On Forgetting the Facts: Questions From the EU For Google, Other Search Engines

The Wall Street Journal lists 26 questions that Google and other search providers have been asked (in a meeting in Brussels earlier this week) to answer for EU regulators, to pin down what the search engine companies have done to comply with European demands to implement a "right to be forgotten." Some questions were asked directly of representatives of Microsoft, Yahoo and Google, while the regulators want answers to the others in short order. From the article: Regulators touched on some hot-button issues in six oral questions and another 26 written ones, with answers due by next Thursday. They asked Google to describe the “legal basis” of its decision to notify publishers when it approves right-to-be-forgotten requests, something that has led to requesters’ being publicly identified in some cases. They also asked search engines to explain where they take down the results, after complaints from some regulators that Google does not filter results on google.com. That means that anyone in Europe can switch from, say, google.co.uk to Google.com to see any removed links. Among the questions: "2. Do you filter out some requests based on the location, nationality, or place of residence of the data subject? If so, what is the legal basis for excluding such requests?" and "16. Does your company refuse requests when the data subject was the author of the information he/she posted himself/herself on the web? If so, what is the basis for refusing such requests?"

Comments

Slippery Slope

[CaptQuark]

This is a very slippery slope. Trying to balance the rights of individuals to remove incorrect information about themselves and trying to remove unflattering information about themselves. Having a process to verify the individual, the reasons for wanting the information removed, and is the public interest best served by removing the information.

I'm sure there are many public figures that would love a chance to remove some of the news items about themselves.

~~

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutch Gun]

Know what else is a slippery slope? This.

According to Reuters, one topic of conversation will be the fact that results are only censored on European versions of Google, like Google.co.uk. So EU Web users can simply go to Google.com for full results, which some argue defeats the purpose of the ruling.

So, Europe would like to be able to affect what everyone sees, not just what Europe sees. I understand the need for privacy, but how certain are we that this won't devolve into plain old censorship? Are there some case histories that have been problematic that we should be aware of? The EU seems to have Google in their sights, but I'm not sure what Google did to get them quite so riled up. I remember Google's accidental collection of wifi info (the more cynical may put "accidental" in quotes, but it looked rather inadvertent to me. Besides which, the data was in the clear to begin with). Then there's the anti-trust issue, if I recall correctly, which I never quite understood either.

Have there been other incidents? Why the hell do they hate Google so much? I'm not exactly a Google fanboy myself, but it's probably good for Microsoft and Apple to have some serious competition.

Re:Slippery Slope

[thegarbz]

But no information is being removed, just the search results to that information are removed.

In an information database as vast as the internet, what is the difference? There's enough people who will happily believe that if it doesn't exist on Google then it doesn't exist.

Re:Slippery Slope

[John.Banister]

If Google is censoring their results, they could do so no just on the basis of which version of Google receives the request, but on the basis of the requesting IP address. That would be a showing of making the attempt to comply, and Google could argue that people who make the effort to use a VPN are like people who get on a train and leave the EU. It's up to the EU to treat with the countries at the other end of the train ride if they want their same law to apply in those places as well.

Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Marc_Hawke]

""Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.""

This is my biggest question about this whole thing. Why is it Google's job? If they want to be 'forgotten' or 'taken off the internet' then they have to be taken off the internet, not the search engines. The most Google would be affected is by making sure they don't show up as 'cached' results. However, if the original article still exists, that's hardly Google's fault.

It the EU wants to make an unenforceable decision about a stupid request, I think they should at least be forced to deal with the consequences, and not just harangue search engines (i.e easy targets.)

Not a Slippery Slope

[rolfwind]

This isn't a slippery slope, this is simply a cliff. There is no right to be forgotten, because it would mean I don't have a right to remember and thus share that memory.

Think about it, if I printed a memoir in the 1960s, and have, perhaps negative, anecdotes of various people, would that book have had to be recalled from the shelves a few years later just because the right to forget kicked in? Oh right, internet. Changes everything.

The human species is going to have to grow up a little. First as an audience and consumer of the net, and realize that just because it's on the internet (or even wikipedia) doesn't mean it's true. It also has to realize what people said in the past doesn't always pose a true reflection of their current selves - that people change and evolve. Especially from a younger age like 13.

Second, it will have to grow up as individuals and realize, when you put it out there, you put it out there. And no nanny state can fix it.

They can only provide the illusion of fixing it. Because search engines outside the EU are going to ignore this. And savvy people inside the EU will be able to access those with ease, while the heavy handed censorship will only provide the drones with comfort they are taken care of.

Guess what a person's right to be forgotten would turn into in the US? Corporations, who are people, would jump in it.

Why is this being pushed so hard now anyway? Well, Germany got it's hand caught in the cookie jar along with the NSA. It's BundesNachrichtenDienst (BND) works alongside with and is just as if not more invasive than the NSA.

Of course, Merkel gets to put on her show and dance about being outraged her phone is tapped, but she says nothing about how complicit she is in tapping everyone elses phones in her country.

And don't think the EU countries are any more innocent in this.

So instead of really protecting the right to privacy, by people who want privacy in the here and now, by pushing bulletproof encryption standards without backdoors and other actual net positives for their citizens, they just put up this debate of this none-issue that feels really good but does nothing except what government is typically good at - banning certain behaviors from private entities and censoring hot potatoes from public eyes. Ony it's third speciality, making a tax for this, is missing and probably coming. Perhaps an ISP tax that will "help monitor and enforce your privacy online", which is code for another 1000 workers at the BND trading people's naked selfies.

So putting this as some slippery slope is unhelpful. It implies that this is an actual issue that needs to be hammered out. No. It's just bullshit sand-in-the-face for those who don't see what's really going on.

And then the next step is...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.

And then the next logical step is for the EU to impose some sort of sanctions on the infrastructure and payment services involved if any of them have any connection to the EU -- just as the US government has done with things like DNS and payment services that are conveniently within its jurisdiction.

I'm not sure I like where this is all going. I'm sure we can all agree that overall the Internet has been a great advance for humanity, and in recent years governments from all over the world have presumed to carve it up and control it in their own interests, almost invariably to the detriment of people somewhere else (or, in some cases, their own people).

However, we are going to have to confront some difficult philosophical and ethical differences sooner or later, because clearly we also can't have a situation where the Internet is somehow above the law, but we don't always agree on what that law should be. Frankly, the US government have been throwing their own weight around for years, and Google have been doing things that push the boundaries of typical European legal and ethical standards for a long time too. Neither has shown any particular concern or remorse about the effects of their actions abroad, and neither has suffered any significant negative consequences so far, with the possible exception of the Snowden fallout. Sooner or later the rest of the world was going to push back.

In as much as this marks a change in the general acceptance that the US can export its laws and ethics but won't be subject to anyone else's, that is probably a good direction to move in. It will force the issues of Internet governance and extra-territorial law enforcement into the open, where at least we can scrutinise and debate them honestly, instead of everyone's government doing sneaky things often without much public scrutiny and often because of coincidences involving which infrastructure happened to fall somewhere they could get at it.