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.

17 of 95 comments (clear)

  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 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

    4. 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

  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.
  3. 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 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.
  4. 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 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.'"
    2. 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!”
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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 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.

  9. 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.