Google faces roadblocks in implementing 'right to be forgotten'

In a letter Thursday to European regulators, Google outlined difficulties it has faced in deciding when to remove individuals' search results. 

|
Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP/File
A man walks past a Google sign at the company's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.

Google is having trouble forgetting. 

In a letter Thursday to European Union privacy regulators, Google outlined the difficulty it has faced in implementing the so-called right to be forgotten, the May ruling that says individuals have the right to petition search engines to have certain unsavory search results be made invisible to searchers. That ruling, however, requires that Google weigh individuals' desire for privacy against whether that person's information should remain available due to a public interest. 

Google began removing search results last month. But it turns out that removing individuals search results is a bit easier said than done. 

Thursday's letter responds to questions of European regulators asking Google to describe how it goes about removing search results. Google's response illustrates the ambiguous territory in which Google is wading when it comes to playing the arbiter of whose search results stay and whose don't. 

"Some requests turn out to have been made with false and inaccurate information," Google says in the letter. "We generally have to rely on the requester for information, without assurance beyond the requester’s own assertions as to its accuracy."

In a pointed example of the difficulty Google has faced in sticking to the letter of the EU ruling, when asked about the legal basis Google has for alerting website publishers when their search results have been removed (due to an individual request for removal), Google countered, arguing it has the right to ensure transparency in its removal process.

"We do not think that this notice requires a justification under data protection law. We are simply notifying the webmaster about a partial removal of search results for a specific URL on his/her domain," the letter states.  

In a statement, Google said it has already received more than 90,000 requests for removal as of July 18 since it began enacting the ruling. To date, 53 percent of requests have been approved, while 15 percent of cases have required more information and 32 percent of submissions have been rejected, according to The New York Times

"We know it will change over time as data protection authorities and courts issue guidance and as we all learn through experience," writes Peter Fleischer, Google global privacy counsel, in the letter to regulators. "We also know some tough debates lie ahead. We think it is important to have those debates openly and respectfully." 

Google's removal policies came under fire earlier this month when it removed several articles from the prominent British news organizations The Guardian and the BBC, prompting questions of whether a private company such as Google should get to determine what stays and what doesn't in what essentially amounts to the public record. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Google faces roadblocks in implementing 'right to be forgotten'
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2014/0801/Google-faces-roadblocks-in-implementing-right-to-be-forgotten
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe