back to article You have the right to be forgotten 41.3 per cent of the time says Google

Google has published some details of its efforts to comply with the Court of Justice of the European Union's “right to be forgotten” decision that compelled search engines to remove links if citizens ask them to do so. In a new transparency report published a year to the day after the ruling, Google reveals it's received 254, …

  1. Tomato42


    With search results they are precise to a single comma placement, but with YouTube they are fine to comply to all the shotgun fired DMCA takedowns, even if the claimed reason is they include barely audible music in public domain.

    If you ever wondered who Google does respond to...

  2. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Finland's data protection registrar has just ruled that a Finnish businessman does not have the right to have information removed from Google just because he thinks it's embarrassing.

    However the right to be forgotten originally came about because a Spanish businessman wanted information removed from Google just because he thought it was embarrassing.

  3. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    This is not right...

    If a website is showing information about someone that is incorrect or libellous, then the person should approach the website and request that the actual website corrects the data. If they refuse then sue them.

    Google shouldn't have to do anything. They index what is out there. Getting Google to 'forget' things is just a lazy way out - the fault is with the incorrect website, not Google (or any other index)

    1. Graham Marsden

      Re: This is not right...

      > If they refuse then sue them.

      Brilliant idea! I'll post libellous content about Pen-y-gors on fifty different websites hosted in various countries around the world saying that he's a peedo-druggie-terrerist and then we can see how many will correct the data.

      After that, Pen-y-gors can try suing the ones that don't.

      Meanwhile anyone who searches for Pen-y-gors name (such as a potential new employer, girlfriend etc) will find that content and can draw their own conclusions...

      1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: This is not right...

        Fine by me - think how much cash I'll make sueing you 50 times instead of once! Bermuda here I come...

        1. Graham Marsden

          Re: This is not right...

          > think how much cash I'll cost me sueing you 50 times instead of once! Bankruptcy here I come...


  4. Tony Green

    Much as I dislike Google...

    ... to be fair, I suspect a large proportion of the requests they've been receiving have been totally invalid ones, such as criminals desperate to hide results that reveal their criminal past or politicians trying to hide evidence of their lies.

    1. Eric Olson

      Re: Much as I dislike Google...

      Frankly, I think Google should not only be free to ignore "right to forget" requests from politicians, but they should also then promote them up the rankings so that anytime someone searches for that politician, all that's seen are references to the shady and unethical behavior they've been accused of or prosecuted for.

      Same goes for those running for office the first time, since each filing period will see a spike in wannabe politicians trying to memory hole all the homophobic, racist, radical, etc. things they did before they wanted to be on the government payroll.

    2. NotWorkAdmin

      Re: Much as I dislike Google...

      Agree. Censorship is censorship. A dangerous thing to use, and in any case, quite likely impossible given the existence of the net.

      We already have plenty of legislation for dealing with objectionable material - the obscene publications act for instance.

      1. PJI

        Re: Much as I dislike Google...

        Not sure that being required to remove damaging, out-of-date, libellous or plain wrong information that can destroy someone's career or private life is censorship. What makes you think you have got a right to any information, right or wrong, about anybody, public figure or not?

        Meanwhile, Google, being above all reproach, can continue to decide whether or not a picture of a breast is to be censored (directly or via one of its subsidiaries). They can continue to slant apparently neutral search results to favour their desired result.

        Well, Google is big business; so of course it is all right.

        I am not saying that information about people that may reveal something relevant about their public activities, such as the recent shenanigans of Grant Shaps, should be removed because it is inconvenient, provided it is TRUE.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Much as I dislike Google...

          "What makes you think you have got a right to any information, right or wrong, about anybody, public figure or not?"

          The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Canada's Constitution and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For a start, that is...there are quite a few other relevant documents that guarantee me freedom of speech/expression, the right to assemble (physically and digitally) and many others. Abridging those rights can only be done under a very narrow set of carefully defined circumstances.

          Mind you, I live in Canada. The UK just gave a majority to sociopaths who appear to have implemented thought crime legislation within, what...a week? How long until they fund the Fingermen?

          Now me, I'd be in the streets every day over that. I have been taking action pretty much every day against Canada's Bill C-51 (our snooper's charter that is nearly as bad). The difference is that I am absolutely convinced that our courts will throw Bill C-51 out as soon as it hits them. I am pretty convinced the UK's courts won't do the same there.

          Now, what do you support? The ability to speak to truth to power? You seem to support authoritarian control of the populace instead.

          By all means, create methods of enforcing exist libel laws. We have been tweaking the balance (some times well, some times not so well) for over a century as our societies have evolved. We have laws about where free speech stops and the rights of someone else begin. There is no reason not to enforce those.

          But I absolutely do have the right to speak truth. Not to slander, not to libel, but to tell the truth. Any society - or individual! - who would seem to remove that right for any reason is, to my mind, an enemy of all peoples, everywhere.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021