Should Google Notify Web Sites About Right-to-Be-Forgotten Requests? (venturebeat.com) 46
An anonymous reader quotes VentureBeat:
Sweden's Data Protection Authority (DPA) has slapped Google with a 75 million kronor ($8 million) fine for "failure to comply" with Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) after the internet giant reportedly failed to adequately remove search result links under right-to-be-forgotten requests. In a notable twist, the DPA also demanded that Google refrain from informing website operators their URLs will be de-indexed... Rather than asking website operators to remove a web page, Google — and other search engines — are required to hide the page from European search results.
Since the ruling took effect, Google has received millions of de-indexing requests, though it reports that fewer than 45% have been fulfilled... The crux of the Swedish DPA's complaint is that Google did not "properly remove" two search result listings after it was instructed to do so back in 2017. "In one of the cases, Google has done a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing," the DPA wrote in its statement. "In the second case, Google has failed to remove the search result listing without undue delay." But inadequate and tardy removals are only part of the issue, according to Sweden's DPA, which also argues that Google should keep website operators in the dark about removal requests...
If Google's latest fine is upheld — the company has three weeks to appeal — it would rank among the seven largest GDPR penalties of all time. Google confirmed to VentureBeat that it does indeed intend to file an appeal. "We disagree with this decision on principle and plan to appeal," the spokesperson said.
Since the ruling took effect, Google has received millions of de-indexing requests, though it reports that fewer than 45% have been fulfilled... The crux of the Swedish DPA's complaint is that Google did not "properly remove" two search result listings after it was instructed to do so back in 2017. "In one of the cases, Google has done a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing," the DPA wrote in its statement. "In the second case, Google has failed to remove the search result listing without undue delay." But inadequate and tardy removals are only part of the issue, according to Sweden's DPA, which also argues that Google should keep website operators in the dark about removal requests...
If Google's latest fine is upheld — the company has three weeks to appeal — it would rank among the seven largest GDPR penalties of all time. Google confirmed to VentureBeat that it does indeed intend to file an appeal. "We disagree with this decision on principle and plan to appeal," the spokesperson said.
Fine (Score:2)
Re: Fine (Score:1)
I agree, Google should just block all EU politicians and bureaucrats of its services until it resolves their issues with GDPR.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. I'm now considered capable of trolling entire -governments-.
Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Fining won't work. Blocking will.
And that's how Sweden ended up without access to Google.
What is this? (Score:1, Informative)
What a silly article. All we care about (in this order) is:
Coronavirus
Climate Change
Going to Mars
AI
Automation taking our jobs
How bad Code.org is
Anything Musk
Re: (Score:1)
"Among" (Score:2)
If Google's latest fine is upheld — the company has three weeks to appeal — it would rank among the seven largest GDPR penalties of all time.
Gosh, what would be its particular rank in that list??
Re: "Among" (Score:2)
Fuck Sweden (Score:1)
If Sweden wants to be forgotten, I can think of no better way than for Google to just block that entire country.
End all google services in Sweden (Score:2)
That will teach them a lesson.
Re:End all google services in Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
That will teach them a lesson.
Yeah - mainly that they don't need Google.
No! (Score:2)
Betteridge says so and the law doesn't require it.
A not-listed phone number is just not listed, it can still be reached without any problem.
This is the problem I have with the EU model (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government wants you to de-list certain links, then it should come up with a list of links to be de-listed, give the list to Google, and tell them, "remove these links by this date." The person/entity mandating the standard has to be the one deciding what constitutes compliance. That's how it's done in other countries. Someone requests in court that certain links be removed, and if the court decides it's appropriate, it orders the links to be removed.
Instead what the EU does is create a nebulous ruling, then later say "you're doing it wrong" without ever specifying what it thinks is the correct way to do it. This was the issue Google ran into with its first fine. All the EU had to do was come up with a list of things it thought Google was doing which were anti-competitive, and order it to stop doing those things. Instead the EU required Google to guess what the EU wanted and come back with proposal after proposal, to which the EU simply replied "nope, not good enough" every time without ever specifying why it wasn't good enough. You're mandating compliance with a standard, without specifying ahead of time to those you expect to comply what the standard is.
The DMCA [wikipedia.org] is another example of the problems that can crop up when the government shirks its duties and tries to make private citizens or corporations do its job of acting as judge. The government didn't want to be saddled with the job of deciding what constituted copyright violation, so it basically just told content hosting companies and copyright holders to figure it out for themselves. Which has resulted in systems horribly skewed in favor of copyright holders - since there is no law against improper removal of content due to a frivolous or fraudulent copyright claim, all the systems are designed to err in favor of those filing the copyright claims.
Doubtless they would've also prosecuted Google for removing a search result which shouldn't have been removed. You can't legislate perfection. The fewer cases you want of incorrect removal, the more cases there will be of delays on requests. The fewer cases you want of delays on requests, the more cases there will be of incorrect removal.
Re:This is the problem I have with the EU model (Score:4, Insightful)
why is Google the only company that apparently can't adhere to it other than the fact it arrogantly believes the law doesn't apply to it?
While I see where you're coming from, the question brings up the issue of why Google can't mention some thing that's supposed to be forgotten but the original website can't? Why is the actual website not being hauled in. Presumably, if they were forced to remove the offending content Google would no longer index it - they're not the Internet Archive; they're not in the business of returning links to stuff that isn't there (other than by dint of the fact that their search engine is shit, that is).
Why, exactly, is this Google's problem before it's the original URL's webserver's?
Re: (Score:3)
The reason is that it's the right to be forgotten, not the right to delete accurate articles. The right is specifically limited to being removed from public indexes so that casual searches will no longer find it.
It's googles problem because they maintain a public index.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that it's the right to be forgotten, not the right to delete accurate articles. The right is specifically limited to being removed from public indexes so that casual searches will no longer find it.
It's googles problem because they maintain a public index.
Which just points up that this is a censorship law with no moral underpinning. It's a law to enforce revisionism by threatening people who are simply reporting facts.
It's a bad law, and it remains a bad law even if we all get a little buzz from Google being slapped on the wrist.
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to you and the GP.
The reason Google is subject to this law and the originating sites are not is that Google offers a service (search) that lets you research an individual. It's somewhat like a credit reference agency. The agency may know about a bankruptcy you had 10 years ago, there may be articles about it on other sites, but they are not allowed to report bankruptcies over 7 years old because they are not supposed to be a life sentence and we want people to be able to rebuild and rehabilitate.
Th
Re: This is the problem I have with the EU model (Score:2)
Though none of this actually explains why a request to be forgotten should not specify any and all URLs you want delisted (and if you miss some you file another request) nor does it justify a ban on notifying the site's owner.
Credit agencies are actually in the business of maintaining accurate files. Search engines, ones that are not hand-indexing the internet, are just in the business of just giving you the equivalent a few truckloads of files that match your request and may be mostly irrelevant. If the
Re: (Score:2)
public interest reporting
In the US, companies can get sued for hiring former crooks who then crook again.
If there is no protection for this, the info cannot be hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA is actually the opposite of companies having the responsibility to decide what is proper. They are forced to follow a simple algorithm, without doing subjective analysis.
Roughly (correct me if this is wrong):
1 - Receive DMCA complaint, block content pass this onto the uploader
2 - Receive counter-notice, pass this onto the initial complainer, re-enable content
3 - Receive another notice, block content for good, leave the resolution to courts.
Companies cannot say "your complaint is not lawful", unless the
Re: (Score:2)
The new business model for regulations is to publish airy desires, then sue companies for huge fines, and settle on smaller ones and a signed agreement that the government's post hoc claims are valid, which then become clumsy unofficial parts of the law.
It's how US "companies must provide adequate security" regulations work.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha! You guys all thought the huge fines were there to emphasize the importance of the issue to The People!
there should be no "right to be forgotten" (Score:1)
That's my opinion on the matter anyway. Like the song says, "some mistakes were built to last."
The whole point of this movement is that people are being "discriminated" against based on their prior actions. But the counter-argument is simple - it should be MY decision whether or not to "forgive" you for what you've done in the past. Forcing society (in this case, the www and media) to scrub the information from view is the same as forcing society to forgive you by wiping their memory of your actions.
I do
Re:there should be no "right to be forgotten" (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a movement, it's long standing policy common across most European countries that is focused on rehabilitating criminals and make them useful citizens.
You're also proving your ignorance since although this has been written about countless times for many years, you still haven't understood that it's not the records of the events that happened that are being deleted, it's the public indexes of those events.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's legally changed my name, I can attest that it is not sufficient. Google provides certain links between my old name and my new name, and it can be very difficult to eliminate all of those links.
Re: (Score:2)
We would not accept this soft censorship for things like Tiananmen Square or Selma.
Re: (Score:2)
Selma might be a person - I don't know him or her, but I've heard it as a name - but Tiananmen Square certainly isn't a person (or even a corporation) so has no "entity" to remember. The events likewise were not people or corporations. They have no rights and no standing to try to claim rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed the right to be forgotten is much older than the internet. Long before computers were networked there were legal limits on the reporting of certain information about people by bodies that collected and reported information about people, e.g. background checks, credit references, health organizations etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but it IS the records. A specific example: it used to be the right in the UK to find out the previous owners of a second hand car you bought. Now, because of GDPR you can't. Sure the records still exist, but if you can't read them, they may as well not exist.
Once upon a time, people took responsibility for their actions. Now everyone says "it wasn't me" and use "privacy" to stop anyone delving further.
Re: (Score:2)
Search on Google for Paul Nungesser and the front page is littered with results accusing him of rape.
He didn't rape anybody.
Tell me which mistake he made?
Re: (Score:1)
Search on Google for Paul Nungesser and the front page is littered with results accusing him of rape.
He didn't rape anybody.
Tell me which mistake he made?
Made sex with the wrong person.
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
But not because those sites shouldn't have the right to know they've been delisted. But they should never be delisted in the first place. Google, or any other search engine, should never be attacked, harassed, or in any other way involved at all. If a site's content is libelous, defamatory, or otherwise illegal... and the truth should never be illegal... then the offending material should be taken down at the source. Once done, the next time Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, or whoever, spiders the site; the content will be gone and it will drop out of the index organically.
Going after the likes of Google instead is, at best, a gross attempt at attacking whoever has the deepest pockets; and probably more like rank xenophobia on the part of the EU, which has been operating in bad faith against US tech companies for some years now.
So, in other words... (Score:2)
If you want to find out what dirt someone tries to sweep under the rug, do a diff between EU google results and US google results.
Mrs. Streisand, the stage is yours.
Google Can Retaliate (Score:3)
Delist Swedish government sites in Google and Youtube.
Delist any company doing business with the Swedish government
Disable Google apps & accounts for Swedish govt employees.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure petty retaliation will help with their appeal and decrease they fine they have to pay. That's the sort of thing that courts take as a sign you are seriously innocent and have a solid legal basis to challenge their decision.
Google could redirect GDPR searches to Bing (Score:2)
That's backwards (Score:5, Interesting)