Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name

from the i-wonder-who-that-might-be... dept

We received notification this week that Google has delisted our entire right to be forgotten tag page, based on (of course) a right to be forgotten request under the GDPR in the EU. To be clear, this only applies when someone searches the name in question -- which was not shared with us. I am... perplexed about this. I understand that some people may not want us talking about their ongoing efforts to rewrite history and hide their past. However, you would think that if these articles don't actually talk about their historical scams that are very much a part of the public record, and instead focus on their very current and ongoing abuse of the "right to be forgotten" process, they should be allowed to remain up.

The very fact that the tag being delisted when searching for this unnamed individual is the "right to be forgotten" tag shows that whoever this person is, they recognize that they are not trying to cover up the record of, say, an FTC case against them from... oh, let's just say 2003... but rather are now trying to cover up their current effort to abuse the right to be forgotten process.

Anyway, in theory (purely in theory, of course) if someone in the EU searched for the name of anyone, it might be helpful to know if the Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection once called him a "spam scammer" who "conned consumers in two ways." But, apparently, in the EU, that sort of information is no longer useful. And you also can't find out that he's been using the right to be forgotten process to further cover his tracks. That seems unfortunate, and entirely against the supposed principle behind the "right to be forgotten." No one is trying to violate anyone's "privacy" here. We're talking about public court records, and an FTC complaint and later settlement on a fairly serious crime that took place not all that long ago. That ain't private information. And, even more to the point, the much more recent efforts by that individual to then hide all the details of this public record.

And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don't mention this particular individual at all -- so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted. Just the fact that the tag itself was around "right to be forgotten" probably should have tipped off the Google reviewer that perhaps this was not a legit request, but hey, the EU's gotta EU and I won't goolnick around and complain about whatever decisions the company makes.

Filed Under: censorship, eu, free speech, gdpr, right to be forgotten, search

Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results

from the must-carry dept

While most of the attention today was focused on the CJEU "right to be forgotten" ruling concerning global censorship, the court actually released another ruling concerning the right to be forgotten, again around disagreement between French regulators and Google. And, as intermediary liability expert Daphne Keller notes, this ruling may turn out to be more interesting in the long run.

This case involved how Google should deal with "sensitive data," when it's a part of a RTBF request. The court does decide that a "notice and takedown" regime makes sense for such sensitive content, which is better than the possible alternative advanced by some: that the law requires Google to pro-actively stop the indexing of such sensitive information (or even to first get consent). The court points out that this wouldn't make any sense at all, given how search engines work:

In practice, it is scarcely conceivable — nor, moreover, does it appear from the documents before the Court — that the operator of a search engine will seek the express consent of data subjects before processing personal data concerning them for the purposes of his referencing activity.

But what really stands out is what appears to be a totally uncalled for random aside by the court towards the end of the ruling:

It must, however, be added that, even if the operator of a search engine were to find that that is not the case because the inclusion of the link in question is strictly necessary for reconciling the data subject’s rights to privacy and protection of personal data with the freedom of information of potentially interested internet users, the operator is in any event required, at the latest on the occasion of the request for de-referencing, to adjust the list of results in such a way that the overall picture it gives the internet user reflects the current legal position, which means in particular that links to web pages containing information on that point must appear in first place on the list.

This seems like it could be a very big deal. It's the court saying that Google is required to make sure that top search results "reflects the current legal position." In other words, if someone was exonerated after being accused of a crime, that must now be the top link. As Keller notes, this is going to have some strange consequences that probably won't be very good:

Having a court come in and tell a search engine what is "required" to be the top search result, tossed off without much detail or thought in a world where getting certain links to certain places on search engines is literally an entire industry, is going to have pretty significant consequences -- nearly all of them I can guarantee you the court did not even begin to think about.

Filed Under: cjeu, cnil, eu, links, must carry, right to be forgotten, rtbf, search engines, search results, seo
Companies: google

Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?

from the difficult-questions dept

It should be no secret that I'm not at all a fan of the right to be forgotten, which is a European concept, as currently employed, that allows people to get old news stories about them removed from search engines (there's more to it than that, but that's the basic explanation). To me, it seems like an attempt to bury history and facts, and that's dangerous. We've also seen too many cases of people trying to abuse it to hide spotty historical records that deserve to remain public. However, the excellent Radiolab podcast a few weeks back had a fascinating episode exploring the idea of the news media voluntarily agreeing to "forget" certain stories. More specifically, last year, Cleveland.com adopted a policy that would let people apply to be "forgotten" by the online news publication. They invited Radiolab folks to be present for one of the meetings where the staff debates applications.

And it was a lot more interesting and challenging than I initially thought. Indeed, it brought back the conundrum I faced a few years ago, in which we weren't sure how to deal with someone who made a very compelling case why we should delete a story about them. We refused, and were also troubled by the fact that that story involved a federal court case that was then disappeared by the court itself. Courts shouldn't be disappearing public dockets like that. But, in reporting on that, given the compelling argument that had been made to us, we didn't highlight what the original story was or who the person was -- because of an inherent recognition that this person didn't deserve any more trouble.

I'm still quite uncomfortable with the idea that a media organization would agree to go back and change stories to remove names (or, in some cases, to delete entire stories), as that is (again) a rewriting of history. Because that can certainly cause lots of other problems down the road as well. But the Radiolab episode is still worth listening to, as it does a really good job of laying out the difficult choices and tradeoffs, and the challenges that Cleveland.com takes on in making those decisions -- weighing a bunch of different factors.

In many ways, it's another side of the whole "content moderation" debate, and how various platforms should make decisions on moderation. There are many, many difficult choices and no easy answers. I still find the overall concept of the Right to Be Forgotten quite troubling -- especially when it's enforced by the government. However, it's interesting and informative to learn about Cleveland.com's thoughtful approach to the matter, even if I'd probably come down in a different end position.

Filed Under: history, journalism, memory, permanent record, right to be forgotten
Companies: cleveland.com

That Was Quick: Thomas Goolnik Already Gets Google To Forget Our Latest Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Stories About Thomas Goolnik

from the thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik-thomas-goolnik dept

Okay, let's start with this even higher up this time:

1. Dear Google RTBF reviewer (who I'm sure will be reading this soon): Under the terms of the GDPR, you are only supposed to agree to a content removal if what we are publishing is "personal data" that is no longer necessary, and (importantly, please read this, guys) that is not "for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information" or "for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes...." This post, like the last few, are news stories that are in the public interest, specifically about how someone is abusing the GDPR's "right to erasure" process to delete news reports about his abuse of the GDPR "right to erasure" process. This story is not about anything earlier that Thomas Goolnik may or may not have done. It is about what he did within the last few days. It is not old. It is not no longer relevant. It is directly relevant, and this post should not be subject to any GDPR right to erasure claims.
2. Dear Thomas Goolnik: Seriously dude? How much longer is this going to go on? It is legal for a news report to mention your name. We're not even talking about the original thing you want forgotten. We're talking about what you've been up to the past few years trying to get everyone to forget the thing you want forgotten. Maybe let it go.

Even if one were to agree that the original articles he wanted delisted from searches under his name (which began with a NY Times article from 2002, which we don't believe should have been delisted under the RTBF guidelines in the EU), the fact that Goolnik continues to get more modern articles about his abuse of the RTBF process delisted seems problematic. It seems like the sort of thing that is very much in the public interest to monitor and report on, seeing as many supporters of the GDPR insist that the RTBF process would not, in fact, be used to censor news stories. It is being used to do exactly that.

Filed Under: eu, right to be forgotten, rtbf, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas
Companies: google

EU Court Adviser Says Google Shouldn't Have To Enforce A French RTBF Request Anywhere But In Europe

from the jurisdictional-limitation-is-not-exactly-a-novel-concept dept

The "Right to Be Forgotten" -- a European construct that allows people to erase their internet history at the drop of a takedown request -- should only apply in countries affected by the law. That would seem to be obvious but, so far, it hasn't played out that way. There has been insistence by a few judges and governments that delisting orders should cover anywhere Google's search engine can be used, rather than just in the originating country.

The abusable system has led to questionable delisting requests, which almost always results in the person making the dubious request generating even more URLs to target with the next round of takedowns. That's the nature of the internet, and that's why some judges think content delisted in one country should be made unavailable everywhere in the world.

For a while, it appeared the EU was inclined to agree with French regulators who believed they should be able to control the distribution of content worldwide from an office in Paris. Fortunately, it doesn't appear these regulators will get to control the internet. Reuters reports the EU court is probably going to end up siding with Google in this dispute.

Google can limit the “right to be forgotten” to internet searches made in the European Union, an adviser to the bloc’s top court said on Thursday, backing an appeal by the U.S. search giant against a French fine.

Now, this isn't guaranteed to happen. The Reuters report notes the EU Court normally follows the advice of its legal advisers, but not always. The French government doesn't appear willing to back down, despite this recommendation.

France’s CNIL data protection authority said it noted the opinion and restated its view that the right to privacy should apply regardless of the geographical origin of the person doing an internet search.

This "right" should be watched closely and exercised cautiously. Its short history shows this hasn't been the case. Google is compliant with most requests it receives, but there are still a number of bad faith efforts making their way through the system. Just like DMCA notices, some RTBF requests target legitimate and newsworthy content solely for the purpose of making embarrassing or inconvenient facts vanish from the web. Allowing a European country to control the world's search results will do little more than encourage further abuse.

Filed Under: censorship, cjeu, eu, eu advocate general, eu court of justice, free speech, global rtbf, jurisdiction, right to be forgotten, rtbf
Companies: google