
Google takes steps to comply with EU's 'right to be forgotten' ruling - emrgx
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/30/us-google-eu-idUSKBN0EA04O20140530
======
themartorana
This asks Google to be the deciders of what information should be free. It's
an incredibly bad decision by EU lawmakers, and one that no one - not even
Google - wants.

If Google removes public information, it's a loss for everyone. If they don't,
they're immediately open to a legal battle.

This is just a horribly rash, poorly thought out law that has little to do
with actual privacy, and more to pushing the problem on to Google and their
ilk.

~~~
tkinom
What Iran/China/Russian unable to force Google to do, EU is forcing Google to
do it now.

~~~
adsr
How so? It's not requests from the state that are discussed but from
individuals. It also seems to be in line with Eric Schmidt's comment about how
teens should have the right for a new online identity when they grow up. I
really wish people could accept different views here and add arguments to
support their point.

~~~
Goronmon
_How so? It 's not requests from the state that are discussed but from
individuals._

How is it any different when individuals work for the state? Couldn't
government entities just submit complaints on behalf of their employees? Hell,
why wouldn't the government just have employees have to sign a form allowing
for the government to send out blanket complaints to Google every month to
remove information related to them or their work?

~~~
adsr
It's different in principle. I'm not saying that this will be easy to manage
in practice, that's not the point I was trying to make. There seems to be some
clear cut cases however, like bullying and character assassinations where
perhaps law enforcement is involved. I think the question it self is
important, and it will be interesting to see how this works out in practice.

------
magicalist
> _Advocates of freedom of speech have said that the ruling paved the way for
> rich or powerful individuals and criminals to remove information about them,
> a claim that is dismissed by privacy activists since the ECJ allowed Google
> to apply a public interest test in deciding whether to remove the links._

Oh yeah, no big deal. What would normally be carefully weighed by a judge can
just be decided in 30 seconds by a dude with 400 more requests to get through
today. I'm sure that's going to go brilliantly.

------
azurezyq
I'm wondering if a precise definition of "valid removal request" really exist.
For example, if some guy named John Smith was accused and further released
after years and submitted a removal request, what should Google do? Even human
cannot distinguish this Smith from that Smith.

EU court just fear the information world?

------
ISL
It'll be a lot of fun if Google publishes the requests as they take things
down, in keeping with the spirit of transparency reports.

~~~
happyscrappy
The point of putting it down the memory hole is so no one can see it. Google
would likely be libel if they published that data but only EU citizens
searches need to be censored so a VPN will get you actual search results.

~~~
ISL
I don't think it's libel to state facts such as "M. Vanger, of Hedestad,
Sweden, requested that 37 pages regarding events in 2006, 2007, and 2009 be
removed."

~~~
mantrax5
That's kinda useless, isn't it. First, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of
"M. Vanger" in any bigger city.

Second, M. Vanger has the right to request that information above hidden as
well, so in the end the information would look like:

"M. Vanger, of Hedestad, Sweden, requested that 1 page containing a note of
his page removal requests be removed."

~~~
judk
Conclusion does not follow from evidence.

------
chairmanchair
I would like to create a site where users can submit search terms that have
been censored, and it will compare Google EU and non-EU results to show what's
been removed.

------
trigger
The "Search removal request under European Data Protection law" webform,
[https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we...](https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch&hl=en)

------
ldng
What the article does not says it's that Google has already stated that
information will be "removed" only within UE. So, outside UE, the information
will be available. That is they are not going to remove it but just hide it.

Granted, the topic is not easy, especially for criminals, but to me it's a
clear sign that Google don't really want to comply with actual privacy laws.
And I am sorry but that completely taint whatever they can say about privacy.

90% of the demands would probably be reasonable but that means staffing ...
customer support. Something we all know, Google want to avoid at all costs.

------
mantrax5
It seems counterproductive to ask every possible data aggregator (of which
Google is just one) to allow data to be taken out and hidden from view.

If John Doe has something so embarrassing in their past that would warrant
this, it can be accomplished by him changing his name.

I mean purely speaking as engineer, I'd make the central reference (the name)
invalid, and not go check every possible reference user.

~~~
DasIch
You do realize that you can't just change your name, right?

~~~
mantrax5
I don't know where you live, but actually yes, you can just change your name.

~~~
nilved
I've changed my name in Canada. Here, name changes are made public in a
government newspaper. It may be the case in other countries, too.

To be more general, a name change doesn't mean anything when the change itself
is recorded.

~~~
judk
Only matters if some Nameoogle comes along and publicizes websites with name
traslations joined in.

------
__matt
What next? Will they force google to pay taxes?

~~~
__matt
What's the problem with this comment? Don't you think the EU would be more
accommodating if google wouldn't evade taxes? After all Capitalism is the de
facto world government.

