Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Privacy EU The Internet United Kingdom

Google Releases Info On 2.4 Million 'Right To Be Forgotten' Requests (engadget.com) 69

According to Google's latest transparency report, the company has received 2.4 million "right to be forgotten" requests since 2014, most of which came from private individuals. Engadget reports: Europe's biggest court passed the right to be forgotten law in 2014, compelling the tech titan to remove personal info from its search engine upon request. In the report, Google has revealed that it complied with 43.3 percent of all the requests it's gotten and has also detailed the nature of those takedown pleas. France, Germany and the UK apparently generated 51 percent of all the URL delisting appeals. Overall, 89 percent of the takedown pleas came from private individuals: Non-government figures such as celebrities submitted 41,213 of the URLs in Google's pile, while politicians and government officials submitted 33,937. As Gizmodo noted, though, there's a small group of law firms and reputation management services submitting numerous pleas, suggesting the rise of reputation-fixing business in the region.

Out of those 2.4 million requests, 19.1 percent are directory URLs, while news websites and social networks only make up 17.6 and 11.6 percent of them. Majority of the URLs submitted for removal are random online destinations that don't fall under any of the previous categories. As for the takedown's reasons, it looks 18.1 percent of the submissions want their professional info scrubbed, 7.7 percent want info they previously posted online themselves to be removed and 6.1 percent want their crimes hidden from search.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Releases Info On 2.4 Million 'Right To Be Forgotten' Requests

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder how much that list is worth.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Imagine the news report result that has to be removed and the way a person has to present their "reason" for removal.
      The next generation should never be able to find the name as a search result:
      Police actions and resulting court reports.
      The role a person named in the media played in a nations once hidden chemical, nuclear, biological weapons production line? News about testing?
      How to describe that news report as a right to be forgotten?
  • Isn't the point of being forgotten that Google doesn't have info on them?
  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @07:21PM (#56197265)
    Today they started screening out any results containing 'gun' in their shopping results. And I mean all. For a time, searching for 'Guns and roses' would turn up empty. They've "fixed" it at the time of this post.
    • It's a shame they have to add US specific filters but at the end of the day you need protection from your own amendments unless you plan to have an armed Trump in every school.
  • Is Google the only goddam search engine on the planet?

    Why is it always, "Google, Google, Google?" Did Momma always like Google best?

    Is Bing a thing?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jpaine619 ( 4874633 )

      Is Google the only goddam search engine on the planet?

      Why is it always, "Google, Google, Google?" Did Momma always like Google best?

      Is Bing a thing?

      Google 74.52%

      Baidu 10.49%

      Bing 7.98%

      Yahoo! 5.41%

      Effectively, yes.

      They started out with a superior product. Unfortunately they are beginning to act like a monopolist. I'm pretty heavily conservative, but there are times when a company gathers such a large chunk of the market that maybe free-market economics aren't enough... I hate the fact that the government might have to get involved but I don't know what the solution would be in situations like this. It's not as simple as choosing a differe

      • I hear you. I use DuckDuckGo because it (supposedly, how would I know?) doesn't rat me out, but the results are not of the same quality as Google.

        On another note, I know some stories that get buried later show up as "new" news.

        That calls for another takedown.

        Whack-a-mole.

      • by novakyu ( 636495 )

        I've been using Yahoo (I got PO'd by Google's AMP a while back) and it's pretty decent. It's only about once a week or so when I can't find the result I was looking for in the first couple pages and I have to re-try the search in Google.

        • I've been using Yahoo (I got PO'd by Google's AMP a while back) and it's pretty decent. It's only about once a week or so when I can't find the result I was looking for in the first couple pages and I have to re-try the search in Google.

          Except..... Yahoo search is powered by Google. There's only two US-based search engines (of any decent market share) anymore.... Google and Bing.

          In October 2015, Yahoo reached an agreement with Google to provide services to Yahoo Search through the end of 2018, including advertising, search, and image search services.

    • Merriam Webster says:
      Bing : Noun
      A heap or pile

      A heaping pile of WHAT is an open question.

  • Europe's biggest court passed the right to be forgotten law in 2014

    I know democracy does not exists in EU institutions, but courts do bot pass laws. EU Justice backed it.

    And while we are there, it was not a law. National parliament vote laws. EU machinery produces directives and regulations.

  • I think I know how search engines work, basically.

    Google is censoring the "hits," in search results when certain search terms are applied.

    Google is not the custodian of the data and, therefore cannot delete the data at URL destinations.

    Therefore, it is not true that "Google thinks, therefore the data is," or is not.

    Even if Google does a surgical disconnect within its sphere and scope of influence, the data rests right where it was.

    Am I missing anything?

    I would suppose that, like the bots that capture

  • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @09:04AM (#56199381)
    Here's what's wrong with the "right to be forgotten" law: "politicians and government officials submitted 33,937 [requests]". Politicians and government officials are the exact people whose pasts must remain a matter of permanent public record.
  • The right to be forgotten does not surpass the right of free speech. Tens of millions died in Europe in living memory at the hands of regimes that relied heavily on censorhip. Well over a hundred million live under a dictator who censors and kills journalists. It is to be denied government at all costs.

    The value of it, whatever it is, is secondary to mass death and loss of freedom.

    Don't want to imagine, anymore, a boot stamping on a human face, forever? You have no assurance from history you have licked

    • The right to be forgotten does not surpass the right of free speech.

      There is no natural right to have limited liability protection and the all the other protections that come as part of a corporation.

      You as a person still have the right to free speech. If you want to accept the immense extra power and protection that come with a corporate charter, then you have to accept you don't quite have the same rights when operating under that charter.

      You can still speak freely.

  • "Make sure you forget this guy, John Smith ... and this gal, Jane Doe ..."

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears

Working...