Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Expands 'Right To Be Forgotten' To All Global Search Results (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on from the that's-not-exactly-good-news dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google has confirmed that it will be updating its 'right to be forgotten' so that any hidden content under the ruling is removed from all versions of its search engine in countries where it has been approved. Until now Google had only been removing results from the originating country and European versions of its search engine, such as google.co.uk and google.de. The EU had previously asked for an extension of the rule to include all versions of Google. Last year, French data protection authority CNIL threatened the tech giant with a sanction should it not remove data from all of its global platforms – such as google.com – in addition to its European sites. Now, Google's new extension of the 'right to be forgotten' is expected to come into force over the next few weeks.

95 comments

  1. How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    which articles are about you and which articles are about someone with the same name as you?

    Like, I'd hate if my results go missing because one of my samenames had my pages removed.

    1. Re:How do they know by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's an interesting thought. I wonder if someone could legally change their name to something else, say a person running for election for example, and then invoke their right to be forgotten to completely torpedo all traces of that candidate for a few days in order to throw an election. A bit far-fetched, but I am somewhat curious as to how well it would work out.

      I guess someone with a common name could test this out just to see if it removes results for other people as well.

    2. Re:How do they know by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My question is why are they not having information that "violate their privacy, or no longer relevant to public interest" removed at the source. Why manipulate search results if the original is removed...

    3. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is google we're talking about, not ask jeeves.

    4. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now we'll have to use Bing or one of the other search engines to find that data.

    5. Re:How do they know by davecb · · Score: 1

      One of the cases considered was one in which the person could not get standing to remove a foreign original, but could argue that Google was keeping an excerpt, a link and possibly a copy in the EU, and so could be ordered to remove "their copy". It's not obvious how this will play out against opposing EU judgements that links are not publications.

      "Hard cases make bad laws", Hodgens v. Hodgens (1837).

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    6. Re:How do they know by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Obviously that would never work. The right only works for certain specific things, and standing for election isn't one of them. It doesn't erase your name from search results, it stops certain sites appearing that relate to the reason you invoked the right. For example, if you asked for references to a spent conviction to be removed, sites listing that conviction would no longer show up when people searched for your name.

      Asking for results about your election bid to be removed would fail because there is a public interest in a current event, and Google would likely ask for proof you are the person standing anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, a person exercising their right to be forgotten has to specify the exact URL(s) to be suppressed -- it isn't just a blanket "remove all search results about John Doe" where every other John Doe gets caught up as collateral damage. You're not likely to be affected by someone else's request.

      Now it's *possible* that a) someone has the same name as you, b) that person has a grudge against you, c) that person files a right to be forgotten request, d) that person maliciously includes your URL(s) in their request. However, each request has to include a photo of the petitioner's government ID. I know Google (not sure about others) has employees who manually evaluate all of these requests before they filter any search results.

      Any malicious action should be caught during review, and even if not, would be relatively easy to trace back to the person responsible, opening them up to liability. So I don't find that very likely either.

    8. Re:How do they know by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Or Nissan Motor Company Ltd invokes the right for "Nissan" to be forgotten for just long enough to affect Nissan Computer's business to the extent that it goes out of business and/or agrees to sell the domain name to the automotive company.

    9. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Right to be forgotten" applies to individuals, not to companies. (Like all other rights, like freedom of movement, freedom of though and speech, freedom of religion.)

    10. Re:How do they know by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or Nissan Motor Company Ltd invokes the right for "Nissan" to be forgotten for just long enough to affect Nissan Computer's business to the extent that it goes out of business and/or agrees to sell the domain name to the automotive company.

      That's not how Right to be Forgotten works.

      Right to be Forgotten is an application of traditional meatspace record-keeping. Remember how in many places, after you've been convicted, after so many years that conviction is no longer on the books?

      Or take your credit history - it only covers the past 7 years with older records, including things like bankruptcies and all that simply "forgotten" and expunged.

      Right to be Forgotten is just like that.

      First, it does not delete anything - it cannot. It merely breaks the link between a search term and the link it would point to.

      Let's say you went to jail a decade ago and served your time and are completely free. You've lived a virtuous life since then, and a criminal record check would basically show you to be clean because your crime was wiped off the books. But a site archiving imprisonment records still lists you as being in prison. Right to be forgotten means you can break a link between your name and that site - you've done your time, and the state considers you to be clean and you can pass a criminal records check. But then an employer Googles you and sees that you were in jail. Is that fair? By law you did pass and such ancient history should be wiped. But the site showing the information has done no wrong either, so it would be bad to demand that they remove the information.

      Or say you declared bankruptcy a decade ago. Since employers are doing credit history checks now, your bankruptcy is no longer shown to them for several years. But if they Google you, because some site archived news like that, you show up.

      That's what right to be forgotten is all about. It only applies to individuals and only when the legal limit for such news has expired and is no longer relevant. So if you have a bankruptcy in the past 7 years, you can't invoke right to be forgotten to remove it off the internet - it's still relevant after all.

      Or think of it another way - without right to be forgotten, a bunch of children are going to learn the hard way about the repercussions of their indiscretions. After all, in most jurisdictions, once you turn 18, your record is wiped and you start afresh - this includes any run-ins with the law (unless you were tried as an adult). Well, right to be forgotten lets you break all the links between the bad stuff you did as a adolescent teen and also start afresh

    11. Re:How do they know by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I, the shifty old guy who hangs around the playground, request that all references to me being convicted of being a kiddy diddler on 1 Jan 1972, 29 Feb 1976, 12 Nov 1983 [...] be removed from the results list.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:How do they know by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The law says no.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:How do they know by KitFox · · Score: 2

      The linked article is a short version of the Reuters article that is much more informative.

      To address the concerns of European authorities, the Internet giant will soon start polishing search results across all its websites when someone conducts a search from the country where the removal request originated, a person close to the company said.

      That means that if a German resident asks Google to de-list a link popping up under searches for his or her name, the link will not be visible on any version of Google's website, including Google.com, when the search engine is accessed from Germany.

      The company will filter search results according to a user's IP address, meaning people accessing Google from outside Europe will not be affected, the person added.

      So once again Anti-Geoblocking/Anti-Georestriction VPN becomes the solution for folks.

      --

      @Whee

    14. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember how in many places, after you've been convicted, after so many years that conviction is no longer on the books?

      Or take your credit history - it only covers the past 7 years with older records, including things like bankruptcies and all that simply "forgotten" and expunged.

      Right to be Forgotten is just like that.

      No, it isn't just like that. If it were, it would attack at the source (like the newspaper archive).

      First, it does not delete anything - it cannot. It merely breaks the link between a search term and the link it would point to.

      "breaks the link" - why be a coy asshole? It *DELETES* the fucking link! What do you think 'removing results' implies? The results are - at a fundamental level - DELETED. Whether you break, remove, or delete, the result is the same. In some end-user listing (if not before), results that existed previously are DELETED.

      As to the point you are making, forgiveness of past transgressions that are no longer relevant, that is a social/legal problem that ought to be fixed by

      a) ending the batshit crazy wars on everything (drugs, sex) [society keeps fighting every manifestation of sexuality that doesn't directly affect them, constantly having to relearn that if somebody's actual dick isn't in your actual body or your custodial family's actual body then it isn't your fucking business]

      b) changing the rules for what information can be used in hiring/loaning (not under threat of penalty per se but removal of certain favors like incorporation, debt collection, tax status, et cetera)

      Basically, you are just patching over laws that ought to be fixed at the source rather than pretending such-n-such information doesn't exist. Yes, you can bully Google to do your bidding - good on you. The replacement for Google to do the same will NOT be under your jurisidiction in the EXACT SAME manner.

      Like the NSA uses UK intelligence and vice versa, those who want results Google omits will just surf to a service/program outside this jurisdiction.

      Here is one such service:

      http://hiddenfromgoogle.com/

    15. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) changing the rules for what information can be used in hiring/loaning (not under threat of penalty per se but removal of certain favors like incorporation, debt collection, tax status, et cetera)

      Yes, yes, yes, one thousand times yes! That is how it should be done. Imagine another situation where one person creates a fake Facebook profile or other site containing someone's picture and false information. Not necessarily false text information, but even doctored images. Maybe there's also someone who looks like you with a similar name. Or simply a site without pictures spouting racist stuff with a similar name to you in your state. I mean, even bother to see how many others with the same or similar first and last name live in your state? Names aren't always unique and I imagine this could do damage.

      I'd like to see more privacy rights when it comes to the criminal justice system.

    16. Re:How do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong

    17. Re:How do they know by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The law can't say that. It's against human rights!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. "Me frrst!" said Martin Shkreli by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Me too!" said Star Wars kid.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:"Me frrst!" said Martin Shkreli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I like turtles." said no one ever. Alas.

    2. Re:"Me frrst!" said Martin Shkreli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better be careful what you say! He'll erase you from history. This is the guy who butters your bread. Don't ever say his name again!

  3. I'd like to order Vanilla Sky for everyone else. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?

    This is the reverse fail of the popular tenet.

    "Well, if it is not on the internet, it isn't true."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  4. Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article;

    "The company will filter search results according to a user's IP address, meaning people accessing Google from outside Europe will not be affected, the person added."

    1. Re:Bad Summary by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Ie, instead of simply using google.com we now need a proxy to get uncensored results. A sad day.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ie, instead of simply using google.com we now need a proxy to get uncensored results. A sad day.

      Yeap, something like duckduckgo?

    3. Re:Bad Summary by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      How will you know? I don't trust them not to censor global searches.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Bad Summary by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Because there would be too much outrage. This is where we in the US must differ from our European colleagues and demand the US impose its will on the world.

      I hope in these countries for censored results, they return a page with "Certain results censored because a man with power demanded it, so you cannot see it because you do not have his permission. His name, address, and phone number are..."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Bad Summary by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A 'canary' page might be illegal in some places.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is duckduckgo above the law?

  5. Does Google Hate This Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Google hate the "Right to be Forgotten" law or do they love it? Economic theory tells us that companies with established, dominant market share benefit from regulation and other barriers to entry? Why? It makes it harder for other companies to enter the market and threaten their position. While it might seem that a company would not want to incur additional expenses to get their job done, they don't mind so much if all companies are under the same penalties. Large companies are better able to absorb these costs than smaller ones due to economies of scale.

    So expect to see more legislation around search engines... and expect this legislation to further entrench Google as the search leader.

    1. Re:Does Google Hate This Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or expect a competitor to Google to spring up, ignore the European law, and just not move their assets into Europe while still targeting a European market. Bada-bing, bada-boom. Right-to-be-forgotten is unenforceable. Sorry, Europe.

    2. Re:Does Google Hate This Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like DuckDuckGo, which I use already?

  6. Lot more concern about privacy of late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now see a correction taking place on privacy. I see a lot of reversal going on against Windows, Facebook, Google, etc. Almost every one is questioning how much is too much information to be collected by these companies. Some of it is ignoring the obvious about data gathering to focus on only one entity of question. How can complain about Google or Windows data collection, when you freely use Facebook, Twitter or other social sites? So one is bad and the rest are perfectly fine? To be private and connected to the internet is a oxy moron. It doesn't happen anymore, and to think you can erase yourself on the internet is already a futile endeavor that probably only partially satisfies that goal. I find it laughable to even think you can stay anonymous on the internet.

    1. Re:Lot more concern about privacy of late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be private and connected to the internet is a oxy moron. It doesn't happen anymore, and to think you can erase yourself on the internet is already a futile endeavor that probably only partially satisfies that goal. I find it laughable to even think you can stay anonymous on the internet.

      That's the galling refusal to acknowledge reality that those European courts must make in order to say idoidic things like "you have a right to be forgotten".

      At that rate, wave your hand and say that everyone should have a right not to get old and die.

  7. No global deletion by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Informative

    [Google] will soon start polishing search results across all its websites when someone conducts a search from the country where the removal request originated, a person close to the company said.

    So it will remove for all users requesting from France (or whichever country the request was made for). Requests from other countries remain unaffected. TFS spreads FUD about right-to-be-forgotten policies.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Most people posting on the previous story didn't seem to understand that rather important distinction either. My guess is that the AC who posted the story was similarly confused.

      Allow me to chuckle at all those people who claimed Google would never agree to this and simply pull out of France too. I'm glad to see that European privacy laws have real teeth.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:No global deletion by Translation+Error · · Score: 1
      What do you mean? The summary says the the same thing; it's only the headline that's misleading:

      any hidden content under the ruling is removed from all versions of its search engine in countries where it has been approved.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    3. Re:No global deletion by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Allow me to chuckle at all those people who claimed Google would never agree to this and simply pull out of France too. I'm glad to see that European privacy laws have real teeth.

      And I'm sad to see that they are interfering with free speech.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Privacy is a fundamental right just like free speech. When rights collide, one has to draw the line at an arbitrary place. The place chosen by US and EU folks might not be the same.

    5. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "right to be forgotten" has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy. It's about censoring stuff that was already publicly reported--nothing private about it.

    6. Re:No global deletion by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, it's still bogus, and it's censorship that must be circumvented. Without resistance, it can only get worse, and the disease will spread.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:No global deletion by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These aren't "privacy laws". They are simple censorship. The information on Google is not private.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when hiring in the EU, be sure to search them both locally and with a US proxy.

      Diff the two, that is what they don't want you to know about themselves.

    9. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Remind me again who is having their free speech silenced by this?

      Before you answer, consider:

      1. There is no requirement for the material to be removed from the source web site.

      2. Google still index and list that site for other search terms.

      3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re: No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am more concerned about the approach than the speech. You cannot make this info go away. If you don't think people should be judged by some subset of their past, legislate THAT. Do not try to hide.

    11. Re:No global deletion by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Remind me again who is having their free speech silenced by this

      Google. And in practice, the people who rely on it to have their content be found (i.e. everyone else).

      3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

      Maybe those companies should? The solution to "some idiots excessively weight events that happened 20 years ago" is not censorship of facts, it's to educate people that other people change and that needs to be taken into account.

    12. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.

    13. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You blatantly misrepresent the law on the credit report. The credit report company may give that information, but that information may not be used to make credit decisions. It is not the speech, but the action based on the speech that is prohibited. Therefore, that information is not used in the credit score. As that information is not useable by their clients, and could be viewed as a court as being used just by it's presence. Therefore, the credit reporting companies do not report it. That's a business decision, not a federal mandate.

    14. Re:No global deletion by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.

      The government is forcing this removal. The fact that it is forcing it at the request of a mentioned person doesn't make it less censorship. And the fact that it is being removed from an index rather than completely removed is utterly irrelevant: the point is that Google is not being allowed to display public information. This is trampling on free speech and any attempts to parse a ridiculously legalistic notion of what counts as "censorship" doesn't change that.

    15. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the EU, companies are not people. Their business activities don't have freedom of speech, only individuals do.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:No global deletion by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Most people posting on the previous story didn't seem to understand that rather important distinction either. My guess is that the AC who posted the story was similarly confused.

      Allow me to chuckle at all those people who claimed Google would never agree to this and simply pull out of France too. I'm glad to see that European privacy laws have real teeth.

      Translation: "I'm glad men with police behind them who deign to deny me their permission to read things they don't want me to have real teeth."

      What a proud fuckin' moment for the free west.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:No global deletion by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.

      If a law requires it, and a law enforces it, then it is government censorship. It doesn't matter if the request comes on behalf of a private individual.

    18. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't mind people reading your bank statements, or perhaps your country's nuclear launch codes?

      No one is for absolute freedom of speech, or the absolute freedom to read anything. That's dumb. The only question is where you draw the line.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit references report private information, not public. By definition, this new censorship can only apply to things that were openly published.

    20. Re:No global deletion by Solandri · · Score: 1

      1. There is no requirement for the material to be removed from the source web site.

      Which is precisely the problem with these right to be forgotten laws. They're shooting the messenger, not the originator of the message. If it's really so damn important that this information be removed from the web, then they should be going after the sites which still host the "wrong" or "outdated" information.

      The only reason Google (and other search engines) are targets of these laws is because it's easier to go after a few search engines than to track down every single web site. As I've said since this whole thing began, the people supporting the right to be forgotten should be overjoyed that Google indexes and gives them the search results. It quickly and easily tells them exactly which sites they need to track down to get that information expunged.

      2. Google still index and list that site for other search terms.

      Which is another reason why these laws are dumb. It's ok to display pumpkins in a north-facing window, but not a west-facing window?

      3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

      Google search results are basically displaying zeitgeist - a snapshot of the sign of the times. By manipulating and altering search results with laws, you are causing this snapshot to differ from what's actually out there. Ask yourself: why does free speech exist? Because this sort of manipulation has always been used in the past to hide things that the public should know about. Mandating such manipulation as law is the first step down a really slippery slope.

      I understand the desire for a right to be forgotten law. The flip side of free speech is gossip - stuff that isn't or may not be true, but gets spread around anyway. Yeah a lot of times I'd like to stop gossip, but never at the expense of giving up free speech rights. If you want to stop gossip, refer back to point (1) - go after the people spreading the gossip, not the people telling you who is spreading the gossip (search engines).

    21. Re:No global deletion by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Free speech should be about the expression of ideas and opinions. Even the US doesn't have absolute free speech - you can't falsely claim that person X is a child molester and claim "free speech!" when they sue you for libel, for example. If I were to somehow get hold of your medical records, would you be happy for me to publish them?

    22. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were to somehow get hold of your medical records, would you be happy for me to publish them?

      Again with the failure to distinguish between public and private. Only public information is being censored by this crap.

    23. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU, companies are not people.

      Then which natural person owns the assets of an EU company?

    24. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not about removing material from the web. It's about a for profit company using information about people to make money, and being subject to the rules that govern that. It's about going from a world where stuff is forgotten in old microfiche files to one where decades old dirt is a few keystrokes away.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:No global deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, so say some Russian hacker got hold of your medical records and dumped them in some massive release of random info.
      Would you be happy with me regularly pointing that out even years later and sending direct links to all your prospective employers?

    26. Re:No global deletion by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, you're turning it into who draws the 'line'. Nobody has that right. You can 'request' that information be erased. You have no right to demand it.

      And "launch codes"? Please!

      Speech is the only "weapon" a poor man has. Of course the right is absolute.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:No global deletion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's about going from a world where stuff is forgotten in old microfiche files to one where decades old dirt is a few keystrokes away.

      Yes, that is called progress. It's a world in which you can make the best possible decision because you have the most possible information. Keep cracking that buggy whip, though, and celebrating people being able to hide their misdeeds.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:No global deletion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OK, so say some Russian hacker got hold of your medical records and dumped them in some massive release of random info.
      Would you be happy with me regularly pointing that out even years later and sending direct links to all your prospective employers?

      That's still medical records, which are still not considered public information, even if someone publishes them publicly. Keep trying kid, you'll figure this out never.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:No global deletion by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      celebrating people being able to hide their misdeeds.

      I do celebrate that. I don't know where you are from, but in Europe we rehabilitate people and try to re-integrate them into society. Obviously serious crimes can never be forgotten, but most minor convictions are considered "spent" after a certain amount of time and no longer have to be declared to employers, insurance companies and the like.

      Branding someone for life because of one mistake is barbaric.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:No global deletion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Branding someone for life because of one mistake is barbaric.

      I agree. And when some people hide their minor misdeeds to the point that they seem better-than-human, it interferes with society moving forward and realizing that this shit is trivial.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. European colonialism 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately european colonialism reached the web age! I wonder, when do the american states have to declare themselves independent again?

    1. Re:European colonialism 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      America needs to get with the times and update their whole manifesto. They declared independence over taxation. They need to declare corporations' independence over the same.

      Originally, the complaint was "no taxation without representation", but it has become clear that it needs to expand to "no representation without taxation". Pay for play, Google. You can either hide your assets in a double-Irish accounting system, or you can take advantage of the rights and privileges of being a US-based corporation, but you can't have it both ways.

  9. Still only applies to EU citizens? by cloud.pt · · Score: 2

    The right itself should only apply to EU citizens, per my understanding. So this should mean people from non-EU countries should still not be able to get "forgotten" approval. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    1. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right itself should only apply to EU citizens, per my understanding. So this should mean people from non-EU countries should still not be able to get "forgotten" approval. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      I don't think EU puts any requirement on Google that it should only apply to EU citizens. Google is free to extend this service to any user if they so desire.

      OTOH it would make sense for EU to require this if they classify the right to be forgotten as a basic human right. They might want every company doing business in EU to comply with human rights worldwide since it would otherwise be possible for those companies to keep slaves or murder people in countries where those practices aren't illegal.

    2. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Well first and foremost I'll start this post by saying this whole debacle has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten, that's a different separate thing that isn't even law yet.

      The issue is that Google is in breach of Europe's data protection laws in that it's illegal to hold personal data on an individual unless you have legal reason to do so. Legal reason can be a number of things such as being a newspaper dishing dirt on a public figure - the public interest defence - through to being law enforcement, through to being a company whom has received permission to hold the data by the individual in question, i.e. your bank who you allow to know who you are to be a customer.

      The problem is that Google doesn't fit under any of these exemptions, it's simply got not legal right to hold much of the personal data it holds, so the issue isn't as much as it's displaying the search results but that it's harvesting and storing data that it has no legal right to store itself.

      So to your question about whether this should impact the whole world or not, the answer is, "it depends". You can argue that European data protection law should only cover companies operating in Europe, but here's the thing, given that Google shouldn't have taken a copy of that data from Europe in the first place it begs the question, should Google display it anywhere? This is a broad philosophical question in law, it fits alongside questions such as:

      - If the age of consent in a country is 18, but someone visits a country where it's 16 and has sex, should they be prosecuted when they return home?

      - If someone engages in tax evasion, but moves the money they were legally obligated to pay to a country overseas where the money wouldn't have been taxed, should the bank return that money to the country it was owed?

      There's no right answer as any answer is inherently subjective. The same is true here in Google's case - some may argue that once Google has transferred data out of Europe that it can do what it wants in the country that it's copied the data to. Others will argue that Google should delete the data altogether because it's copy of the data was made illegally in the first place.

      Google's argument is that it just harvests all data and that it's too difficult to separate that which it's legal to harvest from that which it's not, but ultimately all businesses face difficult problems resulting from legislation, and difficulty of solving a problem really isn't a valid excuse to break the law.

      Of course, the water is muddied even more by the fact that the data isn't even always copied illegally from Europe. If someone from the US posts personal data of a European on a US hosted blog by a company that only operates in the US and Google takes a copy and only makes it searchable in the US then it's all out of Europe's jurisdiction anyway (though the person posting could find themselves in trouble if they ever travel to Europe). If a European did the same using a US blog hosted in the US then it's that European who is responsible. The problem is of course that Google also wants to operate in Europe, and so that creates the additional complication of the fact it's effectively present in Europe, but trying to argue that European law doesn't apply to it's operations abroad even though the victim is in Europe - it's effectively arguing that it's the location of the crime, rather than the location of the victim that matters in determining jurisdiction. If you shoot someone across a national border, then which country's laws apply? I don't think there is one single correct answer to that - again, it's going to be wholly subjective.

      Put simply, this isn't a simple problem, and it's a growing pain of increasing globalisation and difference in laws between nations. It's not even just law in this case, it's a difference in culture - Europeans put privacy above absolute free speech, and Americans put absolute free speech above privacy. Each will declare their cause the most just, but really, we know that censorship is a tool of dictatorships, yet we also know that lack of respect for privacy is the tool of the police state and widespread NSA style dragnet surveillance.

    3. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      If you truly believe that, then that right there is admission that this law is wrong. If you truly believe people have a fundamental right to be forgotten, then that should apply to all people, not just your citizens. Same reason it's not ok to rob or kill foreign tourists, or why U.S. Constitutional protections apply even to illegal immigrants. People are deemed to have these rights simply by being people. Human rights are not granted by the goodwill of some bureaucrat in a government office only to those he deems worthy.

    4. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right itself should only apply to EU citizens, per my understanding. So this should mean people from non-EU countries should still not be able to get "forgotten" approval. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      The US legal system includes in the highest law of the land the right to assert unspecified rights under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people), and the 10th Amendment (unspecified rights reserved to the people).

      This is the basis for a number of high court rulings, of which the best known is Roe v Wade.

      In principle, thus, one should be able to assert the right to be "forgotten", and various other rights associated with privacy, and which have implications for who can hold certain types of data.

      However, in practice, the US legal profession is terrified that the public might start taking it's rights seriously. They would prefer to see that these rights only exist when one has hired a lawyer. Also, there's one particular right that poses special problems, namely the right to ethical practice of law. If this were to be asserted under the 9th Amendment, it would invalidate huge portions of US law, such as current implementations of patent and copyright law, plus the DMCA. There was a lot of push-back after Roe v Wade and they've basically made it very hard to get anything accomplished using the 9th Amendment.

      Hence, a US citizen can potentially have the same rights as a citizen of any civilized state, but actually asserting those rights goes against a lot of tradition and entrenched interests.

      It's a lot like the situation when slavery was law in the USA: everybody with a functioning brain knew it was wrong, but the entrenched interests and the lawyers didn't choose to act accordingly. The same applies to the discriminatory laws (aka Jim Crow laws) that existed in some parts of the USA until the 1960s.

      It is not an accident that the USA is known as the "Land of the Lawsuit" and famous for abusive lawsuits. There's a long history of irresponsible and unethical behavior on the part of the US legal profession, which includes lawyers, judges, and most of the politicians. This has significant negative consequences, both economic and social, and unfortunately in this global economy those consequences affect a lot of people outside the USA as well.

    5. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      I was just stating my assumption of what this "expansion" might really mean. I, for one, think the right to be forgotten is something that, like in real life, will never enter full effect as the actual "users" of the right will still pop up in other databases or even popular knowledge that they are what they want to be forgotten about. And my generic opinion about half-measures - they are cumbersome, useless, and ultimately trivial. And this is coming from a European citizen that has had mild cases of wanting something written off the social web/tv etc.

    6. Re:Still only applies to EU citizens? by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      I'm really appreciating the depth of your commentaries (I'm guessing you're the other AC that posted before on my comment), so I advise you to create an account, even if disposable one, just so I know who I am replying with. Otherwise I might think your commentaries are some sort of really-damn-good algorithm for replying to highly rated comments on /. On the other hand, your speech does look the part of someone who doesn't want to create accounts for posting comments, so there's that :P

  10. First Post! YESSS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it would have been if I didn't forget to post earlier.

  11. Right to 15 Minutes of Fame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've never been famous there's nothing to forget, so I propose that everyone should receive their 15 minutes of fame so that they, too, can be later forgotten. Now, who do I have to kill around here to get my own 15 minutes of fame?

  12. I'll have to start using Bing by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    to dig up dirt on people.

  13. Is there a way to test this? by Rei · · Score: 1

    I want to know if they'll be censoring my results here in Iceland (we're in Europe but not the EU - but we are in the EFTA)

    --
    We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
  14. Who will be the first? by tlambert · · Score: 0

    Who will be the first to legally change their name to "microsoft.com", and then demand to be forgotten?

  15. Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of pussies. Your new "refugee" friends will ensure that you are forgotten with three generations.

  16. Google and Twitter = Winston Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith job was to re-write historical/news paper articles to reflect the latest lies from politicians.
    Not an exact corollary, but...
    Also, twitter took down Politwoops which archived politicians older tweets so they could not go back and delete tweets where they changed lie X for lie Y and claimed to have never said whatever it was.

    Just pointing it out...

    1. Re:Google and Twitter = Winston Smith by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      FYI, Twitter restored API access to Politwoops, and that site is back online.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:Google and Twitter = Winston Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith job was to re-write historical/news paper articles to reflect the latest lies from politicians.
      Not an exact corollary, but...
      Also, twitter took down Politwoops which archived politicians older tweets so they could not go back and delete tweets where they changed lie X for lie Y and claimed to have never said whatever it was.

      Just pointing it out...

      Four legs good, Two legs better!

      Caption: Revere

  17. Its Scripting time! by ramriot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Time to start developing that 'Write to be Unforgotten' search extension then.

    Been planning this idea for a while and now seems the right time to do it. i.e.

    Code a browser extension that using VPN tunnels to compare local and other nationality search results, adds back in redacted results with 'Locally Censored' tags, plus tag results seen locally but not elsewhere with 'Censored in: CN, EU etc'.

    Also add CDN support to anonymously cache and test historical searches for global censorship.

    Anyone interested in assisting or Beta-Testing?

    1. Re:Its Scripting time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds interesting! Maybe you could open up a wiki or repository to start working on it?

    2. Re:Its Scripting time! by markzip · · Score: 2

      +1
      I cannot help code, but I'll happily evangelize to my family and friends.

      Summer of 2014 I was at a party in the UK, seated next to an interesting woman who had been a reporter at Reuters and was currently working for a different outfit, "reporting on tech" for a very large organization based in Brussels. We spent an hour or more discussing the right to be forgotten. I simply could not make her understand the perils. My main argument about the dangers of the erasure of history were just not persuasive.

    3. Re: Its Scripting time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lean towards remembering certain things in other less legal or serious contexts. I installed Unfriend finder for Firefox for my mother's FB account once. This is a world where 90s guestbooks and newsgroups encouraged real names and led to forums that now publicly tag track who likes or kudos your posts or for some loose rule chat systems to art least tell you that X had added you to their contact list (Skype for business and Yahoo)
      I feels uneven for Facebook to hide when someone you were forced to approve tip start a contact relationship will suddenly leave it without a trace. While they mean to avoid drama with this (and holding back the DISLIKE button) it also means that while you won't notice one potential conflict with a person dropping off your 100+ list, you might meet that person face to face and be nonethewiser that they have enough beef with you too go beyond JUST ignoring your online connection.

      The Unfinder caught a few names in a few days back then but I never explained the experiment to my mother. She still had only about 50 connections and hadn't been sucked in fully. I prefer to remember and be allowed to make grownup decisions even if society cannot. That the right rulings are only affecting "cooperative" search engines instead of following the spirit of the law to protect the innocent taking down the real posts will set bad precedent and make the matter ridiculous when rapes and wrongful accusations begin to get scraped by Chinese/Russian engines that feed metacrawlers like Duckduckgo.

  18. Censorship next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, Sarkesian and her fellow SJWs will firmly insist that all 1st world US ideals should be criminalized and forgotten.

  19. More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be called "The right for evil to hide under rocks".

  20. GOOGLE LIKES FIRST LOVE by tld-id · · Score: 0

    when you want to forget someone, you can't do it. because you can found him/her on google. LOL, :p

  21. Alternatives to Google? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Now's the time... Stuff like this make it pretty damn worthless. We need a simple indexer, not a censor emitting propaganda.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. Prediction: Rick Santorum Will Be the First in Lin by 0xG · · Score: 0

    "That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex"

    --
    A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
  23. Searches altered for your protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are Google's search results modified by large business enough to make you happy yet? Simple searches were what made them their fortune, now how much can you really trust their search results to not be tailored by big business?

  24. Re:I'd like to order Vanilla Sky for everyone else by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?"

    I didn't get that from the article at all. I don't believe it's trying to change perceived reality but provide some 'privacy'. This is not a 'bad' thing.

    Example: My daughter (lets younger than a teenager) was kidnapped a few years ago -- and her name and/or picture were all over the radio/tv/internet before she was recovered. It's taken a few years for the search results of her name to dwindle (with me running around to various news sites asking them to please remove my daughters name and blur her photo). Honestly, most news sites were very helpful with this -- it just took time and a hell of a lot of 'foot work' finding the right people to talk to. Blogs on the other hand were a mixed bag. Some were "no problem" while others were outright hostile (I used the same polite request to all sources -- basically copy-paste).

    But now, search for her name and nothing on any search engine comes up page 1 or 2.

    THAT info screams to me to be removed. Not the NEWS but instead of a victims real name use something else. Instead of photos, blur them.

    What kids dont search their names on the internet -- or their friends names? How is it helpful to have kids re-traumatized with nosy questions (at best) and mean/nasty comments at worst? I believe we have the right to keep some things private -- and we can argue this if you like but I believe very few people would argue about victims privacy and fewer still about children's privacy.

  25. Google has no information in the public interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, Google doesn't hold information in the public interest? How exactly do you figure newspaper articles aren't in the public interest?