Slashdot Mirror
Google Rejects 58% of "Right To Be Forgotten" Requests
gurps_npc writes CNN Money has a short, interesting piece on the results of Google implementing Europe's "Right to be Forgotten." They are denying most requests, particularly those made by convicted criminals, but are honoring the requests to remove salacious information — such as when a rape victim requested the article mentioning her by name be removed from searches for her name. "In evaluating a request, we will look at whether the results include outdated or inaccurate information about the person," Google said. "We'll also weigh whether or not there's a public interest in the information remaining in our search results -- for example, if it relates to financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions or your public conduct as a government official."
Social engineering, political pressure, and the fact that the worst people are most interested in covering up their past means this will be abused. Every sane and pragmatic consideration to prevent abuse will have workarounds well known to scummy specialists, who know who to ask, who to lie to, and how to submit requests.
Ignoring public officials, that seems a very American view on how to treat criminals.
If someone is caught for a petty crime 15 years ago, should it be returned against a search history now if they have never committed another offence?
The law as it stands in most of Europe doesn't delete the record of such a crime having happened, but does hide that information to encourage offenders to rehabilitate and become a non-criminal and regular member of society. Without the prospect of ever being able to live normally once an indiscretion has occurred, what would motivate an offender to stop offending? There's a sweet spot between the first crime and the third petty crime in which you could deter someone from that life of crime, but after that point and after a jail sentence you are unlikely to reform that person. But without the option of rehabilitation you are unlikely to reform *any* offender.
This would also allow nation states to use the increasing threat of police intrusion as a deterrence and counter-opposition tool. Any arrest and any record that can be made to stick would reverberate forwards in time affecting that person in numerous ways... if petty offences cannot be forgotton or moved on from.
Once you accept that for some petty crimes (i.e. drunk and disorderly on a stag do that got out of hand, or something equally likely that it could entrap almost anyone) the search engine should reflect the sensible law that states this should be forgotten by almost everyone (not those in certain positions)... then where is the line drawn?
At one extreme murderers should not be forgotten, nor convicted rapists... but at the other end speeding offences, drunk and disorderly, shoplifting, those shouldn't upend a life. Somewhere between those points is the fuzzy line where stuff on one side should be forgotten, other stuff remembered.
Before this ruling Google ignored that line and treated everyone to the joy of living forever with the consequences of their actions without ever being able to make good. After this ruling, Google are forced to apply some basis for allowing some people to move on.
Then of course... where to start with public officials. Those who wish the world to be a better place and work towards it don't deserve a lack of privacy. They certainly need to be transparent in their roles and to sustain trust in their position, but these are different things. A fuzzy line appears once more, intrusions on the identity of the children of a public official is too much, they never voluntarily agreed to give up a level of privacy, and yet no questioning of the financial situation of an official is too little as their trust should be earned and not presumed.
In both cases, either extreme (no privacy nor right to be forgotten, full privacy and past deleted) is clearly wrong.
"The law" tends to have attributes about what is valid that require some subjective assessment. Nominally these are ironed out through extremely legalistic language, and court precedents. In practice, it frequently includes those the law applies to making judgements.
Theft laws, for example, don't preclude my occasional unsolicited handling of your property within the bounds of common sense, like, say, me bringing you your umbrella you left behind by accident.
> The law as it stands in most of Europe doesn't delete the record of such a crime having happened, but does hide
> that information to encourage offenders to rehabilitate and become a non-criminal and regular member of
> society. Without the prospect of ever being able to live normally once an indiscretion has occurred, what would
> motivate an offender to stop offending?
You nailed it exactly; if we offer those prospect to former criminals who have paid their "debt to society" then they are likely to not re-offend, which is just terrible in terms of job prospects for police and prison gaurds.
Shit many of our laws and policies exist specifically to create bodies to mill through the system, why would we want to provide any means of escape? Think of the prison gaurd's children!
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The point is to determine if each request is covered by the law. The problem is that the requests they get are not individually approved by a court, that would make it too easy. Instead, they HAVE to be the judge of which requests are covered by the law.
Personally, I think this is a BS law. If something is legally present on web, ie. a ten year old news story, then it should be index-able. However, if there a a factual problem, or contains private information, then the site owners should be required to correct it or take it down. The idea of going after the index is ridiculous, not effective and lazy.
Well, technically it's more some sort of "it-doesn't-matter"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the original case that triggered the "right to be forgotten" ruling, the person did do just that. The argument from the newspaper involved was that a record of fact would not be edited.
The person did not dispute that the fact occurred, merely that by it being published at the top of the search engine placement it's effect had not diminished with time and was still being felt by the person as other third parties took the information to be current and used it against them.
The people affected by this don't seem to be objecting to the past (and historical record existing), but only it's impact on the present.
In Sweden, for example, all tax records are a matter of public record. If you were Swedish I could go through the process of looking up your data. But that process isn't automated to the point that the knowledge of that data could be used against you by everyone... it would take some effort on my part, and some right (I understand only Swedish citizens can ask for the data) to access it.
What the "right to be forgotten" does is attempt to balance access to the historical record such that the access does not unduly cause harm to individuals, whilst at the same time attempting to keep public information about certain acts that shouldn't be forgotten.
As I argue above, it is not as if everything should be hidden, but nor that nothing should. There is a fuzzy line but in the past those who provided access to such information did too good a job of that to the detriment of the people. Given that Google reject 58% of requests, they are probably now getting it more right than wrong.
"But in Switzerland, a finance professional who asked Google to remove more than 10 links on his arrest and conviction for financial crimes had his request denied."
Would such a request not already be denied just because Switzerland is not in the European Union?
And by the way, most of the comments here seem to be unhappy about the fact that Google is making these decisions. Guess what, Google doesn't want this either. They fought this tooth and nail up to the highest European Court, but the court decided to force them to remove requests under certain (but not clearly defined) circumstances. Read more here (I haven't reviewed the article so can't vouch for accuracy though): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
20 years ago if you were caught giving a hand job to a guy in a corner, maybe youw ere drunk or whatnot, maybe it would ruin your life for a year or two but that would be over , unless somebody dedicated a good amount of time to search paper clip it would fall into forgetness. nowadays the slightiest stuff is kept forever. A society which does not forget is one which will not forgive minor transgression. Now that handjob will hunt you forever maybe even stopping you getting a good job. An unforgiving society is harsh and one I does not want to live in and apparently many others. Also remember freedom is not found at the middle road where everybody find everything acceptable, and reporting would be borring. Freedom lies on the side of the road, where the shadows are , but still on the lgeal side, and what is or what is not accepted by society lies. If you enforce an unforgiving society and one with 100% memory then you WILL lose freedom. In a way this is already hapenning in the US. I refuse to see that coming in europe. Long live teh right to be forgotten. I do not need it, but I will fight for that freedom for everybody.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"assuming the request itself is valid"
This is the sticking point. For example, my name is pretty common. Suppose there was a news story about a Jason Levine who did something bad and searches on my name were showing this news item. Could I petition Google to "forget" my name? (We'll ignore, for the moment, that I don't live in Europe.) Could the criminal with the same name as me do the same? Could I petition Google to "forget" a hypothetical video of me walking into a light-pole while texting? Can a company request that all mentions of a product be removed if said product was a flop?
The courts, thankfully, didn't tell Google that they had to honor all removal requests. Had they done so, Google might have just saved everyone time and simply shut down their search engine as they would be forced to remove valid search results for inappropriate reasons. The removal requirements the courts gave were somewhat vague so Google is forced to use their corporate judgement as to what constitutes a valid "forget me" request and what is an attempted abuse of the system (and should be denied). If anything, I'm surprised that the rejection rate isn't higher than 58%. The ability to have "the Internet forget" the bad things you did would be very tempting for companies and criminals alike.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If you are violating an unjust law, then why would you want to hide the fact that you were standing up for your rights?
Because not everyone who violates unjust laws wants to be the leader of a movement or risk being destroyed. Some people just want to get on with their lives while occasionally ignoring ridiculous laws.
If that were the case, I think everyone here would prefer to actually have that taken care of at the source, not through filtering Google..
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's their search engine. Start your own search engine and you will get to decide what's in it.
Blackjack and hookers, duh.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The data protection laws say, in summary, that companies who process peoples' personal information are responsible for keeping that information accurate and up-to-date, and to discard that information when it is no longer relevant.
The court ruling decided that search results on a person's name constituted personal information about that person. Hence search engine indexes are subject to the fore-mentioned laws.