Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure

[RainfallWithin]

 

Quotes from BBC News source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28157607

 

 

After widespread criticism, Google has begun reinstating some links it had earlier removed under the controversial "right to be forgotten" ruling.

 

Articles posted online by the Guardian newspaper were removed earlier this week, but have now returned fully to the search engine.

 

Google has defended its actions, saying that it was a "difficult" process.

 

"We are learning as we go," Peter Barron, head of communications for Google in Europe, told the BBC.

 

Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he dismissed claims made on Thursday that the company was simply letting all requests through in an attempt to show its disapproval at the ruling.

 

"Absolutely not," he said. "We are aiming to deal with it as responsibly as possible.

 

"The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted - but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law."

 

He said Google had to balance the need for transparency with the need to protect people's identity.

 

<Edit: text has been cut to shorten the article>

 

Mr Barron argued that the search giant was doing its best to comply with the ECJ's ruling, which stated that links to web pages can be removed from search engine if they are deemed to be "outdated, irrelevant or no longer relevant".

 

The ruling has come under particular scrutiny after BBC economics editor Robert Peston was notified that a blog post he had written in 2007 would be removed from appearing when a specific search was carried out on Google.

 

<Edit: text has been cut to shorten the article>

 

The identity of the person who made the request is not yet known, although Google has confirmed it is not the subject of the article, former Merrill Lynch boss Stan O'Neal.

 

Instead, the request relates to the reader comments that appear underneath the story.

 

Elsewhere, the Guardian's special projects editor James Ball wrote that six of the newspaper's articles had "fallen down the memory hole".

 

<Edit: text has been cut to shorten the article>

 

A source has confirmed to the BBC that the Guardian articles have now been re-indexed for all relevant search terms.

 

<Edit: text has been cut to shorten the article>

 

 

Personal Thoughts

 

This law has become an enormous farce.

[Willson94]

This is simply an indirect attack on free press.  All I have to say really.

[RainfallWithin]

I'm also wondering why there have been no statements from other search engines. Perhaps they have been quietly doing the same.

[fringie]

In an ideal world this would be great but it's not.

 

It's very costly to do this right I'm sure & even then mistakes will be made but who will know when mistakes are made? Although I love the idea behind the law right now, it's just some practical to have this law. I think it should be suspended or something until a system that removes a lot of the manual work into it is removed.

[RainfallWithin]

In an ideal world this would be great but it's not.

 

It's very costly to do this right I'm sure & even then mistakes will be made but who will know when mistakes are made? Although I love the idea behind the law right now, it's just some practical to have this law. I think it should be suspended or something until a system that removes a lot of the manual work into it is removed.

 

Why do you love the idea behind the law?

[LePawel]

Why do you love the idea behind the law?

You can (theoretically) control what sort of info about you you can find on the internet. Considering how internet became a big part of e.g. recruiting and how data mining mothefuckers.. erm.. companies could easily make a profile about you and your nicknames to go through all porn sites and look for potential matches is not even funny. Sure its extreme example, but 50 years ago there was no internet at all, and now ISPs are already going batshit crazy.

[fringie]

Why do you love the idea behind the law?

I just think there should be a limit to how easy it is to find information on someone especially if it's something personal i.e. when females pictures get leaked on the internet which occurs more often than is acceptable. I know of some naughty videos put on pr0n sites of some people I know too and all of the girls in those videos had a lot of hate to deal with.

 

I gave you a very simple answer compared to all the reasons to why I'd like this law (if the law was enforced correctly).

[RainfallWithin]

I just think there should be a limit to how easy it is to find information on someone especially if it's something personal i.e. when females pictures get leaked on the internet which occurs more often than is acceptable. I know of some naughty videos put on pr0n sites of some people I know too and all of the girls in those videos had a lot of hate to deal with.

 

I gave you a very simple answer compared to all the reasons to why I'd like this law (if the law was enforced correctly).

 

Thanks for answering. I couldn't get my head around why you said that it would be an ideal law if there were no errors in the process.

 

I'm not sure I agree with what you've said, however I can respect your point of view now that you've explained it to me.

[JaeDee884]

People need to realise how much makes it to the internet. And how widespread data is. Through google you can find out a lot. Had a friend go missing a few years back. Google successful helped me find them. I uncovered things all the way to year 5 tennis games at a interschool sports event. Accounts on multiple forums, and even university dorm details. It's hard to vanish. A lot is public and you don't even realise it. I work in a primary school and every week at least 50 kid names are posted online as part of our newsletter distribution system. Which is publicly available. This includes photographs and details of events. And this is just from a primary school in a small town full of tech illiterate people.

More gets posted then you realise. So even with this, they won't hide everything.

[RainfallWithin]

People need to realise how much makes it to the internet. And how widespread data is. Through google you can find out a lot. Had a friend go missing a few years back. Google successful helped me find them. I uncovered things all the way to year 5 tennis games at a interschool sports event. Accounts on multiple forums, and even university dorm details. It's hard to vanish. A lot is public and you don't even realise it. I work in a primary school and every week at least 50 kid names are posted online as part of our newsletter distribution system. Which is publicly available. This includes photographs and details of events. And this is just from a primary school in a small town full of tech illiterate people.

More gets posted then you realise. So even with this, they won't hide everything.

 

I agree that it's almost impossible to hide anything on the Internet, however that doesn't deny the fact that this law is still anti freedom of access to information.