Google was required to delete a link to a factually accurate BBC article about Stan O’Neal, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch:
▻http://www.businessinsider.com/google-merrill-lynch-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten-2014-7
Here is the de-indexed article:
►http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html
EU’s right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
►http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google
You can still find a vanished Dougie McDonald page if you search “Scottish referee who lied”; it only disappears when you add his name to the search.
If you search any EU Google site for anything resembling a name, you’ll see a warning your results may be restricted. Yet, there’s an even better workaround which the search giant has left open. If you go to the Google homepage, and look in the bottom right-hand corner, you’ll see a link saying “Use Google.com”. Do that – or switch to another search engine, such as DuckDuckGo, which has no EU footprint and also doesn’t track cookies – and for now, you’ll see the full unfiltered results.
But this isn’t enough. The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.
EU’s right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
►http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google
When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.
Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
▻http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O’Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch.
My column describes how O’Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.
Is the data in it “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”?
Hmmm.
Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record - especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).
Le lien en question :
►http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html