Google : the Right to be forgotten, and how Google tries to manipulate a negative perception of that right
I was browsing the transparency report Google is obliged to provide as a result of the May 2014 EU Court of Justice ruling (ECJ). The ruling stipulates that Google and other search engines operating in Europe must remove data from past results if requested to do so by a member of the public.
It is known that Google is not happy with it this  and it trolls Europe in various ways such as:
And then there is another way, via the transparency report:
To give you an idea of the range of requests we’ve received and the kinds of decisions we’ve had to make, we’ve included some examples of real requests we’ve received from individuals. These are anonymised so that they don’t include information that would identify individuals.
Except they carefully handpick the examples so as to show only the negative side of deleting links upon user’s request, and clearly trying to bias its audience. Of course evil people will want to abuse from that right, but that only accounts for just 5 % of requests coming from criminals, politicians and high-profile public figures.
Here are some examples of how Google tries to show us it is not really a good thing this Right to be Forgotten:
A priest convicted for possession of child sexual abuse imagery asked us to remove articles reporting on his sentence and banishment from the church. We did not remove the pages from search results.
– A high ranking public official asked us to remove recent articles discussing a decades-old criminal conviction. We did not remove the articles from search results.
– We received multiple requests from a single individual who asked us to remove 20 links to recent articles about his arrest for financial crimes committed in a professional capacity. We did not remove the pages from search results.
An individual who was convicted of a serious crime in the last five years but whose conviction was quashed on appeal asked us to remove an article about the incident. We removed the page from search results for the individual’s name.
A teacher convicted for a minor crime over 10 years ago asked us to remove an article about the conviction. We have removed the pages from search results for the individual’s name.
– A media professional requested that we remove 4 links to articles reporting on embarrassing content he posted to the Internet. We did not remove the pages from search results.
– An individual asked us to remove links to articles on the internet that reference his dismissal for sexual crimes committed on the job. We did not remove the pages from search results.
We received a request from an individual to remove over 50 links to articles and blog posts reporting on public outcry over accusations that he was abusing welfare services. We did not remove the pages from search results.
Have a look for yourself.
Where it started: Mario Costeja González
How Google determined our right to be forgotten
Article 29 Working Party
Google wants to limit ’right to be forgotten’ requests to Europe
Google’s advisory committee says no to global right to be forgotten
Google-appointed council argues that EU directive should be limited to Europe
Google’s advisory council released a 44-page report last week recommending that Google should limit the scope of the directive purely to European-based search services.
Do You Have The Right To Be Forgotten?
Google limits link deletions to results shown on its European sub domains, such as Google.fr or Google.co.uk. In addressing questions regarding this practice, Google has explained that it uses the tactic of link removals, as opposed to deleting the information entirely, because it considers the right to be forgotten to be an entirely European concept.
Most Google de-listing requests are from everyday folk, leaked data shows
#privacy #vie_privée (de liberté)