Print 23 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Jul 29 at 5:30 PM

Google's handling of the top court's ruling is up for discussion

Google is taking some heat from European data protection authorities today due to the way the search giant dealt with "right to be forgotten" requests in Europe. 
According to Reuters, Google is meeting with European Union privacy watchdogs today in regards to the company's handling of a ruling from the top court. The ruling upheld the people's right to request that outdated links be removed from internet search results.
More specifically, European citizens were granted the right to ask search engines to remove links to information deemed inadequate, irrelevant or excessive from appearing in searches for their own name.
After the ruling, Google only removed results from its European search engines, such as This is problematic because anyone can access the hidden information by switching to, which defeats the whole purpose of the ruling. 
Google is also under the microscope for its decision to notify the owners of the websites that have been removed from search results. EU privacy groups are concerned that the notification process could have a negative effect on people who make the requests. 

For instance, links to an article by a well-known BBC journalist about an ex-Wall Street banker were removed as well as several links to stories in Britain's Guardian newspaper. The authors of the stories then wrote about the removal and speculated about who requested the removal. 
Google eventually put a few links to the Guardian articles back on the internet.
Google seems to be in a constant battle with the EU. For the past couple of years, the search company was accused of boosting its own services and suppressing rivals. Google made proposals such as allowing competitors to display their logos and web links in a prominent box in search results, and also allowing content providers will be able to decide what material Google can use for its own services. Also, Google would make it easier for advertisers to promote on rival platforms such as Microsoft's Bing. 
This is similar to the two-year investigation the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched against Google regarding its dominance on the Web. Instead of paying fines, the FTC made Google promise that it would stop scraping reviews and information from other websites, stop requesting sales bans when suing companies for patent infringement and allow advertisers to export data in order to evaluate advertising campaigns. 

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Forget the EU
By FreonP on 7/24/2014 5:35:08 PM , Rating: 4
Now the EU thinks it can make Internet censorship laws that apply to the entire world. We don't let Iran or N. Korea do that, do we? The unbridled arrogance of these EuroNazis is frightening. All major search providers should boycott the EU until it comes to its senses.

RE: Forget the EU
By michael67 on 7/25/2014 2:20:05 AM , Rating: 1
Yes because privacy is a bad thing!

Because if you put up articles on the internet, it should not fall under the same privacy laws as on old fashion paper.

And the internet is even worse, as even old information that would normally be forgotten in the old days, will hunt you for the rest of your live.

Yeah its not perfect solution, so if you have a non EU IP-address, imho you should still have access, as it is a EU law, and it should not be used for the hole internet.

And don't take my stance on the right to be forgotten as the same as pro censorship, as the two are really not the same.

Lets say, some one post on a blog about a party you had, in the post is a photo of you and others doing crazy shit, with underneath all the names of everyone in the photo, including your name, and because the blog is popular, your name and the photo combination is high in the search list.

You ask if the guy to remove your name from the photo but he dose not cooperate with you.

Still your looking for a job, and you check your name on Google, and one of the first hits is:

John Doe's Blog | Party time -
May 12, 2014 - We had a party last night again, Me - Peter Pan - john Doe and
Humpty Dumpty, dead drunk YEAH great party ...

And following that first link, you get to see this photo.

No way in hell you ever gone get a job again, as long as that photo is online and one of the first hits on Google, even if that was the only time you got that drunk.

For that reason there are some privacy rules in the EU, and you have the 'Right To Be Forgotten' requests now.

But i also think that 'Right To Be Forgotten' option should only work after a certain period of time, lets say 6 months or so, and news post from newspapers (not tabloid's) should be harder to remove.

Is this a perfect solution?, no far from it, but i cant think of any better, but i think that past mistakes should not hunt you forever eider.

As I think doing noting dose even more harm, we in the EU think the internet should be free and support net neutrality, but we don't think there should be also pure anarchy, so i think our governments think the opposite of what the US government thinks.

Net neutrality - EU Yes, US no
Spying on friends - EU No, US (and UK) yes
Basic civilized rules - EU Yes, US don't care.

RE: Forget the EU
By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2014 10:00:16 AM , Rating: 3
Who cares about Net Neutrality if we allow mass censorship of the Internet?

My ISP doesn't throttle or packet filter, so you know what, I'll take my chances without "Net Neutrality" if it means keeping the Internet's free exchange of information.

Only a radical anti-American EU homer would support this. Oh look, never mind, it's Michael67. Of course!

A right to be "forgotten"? What a load of bullsh*t! This IS censorship, absolutely 100%.

RE: Forget the EU
By Peter-B on 7/25/2014 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
How is this anti-American?

RE: Forget the EU
By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2014 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
He just said the US had zero civilized rules, like we're Africa or something.

Also Michaels entire post history is anti-US rhetoric. Matter of fact I think that's all he posts about, how horrible the US is in every area.

RE: Forget the EU
By michael67 on 7/26/2014 6:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
Not meant that way, sorry, it was meant as using civilized rules on the internet, as the US government use it to spy on everyone.

But the UK, Russia, China and many other country's imho think they don't have to be civilized when it comes to the internet.

RE: Forget the EU
By flatrock on 7/29/2014 1:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are very naive if you think that European nations don't spy on other nations.

As to spying on "friends". Nations and their governments aren't a single individual with consistent morals, attitudes, and policies. They are made up of different individuals and political groups with different goals and priorities.

Differing opinions and priorities are part of democracy. However, it also means that there will always be groups in even our closest allies that are opposed to us, and there will always be issues on which our interests don't coincide.

RE: Forget the EU
By michael67 on 7/29/2014 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know my government spy's on other governments, they all do that, the difference's is, that as far as i know, only Americas lapdog the UK, crosses lines, the other nations wont cross.

And with crossing the line we mean, bribing and paying for information, or the use of active surveillance, and that on nations friendly to you.

Americans have no idea how disgusted we are over the taping of phones of government leaders and employes, and it will cost at least a decade before that will be forgotten

And with walking the line we mean, we mean inviting a government leader or employe for a nice diner, and hope he/she says to much.

The first is just sneaky and wrong on all levels, the second is just politics and normal diplomatic behavior.

Its real simple, everything is allowed to get information in politics, just don't break the law.

That the US (and Uk) is not getting that is pissing of the whole world.

RE: Forget the EU
By sprockkets on 7/25/2014 7:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
For that reason there are some privacy rules in the EU, and you have the 'Right To Be Forgotten' requests now.

This is not a right to be forgotten, this is censorship, plain and simple.

Even if you don't like what others have reported on you, you can't, even in the EU, tell the sites not to keep it. Google is just indexing what others PUBLICLY reported.

Lets say, some one post on a blog about a party you had, in the post is a photo of you and others doing crazy shit, with underneath all the names of everyone in the photo, including your name, and because the blog is popular, your name and the photo combination is high in the search list.

Oh wait, you can't be bothered to have your "friend" remove it from his blog? Tough sht.

Maybe you shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.

RE: Forget the EU
By michael67 on 7/25/14, Rating: 0
RE: Forget the EU
By Peter-B on 7/25/2014 6:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's a lot of BS. Evene if you were right (but you're far from it) if all search engines would boycot the EU a local engine would rise and take all the revenue. No company is that stupid to lose a major market just because they don't like the local rules. Think about Google, they gave up personal data to the Chinese authorities just to keep doing business there. That's a lot worse!
The EU law is for protecting personal privacy, which (in my opinion) is much more important than any freedom of press. If you're a public person or what you do is of public interest then you give up (some of) your privacy rights. But if you're a private person and someone took a picture of you in an embarrasing situation you should have the right to prevent that from popping up in search results. It's no longer a 'freedom of press' if you're hurting others.

RE: Forget the EU
By FiveTenths on 7/25/2014 11:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you have no idea what the EU is actually requesting.

The 'right to be forgotten', isn't about it being never being put on the web, it is about removing it from search results after a period of time when it is not longer really relevant(aka forgotten). So, if someone takes a picture of you and posts in the internet tomorrow this wouldn't apply...

The issue to me is, the EU is requesting that the search engines hide these results WORLD WIDE. Why is that even remotely OK? Also, I don't understand why the onus is on the search engines. If a website is hosting the information the law should require the sites hosted in that country,to remove the content. Google doesn't own these sites...

RE: Forget the EU
By w8gaming on 7/26/2014 4:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the data protection laws is spreading across the globe. Many nations would soon choose to interpret the laws in this manner. The laws is about a person has the rights to protect his own private info, not government censoring contents at all. It sorts of become a tough challenge for search engine company. But it can still be handled in some manner, such as demanding the person to provide the actual link to such info, and the search engine remove such link from search results. But the lawmaker is not clear about how to handle this scenario: lets see person A request a link about him to be removed, but what if the link contains other important info related to other events beside the person, does the person has the right to completely block such content even if the search query does not target his name in the first place?

RE: Forget the EU
By flatrock on 7/29/2014 1:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
The regulators are overreaching. They lack authority outside of the EU. The court's ruling also lacks authority outside of the EU. If they feel that other nations not following the EU's rules on this makes those rules pointless, then perhaps they should suggest that the court stay their ruling since it is causing search engines operating in the EU hardship without accomplishing anything.

If the EU wishes to spread the "right to be forgotten" beyond their borders, then they better have their diplomats seek treaties with other nations with that goal in mind.

So what happens if
By Nightbird321 on 7/24/2014 12:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
What would happen if one country legislates that all data must be retained for 5 years and another country legislates that data must be permanently deleted when requested?

RE: So what happens if
By DanNeely on 7/24/2014 1:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
The same thing that happens when courts in one country insist they have the right to data stored abroad by any company that does business within their borders and the other country says that giving up the data without a local court order is illegal.

The lawyers get a giant pile of money.

RE: So what happens if
By surt on 7/24/2014 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Lawyers fight it out. In some cases businesses have been known to stop doing business in one country due to a desire to keep doing business in another. Google might decide, for example, to close down all offices in the EU in order to keep their US offices in operation.

freedom of press
By vitp on 7/24/2014 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
This law seems to conflict with freedom of press, if those mentioned in a newspaper article can request removal of links to that article just because they don't like that article.

RE: freedom of press
By surt on 7/24/2014 5:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Press freedoms are limited in all of the countries involved in this discussion, including the US. This is just another limitation.

RE: freedom of press
By FreonP on 7/24/2014 6:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
However, until now, not one of those countries has been allowed to control the press in other countries.

Don't think so...
By Yorgos on 7/24/2014 2:17:22 PM , Rating: 3
This is more like : You have the right to think that you are forgotten.

Next on the list..
By siconik on 7/24/2014 6:42:04 PM , Rating: 3
If someone has the gall to actually remember and retain an embarrassing episode from my life using their physiological memory, can I petition for them to be fined every day their inconvenient (to me) memories have potential to cause me emotional distress? Can I take matters into my own hands and pummel them in the head until they thoroughly forget me?

Until these memories or these people exist, what's to stop them from (re) blogging whatever I am trying to have swept under the rug, violating my right to be forgotten?

By villageidiotintern on 7/24/2014 12:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
How about the right to all available information on a subject.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki