Slashdot Mirror
Academics Call For Greater Transparency About Google's Right To Be Forgotten
Mark Wilson writes: Just yesterday Google revealed that it rejects most Right To Be Forgotten requests it receives. In publishing yet another transparency report, the search giant will have hoped to have put to bed any questions that users and critics may have had. While the report may have satisfied some, it did not go anywhere near far enough for one group of academics. A total of 80 university professors, law experts and technology professionals have written an open letter to Google demanding greater transparency. The letter calls upon the company to reveal more about how Right To Be Forgotten requests are handled so that the public is aware of the control that is being exerted over "readily accessible information."
Just go to http://google.com/ncr to bypass it.
We want to know the names and information of the people making requests to be forgotten, Google!
Rather a request to understand the process Google is using... the problem of course is the EU Courts came up with this ridiculous requirement, the punted to Google to figure it out. In fact, this isn't a "right to be forgotten", but rather the "right to attempt to make it more difficult to retrieve information". Removing information from the search engine doesn't get rid of the information. If the information is public record then it should be available. If the information is erroneous, then people should go to the source and have it removed. Now of course some in the EU are trying to force Google to make this world-wide - good luck with that... ain't gonna happen.
You've still got it. It's just Google that lost its right to remember; and I'm not really sure whether I have a problem with government and personal privacy trumping corporate rights on this one. If the government was censoring the actual content, I'd have more of an issue.
Even now, I don't like the fact that i have to care exactly how they implement right to be forgotten.
Since the "right" is imposed by regulation, the best way to address that problem would be for the EU to define the standards and the process to be followed, and to provide regulatory oversight to ensure the legally required standards are being met, rather than punting the problem to Google to figure out.
Or get rid of the silly "right". That'd be even better, actually.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google but this post contains only my personal opinions.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Firstly, it's not actually the "right to be forgotten", that's something else that the EU is still working on. This is just data protection laws that have existed since the mid 90s and some even earlier.
The problem is generally not stuff people put online themselves. If you go to a credit agency for information about someone it will be reasonably current and comply with all relevant laws. If you go to Google you might get a 15 year old story about charges made, which fails to mention that they were later dropped.
Google could try to become a better search engine to avoid these issues, but instead is just doing link removal. Note that the links are only removed when searching for the individuals name, not for any other search terms.
Americans are obsessed with the " no interference " part of freedom, but in the EU we also value the " fair chance to prosper " part. If you went bankrupt 20 years ago that shouldn't blight your life now if you have reformed, otherwise we might as well just brand people with a hot iron and be honest about never forgiving and forgetting mistakes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The do not own the data, they just have a idea where it is and there power is not in providing access to it but in the exact opposite, hiding it. The dominant search engines power is not in providing access but in denying it by burying it on page, well any page beyond page 10 of search results. I sometimes do take a quick look at page 1 of the results and then skip to page 10 and beyond, sometimes those results are more interesting.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Google is a for-profit business. It's not up to the EU to facilitate their compliance with the laws that have existed for decades. If they want to provide a service that lets people research other people, they need to factor the cost of doing it legally into that.
This is the correct way to do it. Have Google decide each case, and if people disagree they can elevate it to the courts. That puts the initial costs on Google, which is what the law intended. Google uses personal data in a commercial capacity in the EU, so it agrees to these terms.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the EU credit reports can't mention bankruptcies over a certain age, by law. Some crimes can't be mentioned after a certain period of time either.
Internet literacy or not, some companies and managers will reject anyone with an excessively negative internet presence because they fear how it could make them look.
Let me ask you something. Is there anything that could be forgiven and forgotten in your eyes? Any kind of mistake. Of you want people to be young and not wrapped in cotton wool, you have to allow them to make mistakes and to fail, and to move on from that without it blighting the rest of their lives.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My heart bleeds.
You of course completely ignore the opportunity for abuse this provides. If something is to be forgiven, or if a person wants to take a chance that should be their decision, not the states.
This "right to be forgotten" is impossible!
First, the government required private companies to take action, without any recompense. Few if any companies will invest time and effort in something that only costs them money. Note: it's not only Google (though they are always mentioned) - this applies to all search engines.
Second, the entire concept is flawed: It only requires search engines to remove the links; it does not require the source material to be deleted. Take, for example, the original case that caused all of this: a Spanish businessman who filed for bankruptcy two decades ago. His claim - likely correct - is that this ancient bankruptcy still causes him problems today. Fair enough - is the Spanish government willing to expunge their records? And require all Spanish newspapers to delete their articles? No?
If the academics want transparency, they should be willing to finance that transparency: pay Google to help run the requests the way they want them managed. And Bing. And DuckDuckGo. And IXquick. And all of the others. Alternatively, they could invest their energies in getting this abominable legal situation corrected: Either there is no "right to be forgotten" or else it should apply to the source data. The current situation is beyond stupid...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
How would it be their decision? It would be Google's. Google would get to decide what is behaviour that can be forgiven.
All laws protecting people can be abused. See false rape claims for an example. That doesn't mean we should make those things legal. The good far outweighs the bad.
Are you really saying that any mistake made by anyone ever should be recorded and reported to anyone who asks for the rest of time? If so, you will find a lot of people changing their names, subverting your desire for eternal punishment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If the EU wants to mandate that certain URLs never get indexed, then why doesn't it simply handle the requests itself and then publish a list of URLs that are allowed to exist, but must never be indexed in a search engine? That way Google gets out of the business of making these crazy value judgements and the Europeans can have perfect transparency. Unfortunately, I don't see the Europeans going for this as makes them look like an authoritarian regime.