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.

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

[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

[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: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.

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.