
Ask HN: How to find results removed from Google under 'right to be forgotten'? - ch215
Hello,<p>I&#x27;m a journalist looking for a way to identify results removed under EU law. I&#x27;d like a big set of pages to search&#x2F;analyse.<p>I&#x27;m struggling to get my head around how to do this. If anyone has ideas, I&#x27;m all ears!
======
abro
To the best of my knowledge: you cannot. (I'm an EU-based SEO. I don't know
everything, but i might be a good source.) Most of the search queries that
contain human names will be marked as "Some results may have been removed
under data protection law in Europe." no matter wether a removal really
happened or not.

Afais this is the "best" data you get from Google for this topic:
[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/)

When you look at the other transparency reports you'll notice that you're able
to search through other types of removed results (e.g. copyright violations),
but that this is not possible in the right to be forgotten area.

[Edit] But you could ask any big newspaper Website for help. They receive a
notice in their Search Console when a result is taken down.

------
FatAmericanDev
Wouldn't that be in opposition to the spirit of the law, if they just moved
the removed results to a second search engine?

~~~
robryk
E.g. BBC publishes/used to publish the list of their pages that were removed
from Google search results for this reason:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f32-b110-d02fbf7fd379)

Not sure if there's any more recent version of that page.

~~~
9NRtKyP4
There is:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8f2dd88f-db8a-46...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8f2dd88f-db8a-4683-acbb-
cc3b1124c4ad)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
That's really interesting that they publish that information.

The top of the list is
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm;](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm;)
presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be
responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google.

What's more curious, to me, is that several of the BBC's list are references
to a series of articles on 3 students, eg
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3500850.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3500850.stm).

Now if you Google any of those 3 students,
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"nikki+ho...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"nikki+holman")
then that page, that BBC say is hidden in Google SERPs, appears?? Did someone
mess up. Google does say " _Some results may have been removed under data
protection law in Europe._ ", however.

Similarly, this page
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4747988.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4747988.stm)
is listed on that BBC page, but searching the main name and "BBC" brings up
that same page as the first result; again the " _Some results may have been
removed [...]_ " text is given.

Bit weird?

~~~
narrowrail
I'm all for the freedom of speech in the American sense of the phrase
(probably in the extreme considering many of the comments _here_ ). However, I
don't think that means we should always exercise that right; this is where I
think norms shine. I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing
this data such as you have (though I'd never want to try and legally prevent
it; it's your choice).

I think some of us that have had the foresight to prevent such things as in
the OP from ever possibly being an issue in our lives might forget the
rational decisions made in ignorance or a moment of exuberance (i.e haste).

Still, the internet is global and laws are regional, so ineffective
legislation is a waste of time.

[Not going to get into P2P tech that is still un-censorable]

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as
you have //

I hesitated, the BBC page will be an ocean of views compared to the puddle of
view this thread gets ... I didn't follow the details for other posts,
concerning crimes. The cited post looks like it was probably to hide what's
essentially normal student behaviours (though one can't be sure). At least
there's nothing intrinsic that seems worthy of censoring.

What it does shine a light on for me is how very bland information about us
that we share might become a source of regret later in life.

------
ch215
To clarify, I want to shine a light on results wrongly removed: cases where
freedom of expression, and the public interest in remembering, outweighs the
right to be forgotten.

~~~
stephengillie
So, articles where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

~~~
robinduckett
Sounds a bit like fascism to me

------
pokoleo
You're looking for Lumen[0] (formerly, Chilling Effects)

From Wikipedia[1]:

> The archive got a boost when Google began submitting its notices in 2002.
> Google began to do so in response to the publicity generated when the Church
> of Scientology convinced Google to remove references and links to an anti-
> Scientology web site, Operation Clambake, in April 2002.

[0] [https://lumendatabase.org/](https://lumendatabase.org/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(website)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_\(website\))

------
danso
[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/faq/?hl=en#provide_detailed_stats)

> _Can you provide more detailed statistics about the nature of these requests
> and removals?_

> _We have provided statistics about the scale of our delisting
> process—updated daily—since October 2014 in this Transparency Report and
> have added anonymised examples of delisting decisions to provide color.
> Additional data on common material factors is available for download here.
> We continue to explore ways to provide more transparency into delisting
> decisions in an operationally efficient manner and with due regard to the
> sensitive and private nature of the requests._

------
Retr0spectrum
Please use the data that you gather responsibly.

There are some people who abuse the system (who I hope you identify), and also
some people who really should have the right to be forgotten.

As far as I can tell, using a US based VPN/proxy does not censor results - at
least, it does not show the message.

Therefore, you just need to cross-reference the results from different
geographic regions. However, it will be difficult to tell whether a certain
result is missing due to censorship, or the fact that result rankings are
slightly different for different countries.

Once you find a "suspicious" result, I guess you could try searching direct
quotes from the article - If it doesn't show up in those results, then it's
probably censored.

This process will need to be automated, if you want to check every name.

~~~
matt4077
> Once you find a "suspicious" result, I guess you could try searching direct
> quotes from the article

I believe google only removes the results from searches for the specific name.
The page can still show up if you search for something else.

Other than that: +1 for your request for responsibility. I disagree with the
court ruling, but having the right to publish some information doesn't always
mean it's a good idea.

Google has details on a few specific requests. They include "high-ranking
corrupt politician" (not removed) as well as "stalking victim's home address"
(removed).

------
malux85
Put some contact info in your hacker news profile.

I can help you with this, email me

------
pitaj
Honestly, I don't understand how anybody can honestly think that there can or
should be a "right to be forgotten." These laws are an abomination of freedom
of information and are incredibly naive.

~~~
elpocko
Before the Internet, people eventually forgot what mistakes you made in the
past. If there were records, not everyone had access to them and they
eventually expired.

Don't you see the problem when every mistake you ever made, or even wrongfully
made accusations against you, can be found by anyone, indefinitely, by simply
entering your name into a search engine?

Let's say there is a nude picture of you on the Internet, or something else
that is embarrassing to you. It can be found by anyone by entering your name
into Google. You can't do anything about it. It keeps you from getting that
job you want, from now till the end of your life. Because of that one mistake
you made years ago. How would you like that?

I'm also critical of these laws because they can be abused, but in general, I
support the idea that some information should expire from the collective
memory eventually.

~~~
BurningFrog
It also allows every critical statement about anyone to be erased from the
internet.

This effectively kills freedom of speech.

I'd rather have some embarrassing photos around.

~~~
giovannibajo1
Well, here in Italy, a girl just committed suicide because of some revenge
hard video that was published 2 years ago and that became very famous (meme-
level famous, including people printing t-shirts, etc.). She tried to escape
for 2 years, including trying to change her name. Eventually, she just
couldn't handle it anymore.

I'd rather lose some accountability of past critical statements.

~~~
BurningFrog
What do you mean by "some"?

What past critical statements are immune to this?

------
amelius
You can search for phrases such as "Unfortunately, the page we linked to was
removed because of EU law". This will not give you the page itself though.

------
biot
How about: don't? Your time to report on it was when it was online. If someone
has something removed under a right to be forgotten, reporting on that pretty
much violates that right, no?

~~~
danso
The right to be forgotten is not a global right. OP could be from a country
where courts have not made that ruling.

~~~
biot
I'm speaking more to the ethics than the legal technicalities.

~~~
danso
I wouldn't call it a technicality. It's a very difficult issue that could have
far-reaching effects on technology and information systems. Currently, many
media outlets and Google choose to publish and link to copious amounts of
disturbing information and images regarding the Tiananmen Square protests,
despite the government of the world's most populous country arguing it to be
taboo. I doubt those invested in the issue think that publishing on the topic
involves mere legal technicalities.

That said, the EU's right to be forgotten applies to search engines. Not to
anyone else. That's why, as someone posted elsewhere, the BBC is able to
publish a list of links that have been blacklisted by Google because of the
ruling.

