back to article Google mouthpieces: 'Right to be Forgotten' should not apply on google.com

After much debate and a seven-city tour of Europe, Google’s self-appointed advisory board has finally published its opinion on the so-called “right to be forgotten”. Last May, Google was ordered to remove links to “outdated or irrelevant” information about a Spanish individual by the European Court of Justice. Since then, …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is Jimmy Wales a Lawyer? No? Then he should shut the feck up...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Jimbo is 100% flat out wrong: it's the Courts that ultimately decide, not Google.

      Why can't we find a reason to deport him?

      1. ratfox

        Read the article again, he's right

        Currently, if Google decides to accept a request and hide the link to an article for some searches, there is no recourse for the owner of the web site. They might try to convince Google, but they cannot appeal to privacy regulators the way the original requestor could, had the request been rejected.

        This is because though the ECJ has ruled people had a "right to be forgotten", they did not include a "right to be heard". There is basically no law that can force Google to display a link. In fact, they often demote sites while tweaking algorithms, or to punish SEO abusers, and nobody has a say in the matter.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Read the article again, he's right

          > Currently, if Google decides to accept a request and hide the link to an article for some searches, there is no recourse for the owner of the web site.

          The request refers to what Google, and not the owner of the site being referenced, should and/or should not display.

          You have said yourself, it is Google's index so in principle they decide what goes into it. The law under discussion attempts to implement (to better or worse effect) a means for them to comply with existing data protection and privacy laws.

          An equivalent of the US DMCA take down notice that, directed to website owners, requested the de-listing of personal information at the affected person's behest--entailing the website owner's liability if failing to comply--might perhaps be a better approach (if not abused by deep-pocket bullies like in the DMCA case), but for now this is what we have.

        2. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Read the article again, he's right

          @ratfox, but they don't (or shouldn't) delist the site / page entirely, just for searches which include the name of the person who has been requested to be forgotten.

      2. John Bailey

        "Why can't we find a reason to deport him?"

        Because then we would have nowhere to film Doctor Who.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      Give us a break

      The European Court of Justice is considered a joke in legal circles, and this ruling on search engines just underscores it.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The google.com thing

    Actually, I would have loved to occasionally direct searches to originate in the US, but as soon as you try hitting google.com it throws you into a regional version so it doesn't surprise me that few EU users use it - it's hard to make it so.

    As for the main topic: company sponsored club says company activities are 100% kosher. Quelle surprise, news at eleven...

    1. Paul Herber Silver badge

      Re: The google.com thing

      Bottom right-hand corner of the google.co.uk page is a link "Use Google.com".

      1. DavCrav

        Re: The google.com thing

        "Bottom right-hand corner of the google.co.uk page is a link "Use Google.com"."

        Hence hard, not impossible. Although I didn't know that was there, so thanks for the info!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The google.com thing

      > as soon as you try hitting google.com it throws you into a regional version

      https://google.com/ncr

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The google.com thing

      Does this extend? Does a British news site have to ensue that viewers in China don't see anything about <...> square? Does bbc.co.uk have to ensue that Clarkson isn't seen by people on Earth?

      1. Pseu Donyme

        Re: The google.com thing

        >Does this extend?...

        I suppose it could, if an external entity is under the de jure and de facto jurisdiction of where the information is displayed; e.g. while the Chinese certainly would seem to have de jure jurisdiction over what gets displayed - i.e. physically takes place - in China, it is hard to see the existence of de facto jurisdiction i.e. the ability to actually force a British news site to do anything about it in practice.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: The google.com thing

          Well they could drag BBC employees off flights and arrest them, like the American's do for anyone running an online gambling site outside the USA

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Re: The google.com thing

      I tend to use google.de for German searches and Google.com for my English searches.

      That said, the results have been becoming less and less reliable of late. I keep trying Bing, but it is useless at German searches, compared to Google.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Curly4

    It seems that the ECJ wants its cake and to be able to eat it at the same time. Google should should push that all delisting orders (not requests) should come from the ECJ and not from a request by the person(s) being delisted. It should not be Google (or any other search engine) to make the decision to delist or not. That should be an order that comes from a LEGAL authority and not the company who is to carry out the delisting. Then the search engine(s) would be required to carry out the order as a minimum not as a maximum.

    But then the ECJ would be the one who would catch the fallout instead of the search engine(s) who do the delisting and I don't think that the ECJ wants to take the heat for any screw up (as the Spanish did). So Google and other search engines should continue to do as Google did in Spain and when they get a delisting request then honor that request to the nth degree.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Searchabout is fair play

    If Google get to show links removed by EU-specific laws on their US site, I think it only proper that they conversely show links removed by US-specific laws on their EU sites.

    Now, about those DMCA take-downs...

  6. Tom 35

    Turn about is fair play

    So if Europe can tell Google to remove stuff from google.com

    Then the US can tell them to remove (or keep) stuff on google.co.uk

    Pakistan can tell Google to remove stuff they don't like in Europe too.

    Is this what you want?

    1. SteveK

      Re: Turn about is fair play

      That may depend on whether you consider .com to be international?

      Maybe things can be removed from Europe and international, but not google.us? (or Pakistan and international, but not Europe)

      1. Gannon (J.) Dick

        Re: Turn about is fair play

        You are right Steve, sorry for the downvotes from the Hippies who have federalized data sets, the semantic web (software) and DNS (a deterministic appliance implemented in software) smushed together in their heads. It's a modern form of cognitive dissonance or the placebo effect. Take your pick.

  7. PacketPusher
    WTF?

    Why the search engine?

    I still don't understand why this is even a google thing. Why mess with the search engines? If you get the source information removed, the information will timeout in the search engines. If I recall correctly, the original case involved information at a Spanish newspaper site. Spain is part of the EU. Why not sue to get the article removed there?

    1. Oninoshiko
      Facepalm

      Re: Why the search engine?

      because that would make too damn much sense.

    2. Cynic_999

      Re: Why the search engine?

      Its not at all straightforward. The original article has perhaps sat in an online newspaper archive for the past 30 years - there is no more legal power to have that archive removed than there would be to have it cut from physical newspaper archives in public libraries. And sat in such archives it is unlikely to do any harm because the only people who would take the trouble to look it up would be those who already know that it exists. The damage to the individual is caused only when the article is shoved under the nose of anyone who happens to type their name (or something associated with them) into a search engine, such as a potential employer or a new boy/girlfriend etc. Few people under 50 years old think or act the same as they did 30 years ago, and the harm is caused when people judge a person by something foolish they did long ago when in effect they are no longer the same person.

    3. Pseu Donyme

      Re: Why the search engine?

      >I still don't understand ...

      The legal basis is that Google is a data controller processing personal information in the sense of the data protection directive; in this context it is irrelevant whether the information is otherwise available or not, what matters is that Google 'processes' personal information and some of this 'processing' (at least displaying the results) takes place in an EU member counrtry.

  8. Number6

    Changing the Norm

    To some extent it's the wrong solution to the problem. One day, probably 20 or 30 years from now, pretty much anyone of working age is going to have something embarrassing on-line somewhere and it'll become the norm. Employers will learn to distinguish between evidence of current bad behaviour and what you did as a student but have outgrown. The world will end up with a "so what?" attitude when dodgy photos from the past get dredged up and they'll largely cease to matter.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: Changing the Norm

      Hell no.

      Google has prospered by being a serial gamer of Civil Court. Nothing wrong with Civil Court per se, it accomplished it's goal which was to stop duels of honor among gentlemen. Civil Law, on the other hand, had to cohabit an enviornment where those same gentlemen dined on the children of the little people. Nothing too honorable about that. Never has been never will be the case. "Changing the Norm" is a creepy race to the creepy bottom.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Straw man

    The discussion revolving around domain names either completely misses the point intentionally or otherwise, or is a massive straw man.

    Either way, it ignores what host names are¹: mere user-friendly mnemonics that resolve to one² IP address, which may or may not be (intended to be) reachable by a given user in a given geographical area.

    There is nothing inherently "geographic" about domain names³ at a technical level.

    ¹ At the basic level applicable in this case.

    ² Or more, etc. Not getting into irrelevant detail.

    ³ Policy in some cases restricts who are allowed to operated under a given TLD. I don't know of any case where policy restricts who is allowed to ask a given TLD to be resolved.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Straw man

      The point is precisely that domains don't limit countries.

      Google is saying that they removed it from google.es but continue to display the results in europe from google.com.

      If they show Google.com in europe then it is a european site as far as european law is concerned. That it is hosted outside europe doesn't make it immune any more than pirate radio did or broadcasting illegal content from a Russian owned satelite would.

      I assume Google is happy to take ad money when people outside the US click on google.com.

  10. Breen Whitman

    Europeans should not question Google. Being an arm of us intelligence, hurting Google is hurting us interests.

    Europeans could find themselves seeing a significant jump in US drone strikes against European targets. Perhaps even a 50% increase in strikes if Google is riled up too much.

  11. Nanners

    We are google damn it.

    We own you. We can do what we pleAse. We are the keepers of humans. We also own a top secret off shore data collection center that even the government can't get into, all your health records... Right down to your DNA and if want to clone you we will. We also own and control DARPA and it's army of ai soldier bots. We decide what happens in this world and when and how it will end. If you want to enter our off world environ for the wealthy you better start saving now puny monkeys.

  12. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    What makes something outdated?

    The original complaint, IIRC, was about an old bankruptcy, which was not relevant to current business.

    But supposing I'm doing a historical study on 30-year-old bankruptcies?

    1. Pseu Donyme

      Re: What makes something outdated?

      You shouldn't be affected as there should be no reason to search by an individual's name (?): the ECJ decision was about Google removing certain result page when searching by the name, not removing the page from search results altogether (using other search terms).

    2. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: What makes something outdated?

      Life is too short to downvote a Dodgy Geezer, so I won't.

      I will say that if a 30 year old did a study (work-for-hire) of current bankrupcies for you; sole sourced by Google; your geezer wrath would know no bounds. Nor would mine under those circumstances.

  13. De Facto
    Stop

    Rights to remove links to pirated US content should not apply on google.de, google.fr etc?

    Following the Google's logic, Google should stop removing links to disputed copyrighted content of American companies everywhere else but on google.com. Because only 5% of Europeans, if we had to believe to Google's lawyers, go to search for the American content on google.com.

    Jokes aside, it is obvious that collecting a 'dirt' about milions of private people with outdated content ruining their private life or damaging their reputation, posted at some time as some anonymous comments on thousands of web sites of fairly decent reputation, such as local news or media sites, it generates more interest to search by person or company name. For instance, Google is often used to dig up something negative for an opponent bushing, or for playing kids having evil fun about each other searching on Google about their parents, or just for other casual evil. Therefore linking to outdated 'dirt' satisfies such an nefarious human interest and naturally generates more search traffic to Google and more dirty advertising revenues to Google. That explains Googles's millions shelled out for laywers and panel advisors, with obvious intent to keep maximum number of links to those evil postings about people private matters forever on the Google search index, in contrast to their policy of immediate removal of disputed copyrighted (pirated) content. That is the best evidence that number of Rights to Forget removal requests is not a technical problem for Goggle, and Google should stop misleading European regulators and just follow the court ruling same technical way they are already dealing with copyright disputes. I am amazed that European legal system falled victim to this obvious Google's tactics.

    I also believe it will backfire for Goggle in their home country. Americans are the least protected nation from this privacy failure, and it is only a matter of time when Google is going to face a multi-billion legal class action on the American soil and pay a penalty as a total company failure to protect own home country citizens rights to forget.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Rights to remove links to pirated US content should not apply on google.de, google.fr etc?

      There are, of course, some who think the appropriate way to remove unauthorized access to copyright material is to go after those who "share" it without authorization, and allow search engines to do index whatever they find. That is perfectly consistent with arguing that any "right to be forgotten" should be imposed on those who are offering the data rather than those, like Google, who index it.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google Mouthpieces

    Can we just call them "The Mouth of Google"? It has a certain ring to it.

  15. Dharma

    What about my right to know?

    First off, I am in the U.S., and a U.S. citizen, and I think the U.S. censors me far too much. But the overreach of the EU here infuriates me. There's no way their citizens have any right to be forgotten as far as I am concerned.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What about my right to know?

      > There's no way their citizens have any right to be forgotten as far as I am concerned.

      The "right to be forgotten" thing is some sensationalist name the press came up with. The applicable laws to the case at hand deal with data protection and privacy, both of which are important rights in the EU, both in a legal and in a Kantian sense.

    2. Someone_Somewhere

      Re: What about my right to know?

      I demand embarrassing/compromising/incriminating photos of you - there is no way you have any right to refuse as far as I am concerned.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like