back to article Google asked to take down 2.4 MEEELLION URLs under EU law

Google has received takedown requests for 2.4 million URLs since 2014 – but said yes to less than half. As a result of a 2014 ruling from the European Court of Justice, EU citizens can ask Google to remove information about them from search results. According to Google's transparency report, published today, since 28 May 2014 …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "the same person asked the biz to delist a number of other pages related to a separate conviction for forging documents"

    Please tell me there is some kind of award for this type of stupidity?

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Happy

      I would imagine their 'award' would be a higher ranking in the search list.

    2. Alan J. Wylie

      Please tell me there is some kind of award for this type of stupidity?

      Well, he's certainly not a knight in shining armour. Was this an original sin?

  2. Alistair
    Pint

    The reward:

    Having the URLs of the delisted and relisted connections published in the report?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This protection is good, but...

    It doesn't solve the main issue: people should stop to think about the consequences of their own actions. Don't share stuff in public which you may regret later. In other words: try to understand what you're doing!

    As said: this protection is good, but sometimes people should really clue up as well. For example: register with Google's webmaster tools and you don't need any official takedown requests: you can do them yourself (automated) because you've established to be the owner of the site.

    Life can be so simple... If people try to understand what they're messing with.

    1. mark l 2 Silver badge

      Re: This protection is good, but...

      This protection is good, but...

      [Quote]It doesn't solve the main issue: people should stop to think about the consequences of their own actions. Don't share stuff in public which you may regret later. In other words: try to understand what you're doing!

      As said: this protection is good, but sometimes people should really clue up as well. For example: register with Google's webmaster tools and you don't need any official takedown requests: you can do them yourself (automated) because you've established to be the owner of the site.

      Life can be so simple... If people try to understand what they're messing with.[/Quote]

      I fail to see how registering with Google webmaster tools helps you to get Google to de-list say an article from your local newspaper website or pages from social media. Google webmaster tools lets you remove pages from your own websites from the Google listings, but not remove other websites links.

    2. Len
      Unhappy

      Re: This protection is good, but...

      The thing is that the Right To Be Forgotten is not there to protect people against themselves, although it could be helpful. It is first and foremost there to protect people against others.

      I worked in the privacy and security policy space when the foundations for this were laid and a lot of groups we kept regularly bumped into surrounding this topic were anti cyberbullying organisations, children's rights organisations etc. In that time I have met a few victims of cyberbullying whose careers were effectively over before they could begin because any potential employer nowadays does a quick Google search on candidates. If that unearths all sorts of shit that your bullies posted about you (or in your name) when you were 16 that will still be there when you're 22 and going for that job interview. Either you try to get Google to remove it or you have to change your name.

      1. Adrian Midgley 1

        Regular changes of name or

        mom de Net might become a thing.

    3. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: This protection is good, but...

      Take one example. If you search on the name of paedophile Jeremy Forrest’s victim, you will find lots of news articles about the case. I’m not going to name the victim here because it is illegal to do so.

      While it is in the public interest that people should know that Jeremy Forrest is a paedophile, it is not in the public intrest for people searching on the victim’s name for other reasons to know that she was a victim.

      How would google webmaster tools help her?

    4. sofaspud

      Re: This protection is good, but...

      While you're not wrong, protecting yourself only goes so far. When my idiot brother plonks my personal info all over Facetwit, that's not a mistake I made* but it's still my mess to clean up.

      (* it could be argued that it's a mistake my parents made...)

      I mean, I'm screwed anyway because I'm in the U.S., but still, it's not quite as black-and-white as all that.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "After re-reviewing the original document he submitted as proof of his innocence in the benefits case, we discovered that it was a forgery,"

    Yes, well done. But how many did they not find? It rather feels like it shouldn't be Google's job to try to figure out which document are legit and which are fake... It's really a lot of power that the courts have outsourced here. Shouldn't the justice system be more trustworthy and reliable, at least in theory?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      My thoughts as well, google are the judge and jury unless you take them to court. Not the best option in my opinion.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Compared to overloading the court system? Sounds like you lose either way.

      2. Indolent Wretch

        Although I think it's fair to point out that Google never wanted to be the judge and jury in fact they fought tooth and nail not to be.

        As always my problem here isn't with Google refusing to take down pages as there's an appeals process for that. My problem is the ones they just take down. A complete abdication of responsibility from the EU to basically outsource censorship to a private organisation that didn't want to do it.

  5. Spanners Silver badge
    WTF?

    If I was to do some Due Diligence

    If I ever had to check up on someone or some organisation, the things they want taken down are the first thing I need to see!

    I need to know if someone has ever been bankrupt before doing business with them. It does not matter if it was a few months ago or decades. In fact, if they have tried to have it covered up this way, this may be more important than the fact that, 15 years ago, they made a mistake.

  6. waldo kitty
    Facepalm

    this is just funny!

    "After re-reviewing the original document he submitted as proof of his innocence in the benefits case, we discovered that it was a forgery," the biz said.

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 © 1998–2022