<nettime> Google admits it was wrong protesting against the

[Geert Lovink <geert@xs4all.nl>]

Google admits it was wrong on ???right to be forgotten???
Contribution by Joe McNamee, EDRi

In the widely publicised ???Google/Spain??? ruling of the European Court of
Justice (CJEU), it was decided that the results of Google searches
sometimes infringe the rights of individuals. In such circumstances,
individuals can complain ??? to Google in the first instance ??? and ask for
searches involving their name to be de-linked from the unfair results.

Google reacted furiously to the ruling, arguing that ???the balance that
was struck was wrong???. This was followed by the publication of
comparatively low (bearing in mind the huge amount of publicity) numbers
of complaints to Google to de-link content. On 29 June 2015, the total
number of requests received by Google was 276 580, which is
approximately three percent of the total number of copyright-related
removal requests that Google approves every week.

Subsequently, at a meeting of Liberal Member of European Parliament
(MEP) Sophie In't Veld's ???Privacy Platform???, Google's Privacy Counsel
Peter Fleischer got himself into a tangle where he simultaneously argued:
- that it is ???obvious??? that Google should act on some of the complaints
it receives, as it is clear that the rights of individuals are being
undermined;
- that Google should de-link only relevant results in the national
search engines (such as google.nl or google.de for instance), but not on
Google.com and;
- by implication, therefore, that the ???obvious??? damage to the
individuals in question should be allowed to continue via searches
carried out via its gobal .com domain.

On June 19, however, Google changed its policy and now grants a specific
???right to be forgotten??? to victims of ???revenge porn??? - and it does this
on a global level. So, Google now agrees with basic principle that it
argued against so passionately. Yes, there are obvious cases of
individuals' rights being damaged by Google search results. Yes, Google
should react to complaints by those individuals and take measures to
mitigate this damage. Yes, Google should implement its measures on its
.com domain. The only question that Google hasn't answered is whether
and why it really believes that ???revenge porn??? is globally the only
example of where this is true.

Eric Schmidt: Europe struck wrong balance on right to be forgotten
(15.05.2014)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/15/google-eric-schmidt-europe-ruling-right-to-be-forgotten

Online searching and privacy in the EU (19.11.2014)
https://alde.livecasts.eu/online-searching-and-privacy-in-the-eu

Google Public Policy Blog: ???Revenge porn??? and Search
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.be/2015/06/revenge-porn-and-search.html


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org