Customize

Google Starts Removing Search Results After EU Ruling

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Incredulicide, Jun 27, 2014.

  1. The Wrong Guy Member

    Google ordered to remove links to stories about Google removing links to stories

    Google faces fines from the UK's ICO if it does not comply with ridiculous recursion.

    By Glyn Moody, Ars Technica UK, August 21, 2015

    The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has ordered Google to remove links from its search results that point to news stories reporting on earlier removals of links from its search results. The nine further results that must be removed point to Web pages with details about the links relating to a criminal offence that were removed by Google following a request from the individual concerned. The Web pages involved in the latest ICO order repeated details of the original criminal offence, which were then included in the results displayed when searching for the complainant’s name on Google.

    Understandably, Google is not very happy about this escalation of the EU's so-called "right to be forgotten" — strictly speaking, a right to have certain kinds of information removed from search engine results. According to the ICO press release on the new order, Google has refused to remove the later links from its search results: "It argued these links were to articles that concerned one of its decisions to delist a search result and that the articles were an essential part of a recent news story relating to a matter of significant public importance." The ICO "recognises that journalistic content relating to decisions to delist search results may be newsworthy and in the public interest." Nonetheless, it decided that including links to the news stories has "an unwarranted and negative impact on the individual’s privacy and is a breach of the Data Protection Act," and that they must be removed.

    Google has 35 days to comply with the enforcement notice. If it does not, it faces financial sanctions, which can be significant. A few weeks ago, the ICO issued a £180,000 civil monetary penalty to The Money Shop following the loss of customer details when a server was stolen. Ignoring an ICO enforcement notice is even more serious. Failure to comply is a criminal offence, which can be tried at a Magistrate's Court, where unlimited fines can be imposed, the ICO told Ars in an e-mail. Google can, however, appeal against the order to the Information Tribunal, part of a fairly obscure aspect of the UK's court system called the General Regulatory Chamber.

    Continued here:
    http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...ories-about-google-removing-links-to-stories/
    • Like Like x 2
  2. GibbousWaxing Member

    Ah, but is Google required to remove links to stories that link to stories about Google removing links to stories? Who's got a blog? Want to add some links? A bunch of acquaintances, all with blogs or Web pages, could go several layers deep. Done creatively enough, it could be very amusing.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. The Wrong Guy Member

    Twitter Axes Accountability Projects, Sparing Politicians Embarrassment | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    Accountability projects that track deleted tweets from politicians and public officials suffered a critical setback this week when Twitter killed their ability to collect that information. This move comes a few months after the service shut down the U.S. version of Politwoops, the best known of these projects, and extends the ban to some 30 other jurisdictions.

    It would be a disappointing move by any platform so popular among politicians, but especially so for Twitter — which as a company has fought vociferously for its users' rights, and made its stance as the "free speech wing of the free speech party" a component of its corporate culture, and a selling point for new sign-ups around the world.

    Journalists have drawn parallels between Twitter's decision and Europe's "right to be forgotten," which allows individuals to delist "irrelevant" information about themselves from search engines. Of course, there are some major differences between the two. Most notably, Twitter's policy is issued by a private company, not a court. And while free speech advocates (including EFF) have taken issue with the sweeping implementation of Europe's rules, it differs from Twitter's policy by having notable exceptions for public figures.

    More fundamentally, the "right to be forgotten" is at least nominally about privacy. In the case of politicians making public statements, the privacy calculation is totally different, and the need for transparency and public accountability is a major consideration. We acknowledge this calculus in other places — politicians must disclose certain communications under transparency laws and the Freedom of Information Act, for example — but Twitter doesn't appear to have taken it into account.

    Continued here:
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/...ty-projects-sparing-politicians-embarrassment
    • Like Like x 2
  4. The Wrong Guy Member

    EU top court adviser: Google can limit right to be forgotten | The Associated Press

    Quote:

    An adviser to Europe's top court says Google doesn't have to extend "right to be forgotten" rules to its search engines globally.

    The European Court of Justice's advocate general released a preliminary opinion Thursday in the case involving the U.S. tech company and France's data privacy regulator.

    The case stems from the court's 2014 ruling that people have the right to control what appears when their name is searched online. That decision forced Google to delete links to outdated or embarrassing personal information that popped up in searches.

    The two sides had sought clarification on a 2015 French decision ordering Google to remove results for all its search engines on request, and not just European country sites like www.google.fr .

    Advocate General Maciej Szpunar's opinion said the court "should limit the scope of the de-referencing that search engine operators are required to carry out," and that it shouldn't have to do it for all domain names, according to a statement.

    Opinions from the court's advocate general aren't binding but the court often follows them when it hands down its ruling, which is expected later.

    The case highlighted the need to balance data privacy and protection concerns against the public's right to know. It also raised thorny questions about how to enforce differing legal jurisdictions when it comes to the borderless internet.

    Google's senior privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, said the company acknowledges that the right to privacy and public access to information "are important to people all around the world ... We've worked hard to ensure that the right to be forgotten is effective for Europeans, including using geolocation to ensure 99 percent effectiveness."

    Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/eu-top-court-adviser-google-limit-forgotten-60280379

    Google Likely to Win Fight Against Global Censorship Under EU Law | Fortune

    http://fortune.com/2019/01/10/google-global-censorship-eu/

    'Right to be forgotten' by Google should apply only in EU, says court | The Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-by-google-should-apply-only-in-eu-says-court

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins