Google right to be forgotten 'to get messy' after BBC story disappears

[Electric Monk]

Source: C-Net

The removal of a BBC article from Google's search results in Europe has prompted the broadcaster to express its worries over the implications of stories vanishing from the search giant's system -- but experts say online life in the wake of the "right to the forgotten" ruling is only going to get trickier.

BBC economics editor Robert Peston reports that on 2 July, Google informed the BBC that a blog post from 2007 titled "Merill's Mess" would be removed from search results conducted using European versions of Google. The removal is required of Google following a May ruling by the European Union Court of Justice that said individuals could ask Google to change or delete search listings that refer to them.

Google at the time spoke out against the ruling, saying, "the balance that was struck was wrong," but has now started scrubbing searches that individuals have requested be removed.

(snip)

In reaction to the removal of the 2007 BBC article from Google's European results, a BBC Spokesman said, "We're surprised that this is the outcome of the ECJ ruling and concerned at the implications of the removal from search of this type of material."

Read more: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-right-to-be-forgotten-is-going-to-get-messy-after-bbc-story-disappears/

---

related:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/730954/google-hit-by-70000-right-to-be-forgotten-requests/

“These examples show what a nonsense the right to be forgotten is. It is the equivalent of going into libraries and burning books you don’t like,” said Martin Clarke, the publisher of Mail Online.

He said the website would regularly publish lists of articles removed from Google’s European search results, while the BBC and The Guardian also published links to the restricted stories.

The links remain visible on Google.com, the US version of the site, and the restrictions only appear to relate to certain search terms.

[L0oniX]

1. I'd like to see this in the US as well.

[JoeyT]

2. That would actually be pretty awful.

People like Tony Hayward and Lloyd Blankfein should be known as the shitheads they are for all eternity, rather than being able to force google to stop linking to negative articles about them.

At the less famous level, a guy convicted of rape twice probably ought to be visible on a google search to potential first dates.

[WinkyDink]

3. There is no "right to be forgotten" in the world of common sense.

[Blue_Tires]

11. +1000

This case is one of the stepping stones for unscrupulous people to eventually start changing the historical record retroactively...

[gcomeau]

6. You must be joking.

I can see it now, crooks and politicians demanding every negative news report of them be scrubbed from all search engine results because they have "the right to be forgotten".


It was a fantastically stupid ruling.

[lunasun]

4. doubleplusgood

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. In that particular case, it seems to have been a commenter who got their own name removed

from the Google indexes - a (British) Google search for "Stan O'Neal" still gives that article.

Which raises the question of whether websites are going to be told to give the ability for individual comments to be erased - and whether that applies just to ones with a real, identifiable name (though "John Smith" doesn't narrow it down to an individual), or for anyone with a pseudonym.

[indivisibleman]

7. I am a genealogist

and years ago a speaker mentioned that you should not assume that what you can find today on genealogy sources will still be there tomorrow. So I started making copies of all source information on top of making source references. Boy was he right. So much has disappeared from what was available in 2005.

[defacto7]

8. Don't worry...

The Mormon Church has it. All of it. You just have to pay for it.

[indivisibleman]

9. Actually

Ancestry.com has bought up a bunch of records. They sort of have a monopoly on it. It's unfortunate because before the LDS had a lot of it up for free. But not all information is at LDS. There are court documents, old books and other miscellaneous records out there that escape the vaults of LDS. Still, it is good that they do this.

[defacto7]

10. I didn't know LDS was short on that front.

Word here in SLC is that they have everything that exists. I could believe they would hold out for legal reasons but from my vantage point knowing a few inside the conclave itself, there couldn't be much the LDS doesn't have concerning genealogy; their religion depends on it. Of course what they depend on for records to do what they do in the temple may not include court docs and old books but then if their aim is to find every past soul I would think they would need to have any connecting record that could be a lead. So much is secretive around here, who knows. It still doesn't help you much, I'm afraid.

[indivisibleman]

12. well, maybe they have more than I realize. But...

what they used to provide on line has been greatly reduced. Much has shifted to Ancestry. But you can still access some of Ancestry free via the library. I have relatives that travel to SLC but they still would tap me for some on line work. By which I would find them new information that they could use.