EU Commissioner Says 'Right To Be Forgotten' Compliance Will Be Just As 'Easy' As Fighting Piracy
from the either-way,-it-will-all-be-Google's-fault dept
This is interesting. Just a couple of days after Geoff Taylor (the head of BPI -- the UK's RIAA) declared that Google's acquiescence to the "right to be forgotten" proved that it could do more to fight piracy, EU commissioner Viviane Reding delivered a statement that approached the subject from a wholly opposite direction.
If Google can handle the millions of requests it gets to take down content that infringes copyright, it should be able to handle the few requests it gets to enforce the EU's "right to be forgotten", according to Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship.This opposite take doesn't make it any less wrong than Taylor's extrapolations. There's nothing simple about managing millions of takedown requests and there's nothing simple about post facto reputation management. Both rely heavily on the requester's statements being true.
Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, Reding said that "there are relatively little numbers of requests" to take down information owing to the newly granted right to be forgotten, but that there are "some million requests to take down material because of copyright questions."
"So you see," Reding continued, "this is a small thing as compared to the copyright things. It is possible to handle the copyright question, so it should also be possible to handle the takedown requests on personal data questions."
The DMCA takedown at least contains the notification that filing a false request is the equivalent of perjury (not that this part is ever strictly enforced…). The EU webform simply asks the requester to agree that the above declarations are true. There's no real legal weight behind the form at this point, so the only deterrent is that each submission must be accompanied by a copy of the submitter's legal identification.
As we all know, there are plenty of bogus DMCA takedowns issued every year. Even otherwise legitimate takedowns can be littered with bogus URLs, thanks to many rights protection companies' decision automate the process. (And, apparently, save money by releasing takedowns without vetting them...)
So, while the number of "right to be forgotten" requests may be incredibly small as compared to the millions of piracy-related URLs submitted every day, the same problems will still plague both. Because the processes don't lend themselves to human curation thanks to sheer volume, legitimate content will still be de-listed and infringing/unwanted content will still remain just a search away.
Reding is correct about it being "simple" -- at least in regards to those submitting requests. Both operate via automated webforms, making the barrier to entry low enough that abuse is inevitable. Raising that bar a little would only result in citizens and rights holders complaining that Google has made the job of taking down infringing content/clearing one's name too difficult to be useful.
Both methods can be easily utilized but neither truly solves the problem. Both are games of whac-a-mole. Just as certainly as infringing content will show up somewhere else when sites are shut down and links removed, so will the negative content that European citizens are asking to have de-listed. As Google's webform notes, "we may inform webmaster(s) whose content is removed from our search results as a result of your complaint."
This stipulation pretty much guarantees the content will be reposted/rehosted. Detractors may complain that Google is purposefully inviting this sort of behavior and that notifying webmasters makes the requesters look like the "bad guys." (We've seen this complaint before in terms of YouTube notification screens -- both from musicians and GEMA itself. Both feel it's "unfair" that viewers are notified about who requested the takedown.) But this needs to be in place to provide for any defense of the disputed content. You can't just hand out one-way "rights."
Adding to the problem is the fact that there may not even be a specific party who can file a counterclaim. Or even have that option. The EU's decision specifically states the a person's "right to privacy" outweighs the public's right to know, which seems to indicate that filing a counterclaim may not even be an option if the takedown request is approved. This is vastly different from DMCA takedown notices, which state who's filing the claim and who the takedown request targets. If the claim is disputed, there are established routes to challenge the claim. The way the "right to be forgotten" is currently set up offers no clear avenue for disputes, nor any guarantee that those who have content de-listed will be notified. (Note the word "may" in Google's statement above.)
Reding sees this as an easy win simply because the number of "forget me" requests will always be outnumbered by infringing content takedown requests. But both expect Google to simply accept every request as undisputed fact. Rights holders have been complaining for years that Google doesn't do "enough" to combat piracy, even when it's de-listing millions of URLs every month. These complaints will inevitably be echoed by users of the new webform and proponents of this law in the near future. Perception is the new reality. If it's not fast enough or thorough enough or too many claims are disputed then all blame will be routed towards Google, even if it's the Commission's failure to comprehend the impossibility of what it's demanding. The internet is by no means finite, but Google's resources -- and reach -- are.
Reding is correct about one similarity: the pursuit of the "right to be forgotten" will ultimately be as futile as fighting piracy via takedown requests.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: censorship, copyright, dmca, free speech, piracy, right to be forgotten, search engines, takedowns, viviane reding
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have to say one thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The information is still there.
There are plenty of other indexes of the internet.
For fun, Enterprising hacker types could create an alternative index with just the items where a delist was requested. Now that would be fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please remove all references to the following statements:
"there are relatively little numbers of requests"
"some million requests to take down material because of copyright questions."
"this is a small thing as compared to the copyright things. It is possible to handle the copyright question, so it should also be possible to handle the takedown requests on personal data questions."
I am an asshat for saying them and they need to be forgotten.
-Viviane Reding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just as easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just as easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is so reliable that there is a whole illegal industry stealing identification, and creating fake ID documents, and they now have a new market to tap. Submitting identification documents on-line does not validate that the document belongs to the actual submitter; like perpetrators pretending to be their victims to get stories out of search indexes. The right to be forgotten is going to be of more use for those hiding a nefarious past, that those who have a single blemish on their records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy for Google to take down piracy because of how easy it is for Google to take down right to be forgotten because of how easy it is for Google to take down piracy because of how easy it is for Google to take down right to be forgotten because of how easy it is for Google to take down piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 6th, 2014 @ 10:05am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 6th, 2014 @ 10:05am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i assume it applies to all search engines, or has google finally turned into the whole internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to me that this could simply be a way for the EU to be harassing Google and try to drive people to use other search engines. Making Google's search results incomplete could impact who is going to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My name is: "Mike Right to be Forgotten DMCA Takedown". Please remove your Right to be Forgotten and DMCA Takedown submission forms as they infringe on my rights as an EU citizen.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because stopping traffic deaths is technically difficult, we should stop trying?
No forgetting, no forgiveness, nowhere to hide, so suicide?
May we protect people, not machines.
Always put people first, not machines, not corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We should not be shielding people from the consequences of their actions or they will never learn and grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People like the ones who run Google? People like the ones who use their services looking for particular information? Why don't those people have the right to know what others would like forgotten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely not, but we should not make it the responsibility of someone else to try to hide it for them.
Just because stopping traffic deaths is technically difficult, we should stop trying?
First, we are not talking about deaths being caused by search results retuning factually correct information. Second, what this law is doing is not trying to stop the traffic deaths, it is trying to stop the news from reporting them so we can pretend the deaths didn't happen.
No forgetting, no forgiveness, nowhere to hide, so suicide?
Find me ONE SINGLE CASE in which someone has committed suicide over something that could have been prevented by obscuring Google search results.
Always put people first, not machines, not corporations.
What machines are being put first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Precisely. That's exactly why I have a problem with how the "right to be forgotten" is being implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what was it that you did, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Anders Breivik wants to be forgotten online, do we have to scrub the history of all of his victims' deaths from the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expect to see more "forget me requests"
Again, Google should just give the EU a free-for-all delist "I want this forgotten" and let them see how this works. After all, since there is "no right to be remembered", Google doesn't have to list anything, or be responsible for listing something that has been requested to be delisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At significant cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At significant cost
Then these tards are tasked with hiring the best and brightest, which now involves, CTRL-F on the resume for keywords, and google.com
Let's just assume that I don't have anything to hide like money probs or arrests, and am just concerned about perceptions.
People need tools which will allow them manage that perception by at the very least, removing things which might be taken the wrong way from the top pages of google search results, and pushing them back to page 10 or so, by which point most HR folks metabolic syndrome or fibromyalgia kicks in and they place their stamp of approval upon your candidacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At significant cost
Then these tards are tasked with hiring the best and brightest, which now involves, CTRL-F on the resume for keywords, and google.com
This is not the right solution to that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side point about their robots
After being repeatedly annoyed by the robots (which crawl much too frequently and don't behave themselves) and by the automated takedown notice (which clearly haven't been reviewed by a human and are therefore invalid on their face), I decided to take action.
My web servers now drop packets from their robots at the firewall. And my mail servers reject their email. After all, I'm not required to provide web services or email services or DNS services or any other kind of services to anybody absent a valid contract for those services: I provide those to everyone else out of largesse, because I'm a nice person. However, my decision to provide those to some people in no way obligates me to provide them to all people.
If content owners wish to file takedown notices, they may of course still do so: it'll take a letter and a stamp, though. But surely if there is some horrible, terrible case of infringement that is doing $75K or $1.2M or $12,732.81 worth of damage, they can afford that trifling expense in order to make it stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side point about their robots
That sounds an awful lot like the argument some business owners used to use to refuse service to those of certain races.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side point about their robots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side point about their robots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy: so easy, even an EU commissioner can do it
And that's just the easy stuff. If you're a little more adventurous, there are Bittorrent and eMule, private forums and darknets, even meshnets and "sneaker nets". And almost nothing ever disappears; when a search result gets pulled, you can find it by looking through the DMCA notice, and if a site goes down, you can get a backup copy off the Internet Archive, among other places.
The War on Piracy is going about as well as the War on Extramarital Sex. It saddens me to see people so ignorant of this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy: so easy, even an EU commissioner can do it
WHY can't I buy or get the X-Files series in HD? And please don't give me any shit about "they didn't make it in HD" because HD copies do, in fact, exist. But you can't buy them anywhere or obtain them in any legal manner. (Likewise dont give me any shit about streaming. That is not OWNING.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...Says 'Right To Be Forgotten' Compliance Will Be Just As 'Easy' As Fighting Piracy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We the willing
lead by the unknowing,
are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
We have done so much for so long with so little
we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple
Problem solved, and the EU loses taxes due to this decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU talking heads clueless as always
Which actually isn't taken down by Google AT ALL, but simply no longer linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait...
That should be any day now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't wait...
Imagine that two guys in their youth did something stupid together and it got posted online. One of them writes about the experience in a book and speaks about it at speaking engagements because it had some part in his character development (and now his income). The other is in a career where the experience is an embarrassment and he wants it to be forgotten.
The forgetting of the experience online (including links to Amazon results for book sales, a promotional website for hiring the speaker for engagements, a personal blog, etc.) could constitute a violation of free speech and an unfair suppression of a man's source of income.
Is the 2nd man's "right to privacy" more important than another man's right to tell the truth about his own past, much less to make money off of it in order to feed himself and his family?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't wait...
Every one of these right to be forgotten actions is a suppression of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOGIC and TECH
but we didnt HIRE smart people to help us, we got LAWYERS, and the solution for all things, as a Lawyer, is to SUE.
Removing a few links so you dont see something, IS NOT removing the data. Might as well Wear Dark colored glasses at nite, to play hide and go seek..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find funny...
It's funny because I doubt you're getting paid for all your hard work and groveling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find funny...
...is how you literally rush to protect freedom of speech while screaming and hollering about government surveillance.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What planet does this person live on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do these people have no brains?
Second, do the politicians really not know how the Internet works? Asking Google to delist information doesn't remove it. Sure, it makes it harder to find, but people will still find it.
For example, even if Google removes to a link to a newspaper article about a politician, people can still find it by going to the newspaper's website.
I would think this would be a huge "duh".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]