Here is how Google handles Right To Be Forgotten requests Google allows software engineers, as well as its dedicated Right To Be Forgotten (RTBF) operatives, to make decisions about which search results ought to be deleted on request – and places such requests onto its internal bug-handling systems. Behind-the-scenes details of how the "online advertising technology" company handles …
Software engineers are cheap compared to lawyers :)
Everything is cheap compared to lawyers! That's why unleashing the dogs of law should be a last resort for everyone, and yet depressingly, is becoming the first act of too many disputes.
I can only admire Dante's restraint in not populating a 10th circle with lawyers.
Also known as laws. (Which are often badly thought out and written anyway.)
"... seeking to suppress search results for illegitimate reasons."
That's why we need a Google 'legal specialist' (who is not by training, a lawyer) to run the process for making the decisions.
It's a mess but what can you expect?
and to hell with the rest of us. We don't matter one little bit. Our rights to be forgotten are mere pimples on a wart. They'd rather us go away and be good little proles.
Google is EVIL. If you remember that in your dealings with them then you are good to go.
To be fair (and I am not known for cutting Google much slack), this is just a way for Google to handle the requests. If the complainant is unhappy with how Google has handled it there is still the regular legal process as a backstop. I think it's great if things like this can be handled satisfactory for both parties without burdening the already struggling legal system.
I'm not suggesting removing it from the legal domain, there needs to be oversight.
It's like passing a law that my milkman must deliver my milk but not checking they are doing it or doing it right. I could end up with goats milk or even cheese. Then where would I be? I can't put cheese in my cup of tea.
<i...I can't put cheese in my cup of tea.....</i>
You can. You will not like it, but that's of no concern to government.
They have recently appled perssure to companies to remove sugar from squash, and substitute sucralose. I don't like the taste, but no one in government is interetsed in that - or even asked me...
"Thankfully NOT in the UK
we have laws about justice, not just detailed laws about hourly billing"
While the legal landscape is different in the UK to the US, at heart it's about how much cash you can throw at a case. A magic circle law firm or even *just* a QC will make a huge difference to your results in court, and perhaps more importantly, what is allowed to reported on.
Laws are a set of rules, and in theory is impartial and factual*. They have *nothing* to do with justice. Decisions upon which laws to enforce, severity of punishments etc can be just or not depending upon perspective, but the law is the law. Often the law is very unjust, even in the UK.
* they are then enforced by people, so become less impartial at that point
The problem with this is that Google is effectively dealing with legal principles by not using legal principles. Of course, using lawyers may end up being costly but if an individual has to use a lawyer to make a right to be forgotten claim or if an individual is referring to a matter reflected by right to be forgotten (such as an old article), then it is somewhat incumbent on google to take due care in handling of these requests.
It sounds like google's 'system' is pretty much random at best.
I think Google would love to be able to just send everybody to regulators to decide of every single request. The only reason they're not doing that is that they were explicitly ordered by the ECJ to handle requests themselves.
But yeah, if requests are rejected, people do have the possibility to appeal to the proper authorities. This process is just a way to simplify the red tape and bring down costs whenever possible, rather than forcing everybody to do the same as NT1 and NT2.
Of course, they might be removing too many results. But then there seems to be no right to information, and Google is apparently allowed to remove whatever they want. Not that it's generally in their interest. They even warn the website whose URL is delisted, just in case they do something really stupid.
So it is a tacked-on afterthought, with no decision log, no activity log, no trace whatsoever and, if something is missing, it is concluded that "someone apparently thought something".
Wow, what an efficient process. No wonder Google doesn't use actual lawyers in that department, they'd likely have a seizure.
Oh, and BTW, could someone please specify what the legal status of an untrained lawyer is ? Because as far I know, it is NOT A LAWYER.
could someone please specify what the legal status of an untrained lawyer is ? Because as far I know, it is NOT A LAWYER.
You have something wrong here. This process is the equivalent of ringing the bell of your neighbor and asking him if he would cut down his tree which is growing over your side of the fence. You might threaten a lawsuit if he refuses to do it; but at this point, it's not a legal process. You didn't hire a lawyer yet, he doesn't need a lawyer to answer you, one way or another.
What Google is doing with this process is deciding whether they will accept the request immediately, removing the need for a lawsuit and all the red tape. If they say no, then the lawyers get involved.
In the end, it's only in front of a judge that real legal decisions can be taken. Lawyers can only argue for one side or another. It makes no sense to demand Google use lawyers unless you hire your own lawyers to argue against them, and the whole point of the process is to avoid that.
My cynical side says "diversity hire" but I doubt it. Surely Google has enough lawyers and would happily pay them $9000/hour in such a momentous case as this. She might have come over from the technical side. I for one would not trust a trained lawyer to explain how the use of a bug tracker to manage requests does not imply defectiveness.
"Can't see any legal training mentioned."
_Most_ law school graduates don't go on to become lawyers - Being a legal specialist M.Law/PhD(Law) is actually a better career choice and the bar is for people who like being showy.
and the bar is for people who like being showy
Ahh. Thank you for the correction. You see I had been under the misapprehension that the bar was simply a dumping ground for unbearable, narcissistic twats devoid of all social skills.
Frankly I am happy with the person not being a lawyer - most people I know who went into law did it as a cushy get rich quick career that was far easier than a "hard subject" like physics etc.
Impartial and thoughtful appraisal of the evidence is (IMHO) more important than lawyer training / career.
They can always wheel in an actual lawyer for court of law* stuff.
Rememmber they are courts of law, not courts of justice (with apols to Billy Bragg)
Frankly I am happy with the person not being a lawyer - most people I know who went into law did it as a cushy get rich quick career that was far easier than a "hard subject" like physics etc.
How to get Rich Quick using Science
Step 1: Learn physics
Step 2: Use physics to separate rich lawyers body with their money
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
As far as I know, "lawyer" is not a protected term in the UK so anyone can call themselves a lawyer. Just be careful not to call yourself a "solicitor" unless you're currently on the roll. There are very few officially protected terms in the UK but "solicitor" is one of them. I'm not sure there's even a specific rule against calling yourself a "barrister" just because you self-identify as one apart from the general rules against fraud and deception, though obviously they won't let you represent someone else in court just because you self-identify as a "barrister".
It sounds like the lawyers agreed to the deletion request, then a real human (with some actual domain knowledge of the subject of the request) just could not stand to be party to an obvious injustice and bounced it back. This sounds like common sense - and will therefore stop immediately.
@Missing Semicolon
It's easy to speculate in the total absence of concrete facts.
Maybe Legal caved to "reputation management" scum and covered up reports of gross professional misconduct that should never be forgotten.
Maybe the guy is an influential right-winger seeking to clear his name after years of government persecution, and some radical lefty "engineer" overruled Legal out of "moral duty" to censor "fascists". I see a lot of videos alleging such things in the UK, where the obvious crackdown on free speech lends credence to such allegations. Hopefully I'm being circumspect enough to get past the moderators here. :)
Maybe it's one of each.
It'll be interesting to see the the facts when they inevitably leak. I can just imagine the outrage.
It sounds like the lawyers agreed to the deletion request, then a real human (with some actual domain knowledge of the subject of the request) just could not stand to be party to an obvious injustice and bounced it back.
Sounds like wishful thinking...
A real human? Working at Google?
"It sounds like..."
It's not.
There are two requests here.
One came on paper from Carter-Fuck, and was dealt with by an actual lawyer., with responses on paper and ending up in court. Other than that, there's no details on what happened.
The other was through the online form, which is what most of the detail in the article comes from. While one of the teams involved has "legal" in it's title, it's not a team of lawyers.
> No. Feel free to educate yourself...
I think you need to read the two sentences carefully and consider their juxtapositioning, the first deals with a rhetorical question that the author knows that is obviously not currently the case* and highlights the mindset of those opportunists who would use this directive to avail themselves of a criminal past as implied by the second sentence.
*when you open the Tipex to history it has a nasty habit of spilling all over the page. Truthful facts should never be rubbed out. It's Google today, who next tomorrow ?
Which again shows a lack of knowledge - because the RTFB is not unlimited.
NT1 and NT2 could ask it exactly because their convictions were below a threshold, and an actual law allows them not to disclose them - and it doesn't matter how despicable they could be, or how much inclined to commit those crimes again, or do you believe we should institutionalize pre-crime?
And it's not up to Google to decide what the threshold is.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
