8 ms·

BBC to publish 'right to be forgotten' removals list

100 points by mineshaftgap 12y ago

pp19dd 12y ago
"They included a link to a blog post by Economics Editor Robert Peston. The request was believed to have been made by a person who had left a comment underneath the article." Now that's a good example of a feature fighting the product. Disable article commenting: you might miss out on engagement and subsequent pageviews. Enable commenting: you might get the article de-listed from Google. Allow anonymous commenting: you invite trolls (such as jezabel/violent GIF swarm). Require (partially) verified identities: you risk takedown requests.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  I think you're glossing over the simplest option: allow commenters to remove their comments. This puts the responsibility where it belongs. If you want content removed, actually have it removed, don't involve some third party search engine index.
  - diziet 12y ago
    Hence putting the load of managing a identity verification and removal program on the shoulders of hundreds of thousands web developers?
    - Kalium 12y ago
      And thus putting some political backpressure on the whole affair, calling into question the sanity of the whole idea.
- quandrum 12y ago
  Reading the blog about this example[1] actually heartened me that this is being done correctly. The blog remains in google under all obvious keywords. Google only removes it for the requested keyword (probably the commenters name). It's not a true delisting, but the option to have your name disassociated from content. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
- DanBC 12y ago
  The article is only de-listed from Goolge if you try searching for it using the name of the commenter. All other search terms return the article.
- brador 12y ago
  3. Have comments on a separate page.
freshflowers 12y ago
Please note that this is not so much about the basic principle of the 'right to be forgotten', but the way in which Google is deliberately turning it into a bloodbath. Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions. Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order. They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Because it is censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past. Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd. Yes, I added my opinion at the end there.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past" I think the difference is that newspapers probably never would have printed half the stuff people want removed in the first place. You would also be able to sue a newspaper and have corrections printed. Probably not as easy with online content if posted anonymously. I think a big part of the problem is the different attitudes to free speech around the world. In the US it is top priority. In the UK people are legally punished for posting harassing or threatening messages on social media. In France/Germany there are laws are speech on the holocaust and anti-Semitism. I think free speech is important but I also think we can regulate it to a point and that's not an attitude that would fly in some countries, particularly the US (my opinion is changing slightly as it become more and more obvious we can't trust our governments). The internet being a global thing we are going to face these problems more and more.
    - 12y ago
skwirl 12y ago
The "right to be forgotten" is a doublespeak - it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech. I have no idea how the EU justice system works but I hope they have the means to correct this serious error.
- wmf 12y ago
  it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech Yes, because in Europe free speech isn't an absolute right; sometimes the right of privacy trumps free speech.
  - adharmad 12y ago
    Anything that trumps free speech, except for the truly extreme cases (shouting fire in a theatre etc.) is a slippery slope that can erode liberty over a period of time. How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory?
    - anon1385 12y ago
      So you are saying that the exceptions to free speech that you agree with are fine, but that the exceptions other people/cultures have chosen and that you disagree with are a 'slippery slope'.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        This standard of yours completely eliminates the ability to critically comment on the actions of "other cultures".
        fidotron 12y ago
        Not at all. You can comment all you want about it, but it doesn't compel them to change how they are at all.
        12y ago
iand 12y ago
Daily Telegraph is already publishing a similar list, which gives a fascinating insight into what people would rather you did not read about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegraph-stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegr...
- blackRust 12y ago
  The last one is great: Google has also taken down a link to an online dating profile for user Thom109 on Telegraph Dating. Raises questions about online services opt-in/out to be publicly listed/searchable.
takemikazuchi 12y ago
I wonder how this will affect the Internet Archive. I understand they're based in the US(and hopefully their servers are too), but will the EU courts take any action if a sufficiently high profile lawsuit occurs over the archive's contents?
- danielweber 12y ago
  ISTR that the Internet Archive was fine honoring takedown requests.
dzhiurgis 12y ago
Does anyone publish a list of government censored material? Or stuff that has been taken down for copyright infringement?
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Google publishes DMCA takedown requests. Not sure about government censorship, though.
  - dzhiurgis 12y ago
    It does not publish actual URLs
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      Yes they do. They provide a link to the specific notice on Chilling Effects when search results would have returned a URL that they received a takedown request for. The notice contains exact URLs.
denzil_correa 12y ago
So now, we would require a new law to have "Right To Forget" for "Right to Forgotten" removal lists?
funkyy 12y ago
The worst thing is that this law will be used by politicians and their families to cover up corruption stories. The law that possibly profits governing bodies the most is a bad law. Why we cannot know if our new neighbour have paedophile past, corruption or rape incidents? Such mistakes should stay public for ever. But now very specific groups of people are trying to whiten themselves up. Its somehow scary...
- Kalium 12y ago
  I think it already has been used to cover up past poor behavior.
ryandrake 12y ago
I don't really have a huge problem with "right to be forgotten". I think, as a society, we might eventually discover the down side of having everything anyone (including oneself) posts about everyone permanently archived, linked to their real identities, and searchable forever. This will probably start to happen once those who grew up as kids posting to the internet start wanting respectable jobs or running for office. They'll realize the person they were as a kid is completely different from the person they are as a 50 year old, and not want to be judged by some troll post they wrote 35 years ago.
- gerbal 12y ago
  The problem in this context is that this right is not being used to allow youthful indiscretions to fade from memory, but to suppress speech that may be in the public interest to protect.
  - Kequc 12y ago
    Hysteria surrounding the ruling is not completely warranted from what I can see. Google's own page one would use to submit such a request specifically says it isn't going to do that. https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch# https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we... > "When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information — for example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials." There is a legitimate problem with Google's search results listing harassing links to persons. Revenge porn would be a terrific example. If there is something on the internet about you that you don't want there. It isn't possible to remove it, that would be absurd but your public facing name on the internet shouldn't be clouded by unwarranted defamation material. They do at least promise not to remove professional malpractices and the like. I doubt for instance they would not return reviews about your business on yelp or similar. A much larger issue that needs to be tackled is DMCA, which is being abused today. We have tried DMCA and it needs some reform. We haven't really tried right to be forgotten yet, and I just don't see that the downsides outweigh the potential benefits. BBC publishing links that have been deemed by persons who are the subject of the links to be bad; paints a giant bullseye on those links.

100 points by mineshaftgap 12y ago

"They included a link to a blog post by Economics Editor Robert Peston. The request was believed to have been made by a person who had left a comment underneath the article." Now that's a good example of a feature fighting the product. Disable article commenting: you might miss out on engagement and subsequent pageviews. Enable commenting: you might get the article de-listed from Google. Allow anonymous commenting: you invite trolls (such as jezabel/violent GIF swarm). Require (partially) verified identities: you risk takedown requests.

andreasvc 12y ago
I think you're glossing over the simplest option: allow commenters to remove their comments. This puts the responsibility where it belongs. If you want content removed, actually have it removed, don't involve some third party search engine index.
- diziet 12y ago
  Hence putting the load of managing a identity verification and removal program on the shoulders of hundreds of thousands web developers?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    And thus putting some political backpressure on the whole affair, calling into question the sanity of the whole idea.
quandrum 12y ago
Reading the blog about this example[1] actually heartened me that this is being done correctly. The blog remains in google under all obvious keywords. Google only removes it for the requested keyword (probably the commenters name). It's not a true delisting, but the option to have your name disassociated from content. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
DanBC 12y ago
The article is only de-listed from Goolge if you try searching for it using the name of the commenter. All other search terms return the article.
brador 12y ago
3. Have comments on a separate page.

freshflowers 12y ago

Please note that this is not so much about the basic principle of the 'right to be forgotten', but the way in which Google is deliberately turning it into a bloodbath. Google is constantly looking to create controversy and undermine any kind of privacy rights enforcement rather than being constructive in finding solutions. Google has every right to ignore all but the most obviously justified removal requests and only remove results after a court order. They are deliberately taking an axe to the search results in an attempt to make EU privacy protection look like censorship.

themartorana 12y ago
Because it is censorship, to the definition. It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past. Besides, at the volume at which the requests have poured in, even Google has limited time and resources to fight each request in court. It's unrealistic to expect them to actually fight any takedown individually when the entire idea is absurd. Yes, I added my opinion at the end there.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "It's no different than requiring the removal of newspaper archives from public libraries to articles from the past" I think the difference is that newspapers probably never would have printed half the stuff people want removed in the first place. You would also be able to sue a newspaper and have corrections printed. Probably not as easy with online content if posted anonymously. I think a big part of the problem is the different attitudes to free speech around the world. In the US it is top priority. In the UK people are legally punished for posting harassing or threatening messages on social media. In France/Germany there are laws are speech on the holocaust and anti-Semitism. I think free speech is important but I also think we can regulate it to a point and that's not an attitude that would fly in some countries, particularly the US (my opinion is changing slightly as it become more and more obvious we can't trust our governments). The internet being a global thing we are going to face these problems more and more.
  - 12y ago

skwirl 12y ago

The "right to be forgotten" is a doublespeak - it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech. I have no idea how the EU justice system works but I hope they have the means to correct this serious error.

wmf 12y ago
it is really a concept for revoking others' right to free speech Yes, because in Europe free speech isn't an absolute right; sometimes the right of privacy trumps free speech.
- adharmad 12y ago
  Anything that trumps free speech, except for the truly extreme cases (shouting fire in a theatre etc.) is a slippery slope that can erode liberty over a period of time. How long before this moves into "right to not be offended trumps free speech" territory?
  - anon1385 12y ago
    So you are saying that the exceptions to free speech that you agree with are fine, but that the exceptions other people/cultures have chosen and that you disagree with are a 'slippery slope'.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      This standard of yours completely eliminates the ability to critically comment on the actions of "other cultures".
      - fidotron 12y ago
        Not at all. You can comment all you want about it, but it doesn't compel them to change how they are at all.
        12y ago

iand 12y ago

Daily Telegraph is already publishing a similar list, which gives a fascinating insight into what people would rather you did not read about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegraph-stories-affected-by-EU-right-to-be-forgotten.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11036257/Telegr...

blackRust 12y ago
The last one is great: Google has also taken down a link to an online dating profile for user Thom109 on Telegraph Dating. Raises questions about online services opt-in/out to be publicly listed/searchable.

takemikazuchi 12y ago

I wonder how this will affect the Internet Archive. I understand they're based in the US(and hopefully their servers are too), but will the EU courts take any action if a sufficiently high profile lawsuit occurs over the archive's contents?

danielweber 12y ago
ISTR that the Internet Archive was fine honoring takedown requests.

dzhiurgis 12y ago

Does anyone publish a list of government censored material? Or stuff that has been taken down for copyright infringement?

vonmoltke 12y ago
Google publishes DMCA takedown requests. Not sure about government censorship, though.
- dzhiurgis 12y ago
  It does not publish actual URLs
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    Yes they do. They provide a link to the specific notice on Chilling Effects when search results would have returned a URL that they received a takedown request for. The notice contains exact URLs.

denzil_correa 12y ago

So now, we would require a new law to have "Right To Forget" for "Right to Forgotten" removal lists?

funkyy 12y ago

The worst thing is that this law will be used by politicians and their families to cover up corruption stories. The law that possibly profits governing bodies the most is a bad law. Why we cannot know if our new neighbour have paedophile past, corruption or rape incidents? Such mistakes should stay public for ever. But now very specific groups of people are trying to whiten themselves up. Its somehow scary...

Kalium 12y ago
I think it already has been used to cover up past poor behavior.

ryandrake 12y ago

I don't really have a huge problem with "right to be forgotten". I think, as a society, we might eventually discover the down side of having everything anyone (including oneself) posts about everyone permanently archived, linked to their real identities, and searchable forever. This will probably start to happen once those who grew up as kids posting to the internet start wanting respectable jobs or running for office. They'll realize the person they were as a kid is completely different from the person they are as a 50 year old, and not want to be judged by some troll post they wrote 35 years ago.

gerbal 12y ago
The problem in this context is that this right is not being used to allow youthful indiscretions to fade from memory, but to suppress speech that may be in the public interest to protect.
- Kequc 12y ago
  Hysteria surrounding the ruling is not completely warranted from what I can see. Google's own page one would use to submit such a request specifically says it isn't going to do that. https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch# https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we... > "When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information — for example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials." There is a legitimate problem with Google's search results listing harassing links to persons. Revenge porn would be a terrific example. If there is something on the internet about you that you don't want there. It isn't possible to remove it, that would be absurd but your public facing name on the internet shouldn't be clouded by unwarranted defamation material. They do at least promise not to remove professional malpractices and the like. I doubt for instance they would not return reviews about your business on yelp or similar. A much larger issue that needs to be tackled is DMCA, which is being abused today. We have tried DMCA and it needs some reform. We haven't really tried right to be forgotten yet, and I just don't see that the downsides outweigh the potential benefits. BBC publishing links that have been deemed by persons who are the subject of the links to be bad; paints a giant bullseye on those links.