

House of Lords criticises right-to-be-forgotten laws as 'unworkable' - DanBC
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/house-of-lords-criticises-righttobeforgotten-laws-as-unworkable-and-wrong-in-principle-9637498.html

======
DanBC
I link to this version of the story because of this:

> "We think there is a very strong argument that, in the new regulation,
> search engines should not be classed as data controllers, and therefore not
> liable as 'owners' of the information they are linking to. We also do not
> believe that individuals should have a right to have links to accurate and
> lawfully available information about them removed, simply because they do
> not like what is said."

The first sentence is a perverse interpretation of current UK law.

Actual full title is "House of Lords criticises right-to-be-forgotten laws as
'unworkable and wrong in principle'"

See also [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10998382/Right-
to...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10998382/Right-to-be-
forgotten-is-unworkable-say-peers.html)

and [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/30/lords-
righ...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/30/lords-right-to-be-
forgotten-ruling-unworkable)

None of these articles mention the fact that Google refused to give evidence
to the upper house of English legislature in public, and would only give
evidence if they could do so in private.

