Bing Implements Right To Be Forgotten

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bing Implements Right To Be Forgotten

Posted by Unknown on Thursday July 17, 2014 @06:25AM from the hide-your-shame dept.

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news that Bing has joined Google in removing search results upon request by EU citizens. From the article: The company has asked European residents, who want Microsoft to block search results that show on Bing in response to searches of their names, to fill out a four-part online form. Besides the name and country of residence of the person and the details of the pages to be blocked, the form also asks if the person is a public figure or has or expects a role that involves trust, leadership or safety. ... The information provided will help the company "consider the balance" between the applicant's individual privacy interest and the public interest in protecting free expression and the free availability of information, in line with European law, Microsoft said. You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.

64 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by QuietLagoon · 2014-07-17 06:29 · Score: 0, Troll

Or is Microsoft just trying to say, "Hey, we have a search engine also. Pay attention to us."
1. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by gstoddart · 2014-07-17 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  That was my first thought ... all the cool kids are doing it.
  So far Google has gotten all the publicity.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or is Microsoft just trying to say, "Hey, we have a search engine also. Pay attention to us."
  The ruling doesn't name Google specifically. (like, duh) Every search engine would be legally required to implement the "right to be forgotten".
3. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by QuietLagoon · 2014-07-17 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  That was my first thought ... all the cool kids are doing it.
  ...
  According to Bloomberg TV, Bing has a whopping 2.5% marketshare in the EU search market.
4. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure some guys are sitting around and microsoft in a rocking chair sipping on brandy reminicing about the good ole days when they were forced by court order to do things they didn't really want to do, because they were too successful.
5. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by dmbasso · 2014-07-17 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The feature is actually working! I had totally forgotten Bing existed!
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
6. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by Ravaldy · 2014-07-17 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  2.5% of 18.4 Billions search ad market (as of 2013) is $460 000 000. Are you saying that's nothing?
  A growing number is usually a good indicator of a business growing. Question here is whether this increase is due to the defaults in IE or actually adoption of the search engine.
  I believe Bing's world search market share is currently 4.25% (as per global stats counter)
7. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  I had totally forgotten Bing existed!
  Do they still make carburetors for BMW?
  In the mid '1980s I had to rebuild one of those things in the mud on a Guatemalan roadside. The BMW R80GS I was riding started dumping fuel onto my right boot...
  They were good when they worked, but fiddly as hell to fix.
8. Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? by rezme · 2014-07-18 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but can you honestly say that there would it would be noticeable if Bing didn't choose to implement it?
Yeah right ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:29 · Score: 0

Like anybody uses Bing.
Irony by kruach+aum · 2014-07-17 06:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Is there anyone who had not yet exercised their right to forget Bing?
1. Re:Irony by QilessQi · 2014-07-17 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  What's "Bing"?
  
  --
  Koans and fables for the software engineer
2. Re:Irony by Archangel+Michael · 2014-07-17 06:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Bing
  Is
  Not
  Google
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
3. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what I read here.
4. Re:Irony by Flavianoep · 2014-07-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, Mr. Michael. I've been wondering theses days where does the word "bing" come from. =)
  
  --
  Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
5. Re:Irony by gstoddart · 2014-07-17 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've always assumed it was the sound whatever hypothetical machine would make.
  "Recipes for turducken" ... Bing!
  You know, like where the computer in Star Trek made mechanical noises while it was thinking.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Is "Archangel Michael" his real name? No insult intended, but that seems unlikely.
7. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  It came from the original name of the project now know as "bing", which was "bang". Obviously MS didn't want to ruin the term "let me bang you" or "let me bang that".
8. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what I read here.
  In case you care, that story was very thoroughly debunked. Perhaps not on Slashdot, but even the main source of the story initially, Dave Sullivan, retracted when the facts became clear. I've since seen the original debunked claim repeated on Slashdot numerous times, which is sad, we used to be anti-fud. What happened was that Google people activated a opt-in feature in Bing IE toolbar to track user activity, then fed it a "secret" site they only knew about - surprise, it is not secret anymore! Even intentionally doing this, the Google people only managed to fool Bing in 7 out of 100 tries or something.
9. Re:Irony by Archangel+Michael · 2014-07-17 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, but if you go through the edits of that article there was once a reference to me. Thus proving, anyone can edit Wikipedia. And further proving that useless information can be and often is removed.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
10. Re:Irony by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-07-17 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  mpicpp (3454017)
  writes with news that Bing has joined Google in removing search results upon request
  As usual, Microsoft is late to the party, playing, "Me too!"
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
11. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Bing
  Is
  Not
  Good
12. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  I always thought it was ripped off from Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge. The 3rd Allied level has you in Seattle trying to save Chairman Bing of the Massivesoft Corporation from Yuri. Here's the cutscene at 8:38
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiS-MXX5dXk
13. Re:Irony by dr_blurb · 2014-07-17 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  What's "Bing"?
  It's a search engine named after a character in "Friends".
14. Re:Irony by kwbauer · 2014-07-17 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  because Microsoft is more evil than Google so always keep repeating the lies to prove the "fact"
15. Re:Irony by RockDoctor · 2014-07-17 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Bing : (Scots)
  noun: bing; plural noun: bings
  a heap, especially of metallic ore or of waste from a mine.
  Origin : early 16th century: from Old Norse bingr âheapâ(TM).
  Example : here is a pile of useless waste from the 19th century oil-shale workings just outside Edinburgh.
  No, seriously. Google it!
  Micro$loth's marketing department fucks it up. Again.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Non-EU by just_another_sean · 2014-07-17 06:30 · Score: 1

You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.
That's interesting. Is it the same with Google? I guess I never saw one way or another but I have assumed until now that gone from Google's results meant all of Google, not just TLDs in Europe...

--
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
1. Re:Non-EU by rahvin112 · 2014-07-17 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The gone is gone only from the country specific google domains, ie. Google.fr. You can still access the US indexes and get uncensored results although my bet is that at some point they make Google start filtering access by IP address.
An interesting twist... by QuietLagoon · 2014-07-17 06:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Microsoft asks google to take down a link, yet Microsoft does not remove that link from Bing. What's up with that?
.
Odd That Microsoft Demands Google Take Down Links That Remain In Bing
1. Re:An interesting twist... by kpainter · 2014-07-17 06:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That is ok because nobody will ever see the link anyway.
2. Re:An interesting twist... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  That article is over 2 years old...
  Don't you have sources that are less stale?
3. Re:An interesting twist... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Let me Altavista that for you.
4. Re:An interesting twist... by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-17 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  Take your pick:
  http://sixrevisions.com/web_de...
  HotBot was always my go-to.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:An interesting twist... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2014-07-17 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  That article is over 2 years old...
  
  Don't you have sources that are less stale?
  
  No. I used Bing.
I thought it was global? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:32 · Score: 0

You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.
My understanding was that the EU was requiring Google to censor globally, not just the EU versions.
1. Re:I thought it was global? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  They can only apply this law within the EU and this law is one of the stupidest things to come out of the EU in quite a while and that is really saying something, It's totally subjective in nature which and it places an heavy, unnecessary, and expensive burden on the search engine companies to comply, It's a lot of work just to make sure people don't get embarrassed over their past indiscretions. And even worse since each take down request needs to be reviewed by a real person and have their decisions vetted by their supervisors.
2. Re:I thought it was global? by Sciath · 2014-07-18 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's all part of the cost of doing business... yes? I see little reason why commerce and communication over the web should be any different than commerce and communication via land line telecommunications. It may be correct that the web was envisioned as an "open" communication system but I see no reason whatsoever that the same privacy expectations that use to be applicable to land line communications should not apply to the web. In my opinion, there should be a presumption of privacy in ANY form of communication or doing business. And that those who operate various communication pathways to obtain participants explicit permission to share their information. Now, one may argue that the web as it exists today is completely open and public. Thus, people who utilize such pathways are implicitly granting permission to share their information. However, that's ass backwards from pre-internet expectations. Prior to the web, people had an expectation of privacy and there is no reason the web should be any different. Businesses are explicitly on the web to further their markets and WANT the exposure. But private individuals should have to explicitly grant permission to any third party for release of private and personal information including email, business transactions with specific companies, etc. Including the inability of companies to share information with third parties, affiliates, business partners, etc. Every single thing a person engages in on the web should by statute be considered private and one should not have to give up their privacy to communicate or transact business on the web... period.
  
  --
  "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Right to be remembered by jfdavis668 · 2014-07-17 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
1. Re:Right to be remembered by praxis · 2014-07-17 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
  Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.
2. Re:Right to be remembered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-18 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.
  What else is true about the internets hundreds of years from now?
3. Re:Right to be remembered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-18 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
  The easiest way would be to demand the internet forget you.
Sounds Like "Opt-In" To Me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:46 · Score: 0

Please provide a large amount of personal information in this four part online form so that we can properly forget you. As promised, we'll forget the websites that mention you, but we'll also collect money by selling your updated info to anyone that will pay for it.
Hello, advertising/marketing industry? employee tracking services companies? government health insurance spying/investigation services? NSA? We have some fresh meat for you. Please pay us.
1. Re:Sounds Like "Opt-In" To Me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, sounds like an NSA data collection trick to me.
Finally, a way to find out if your wife is a Robot by Rinikusu · 2014-07-17 06:50 · Score: 1

"Hey, honey, when I did file that right to be forgotten form?"
"I have no recollection of such event, dear."

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Finally, a way to find out if your wife is a Ro by gstoddart · 2014-07-17 06:57 · Score: 1

Hmmmm ... I'm afraid I don't see how this passes the "is my wife a robot test?"
Honey, have you seen my keys? "Where did you leave them?"
Honey, have you see my wallet? "Why would I know where you left it?"
Honey, what's for dinner? "What are you making?"
None of these things help me tell if my wife is a robot or not. ;-)

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Who controls the past controls the future... by Atmchicago · 2014-07-17 07:07 · Score: 2

This is a big step towards re-writing history. It begins with ignoring it, or by actively hiding it. I give it 1 year before we hear of attempts by politicians to cover embarrasing stories that are relevant information to the public, or before corporations hide unpleasant past events such as oil spills (corporations are people too, these days). True, search engines aren't the sole gateways to information, but nowadays people assume that if something isn't found on the first search results page it's probably not important.

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
1. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by tlhIngan · 2014-07-17 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is a big step towards re-writing history. It begins with ignoring it, or by actively hiding it. I give it 1 year before we hear of attempts by politicians to cover embarrasing stories that are relevant information to the public, or before corporations hide unpleasant past events such as oil spills (corporations are people too, these days). True, search engines aren't the sole gateways to information, but nowadays people assume that if something isn't found on the first search results page it's probably not important.
  It happens already actually - off line.
  The whole "right to be forgotten" is an implementation of the fact that over time, whatever happened people naturally forget about, and getting at those records is hard enough that the effort usually isn't worthwhile.
  The Internet, though, is an ever-expanding pile of information, that stuff you did 10 years ago will haunt you for the rest of your life. It's so valuable a resource that industries that traditionally would've just let things slide because they happened so long abo the evidence is sketchy now has access to all the information that most people have long forgotten.
  The right to be forgotten doesn't remove content, it just means that the link between the content and the specific search gets broken. There can still be searches that bring up the content (e.g., "BP" may not bring up the oil spill, but "oil spill 2010" can bring it up).
  I suppose a common example would be employers who google every prospective employees, only to see that 10, 20, 30+ years ago they did something "bad" and declining to interview because of it. (Generally most content is undated, so determining how long ago something happened can be quite difficult).
  Of course, there are also people who google their dates, etc.
  And even before this ruling, brand management companies knew how to bury content - just because you did something horrible 3 years ago, doesn't mean you have it have it sit as the 4th link on Google. With a bit of SEO and other techniques, you can bury those past events farther down the line (remembering 90% of the people stop at the first page, and barely any reach the 3rd or 4th page of results, so if you get it page 15, it's buried, or forgotten).
2. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  it's already happening, open your eyes and don't rely solely on Google
3. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by the11thplague · 2014-07-17 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  The whole "right to be forgotten" is an implementation of the fact that over time, whatever happened people naturally forget about, and getting at those records is hard enough that the effort usually isn't worthwhile.
  Except this was not the original "right to be forgotten", which was discussed by the European Parliament and meant "I want Facebook to forget MY OWN data I provided it with". That was lobbied aside by Yahoo! and Co. This is related to a ruling by the Supreme European Court (different entity) and the press called it "right to be forgotten" putting a new meaning to an old concept. This nice little trick by the press hijacked all possibilities of debating the old meaning, which made much more sense, actually.
4. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  And how long before some government claims the right to make someone unpopular, a pedophile or terrorist perhaps, into an unperson?
5. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, for goodness' sake - that's been happening for years.
  You know what was the first thing that changed, online, the day President Obama took office? Every press release, every speech, every item added to the whitehouse.gov website by the Bush administration got taken down. Millions of links all over the internet were broken overnight. (Of course Bush did the same thing at the beginning of his term, but then he never claimed to understand the internet.)
  And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you link to a news story or press release from a few years ago, how many times has it been revised since it was first published? How many more times will it be revised, after you've linked it? And if you think all those revisions are going to be tracked and visible, I've got a nice internet to sell you...
6. Re:Who controls the past controls the future... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-18 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  This is double plus good
so is this how it is? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:11 · Score: 0

$forget Microsoft
OK
$forget Windows
OK
$forget Bing
OK
receive uncensored results? by fustakrakich · 2014-07-17 07:22 · Score: 1

I don't believe that for a second. Everybody is censoring now. Of course in the US the laws mandating censorship are secret, cuz, you know, terrorists.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's all about balance by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:27 · Score: 0

It is similar to determining how powerful a person is before deciding whether or not to honor the takedown request.
Those who are not very powerful will be denied, because they can't harm Microsoft for non-compliance. Those who are very powerful will always have the request honored, regardless of the facticity of the data being blocked (and with no consideration at all to how important that data may be to the public), since non-compliance could result in some kind of harm to Microsoft.
Got it right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:36 · Score: 0

Definitely Bing is the right search engine for being forgotten.
Does it make any difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:48 · Score: 0

Last time I checked, Bing's presence in Europe (and elsewhere) was all but negligible.
Microsoft doing the right thing by rsborg · 2014-07-17 08:29 · Score: 0

It was mentioned in another slashdot post that Google was perhaps undertaking some malicious compliance [1] in following the EU directive, essentially removing an article that referenced a person instead of just making his name not show the result.
By mentioning that they have a responsibility to balance public interest verses the privacy needs of the individual, they're showing more maturity in their response than Google did.
I don't say this too often but... props to Microsoft.
[1] http://search.slashdot.org/com...

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Bing is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 09:05 · Score: 0

And dead.
Then, who cares.
Is this possible with google searches too? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 10:05 · Score: 0

That is, to find search results that has been removed because of this insane EU law, using for example google.com? I live in EU. If so, how come no one has mentioned this?
Bing who? by symbolset · 2014-07-17 17:24 · Score: 1

What ever Bing is, they should be working on solving the "ability to be known" problem. Solving "right to be forgotten" is fixing a problem they don't have.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Soon to be censored worldwide? by 1080bogus · 2014-07-18 00:51 · Score: 1

"You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results."
According to the US Government, they should be able to access data worldwide as long as the company operates in the US. What's stopping the EU from demanding all search pages be censored? I realize one is asking for data and the other is filtering, but it's that slippery slope. One government can do something "worldwide", what's stopping others from doing the same thing with companies that operate in their country?
What about my right to be remembered? by eanbowman · 2014-07-18 04:32 · Score: 1

Remember me, Internet. For all of the intelligent and the silly things I have done. Who am I kidding? Nobody cares about me.
Street photography is illegal in the EU by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-20 06:29 · Score: 0

The 'right to be forgotten' from search engines is politically the same issue about photography without permission: do we want to live in a society in which an individual who is in public (e.g. in the street) has the right to not be photographed by another individual? It's a freedom of speech issue. Europeans have decided they want privacy and now you need a written signed model release from any person who is visible in your photos. The same with search engines: now search enginers will need a signed written permission from any person whose data appears in search results or risk being asked to take the links down because of the 'right to be forgotten'.