Google says broader right to be forgotten is 'serious assault' on freedom

Google's general counsel has signalled the company intends to fight, hard, against broad interpretations of the European Union's right to be forgotten. Kent Walker, the company's general counsel and senior veep, put his name to a strongly-worded post on Wednesday, US time. Titled “Defending access to lawful information at …

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how a "right to be forgotten" can ever be an attack against "freedom". The lack of a right to be forgotten was often used as a means of oppression by some users on other users, with the companies profiteering all the way to the bank. The removal of oppression results in more freedom, does it not?

And what's all this about "lawful information"? If a law is passed saying that certain types of information can be requested to be removed, and that the information owner has the absolute legal right to make that request and the companies are legally obliged to remove it, then in what way is retention of that information lawful?

[Adam 52]

"then in what way is retention of that information lawful?"

Supposing Donald Trump were secretly banging Vladimir Putin on the Oval Office desk. Under EU data protection law detail about Donald's sexuality is private and can't be revealed, but an EU newspaper would quite like to publish that story and Google would like to link to the article. It could be argued that the drafters of the data protection law never intended it to prevent publication of the story.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under EU data protection law detail about"

No, even privacy laws in Europe have exceptions - but they are exceptions, not the norm like Google would like.

For Google, there's much more at stake, because if it obtains people can't obtain their data to be removed, it can expand it to any data whatever they are whomever they are from, people's data are everything for Google to keep on making money, and it has to destroy any protection around them.

[ratfox]

About what is lawful or not: The awkward thing about the right to be forgotten is that it prevents Google to display certain results for certain search queries, even though it's perfectly legal to publish the content on a website.

So for instance, it's legal to have a website stating that Mr. Mario Costeja went bankrupt in 1998. It's fine for Google to show that website as result for "la vanguardia 19 January 1998", but they're not allowed to show the same result if you search for "Mario Costeja".

The website is legal, Google is allowed to index it, they're allowed to show it, just not for this particular search.

[I ain't Spartacus]

ratfox,

It's an awkward compromise. This is simply society slowly catching up with technological progress.

Newspapers never used to have this problem, because you published about someone's conviction say, and when that conviction was spent - you weren't legally obliged to go back to the newspaper archives and delete it. You just assumed that nobody would find it, without serious research.

Once that archive becomes completely transparent and searchable with no effort, then you either have to make people delete all that public facing data (undesirable and probably impossible), give up on the idea of things like rehabilitation and spent convictions (also undesirable) or find a messy compromise.

Google are now a global public utility. That may be tough on them, they didn't ask for it and nobody wants to get regulated by governments all the time. But they established a global search monopoly, and it pays them very well, so that's just tough shit.

It's never going to be posible to regulate millions / billions of individual websites. But Google are huge, make loads of money, and so can get pushed around by government. This can obviously have some seriously bad effects, but then Google getting to decide things to suit themselves can also. There's never going to be a right answer here. Just a series of messy and imperfect compromises.

[nijam]

> It's fine for Google to show that website as result for "la vanguardia 19 January 1998", but they're not allowed to show the same result if you search for "Mario Costeja".

And that is, in every reasonable sense, insane. It is a very dubious interpretation of the law which has - in defiance of any real logic - become a legal precedent.

That's not to say that some things should be forgotten, but a statement from a factual report that has long been available as public knowledge? Hard to see how that can ever be considered anything but censorship.

[I ain't Spartacus]

nijam,

But expiring criminal records is censorship! That's the whole bloody point. It's deliberate forgetfullness by society in order to give people a second chance. Which is why I think serious offences only expire if they occur while the perpetrator is still a minor - you get the chance to grow up and have a clean slate.

In the past printed records still existed, and you could search for them if you wanted to do so. But they weren't available to casual searching, or even anyone but the most determined employer or investigator. But you weren't allowed to re-publish that information.

Those laws were created in an era before the internet, and many of those records became instantly globally searchable. So the answer is that we try to patch the system to keep society working the way we intended it, or we change society to deal with the new realities. Google may squeal, but it's much easier to legally compel them to solve the problem, than to change social attitudes.

To give a lesser example, think of job recruitment. We're in a brief window of social change where the pepole doing the recruting are probably in their 30s and older - but often have access to the Facebook records of people who were teens when they had FB accounts. Hence there's a risk of a bit of sneaky research on potential employees getting them disqualified as a non-serious party-animals for stuff they got up to (and posted) when they were 17. And very drunk. Probably this problem goes away in 15 years, when the people in HR doing the recruiting have their own dodgy FB background to compare with those they're looking at. Whereas what people of my generation did when teenagers could only be recorded on film cameras, and if you were that drunk you probably didn't remember to process the film - in the unlikely event you'd taken a camera out with you.

So the question is, do we hope this is a minor problem and ignore it, or make a law that makes it illegal for HR to demand people's Facebook passwords?

Basically the intervention of new tech changes society in unexpected ways. But people tend to form their expectations of what's reasonable when quite young, and we're not all that good (or fast) at changing them. So sometimes you have to force society to change with laws, or you may have to use a legal sticking-plaster to give people a chance to catch up emotionally with what technology has suddenly made possible.

[John Brown (no body)]

"So sometimes you have to force society to change with laws, or you may have to use a legal sticking-plaster to give people a chance to catch up emotionally with what technology has suddenly made possible."

You appear to be describing futures hock

[Mike Moyle]

"Supposing Donald Trump were secretly banging Vladimir Putin on the Oval Office desk."

Putin would be the Top in that relationship, surely!

[big_D]

@Adam 52

Perhaps you should actually read the Right to be Forgotten law.

The information has to be inaccurate, no longer relevant or fulfil a number of other criteria. It also doesn't apply to public figures, so your example would be newsworthy, as long as Trump couldn't prove the story was false, he couldn't get it removed.

An example of where you could get something removed would be:

You are arrested and charged with murder. You are later freed and the charges are dropped. You could get searches for your name to not return reports of your arrest for that alleged crime. Searches for the crime itself (E.g. searching on the victim's name) would still return the stories.

[Adam 52]

Re: @Adam 52

"Perhaps you should actually read the Right to be Forgotten law."

I've read Google Spain Vs Gonzales, thank you.

"The information has to be ..."

If it were that clear then the French Supreme Court would not have felt then need to refer to the European Court, would it?

Silly me, I keep forgetting that commentards on El Reg are better legal minds than Supreme court judges, that's the second time this week I've been called up it.

[P. Lee]

>The lack of a right to be forgotten was often used as a means of oppression by some users on other users

Citation needed

Yes we need privacy and yes I think google intrudes far too much on privacy. However, I don't really understand how you can have a right to force amnesia regarding what was public.

What would be reasonable is to have google delete all information it has on me which I have provided. So if I terminate my gmail account, I expect all that data to be deleted and any youtube and search data it may have linked to my user id. Removing links to newspaper articles about my youthful indiscretions is not part of that deal. It doesn't make sense unless you are also planning on ordering the burning of said newspapers as well.

Man up and own your mistakes.

Teach the next generation about the importance of integrity and the foolishness of thinking that internet services operate for your benefit.

[anonymous boring coward]

All this leads to is that no-one ever will say anything under their real name on the internet.

[big_D]

You are forgetting Google's credo:

“ALL THAT HAPPENS MUST BE KNOWN.”

Some of its other Orwellian maxims are “SECRETS ARE LIES,” “SHARING IS CARING” and “PRIVACY IS THEFT.”

Oh, wait, that was The Circle, but is reality really that different now?

[Mark 85]

I don't see how a "right to be forgotten" can ever be an attack against "freedom".

This needs to be qualified methinks. The "attack against freedom" is the attack to Google and what it does to their profits and advertising revenue. I doubt that Google really has our best interest at heart.

[Adam 52]

For those that care, four people were accused, separately, of being involved in some salacious activity.

That activity included what the EU considers "sensitive" personal data - details about political affiliation and sexuality - which would normally be highly confidential.

The French court is asking the European Court how far the right to privacy offered by EU data protection extends. It doesn't seem to be asking about the right to a private life, but one would imagine that relevant.

Google is, of course, misrepresenting the subtleties of the case.

Disturbingly I find myself supporting the Scientologist.

[Warm Braw]

four people were accused ... of ... some salacious activity

That's not how I read it. Although the legal summary is necessarily circumspect, there appear to be four distinct categories of personal information:

1/ A video that explicitly revealed [a] relationship ... with a person holding a public office

2/ An incidental mention of someone being public relations manager of a Scientology Church

3/ Information relating to criminal proceedings against someone

4/ Information relating to the conviction of someone for child sex offences

In the first case, the existence of the relationship might possibly be justifiable public knowledge, if relevant, though the explicit video presumably is not. I can't immediately see why the second should be suppressed. The third and fourth seem like matters of public record but if it subsequently turns out that charges have been false and malicious then there may be a case.

But that's why we need judges to decide these things and not Google.

[nijam]

> But that's why we need judges to decide these things and not ...

... tabloid hysteria? vote-grubbing politicians? knee-jerk legislation?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't immediately see why the second should be suppressed."

Because in most EU jurisdiction religion ( I don't believe you can be a PR for scientology without being an adept) is a sensitive data which imply special handling of the information, which usually means the written consent. Thereby an "incidental mention" is something which may promote a removal - even if it is scientology (has it religion status in EU too?)

[Steve the Cynic]

Re: "I can't immediately see why the second should be suppressed."

"(has it religion status in EU too?)"

It is not consistent from country to country, according to the Unreliable Source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_as_a_religion

[tom dial]

"But that's why we need judges to decide these things and not Google."

There probably are not enough judges in the world, let alone the EU.

[aaaa]

rather disingenuous.

There are narrow areas where public interest trumps private interests. There are already laws which cover this. Criminal Records and Official Transcripts of Parliament etc. Google's argument is rather disingenuous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm over thinking this here but why don't google forget (remove links) about the right to be forgotten then eventually everyone will forget?

Seriously though, I'm going to go out on limb here and suggest a better way to manage this would be through the courts who decide if it's in the public interest. Obviously this would need to be accessible to all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake views

Because "don't be evil" has long since been jettisoned, I find it hard to believe that Google's over-simplified, black-or-white, position stems from high-minded corporate moral outrage at a potential violation of its users' rights. Perhaps the European Court should simply tell Google to treat the material in question as if it came from competing price comparison sites. That would make it vanish smartish.

[Halfmad]

Re: Fake views

Not just a google problem but companies in general who do business in the USA. Data protection laws are far more open to interpretation over there than the EU/UK. Which is why it's important we don't pay the slightest bit of attention to what they say on this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This would effectively erase the public’s right to know important information"

Translated from GoogleSpeak: "We want the absolute right to decide what information people see or don't see. If you pay us handsomely, you can publish what you want, and maybe have information removed, if you're a friend of us, and work actively in our interest".

Even if the applicants were among the worst people on Earth, that shouldn't become an excuse for Google to ignore the law and take control of information.

[Anonymous Coward]

This demonstrates how hard it is to actually draft laws. We know what we mean by the "right to be forgotten" but how do you put that into a legal framework that is actually usable? What information forms part of a "right to be forgotten" and what is "in the public interest" and needs to be retained? At what point and from what source does information fall into which category? Does it always remain in the same category?

I think many view this as I have a "right to be forgotten" but everyone else is "in the public interest" (or at least could be).

[nijam]

> We know what we mean by the "right to be forgotten"

I'd argue that part of the problem is that we don't, really. In practice, each of us interprets it in accordance with their own self-interest.

To put yet another stick in the fire, is there ever (apart from in a totalitarian state, obviously) any good argument for forgetting true statements? I don't consider "because I want you to" to be a good reason, BTW.

[Steve the Cynic]

"how do you put that into a legal framework that is actually usable?"

That's a damned good question, and applies to lots of things. It's worth noting that for it to be actually usable, something that you want to put into a legal framework must be sufficiently specific that someone reading the framework document can tell what you mean, but must be sufficiently loose that the framework can retain usefulness in the face of the change that will come.

That's *HARD*.

[tom dial]

A reasonable start on defining "in the public interest" would be "any public record that is generally accessible to the public. That would include all publicly available records of court action, criminal prosecution, conviction, and and sentencing. In the US, and probably elsewhere, it is possible to petition courts to expunge criminal conviction records and related information, or in civil cases, seal the court records. While this does not make them entirely disappear, it makes them generally unavailable to (lawful) access by members of the public, including the press, in its general sense. It also would also make them unavailable to the likes of Google and provide a reasonable and definite basis for requiring removal of any existing links to old records such as, for instance, newspaper reports.

[Teiwaz]

Assault on Freedom??? Google??

Are they entirely without self-reflection?

What am I saying...they are a vampire company, largely parasitic.

Them and facebook.

What about the right to be free from being tracked across the internet (and the planet).

[tiggity]

Wonder how many of these right to be forgotten people

Are the sort who spout on about govt eavesdropping and drone on about "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Right to be forgotten is a far too easy way for politicians and influential people to hide things about their activities that may look a bit iffy (though given how UK voters seem immune to the reprehensible behaviour of some of their "elite" then they probably really don't need to bother).

When right to be forgotten is used tro remove information about someones fraud convinction (and this person is now out of jail and years later still doing business deals,) then that sort of iunformation shuld not be purged as it is useful for people to be aware of - might make them inspect the deal with a lot more due diligence.

[Anonymous Coward]

"that sort of iunformation shuld not be purged as it is useful for people to be aware of"

Do you really believe pieces of information found from web sites, often of unknown reputation, can give you a real picture of someone? Even someone may be accused of the worst crimes, and then found innocent. Some may have paid their debt with society and changed their life.

Google wants this power? OK. Let's make it fully accountable for any incorrect, outdated, fake information its search engine returns, and any damage that may be inflicted to anyone. With fees high enough to impact its executives bonuses and stock options.

[tom dial]

Re: "that sort of iunformation shuld not be purged as it is useful for people to be aware of"

Google does not "report" in the customary use of that word. Providing links to reports by others, including government records in some cases is quite different.

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: Wonder how many of these right to be forgotten people

Right to be forgotten is a far too easy way for politicians and influential people to hide things about their activities that may look a bit iffy

Which is why we have public interest exceptions and not an absolute right to privacy. As long as that continues to apply there should be no major problems.

When right to be forgotten is used tro remove information about someones fraud convinction (and this person is now out of jail and years later still doing business deals,) then that sort of iunformation shuld not be purged as it is useful for people to be aware of

The right for criminality to be forgotten, when that applies and to what extent, is already enshrined in British law.

You - and Google - are simply saying British law has got it wrong, you know better. Perhaps you do but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to ride roughshod over the law just because you don't agree with it.

[Andrew Orlowski]

Re: Wonder how many of these right to be forgotten people

"Right to be forgotten is a far too easy way for politicians and influential people to hide things about their activities that may look a bit iffy"

How, exactly? The politician would need to convince a court that there is no public interest justification for continuing publication of the material. There, a public interest defence can be advanced. Very few politicians or celebrities win these.

[msknight]

Google are right....

It is a serious assault on freedom.

....their freedom to do what the hell they like with other people's personal data.

[Anonymous Coward]

For Google Information === $$$$$$$$$$$$$

The more they know about each and every one of us right down to what we eat for brekkie and our inside leg measurement means that their data model of us (that is each and every one of us) is improved which in turn means that they can sell that data for a higher price.

I have eschewed (good word that) all of the social media sites. I have never had a gmail account yet Google knows an awful lot about me. How much? I don't know because I'd have to reveal more about myself in order to get it (catch-22 time) and I won't,

The day that Google goes belly up can't come a day too soon as far as I'm concerned but I know it won't happen in my lifetime.

Google is the Big Brother lite of the 21st Century. But they could, sorry will become worse than they are in their search for more data and thus more profits. Facial recognition of everything posted on Social Media is just the start people.

Personally, I home the court stomps all over Google.(again wishful thinking).

Remember that nothing you do even in private can remain private forever if there are two or more people party/things to it and that includes all those cameras and aleays listening digital assistants we seem to love so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For Google Information === $$$$$$$$$$$$$

"which in turn means that they can sell that data for a higher price"

I really dislike Google, so am not defending them, however to be clear they do not sell your data. At all. Ever.

Not because they are altruistic and caring, but because they can only sell your data once. What they do instead is sell access to you, with that access guided by your data (which they hoard). That way lies repeat business forever.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: For Google Information === $$$$$$$$$$$$$

I think most people know this. With "your data" one commonly means information about what you are up to. As opposed to your name, address and phone number. And even if you are anonymised, you still get that targeted advertising that Google has effectively sold the ability to deliver.

Google is the spying machinery in the 1984 nightmare coming true. Enjoy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google used to be cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google do have a point - albeit they also have a vested interest

You certainly CAN abuse the right to be forgotten to hide misdeeds and protect the guilty.

Google, as do many other companies have a vested interest in not making highly complex searching even more complex with further legislative boundaries.

Therefore, I'll agree with the above posters to the extent that "Google would say that wouldn't they", however I'll temper that with, "I think they have a point".

A broad interpretation is doing the digital equivalent of burning books, and could be used prevent access to important archives of news etc. This seems to me rather more like creating the Ministry of Truth and simply labelling it as Google for convenience rather than stand back to look at the wider issue.

[tom dial]

Re: Google do have a point - albeit they also have a vested interest

I agree generally, but this seems a bit over the top in describing the proposed restrictions as equivalent to book burning. Search engines compile and present indexing information to already existing records. Removing the links would not make the records vanish, but only make them more difficult to find. An interested person might conduct the search, less efficiently, by manual means or even deploy a special purpose search engine to crawl the web and report the links using technology that has been known - and in some degree used - for nearly a quarter of a century.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: Google do have a point - albeit they also have a vested interest

"Removing the links would not make the records vanish, but only make them more difficult to find"

Well, that's the aim.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Search engines compile and present indexing information"

Search engines are not simple indexes. They correlate and rank information, so they decided what is at the top or the list or not (and it's almost hidden).

Propaganda and "SEO" experts try to understand how to use those algorithms at their own advantages - both to promote or hide information. But it's something beyond the reach of plain citizens.

[GoE]

Surely the court could simply add a stipulation that the ruling doesn't apply to public figures (public interest seems a bit vague)?

[TheMole]

Hypocrisy thy name is Google

Their arguments might carry a little more weight if Google was not currently launching a campaign to suppress political views they disagree with on Youtube, through demonetizing and sandboxing videos even if they do not violate its policies (but Google happens to disagree with).

[ecofeco]

The right to be forgottten was a bad idea

Normal slander and libel laws should have been more than enough to deal with public reputations.

Google is just a search engine. They do not generate any content. How can they be held accountable for what is essentially something in the wild? (but they really do need to do a better job of vetting their news feeds)

The right be forgotten results in people with enough wealth being able to buy anonymity and hide their past crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google is just a search engine." - Sorry, no more.

Google became the gateway to what information most people see, and fully controls it.

It's no longer just a simple search engine for some internet stuff only. It has a power very few commercial entities had, if anybody ever had such power - probably newspaper and TV networks never had such power, even when they had a great one, not even in dictatorial regime where people never trusted the source - while many people naively trust Google results.

And Google shown several times it's fully ready to abuse the power it gained.

[Adam 52]

Re: The right to be forgottten was a bad idea

"Normal slander and libel laws ...

Google ... They do not generate any content. How can they be held accountable"

Under English libel law republishers of libel are liable just as much as the original author. Google could opt to be liable for every single libel in their search index if they wanted to. Somehow I don't think they would want to be liable for every libellous statement on the Internet.

[ecofeco]

Re: The right to be forgottten was a bad idea

I am not here to defend Google. Far from it. But the problem is how is a search engine, ANY SEARCH ENGINE, any different than a library index system?

Is the index system liable for slander and libel? If I report I saw many different things on my daily walk, am I irrepressible for all of those things? Of course not. Is a library and librarian responsible for every word in every book?

[The Nazz]

An interesting case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42012079

Overall, it appears to be a well received decision to sack this guy, to do so swiftly and remove his subsequent articles. Well done.. Unpleasant, vile, nasty and abusive you decide, I don't know the detail.

But had he been able to use the "right to be forgotten" and forbid Google to list anything about him, then it may have been more difficult, though not impossible, to revisit old data he himself published.

So, a good thing he couldn't. Or didn't.

On the other hand, he and many, many others want to be highly visible in the real world and make substantial efforts to that end. So don't allow such people to be selective, warts and all i say.

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: An interesting case

On the other hand, must anyone who has genuinely turned themselves around, are no longer what they were, be forever forced to be haunted by their sins and crimes of the past?

It undoubtedly depends on what those errors were, what the exact circumstances are now and were back then, how long ago in the past such things occurred.

There is no simple 'one size fits all' solution and we need to recognise that.

While Google and everyone else should have the right to say how they think things should be we must be careful not to let individuals or businesses become universal or sole arbiters of how things will be.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: An interesting case

So, a good thing he couldn't. Or didn't.

I disagee. This looks like a prime example of when it would make sense to have a right to be forgotten.

Some drunken rants in his early 20s shouldn't be grounds to fire him now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its an attack on freedom!

The freedom of Google to operate with impunity that is.

[Breen Whitman]

Given that Google is effectively an NGO for the CIA, I can see how this would be a dent to their business case.

[bernardo.ortiz]

I think the solution is easy. Similarly to the Brexit issue for freedom of transit of the involved citizens falls the data of these citizens. Namely, if Google is unwilling to respect the data it has on EU citizens outside of EU countries then that information cannot be gathered and sent to a server outside of the EU. Anyone who does do this legally, must also set up firewalls to prevent entities, such as Google, from accessing that data. This process already exists in the US with HIPA rules on medical information.

This would allow for Google operation and compliance with EU and US laws by strictly keeping any and all EU citizens information strictly within EU boundaries (ie firewall required). The burden then jumps onto 3rd parties to institute firewalls on data kept outside of the EU to protect the EU data, and therefore abiding by EU existing EU law. I don't see that Google has any legal argument against being forced to abide by these principles (which are existing EU laws). Lets remember that Google is a business, not a government or human rights organization (or it would have to change it's legal status)

[Howard Hanek]

Laws

......today are the complete opposite of what their title implies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose courts are allowed to apply their judgements on companies or citizens in another nation? ECJ? Canada? US? Russia? China? There are some 190+ countries out there and I know all too well that my country (US) seems to hold to the belief that our courts have worldwide jurisdiction while not affording that to other nations, so far. No one has come up with a good answer here.

Follow on is the requirement that data collected about citizens in, for instance, the EU, must remain in the the EU. Given how much time I afford to European sources I've collected at least incidental information about EU citizens, yet I live in the US. Should I allow access to this incidental data collection am I required to set up shop inside the EU, place this information in the EU and only the EU? Seems a silly question but this tests how far a court may reach. Does the 'Right to be Forgotten" apply worldwide to multinationals or to the rest of the planet in general. And how are you going to try to enforce that?

The only surprise so far is that the elites haven't tried to slip this legal power into the US. That's one fight I'd buy a truckload of popcorn in preparation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should paedophile sex offenders have the 'Right to be Forgotten' ?

- personally I feel that this is too valuable to the public interest to grant them that 'Right'.

- and let's not forget, it is NOT an absolute right.

[tom dial]

Re: Should paedophile sex offenders have the 'Right to be Forgotten' ?

In many places in the US, including where I live, this does not even remotely approach a right. People (nearly all men) convicted of certain sex offenses (including pedophiles) not only have no right to be forgotten but are required to register with the police where they live and have their residence location and the general nature of their offense published or publicly available. Convicted pedophiles generally are restricted in addition as to where they are permitted to live (not too close to schools, for instance). These restrictions often are for life and difficult or impossible to have expunged. A pattern that occurs with somewhat bothersome frequency involves consensual sex by a couple of whom one is slight below the legal consent age, occasionally by well under a year.

[tom dial]

Would the right to be forgotten apply

to the Internet Archive?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/head_like_a_memory_hole/

[Anonymous Coward]

Erasing history

That's basically what the EU wants to do. If I committed a crime and it was in the newspaper, that newspaper doesn't cease to exist (and surely the microfilm archives of it don't cease to exist) so why should Google have to expunge it from their search results? Are they going after the web sites, if someone commits a crime in Germany, let's say pedophilia, and I put up a web page "johnxisapedophile.com" that has all the details is the EU going to try to make me take that down after his sentence is over?

This whole thing is ridiculous nanny-statism. I'm no fan of Google but the EU is nuts here.

[anonymous boring coward]

Of course Google doesn't want anyone to be able to affect their revenue generating trade in information.

However, defining freedom as whatever is nice for Google is a bit rich.

[Twilight]

I have to mostly side with Google on this one. If the information is provably false then it should be removed everywhere (including Google). If it is something else, it should be left to a court (similar to expunging records). The very tricky part still comes down to differences in national laws - there are certainly corrupt countries where a court would order information expunged that most other countries would say should be kept and available.

This is something that certainly needs to be addressed but I don't think the current "right to be forgotten" laws in the EU are the correct way to do it.

Another complicating factor is international corporations. Google is (or at least started as) a US corporation but they have branches all over the world. In that case, does only the EU branches/divisions have to follow EU "right to be forgotten"? That seems complicated but may be the most straight-forward approach (I believe Google already does some changes based on country).