How Google Handles 'Right To Be Forgotten' Requests

An anonymous reader writes: In response to an inquiry from European data protection regulators, Google has detailed how they evaluate and act on requests to de-index search results. Google's procedures for responding to "right-to-be-forgotten" requests are explained in a lengthy document that was made publicly available. "Google of course claims its own economic interest does not come into play when making these rtbf judgements — beyond an 'abstract consideration' of a search engine needing to help people find the most relevant information for their query. ... Google also goes into lengthy detail to justify its decision to inform publishers when it has removed links to content on their sites — a decision which has resulted in media outlets writing new articles about delisted content, thereby resulting in the rtbf ruling causing the opposite effect to that intended (i.e. fresh publicity, not fair obscurity)."

Comments

Who didn't see this coming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who expected "right to be forgotten" requests to be handled quietly is delusional. Of course the information will get additional publicity!

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Prof.Phreak]

So the end result will be publishers pinging google every day to see if any of the stories they published are still google-able...

This is a stupid regulation. If someone doesn't want to have their story "out there" , they should just approach the publisher directly. Google isn't the one publishing or storing (for public consumption) this data... so they're a wrong target for this regulation.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[wisnoskij]

I do not see how this can be considered circumvention or contempt. Google has a long history of being transparent in this way. They make public what content they delist because of copyright violations and it is only right that they inform a website when they do similar for "right to be forgotten". You might argue that it is really the website's duty to begin with to comply with rights to be forgotten, and they are the only ones responsible for any possible contempt, but since no one contacted them to begin with asking to be forgotten I think that they are legally in the clear.

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[Wycliffe]

The way we find information has changed.
Why shouldn't laws change to reflect how we want to interact with the new reality?

Because that's just it, it's the way we find information, it's not the information itself.
This is the equivalent of making google maps and/or rand mcnally not list strip clubs on their maps.
The strip club is still there. It's still operating, it's just slightly harder to find.
If you don't like strip clubs then go after the strip club not the map maker.

Try to make me forget.

[Nyder]

Sure, I'd love for everyone to forget the stupid crap I do, but that isn't the way life works.

Re:Try to make me forget.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

...that isn't the way life works.

Actually, that's exactly the way life works, right up until some multi-billion-dollar megacorp decides to step in with technology that never forgets and that makes information (potentially including partial, inaccurate or misleading information) available more easily and to a much wider audience than would otherwise be the case.

Re:Try to make me forget.

[rolfwind]

Actually no, that's not how life works.

Go apply for a US government job with some clearance and see how far that forgetting works while they speak to your 1st grade teachers and anyone else that knew you since birth.

And you can also apply that to anybody that would want to put the time and money to put a detective on you.

Back in the 1960s (or today even) I could write a book with some embarrassing anecdote about someeone, would they be able to order that pulled off the shelves? No.

The only difference here is "internet." Ah yes, now we're in the era of not just negative rights, which are relatively easy to enforce, and positive rights, which usually cause a clusterfuck wherever they are tried.

Re:Try to make me forget.

[Brulath]

The Streisand Effect is quite overrated; I have serious doubts that even one percent of cases would actually invoke it, and suspect the fraction is even smaller than that. Same goes for 4chan and, actually, the news media in general; they find a couple of things and blow those up into huge scandals using creative storytelling, and let the rest slip past.

The Streisand Effect and 4chan are risks, but they're so unpredictable that it's probably not worth considering them as much of a factor in your decision to try and hide information.

Re:No they are in contempt

[wisnoskij]

Of course it is not an accident, this is just Google following their long standing policy of transparency when delisting websites.