Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Scours 1.2 Million URLs To Conform With EU's "Right To Be Forgotten" Law (engadget.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the check-this-link dept.

An anonymous reader writes: According to a Google report the company has evaluated 1,234,092 URLs from 348,085 requests since the EU's May 2014 "right to be forgotten" ruling, and has removed 42% of those URLs. Engadget reports: "To show how it comes to its decisions, the company shared some of the requests it received and its decisions. For example: a private citizen that was convicted of a serious crime, but had that conviction overturned during appeal, had search results about the crime removed. Meanwhile a high ranking public official in Hungary failed to get the results squelched of a decades-old criminal conviction. Of course, that doesn't mean the system is perfect and the company has already been accused of making mistakes."

3 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. What about newspapers? by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do newspapers also need to censor their old microfiche and archived paper copies, and also go door to door destroying any old copies that people or businesses may have laying around, and to the dump as well? If not, then why just pick on google, and not all other forms of media? Also, they should probably destroy the memories of human beings that remember the accusations coming out on the news.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:What about newspapers? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do newspapers also need to censor their old microfiche and archived paper copies

      No. They don't even generally have to remove their online content.

      If not, then why just pick on google, and not all other forms of media?

      Because Google is a big American company that is hurting European publishers and media companies. So, European publishers and media companies lobbied their legislators, riled up voters with editorials and "reporting", and the rest is history.

  2. Re:Mistakes? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're basically saying that data protection rules about "storing information about individual" should be consistent for both search engines and other content providers. I agree. My point is: under "the right to be forgotten", the rules are not consistent.

    If the rules were consistent, people whose privacy was violated would simply go to the original publisher who put that information online to get it removed; Google wouldn't have to get involved. But under current rules, the original publisher can continue providing that information, it's just that search engines can't show it.