Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
from the Google's-search-results-soon-to-be-as-reliable-as-a-retired-boxer's-memo dept
Apparently, European citizens prefer a sanitized web -- one that won't clutter up their vanity searches with embarrassing results. Julia Fioretti's report for Reuters on the new "forget me now" web form Google recently deployed contains this impressive fact.
After putting up the online form in the early hours of Friday, Google received 12,000 requests across Europe, sometimes averaging 20 per minute, by late in the day, the company said.Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know. Data protection authorities are supposed to meet next week to attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Meanwhile, the requests continue to pour in.
The web form is very straightforward, asking for country of origin, as well as a brief statement as to why the complainant feels each listed link should be removed. Those making requests are required to upload a copy of documents proving their identity, a safeguard against abuse and one that might generate second thoughts in a few requesters (especially if the request fails to meet the eventual applicable standards).
Americans who want certain things to be de-listed are still out of luck… for now. As Eric Goldman points out, US courts are still very hesitant to hold Google accountable for the content it indexes and aren't in a big hurry to carve holes in Section 230 protections. This holds true even if it's an algorithm that's somehow managed to cobble together something unflattering from a massive pile of indexed text.
Today’s case gives us a good example of the growing divergence between US and EU search results. O’Kroley did a vanity search and got the following search results snippet:The plaintiff argued that the text snippet was clearly defamatory, even if the document in full wasn't. The court didn't buy it.
Texas Advance Sheet March 2012–Google Books Result books.google.com/books? id=kO1rxn9COwsC …
Fastcase—2012
… indecency with a child in Trial Court Cause N … Colin O’Kroley v. Pringle. (Tex.App., 2012). MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 9, 2012, Colin O’Kroley filed in.
the undersigned Magistrate Judge has found no case that makes the precise claim that O’Kroley makes here—that the underlying information, viewed in its entirety, is not defamatory, but that it has been rendered defamatory by Google’s automated editing process that juxtaposed two sentence fragments in the snippet. Nevertheless, based upon the “robust” immunity afforded under Section 230, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the editorial acts of Google creating the offensive search result are subject to statutory immunity. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Google is immune from all claims in the complaint, and that Google’s motion to dismiss must be granted.If you're looking to cleanse the web stateside, you don't really have many options beyond the court system, and there's no success guaranteed there, even if you have a more solid claim than O'Kroley's. But I'm not sure if there's any reason to be clamoring for a "right to be forgotten." Google's new service doesn't actually make content disappear. It simply removes it from its index. Other search engines will still be able to locate it, at least for the time being.
Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind. The EU may be able to dictate Google's delistings, but at this point, it's not operating on anything more concrete than a gut feeling that there's something wrong with good people being linked to bad stuff. But it's an unrealistic goal. Good people will still be wrongly linked with bad stuff, and bad people will still get away with hiding evidence of their wrongdoing.
A lot of bad precedent has led to this decision -- like superinjunctions and defamation laws so easily abused, certain countries have become temporary "homes" for libel tourists. This push for specifically Google to operate a deliberately faulty search engine has been in the works for years, starting with cries about Google "enabling" piracy (and child pornography, etc.) by returning the search results it was asked to fetch, and culminating in this exercise in symbolic gestures: Google whitewashing search results while the troubling content remains undisturbed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: europe, right to be forgotten, search
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The underlying problem is that the laws of mathematics and information theory are immune to the will of the people and the law itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The headline suggests that you are wrong. People seem to be voting "NO" at the rate of 1000+ per hour.
"Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Voting" is easy when you only have the choice to vote one way. Where's the form I fill in the say that this is a bunch of unworkable shite and I'd rather have the resources of Google and the EU government spent on something not only useful but also *possible*? Let me guess, you're one of the ACs who whines here every time the will of the people is translated into your comments being hidden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless not being uniformly negative opinions on every topic involving Google counts as fanboyism. At which point to vast majority of people would qualify as fanboys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)
Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is mine (Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:58am).. sadly due to cookies (who ate them) i was not logged in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)
Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.
Ooooooo.... I'm scared now. Don't forget to add the fact that I invited you to, "suck it" to your list of charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Did you actually look at my comments? and how you basically fell for them hook line and sinker and showed how much of a hypocrite you are due to the logic (and social engineering) imbued in them..
The only illogical and emotional person in this scenario is the one you look at every day in the mirror!
Thanks for the laugh though I needed one..
Bwahahahahahahahahaahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but you do appear to be the one with a persecution complex, and probably won't exercise whatever intellect you actually posses to see the link between your childish profane tantrum and the resulting desire for adults to hide said comment. You're not even pretending to address the point in hand.
It's not the outright lying that gets you in trouble, it's the way you choose to act like a toddler having a tantrum while lying your ass off. Yet again - when you grow up, you might work out the nuance in the arguments actually being made. Until then, expect your strawmen and tantrums to be met with the derision they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Other people are searching for and following those links (voting YES) at a rate orders of magnitude higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google have been ordered to do something that's unworkable, will never have the effect desired of it and does nothing to address the actual problem. In response, it's done what it can to comply, even as it's obvious to anybody that this won't do the thing it's intended to do - but since the order is asking the impossible, they comply as best they can.
In other words, it's doing just what it normally does. Now, **AA supporters like to bitch and moan that Google are somehow unreasonable in asking them to fill out a similar form and/or that Google can't perfectly police content that not even **AA members themselves can correctly identify, but that doesn't mean they don't comply.
But, whatever Google do, they cannot remove the content from the internet, they can only ensure it's as difficult as possible to find with its own tool. Perhaps, once this is proven not to work in the way demanded of it, those in charge can stop pretending that Google is the internet and start addressing the actual problems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're confusing government with citizens
This is as accurate as, say, 'American citizens love oppressive copyright' or 'American citizens love to spy on the whole world'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will people realise that Google != Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else think that the trolls will still continue to write this site off as a tech giant apologist site despite another notch of evidence indicating the contrary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how Google will actually die
In 10 years stupid politicians will still be fighting with google about their search results, while real queries are run through some other new platform. Followed by 10 years after that this cycle happening AGAIN with the new engine.
Repeat ad infinitum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is how Google will actually die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is how Google will actually die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is how Google will actually die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forwarded comment I saw on Dave Farber's "IP" list
Pure genius."
(from OIivier MJ Cr??pin-Leblond)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were any kind of troll/marketer, I would start setting up bots to destroy the usability of the competition.
Like search for a feature of our company and just start spamming the links of competitor companies on that form until it's all gone. Naturally I must do this because I can also assume the competition is doing it to my own.
Mutually assured Amnesia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holding a search engine responsible is the stupid way out. It does not remove the content, it just makes it "harder" to find... until you remember that Google isn't the only search engine.
Obviously they have learned nothing from the failure of the DMCA, or they have just believed the hype that this stupid idea actually works based on the climbing number of demands and ignoring how flawed many of the requests are.
It is stupid to hold Google responsible, giving them the requirement of solving someone elses problem for free. Imagine how few requests would be pouring in if there was a fee to make the request and a larger penalty if it failed to meet the requirements. The **AA's like to tout the number of requests they pour into Google, but ignore how many are truly flawed and it does nothing to remove the original content... imagine how much better that system would be if they had to pay a small fee for each request and pay a fine when they got it wrong. They might stop expecting a 3rd party to wave a wand and solve it, and do it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So
While their are things to admire about Europe, their stance on freedom of speech is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Website that shows all the requests?
They could not link to it, but a common named site would be easy enough to figure out and people would be much more apt to not risk bringing attention to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to remember
I also hope that Google releases information on which sites they are forced to censor, just to make sure they get crawled and put into YaCy's index.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have a problem with it,
I would be OK with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to Know
Is it part of a constitution of some country somewhere or a law that says I have a right to know all about you, or you to know about me?
I'm lost here...can anyone help me out on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to Know
I've seen nobody talking about a "right to know". But you're comment is silly anyways, since we are talking about censoring information that is already public knowledge.
Now, we all do have an inalienable right to remember, which cannot be legislated away, no matter how many laws are passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right to Know
Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know.
Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.
I don't think it's silly at all to find out why everyone thinks there is a right to know.
Just who or what is it that confers this right.
Frankly I think it's just a catch phrase that journalist like to throw around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right to Know
In the US, the right is inherent and a logical extension of our form of government. It is impossible to have anything close to a democratic form of government if the public doesn't know what is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right to Know
Yep. You are right. I missed that.
Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.
In addition to what John said, there are certain viable reasons for a right to know that don't necessarily involve the government, public safety being one of them. For example, most believe they have the right to know when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood or next door to their kid's school.
And I tend to agree with you that this phrase gets tossed about a bit too freely, but like I said above, it really doesn't apply here since we are talking about information that is already public and widely disseminated. We aren't talking about my right to know what you had for breakfast, but more along the lines of my right to revisit a newspaper article that accurately list all of your DUI's over the years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clean slate
[Public]: Tough, we like that story. And those photos! Whoah, Nellie!
[Celebrity]: Hey government, may I change my identity?
[Government]: No, that would require work on our part.
[Celebrity]: Yeah, mine too. And I like the good parts of my fame. Well, can you trick the public?
[Government]: What a silly question, haven't you been-- oh, you mean for you? Well, maybe. But only if we don't have to do any work.
[Celebrity]: I don't like work either!
[Public]: Neither do we!
[Celebrity]: So what do we do when we have a big complex technical job to do, but we'd really like somebody else to--
[all together]: GOOGLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clean slate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Nuke it from orbit'
Maybe if people suddenly find that, at least according to Google, they flat out don't exist after filing to have that one/two/bunch of embarrassing things no longer listed, maybe then they'll actually put some thought into this, not to mention the money and time it would save Google(because, who exactly is paying for this new 'service' they've been forced to offer?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'
Why, exactly, is that a problem? You do realize that there was a time that NONE of us existed according to Google, because Google itself didn't exist, don't you?
We and the rest of the Internet got along just fine without them. If they vanished tomorrow, we'd get along just fine without them too.
I'd be perfectly happy to disappear from Google and from the numerous social network sites I'm "on" thanks to friends and colleagues who handed them information about me without bothering to ask and from various halfass indexing services that carry information about me that's 20 years out of date and so on. I'm pretty sure I'll still exist even if all that crap disappears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'
Politicians that would really love it if an embarrassment or past deed of theirs wasn't able to be found, businesses that would quite like negative articles and/or critical reviews removed or hidden, stuff like that.
In cases like that, you've got a public interest in allowing the information to remain public, as the reputation, or history of a person or group is quite likely to have an effect on the public, allowing them to make informed decision, on say who to vote for, or which business to purchase from or use the services of.
Your comment also brought up a secondary concern, that of 'How do you treat information which wasn't posted by the one making the claim?' The data on you for example, was provided and gathered by third parties, so the question is does the fact that it's about you also give you control over it?
Barring outright libel/slander type situations, where you're dealing with blatantly false information intended to attack someone, that's not really an easy question to answer there, and personally I'd lean towards 'No', as it's leaning a bit too much towards the idea of being able to dictate what others can say about you, not a pleasant idea for those that believe strongly in freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]