Google now implementing the ‘right to be forgotten’ decision
Whilst watching
an interview on CNBC yesterday, this Leo picked up a couple of names of
interest which he decided to look up. When he entered these names in his
preferred search engine, Google, the following disclaimer was displayed below
the search results for one of them: "Some results may have been removed
under data protection law in Europe". Immediately, he knew that it was
one of the watershed moments in the history of the internet - which we’ve all
been waiting for since May.
Here is why, as Google
explains:
“The recent ruling by the Court
of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") has profound consequences for search
engines in Europe. The court found that certain users have the right to ask
search engines like Google to remove results for queries that include the person's
name. [See paragraph 94 of the
judgment. So, not everyone
will be granted the 'right to be forgotten'] To qualify, the results shown
would need to be inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive. [A new ‘three-step’
test?]
Since this ruling
was published on 13 May 2014, we've been working around the clock to comply. [Well, Google
can afford it with its revenues and tax-efficient operations] This is a complicated process
because we need to assess each individual request and balance the rights of the
individual to control his or her personal data with the public's right to know
and distribute information. [Google's in-house and external lawyers will have a lot of case law across the EU for guidance; public interest test and private life (Article
8) are two difficult and facts-based concepts to grapple with]
…In evaluating
your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information
about your private life. [How
long is 'outdated'?. OK, Afro Leo has just provided this example: Katie Price can now tell Google to remove search results for content mentioning her name(s) and that she dated these individuals] We'll
also look at whether there's a public interest in the information remaining in
our search results – for example, if it relates to financial scams, professional
malpractice, criminal convictions or your public conduct as a government
official (elected or unelected). [Taking into account the CJEU's observation at paragraph 81.
Essentially, individuals such as corrupt public officials will find it
difficult to hide their past - though heavy lawyers or online reputation
management consultants might do the trick]
These are
difficult judgements and as a private organisation, we may not be in a good
position to decide on your case. If you disagree with our decision you can
contact your local DPA. [Google rightly warns that they are neither a
court of law nor the appropriate public authority in charge of data protection,
but that they’ll try their best to reach the right decisions or may even forward it directly to relevant DPA. The DPA for the UK will be the Information Commissioner’s Office]
We look forward
to working closely with data protection authorities and others over the coming
months as we refine our approach. [Hopefully, they'll swiftly assist Google with this headache] The CJEU's ruling constitutes a significant
change for search engines. While we are concerned about its impact, we also
believe that it's important to respect the Court's judgement and we are working
hard to devise a process that complies with the law. [Google is trying to respect the laws of the land. Afro Leo hopes that search
engines will remain free forever]
When you search
for a name, you may see a notice that says that results may have been modified
in accordance with data protection law in Europe. We’re showing this notice in
Europe when a user searches for most names, not just pages that have been
affected by a removal." [In case you find the 'need' to search for a name from an EU location, you'll most likely see the above disclaimer.
As this Leo's friend informs him, based on experiment: "it doesn't mean that the individual has actually made a successful 'right to be forgotten' request; it's just that Google has set all successful removal requests, especially those under the simple old Webmaster URL Removal Tool, to also display the disclaimer".
By inference, it looks as if Google couldn't just be bothered and decided to just throw everyone (including criminals e.g. here and here) into the same basket; alternatively, they're pretty much admitting that they had an idea, well before this decision, that they were a little bit in breach of EU data protection laws]
As this Leo's friend informs him, based on experiment: "it doesn't mean that the individual has actually made a successful 'right to be forgotten' request; it's just that Google has set all successful removal requests, especially those under the simple old Webmaster URL Removal Tool, to also display the disclaimer".
By inference, it looks as if Google couldn't just be bothered and decided to just throw everyone (including criminals e.g. here and here) into the same basket; alternatively, they're pretty much admitting that they had an idea, well before this decision, that they were a little bit in breach of EU data protection laws]
In the meantime, click here for the 'right to be forgotten' form.
