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.
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.
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; presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google.
Now if you Google any of those 3 students, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"nikki+ho... 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 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.
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]
>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.
It's called google.com. But seriously, Google has a pretty passive-aggressive approach to complying with laws they don't like, such as publishing all DMCA takedown requests.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
<raises hand> The ex-classics-major in the audience would like to beg to differ. Would you like to know about the many foibles of graeco-roman politicians, writers and soldiers? Because I can tell you things they would likely LOVE to be forgotten now (e.g. any of Catullus's poems regarding his opinions on plagiarism by his peers, and the involvement of rectally delivered "spiky fruit" remediation.)
I think it's pretty black and white, the "right to be forgotten" is a complete and utter absurd slight against the fundamental concept of a cultural history. Such a right stands against tens of thousands of years of recorded social ephemera, which until this affront was generally seen as "quite an accomplishment." (for humanity)
And to make what should be an obvious point, I do not say this as someone without skeletons in my closet. I don't get to live those down, or assert someone "forget"; they are actions I took and they are now part of me, it's for me to demonstrate that I should no longer be judged by them.
(I never thought of all my posts one defending history as paramount to speech and/or accepting personal responsibility would be the one to get downvoted this hard, if I said something else stupid/illogical please at least let me know, because I'm both curious and entertained)
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.
There are already libel laws to address lies much more thoroughly than making Google's job harder.
So-called right to be forgotten laws are as futile as DRM. I believe culturally we will adapt to the availability of this information. We can change our opinions about whether evidence of poor choices a long time ago means a candidate would be a poor hire. But the information still being available allows us to make more informed choices because maybe those poor choices a long time ago, along with more recent information, is relevant. The candidate knows this evidence exists and can contextualize it and/or compensate for it with evidence of better, more recent choices.
Applying libel laws are very theoretical on the internet. Joe is not going to sue Jack at the other end of the world in practice because of the outsized costs and efforts involved.
Anyway, assuming that there is, that country had made a conscious choice that in its jurisdiction, this is not a thing that they wish to suppress, for whatever reason. If you live in such a country and are unhappy about it, you can either work through its political system to change the law, or leave for a different country.
If you're already in a different country, you can sue for libel in that country, since that's where the damage (to your reputation) occurred.
If a company in the US puts something on their website about me that’s libel under German law, I still can’t get it pulled.
Yet, if I put up something that’s legal under German law but illegal under US law onto my website, my entire hoster is threatened by the US govt. unless they remove my presence.
The right to be forgotten only gives the EU citizen the power that US citizen already have: to apply their laws globally (despite only in very limited amounts and with careful interpretation – which can’t be said of the US laws)
I thought this way originally, but in the United Kingdom over the past few years there has been Operation Yewtree, which has in multiple instances called out a well known figure as being a child-molester, only to have to retract due to incorrectness (or correctness, and lack of evidence), and it has ruined a few careers.
I think the Internet should be able to retain veritable truth (and obvious satire) only, if there's clear evidence that something on the Internet is untrue and not clearly satire, then it should be possible to remove that information because it is potentially personally damaging.
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.
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?
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.
There are definitely reasons to support hiding information, but the simple act of it being hidden does not make it immoral if you bring it to light.
It is trivial to form the moral argument for the opposite argument: say I am a corporation (for instance DOW Chemical) and I have a right of personhood in my country, remove negative articles about me from the internet.
If a judge orders it Google will do it, they dont make a moral argument back to a court order(generally), and at that point you have taken critical information away from the greater public (say, that the corp is poisoning people.)
Afais this is the "best" data you get from Google for this topic: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri...
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.