Right to be forgotten?

Should Google search results about a person be removed?

windowsreport.com

Google rejects 57% of all 'The Right to be Forgotten' demands

Google agreed to the European Union's "right to be forgotten" also known as "the right to delist" rules for over three years now. That's when the European Court of Justice introduced a law allowing citizens from Europe to request that their search results and data are erased.

Google's latest annual Transparency Report unveils the fact that the company received 2.4 million such requests from 2014 until 2017. It seems that according to this report, the company denied 57% of these requests and agreed to 43%.

Read Full Article
Download Perspecs
Perspecs

Do people have a right to be forgotten by Google?

By Joe Harker

Google has lost what is being described as a "landmark case" as Justice Mark Warby ruled that search results about a businessman with a criminal conviction for conspiracy to intercept communications could be removed.

The judge rejected a similar claim from another businessman who had committed the more serious offence of conspiracy to account falsely. The ruling could have a wider impact on other convicted criminals, setting a potential precedent for other cases where people want search results about their convictions removed.

In 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that "irrelevant and outdated" information should be erased if the person it was about made a request. Since that time people have requested to take down more than 2.4 million links, though more than half of requests were denied.

Antony White QC, representing Google, argued that the ruling of the ECJ did not allow people to rewrite history or tailor their past according to their preference. The information is still available on webpages, but if Google honours the request then their search engine cannot be used to find those pages.

Google warns that the right to be forgotten on the internet is a "serious assault" on freedom. Kent Walker, Senior Vice President of Google, argued that supporting a person's right to be forgotten could hide information that was in the public interest. A person's political views or criminal record could be harder to find and there may be situations where people needed to know such information.

The Open Rights Group campaigns for internet freedom said this case sets a "legal precedent". Jim Killock, Executive Director of the ORG, suggested that future rulings will have to consider a number of factors in requests and strike a balance between the public interest and the impact on an individual. He said: "The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person.

"The Court will have to balance the public's right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest."

Other cases in the future may look to Justice Mark Warby's ruling as guidance on whether to allow links about a person to be delisted or not. There may soon be a checklist of conditions that needs to be met before a request to be forgotten by Google is approved. For some the information available on a search engine can dictate many things and having information about criminal convictions from years ago readily available could be damaging.

It is a difficult balancing act between letting someone move on from their past without stopping the public from accessing information that may be in their interest to know.

Download Perspecs
Daily Mail

Man fighting for 'right to be forgotten' over crime wins beats Google

A businessman fighting for the 'right to be forgotten' over a past crime has won a High Court action against Google.

The ruling in the man’s favour was made by a judge in London on Friday.

But Mr Justice Warby rejected a similar claim brought by a second businessman who was jailed for a more serious offence.

The judge announced his decisions in the two cases, which were both contested by Google, following separate High Court trials.

Read Full Article
Download Perspecs