Live in the European Union and want some old, irrelevant info about
you deleted from search results? Google has now implemented a
search removal request mechanism for people living in Europe who believe it has indexed information about them that they have a right to remove.
The arrival of the
webform — which was put online earlier this morning — for users to request data be removed follows a European Court Of Justice ruling
earlier this month which
said that Google must respect a “right to be forgotten” and, at the
request of private individuals, remove “irrelevant” and outdated
information that contravenes an EU privacy directive concerning the way
personal data is processed.
The ruling was triggered by a complaint by a Spanish man who was
seeking to have results related to his name and a property closure
removed from the search engine.
Earlier this month, following the Court of Justice ruling, it
emerged
that Google was already receiving requests for search content removal —
albeit, the listed examples were from a convenient trio of what sounded
like unsavory types: an ex-politician looking to be re-elected and
wanting links detailing bad behavior in office removed; a doctor wanting
to erase negative reviews from patients; and a convicted paedophile
wanting details of his court conviction for possession of child abuse
images taken down.
Which does rather smell like a controlled leak on Google’s part, in
an effort to generate negative publicity about the Court of Justice
ruling.
The ruling is certainly controversial, though — with outspoken
critics including freedom of speech rights groups such as the Open
Rights Group, and
Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales, to name a few.
Wales
dubbed it “ridiculous”
and “very bizarre”, pointing out that it could lead to a scenario where
a newspaper can publish information but a search engine can’t link to
it. Or that a smaller search engine with no business footprint in Europe
is able to display information that a larger search engine such
as Google can’t. Censorship of information is the specter that critics
of the ruling are invoking.
On the other side of the argument are the privacy rights of
individuals, which have often been trampled over by companies in the
rush to build increasingly lucrative digital businesses by amassing and
storing mountains of data about users.
The sophistication of the technology tools that automatically sift
data means that personal information that might have naturally faded
into the background in previous eras, when, for instance, old copies of a
newspaper became harder to come by, ends up hanging around in the
public domain for far longer than it perhaps should. Hence the ‘right to
be forgotten’.
For now, the Court ruling has sided with the latter argument — and
its judgement is immediately enforceable, explaining why Google has
needed to act quickly to put a process in place to deal with requests
made under the ruling.
There is also evidently an appetite among Europeans to edit their
Google search history, with the company telling TechCrunch it has
already received “a few thousand” requests.
Google’s compliance mechanism for the ruling is a
webform
where users in the European Union can provide details about
the information they believe they have a right to remove under European
Data Protection Law.
The form notes that Google will then make a judgement on whether a request meets the specification of the law.
In implementing this decision, we will assess each
individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the
individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information.
When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results
include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a
public interest in the information—for example, information about
financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or
public conduct of government officials.
Google’s wording suggests it is continuing to kick against the
judgement — as it flags up the “public interest” argument, by giving
examples where “outdated information” may still be pertinent in the eyes
of the general public (fraud, malpractice, misconduct in public office
and so on).
The difficulty of making such assessments also suggests the process
could become extremely unwieldy for Google if the number of information
take-down requests grows further — since, by nature, the process
requires a case-by-case approach and can’t be automated.
Those requesting information removal are required to verify their
identity by submitting a copy of an identity document such as a driver’s
licence, national ID card or other photo ID.
Google’s process allows for acting authorized agents to submit
requests on behalf of others provided they are in possession of the
requisite identity and authorization documents — which does open up the
possibility that a cottage industry of search removal request businesses
could spring up offering to comb through your search history and submit
requests on your behalf.
In an emailed statement provided to TechCrunch, Google revealed that
as well as working with local data protection authorities in European
countries, it is creating an “expert advisory committee” to help it
navigate the judgement process. Which probably means more lucrative work
for privacy lawyers.
Google’s statement follows below:
“To comply with the recent European court ruling, we’ve
made a webform available for Europeans to request the removal of results
from our search engine. The court’s ruling requires Google to make
difficult judgments about an individual’s right to be forgotten and the
public’s right to know. We’re creating an expert advisory committee to
take a thorough look at these issues. We’ll also be working with data
protection authorities and others as we implement this ruling.”
Update: Google has named the following as confirmed members of its expert advisory committee so far:
- Frank La Rue (UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression)
- Peggy Valcke (Director, University of Leuven law school)
- Jose Luis Piñar (former Spanish DPA, now an academic)
- Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia)
- Luciano Floridi (information ethics philosopher at Oxford Internet Institute
It’s worth emphasizing that Google’s expert committee is entirely
self selected, so while advisors are being drawn from outside Mountain
View, their views are likely to align with Mountain View’s.
Or, to put it another way:
Update 2: Commenting
on Google’s move to comply with the Court of Justice ruling, European
Commission VP Viviane Reding noted that it was long overdue, given that
the core data protection law dates back to 1995.
“It is a good development that Google has announced that it will
finally take the necessary measures to respect European law. It was
about time since European data protection laws exist since 1995. It took
the European Court of Justice to say so. The right to be forgotten and
the right to free information are not foes but friends,” she said in a
statement.
“The move demonstrates that fears of practical impossibility raised before were unfounded,” Reding added.
Data protection is the business model of the future.
— Viviane Reding
She went on to emphasize that the law is about striking “the right balance” between freedom of expression and data protection.
“It’s not about protecting one at the expense of the other but
striking the right balance in order to protect both. The European Court
made it clear that two rights do not make a wrong and has given clear
directions on how this balance can be found and where the limits of the
right to be forgotten lie. The Court also made clear that journalistic
work must not be touched; it is to be protected,” she said.
Reding also talked up the opportunity for startups to “build strong
and innovative businesses on the basis of offering true data
protection”.
“Legal certainty and empowering consumers to manage their data can
yield steady revenues and profits. Data protection is the business model
of the future. There is a whole world of business waiting for companies
wishing to seize this opportunity,” she said.
by
Natasha Lomas (@riptari)
