theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


New EU ruling re: Google de-listings


New EU ruling re: Google de-listings

Author
Message
Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)Supreme Being (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 956
In a ruling yesterday, the EU confirmed that Google do not have to de-list search results for Google sites outside the EU such as Google.com unless they are being accessed from within the EU. So even if Google agree to de-list after your request, will still be visible in non-EU countries if that is a concern for anyone.

More importantly, in a second judgement not as widely reported, there were some worrying comments on interpretation which of course leave it up to Google to determine the balance between freedom of information and privacy. The new information is that search results push down through time. This helps on the default Google screen ('All' results) but won't help at all if anyone clicks on the 'News' tab - while you can do a lot of work yourself to get more positive links displayed, it's very hard to get them to appear in the News section.

The court also issued a related second ruling, which said that links do not automatically have to be removed just because they contain information about a person's sex life or a criminal conviction.Instead, it ruled that such listings could be kept where "strictly necessary" for people's freedom of information rights to be preserved. However, it indicated a high threshold should be applied and that such results should fall down search result listings over time. "The obligation to demote search results in some cases is particularly interesting as an example of the courts directly interfering with the algorithms used by big tech companies," commented Peter Church from the law firm Linklaters.

Link to full article here BBC News
Zack
Zack
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44, Visits: 3.1K
Yankee - 25 Sep 19 9:22 AM
In a ruling yesterday, the EU confirmed that Google do not have to de-list search results for Google sites outside the EU such as Google.com unless they are being accessed from within the EU. So even if Google agree to de-list after your request, will still be visible in non-EU countries if that is a concern for anyone.

More importantly, in a second judgement not as widely reported, there were some worrying comments on interpretation which of course leave it up to Google to determine the balance between freedom of information and privacy. The new information is that search results push down through time. This helps on the default Google screen ('All' results) but won't help at all if anyone clicks on the 'News' tab - while you can do a lot of work yourself to get more positive links displayed, it's very hard to get them to appear in the News section.

The court also issued a related second ruling, which said that links do not automatically have to be removed just because they contain information about a person's sex life or a criminal conviction.Instead, it ruled that such listings could be kept where "strictly necessary" for people's freedom of information rights to be preserved. However, it indicated a high threshold should be applied and that such results should fall down search result listings over time. "The obligation to demote search results in some cases is particularly interesting as an example of the courts directly interfering with the algorithms used by big tech companies," commented Peter Church from the law firm Linklaters.

Link to full article here BBC News

That is a worrying ruling. Google already implements US copyright laws in other countries, so there is a precedance. This has nothing to do with authorative regimes. There is already guidance to prevent that sort of abuse of power. If the information can be proven to be excessive, inaccurate or outdated,  then there us no reason why those search results should be viewed outside of the EU. EU citizens travel too of course, and EU citizens privacy should be respected. 
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)Supreme Being (6.5K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 188, Visits: 3.4K
Has anyone got any positive stories about being de-listed? I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm hoping to go on holiday outside of the EU in the not too distant future, so I might check to see how results for me differ, if at all. EDIT: Back from holiday - No different.

A side note for those interested - my court story was in the press and those stories come up first because I have an unusual name. This story about "The Google effect" prompted me to have a go at trying to get Google to de-list those links about me as my suspended sentence is finished. (The joys of an SHPO keep me "unspent" though so I wasn't hopeful but I thought I should give it a go). Google responded within a few days. Some of the links have fallen off Google results (hurrah!) but the newspaper stories will all remain, and will, of course, remain on the 'news' section as well as 'All results', here is the response:

"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this/these URLs - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest. At this time, Google has decided not to take action on these URLs."

Not quite sure what "relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing" means but I thought I'd share anyway.



=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
10 Months Ago by Mr W
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
Mr W - 30 Sep 19 12:30 AM
Has anyone got any positive stories about being de-listed? I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm hoping to go on holiday outside of the EU in the not too distant future, so I might check to see how results for me differ, if at all.

A side note for those interested - my court story was in the press and those stories come up first because I have an unusual name. This story about "The Google effect" prompted me to have a go at trying to get Google to de-list those links about me as my suspended sentence is finished. (The joys of an SHPO keep me "unspent" though so I wasn't hopeful but I thought I should give it a go). Google responded within a few days. Some of the links have fallen off Google results (hurrah!) but the newspaper stories will all remain, and will, of course, remain on the 'news' section as well as 'All results', here is the response:

"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this/these URLs - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest. At this time, Google has decided not to take action on these URLs."

Not quite sure what "relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing" means but I thought I'd share anyway.


There are some positive stories about this in Unlock's magazine, the Record. Go to the website, and put "Google" in the search box. There are a few successes. Smile

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110, Visits: 381
Mr W - 30 Sep 19 12:30 AM
Has anyone got any positive stories about being de-listed? I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm hoping to go on holiday outside of the EU in the not too distant future, so I might check to see how results for me differ, if at all.

A side note for those interested - my court story was in the press and those stories come up first because I have an unusual name. This story about "The Google effect" prompted me to have a go at trying to get Google to de-list those links about me as my suspended sentence is finished. (The joys of an SHPO keep me "unspent" though so I wasn't hopeful but I thought I should give it a go). Google responded within a few days. Some of the links have fallen off Google results (hurrah!) but the newspaper stories will all remain, and will, of course, remain on the 'news' section as well as 'All results', here is the response:

"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this/these URLs - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest. At this time, Google has decided not to take action on these URLs."

Not quite sure what "relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing" means but I thought I'd share anyway.


I have a success story re The Google Effect ,but not with de-listing

https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic26615.aspx?Keywords=ruling%20re:%20Google%20de-listings

Words of hope - sometimes the news site reorganises, and the story loses its "news" status, and therefore its "buoyancy" in search results generally, coming after "Facebook results for John Smith", "John Smith on Twitter" etc etc.

When that happens, you can bomb the internet with phoney items bearing your name "Your Name: The Blog", "Your name.Com" etc etc etc, and get the story off page 1.


Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)Supreme Being (8.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110, Visits: 381
Mr W - 30 Sep 19 12:30 AM
Has anyone got any positive stories about being de-listed? I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm hoping to go on holiday outside of the EU in the not too distant future, so I might check to see how results for me differ, if at all.

A side note for those interested - my court story was in the press and those stories come up first because I have an unusual name. This story about "The Google effect" prompted me to have a go at trying to get Google to de-list those links about me as my suspended sentence is finished. (The joys of an SHPO keep me "unspent" though so I wasn't hopeful but I thought I should give it a go). Google responded within a few days. Some of the links have fallen off Google results (hurrah!) but the newspaper stories will all remain, and will, of course, remain on the 'news' section as well as 'All results', here is the response:

"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this/these URLs - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest. At this time, Google has decided not to take action on these URLs."

Not quite sure what "relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing" means but I thought I'd share anyway.


You can use a web site called isearchfrom to see foreign search results. But, the software itself is no longer updated as of 3 years ago (but that shouldn't matter as I suppose, as it enacts the actual searches from abroad today).


GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search