google doens't need to stir up dissent

[AmiMoJo]

It's got nothing at all to do with libel. The Data Protection rules concern information about individuals gathered by commercial entities. If a company wants to hold people's personal details they must abide by the rules. One of the rules is that information can only be kept as long as it is relevant and up to date. This was originally to stop companies keeping people on file indefinitely after their relationship had long ago ended, and the data becoming increasingly inaccurate. Everything from junk mail sent to old addresses because you bought one thing 20 years ago to companies selling databases was an issue.

This was back in 1995 though, when search engines were primitive and little personal data was online. The rules need updating, and the EU is trying but member states can't agree.

Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ahehe heheh eh ahah AHAHAHAHAH. In other languages, jajajajajaja loloololol xaxaxaxaxaxa, or orc, kekekekekekeke.

Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe

[Alphager]

Which one of your rights is assaulted when Google, a private enterprise, decides to not show you certain links?

Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Which rights of yours are being assaulted when politicians and 1%ers use Google privacy requests to snuff true information and private dissent under the guise of "privacy".

One man's right to "privacy" is another man's right to control your information.

My "right" to privacy can be used to conceal fraud, criminal activity, bad press and do it with the brute force of government on my side.

And the brute force of government is the power to make you poor, to have you arrested, to put you in jail if you do not comply.

Isn't this a case of wanting to have it both ways?

[brix]

Aren't many of the news organizations in the EU the same ones that wanted to charge Google a licensee to link to their articles in the first place?

They're upset when Google links to their articles; they're upset when they don't ...

Censorship through comment

[biodata]

The Preston case was particularly pernicious - a whole article disappears from search results just because one person adds a comment to the article then decides to 'retract' their comment because 'it is not relevant any more'. It would have introduced a very easy attack route for anyone to take down any article they didn't like by posting a comment then asking Google to retract it thus hiding the whole article.

Re:Censorship through comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Google did not hide the whole article. The article will no longer be returned when users search for the name of the *commenter*. Searches using Preston's name should still link to the full article unless Preston was the one that requested that it be removed from the index for queries on his name. Similarly, searches based on the content of the article that do not include any of the "forgotten" names will still link to the article.

Re:Censorship through comment

[AmiMoJo]

a whole article disappears from search results just because one person adds a comment

No, it was NEVER removed from the search results for anything other than a search on the requester's name. Searching for the subject of the article or anything else related to it still brought it up.

In other words a person can only affect results for their own name, not anything else.

Re: Censorship through comment

[cyber-vandal]

"stan o'neil" site:bbc.co.uk returns the article. This is all hysterical bullshit.

Enviable, and pitiable

[pla]

Google really does occupy both an enviable and a pitiable niche as regards the war on censorship / copyright / privacy.

On the one hand, they constantly get orders to remove search results that the likes of DuckDuckGo never need to deal with.

On the other, when they actually do remove links, they almost uniquely have the power to make the asker instantly regret the request... Whether through the "Streisand" effect, or in the present case, by "innocently" applying the demand in an overly-broad manner, Google comes out smelling like roses while those who would silence them become the next internet pariahs-of-the-week.

Truly beautiful! And for a change (though I in no way mean to claim Google as any sort of White Knight), this effect works largely in favor of the public.

Re:Did you still get the links outside Europe

[LordLimecat]

Google isnt deciding to, theyre being legally obligated to. Its not our rights, but theirs, and the danger to free speech when that is permitted.

Google takedown policy....

[The New Guy 2.0]

Google's takedown request policy is...

1. Oops, we weren't expecting that... gotta unplug the service.
2. Okay, service is back but we're missing everything anybody asked be removed.
3. Oops, some of this stuff got removed right because there was something wrong in the request, we shouldn't have followed "all requests".
4. Now it works... and anybody who sues gets told "You should have gone to this URL to do that!"

As

[The New Guy 2.0]

I think "right to be forgotten" is in the face of my "right to recall what was said about you!"