|Google Will Have "Right to be Forgotten" System, In Germany, Within Two Weeks|
| 4:37 pm on May 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Well, that will be quick.
|Google Inc. will create a mechanism for German users to request the removal of links to information about them from the company’s popular search engine within the next two weeks, German privacy officials said Thursday, a sign that Google is moving quickly to implement a landmark decision from Europe’s top court that users have a right to such removals. |
“They promised to come up with a process within two weeks for users to log their complaints,” Ulrich Kühn, deputy commissioner for Hamburg’s data-protection authority, said in an email following conversations with local Google representatives. The Hamburg data commissioner is Germany’s lead privacy regulator for Google because the company has its largest German office in the city.Google Will Have "Right to be Forgotten" System, In Germany, Within Two Weeks [blogs.wsj.com]
Landmark Case: EU Court Backs Users' 'Right to be Forgotten' on Google [webmasterworld.com]
| 5:06 pm on May 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Logging complaints does not mean acting on them.
I would expect a significant proportion to be rejected.
The last paragraph in the article was interesting:
|But figuring out how to write a policy for amorphous questions like whether a piece of information is truly irrelevant, or whether a person cited is a public figure, is a question even privacy regulators are still wrestling to answer. |
My emphasis, of course.
| 10:05 pm on May 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The genie is out of the bottle and the flood has begun:
|The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable. |
| 11:25 pm on May 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The devil is in the details. How this all shakes out, and whether it becomes a usable feature or not, remains to be seen.
| 1:13 am on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|The devil is in the details. How this all shakes out, and whether it becomes a usable feature or not, remains to be seen. |
I predict that in the short term, more Europeans will use DuckDuckGo to search on people's names.
As it does no business in the EU it is not affected by the new ruling and does not have to censor results.
In fact, people using any search engine outside the EU - including the dotcom versions of Google, Yahoo and Bing - will have free access to more information on EU citizens than the EU citizens themselves.
Meanwhile, those searching within the EU can still access the same "forgotten" data via countless media websites and blogs, as journalistic endeavour is specifically exempted from data protection law.
If ever a piece of legislation required a First Amendment, this is surely it.
| 6:47 am on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index |
Exactly what I preadicted in the other thread!
| 7:31 am on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
It is because of the EU that we started to suffer the "NOT PROVIDED" fate in the first place...